31 Early Drama and Gorboduc
Dr. Debamitra kar
|
In this module you will learn:
|
Introduction: Literature as Propaganda
Drama, for its ability to address and influence a large number of people at once, was perceived to be an important tool of propaganda from the early days. You must realise that we are speaking about a time, when there was no other form of art that could communicate to a huge mass. Publication of books for the common people was not thought of and literacy was more a matter of a privilege than of right for the individual. The public would be mostly addressed to from the pulpit by the clergy. Interestingly, drama in England germinated from the regular services held in churches. The relation between drama and religion is an old one, for in ancient Greece—whose literature would influence the minds of many in Europe in the fifteenth century—plays were enacted as a part of religious celebrations. Early drama in England was also an extended part of the religious services. You must have already encountered such dramatic structures and forms while reading about the Miracle and Morality plays.
In the Middle Ages, the development of literature was controlled by the Church, for it was the clergy who received the benefits of education and the literature, composed by them, aimed at disseminating the word of God to the populace. Towards the beginning of the 15th century, a holistic change in the society caused literature to become secularized. This does not mean that the literary texts would become totally devoid of religion but rather the influence of religion would be less directly felt in the texts. While using the term secularization, one must keep in mind, that the process of secularization owes its impetus both to the humanistic school of learning that developed as a result of the Renaissance and the interest of the kings who wanted to use art and literature, particularly the plays, for their mass appeal, to become the mouthpiece of their worldview. This process of secularization is also not something that happens only in the isolated arena of literature, it affects the entire society; it has a tremendous impact on the lives of common men and women, and consequently, the parameters of literary compositions change as the people change and their perspectives alter.
The conflict between the king and the Church resurfaced in England during the fifteenth century when the Tudor Monarch Henry VIII decided to divorce his wife and remarry, and it intensified when he being excommunicated decided to embrace the Protestant faith which was already gathering momentum in Europe and disturbing the ancient roots of the Catholic Church. King Henry VIII‘s decision had a strong impact on the polity and society of England for the next fifty years as James, Mary and Elizabeth, his three children, chose either Protestantism or Catholicism as the national religion. It became common to lose life on the question of faith. This religio-political turmoil is known in history as the Reformation. Many historians would agree on the point that in England the influence of the Renaissance arrived a bit late and it coincided with the Reformation movement. Together, they thus changed the nature and form of literary practices prevalent in England at that point of time.
The Reformation caused the gradual establishment of the supremacy of the kingly authority over the religious dominance. Both Henry VIII and Elizabeth passed the Acts of Supremacy in 1534 and 1558 respectively to declare themselves to be the supreme heads of the Church of England and to ensure their control over the English nation. The fate of literature was also determined. In 1543, by an Act of Parliament, plays ‗meddling with religious doctrines‘ were banned. One can easily understand that the Morality plays and Interludes were being freely used to criticise the King. Interestingly, this Act was repealed in 1547, when an anti-Catholic play was performed to mark the coronation of Edward VI. In 1549, Kett‘s rebellion takes place and all English plays were banned for two months. However, the State could easily understand the importance of plays as tools of propaganda, and thus thought it to be wiser to control its content, rather than banning it altogether. In 1551, a Royal proclamation decreed that all professional acting companies must be licensed. However, the performance of the seditious plays continued and therefore the ban on the plays containing religious matters was implemented and withdrawn again and again. It also became dangerous to perform such plays: Sir John Savage, Mayor of Chester was imprisoned in 1575 as he allowed the city‘s Mystery Cycle to be performed.
The rising importance of the State over the Church was also supported by two other changes: the change in the economic orientation of the society and the rise of an educated class. The Tudor era in England witnessed a definite break in the prevalent economic condition as the old guild systems gave in to more centralised and competitive business culture, which can be seen as the nascent form of capitalism. The market also expanded as the sea-routes were explored. There was also a remarkable increase in the number of enclosures, whereby the traditional rights of the people to use the common land for mowing or grazing livestock came to an end. The influential owners started to enclose the land as their personal property, thus creating a large number of landless labourers. Kett‘s rebellion was organised to protest against such enclosures and it was one of many such revolts that marked this period. However, the enclosures gradually gave rise to the class of wealthy landowners who would play a significant role in destroying the feudal structure of the society, and as they were able to afford education, they would become instrumental in spreading the ideals of Renaissance.
This newly emergent aristocratic class benefited from the spoils of the Monarch and in turn lent support to it. As the monarch helped to further their interest they too took initiative in making the monarch superior to any other social force. Humanist literature aimed at educating this particular class, by teaching them to become effective statesperson or diplomats who would be able to make significant contribution to the workings of the state to gain absolute power. In his Book Named the Governor (1531), Thomas Elyot emphasized on the need to educate the diplomats in the ideals of humanism to evolve them into good statesmen. The model of the liberal training was taken from Erasmus and Thomas More. The book was dedicated to Henry VIII. The book was extremely popular, not because of the novelty of the subject but mostly because it was a timely publication, and it went through seven different editions between 1531 and 1580. Thus, L. G. Salinger is right when he says, ‗The Renaissance in England was thus bound up with the consolidation of the Tudor regime.
Thus, it is not difficult to understand why secular art was not simply a result of Renaissance learning but rather a conscious decision of the Monarch to curb the power of the Church and also to secure its power over the evolving English nation. However, one must also remember that though the art can be used as propaganda, yet it has the power to transcend the parochial boundaries of nation, time and history. Art may reflect the spirit of the age, but that does not mean that it would become redundant in the following age. It is not unlikely to find that the old authors are uncannily relevant in understanding our modern crisis. Shakespeare, for instance, continues to be our contemporary.
Renaissance and its effect on the dramatic form
Renaissance had different implications for different people. For some, it meant the recovery of Greek and refining of Medieval Latin that they read in the classical texts. It also meant the ‗…restoration of learning, the dawn of a new civilization, the rediscovery of the physical world, the beginning of physical sciences, the breaking with the primitive past, the growth of sophisticated art, the establishment of a humanistic world to replace a
rigidly theocentric existence.‘ Renaissance influenced literature in two ways: it introduced new genres and new content to match the new form. Drama, which was already quite a popular art by the time Renaissance arrived in England, was quite mature for experimentation. Thus, the recovery of the works of the ancient classical dramatists that popularised the generic forms like tragedy and comedy, led to the easy adaptation of the new content that was inspired both by classical conventions and the socio-political situation. The shift of interest from salvation to education‘ was already noticed in the early plays like King Johan by John Bale or Magnificence by John Skelton.
Though both these plays employ the stylistic features of the Morality plays (i.e., the characters of the play are allegorical), yet their themes are distinctly political: King Johan had a protestant bias, while Magnificence was based on the real life story of Cardinal Wolsey. This marriage between religion and politics would become the hallmark of later plays.
The prosperity of the dramatic form continued untrammelled, because the plays still enjoyed royal patronage. From the confines of the church drama shifted to the more open space of the inns, which acted as makeshift theatre houses during the 1560s and 70s till James Burbage opened ‗The Theatre‘ in 1576. The more learned plays were however enacted in the universities and Inns of Court. The Inns primarily provided legal training for the sons of aristocrats and the gentry, but in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries they also served as something like finishing schools, where ambitious men came to gain useful legal training while acquiring a cosmopolitan sophistication that would allow them to function at court and in other exclusive social circles. Beginning in the 1560s the law schools also developed as the centre of a large community of writers, which, extending to the universities, included most of those authors mentioned from the prefaces above — Sackville, Norton, North, and Googe — other poets and translators — such as George Turberville and George Gascoigne — as well as the translators of Seneca: Heywood,
Neville, Studley, and Nuce. (Winston 33) Though the old Morality and Miracle plays continued to be enacted, yet their popularity gradually diminished as they were quite expensive forms to perform. They usually lasted for several days, if not weeks, and required elaborate presentations of the biblical scenes. Such a form of drama was not suitable either for the audience who were looking for entertainment rather than education or the cultured youth of the law houses or universities. Thus, the stage was set for the new kind of theatre which would be provided by the Renaissance learning and a group of professional writers who would survive by writing plays.
Seneca and the Development of English Tragedy
Ancient tragedy came from Athens to sixteenth century Florence through classical Rome. The Renaissance helped the genre to make its way into modern western culture. It however must be noted that the concept of tragedy was also prevalent during the Middle Age, though it was thought to be a poem dealing mainly with the ghastly crimes of wicked kings. Scholars like Aelius Donatus, Isidore of Seville and Dante, in their writings on tragedy placed little emphasis on its dramatic possibilities, making incidental references to its being recited or mimed in public. Their idea is reaffirmed if one considers the style of Senecan writing.
Seneca probably wanted his plays to be read out by a single speaker and not to be spoken by a group of players. Thus, the plays lack physical actions and abound in long speeches, a feature that was imitated by Sackville and Norton. He chose Greek myths and legends that were well known to his audience. However, when Seneca‘s plays resurfaced in Europe in fifteenth century, this feature of his composition was forgotten. The plays were enacted in the different stages of Italy and France. In England, the Senecan tragedy Troas was performed in Latin at Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1551.
The plays became popular for amateur entertainment in Inns of Court and Universities.
The plays of Seneca was translated first in Spain around 1400 by A. de Vilaragut (four plays), in Italy in 1497 by Evangelista Fossa, and in France in 1534 by P. Grognet. In England, Jasper Heywood, son of John Heywood (writer of interludes), then a Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, translated three plays: Troas, Thyestes and Hercules Furens, between 1558 and 1561. Within next twenty years all the ten plays of Seneca were translated by various English scholars and in 1581 Thomas Newton edited a volume, titled, Seneca His Tenne Tragedies.
However, the enjoyment of such composition was restricted to the erudite till the English dramatists imitated the temperament of the plays and expressed them in a form that was more suitable for the indigenous audience. For the English dramatist Seneca‘s influence arrived through the Italian stage. B.R Rees writes:
But the pioneers of Senecan imitation and adaptation were the Italians: it was they who first grasped the possibilities of Seneca’s rhetorical style and moralizing, his horrific descriptions, and his characterization of tyrants, traitors, and termagants; their Seneca was dressed in the bloodiest and most sombre of clothes, and it was thus that the Elizabethans first saw him. (Rees 123)
Around the second half of the sixteenth century, the influence of the Italian court was of paramount importance in England. ‗At this time Italian masques were being performed at the English court, Italian actors and stage managers were in great demand, and plays were being translated or closely adapted from Italian originals‘. (Rees 123) The first English imitation appeared as early as 1561-2 in Gorboduc by Sackville and Norton, and others soon followed, including Gascoigne’s Jocasta in 1566 and an Inns of Court play, Gismond of Salerne, in 1567-8. The English Seneca was greatly influenced by both the original Lain plays as well as their Italian translations.
The Senecan plays lacked the control and moderation of the Greek tragedies, but it is precisely this lack that appealed the most to the early Elizabethans. They found an exact parallel between the worlds that Seneca portrayed and the one in which they lived. Apart from the parallel passages that were inspired by Seneca‘s rhetoric (which can be found in many Elizabethan plays), many things were borrowed from Seneca: the motif of a revenge tragedy which usually required a ghost to state the purpose of taking revenge, an atmosphere of horror and evil, bombastic speeches, division of the play into acts, the prologues, chorus, stichomythia, and so on. In 1615, Johne Greene wrote what the Elizabethan tragedies were like: ‘The matter of tragedies is haughtinesse, arrogancy, ambition, pride, iniury, anger, wrath, envy, hatred, contention, warre, murther, cruelty, rapine, incest, rovings, depredations, piracyes, spoyles, roberies, rebellions, trasons, killings, hewing, stabbing, dagger-drawing, fighting, butchery, trechery, villany, etc., and all kind of heroyicke evils whatsoever.’ (quoted in Rees, P 131) But apart from all these technical aspects of borrowing what the English drama learnt from Seneca was perhaps the sensationalism and the moralizing, the portrayal of overreaching emotions and the stoic acceptance of fate.
We shall now look at the two plays based on the Senecan model, namely, Gorboduc and Arden of Feversham.
Gorboduc
During the Christmas period 156I-2, Gorboduc, often identified as the first English tragedy was performed in the Inner Temple in London as part of the Inns of Court seasonal revels. Less than a month later, in January I 562, the same play, with an accompanying masque, was performed again, this time before the Queen at Whitehall. The play was printed in 1565. Both the writers Thomas Norton (wrote Acts 1-3) and Thomas Sackville (wrote Acts 4 and 5) were distinguished Elizabethan men and close to the political circle of the country: Norton was a lawyer and diplomat, while Sackville was a relative of Anne Boleyn, became an ambassador, then Lord Treasurer in 1599 and finally was created Earl of Dorset in 1604. The play was a welcome break from the traditions of Miracle and Morality plays in many ways: it had human characters and not just virtues and vices, the intention of the play was specifically political—it aimed at pointing out the dangers of changing the royal succession, and sought the help of a well-known, quasi-historical incident that was to be found in Historia Regum Britanniae by Geoffrey of Monmouth (1136) and Grafton‘s Chronicle (1556). The play was closely modelled on the Senecan style: it has extremely long speeches, division of the action into five acts, and almost no physical action. The play heaps terror upon terror and shows how the unbridled human emotion could lead to extremely unethical actions. There were certain deviations from Seneca as well, for instance, the Unities of Time and Place were not maintained which led to the severe criticism of the play. The play also used blank verse, i.e., unrhymed pentameter, instead of the rhymed quatrains of ten syllabic lines used for choruses and fourteeners (i.e., rhymed couplets of fourteen syllables) that were used by Heywood in translating Seneca.
The plot of the play proceeds thus: King Gorboduc makes an initial error by dividing his kingdom between his two sons Ferrex and Porrex. The disaster soon unfolds as Ferrex, the elder, resents the fact that he did not inherit whole of the kingdom and his sycophant fans his rage further. His military activities are suspected by his brother Porrex, who immediately invades the part of his brother‘s kingdom and kills him. Gorboduc summons Porrex to answer for his crimes, but before he can reach his father, Porrex was killed by his own mother Videna, who takes her revenge for killing her elder and favoured son. In the final act of the play we find that the filicide have outraged the people who have rebelled killed both Videna and Gorboduc, and consequently a civil strife ensues as the nobles start to fight among themselves in hope of gaining the throne.
There are a few interesting facts about Gorboduc:
- The central query of Gorboduc is repeated later in Macbeth, that is if the fall of man is an outcome of his error of judgement or the result of an ill-fated curse, and therefore inevitable. If we accept the second proposition, then the play becomes an expression of a deep sense of fatalism which can be found in many of Seneca‘s tragedy and in later day Elizabethan plays. Gorboduc‘s plan to divide his kingdom, in spite of the advice of many of his followers may remind you of King Lear, the celebrated hero of Shakespearean tragedy, who divided his kingdom among his two daughters and banished the third who refused to praise him with false promises of unconditional love.
- The play is not simply about man‘s fate but also about the theory of kingship, a theme that would remain popular in the English stage for quite some time. It is interesting to note that Sackville and Norton had different ideas of kingship: ‗Norton upheld the extremely radical theory, actively propagated by the Puritans, which favoured greater participation of the people in government, while Sackville presented the conservative point of view of the aristocracy, which supported the ancient doctrine of the divine right of kings and placed no faith at all in the ability of the common man.‘ (Watson 357) Norton‘s idea was gradually gaining momentum in English politics at that time as a small group of Calvinists, who mostly came from the bourgeois class that was becoming economically important, and started to question if the people should intervene in case the king was a tyrant. Thus the last act of Gorboduc raises these questions—on one hand the regicide is heavily criticised, on the other hand the power-mongering barons are also opposed. The message was intended for the Queen who is advised to provide a lawful heir to the Crown:
This, this ensues, when noble men do fail
In loyal troth, and subjects will be kings.
And this doth grow, when lo, unto the Prince,
Whom death or sudden hap of life bereaves,
No certain heir remains, such certain heir,
As not all only is the rightful heir,
But to the Realm is so made known to be;
And troth thereby vested in subjects‘ hearts,
To owe faith there where right is known to rest.
Alas, in Parliament what hope can be,
When is of Parliament no hope at all?
Which, though it be assembled by consent,
Yet is it not likely with consent to end:
While each one for himself, or for his friend
Against his foe, shall travail what he may.
While now the state left open to the man
That shall with greatest force invade the same,
Shall fill ambitious minds with gaping hope:
When will they once with yielding hearts agree?
Or in the while, how shall the realm be used?
No, no: then parliament should have been holden
And certain heirs appointed to the crown,
To stay their title of established right,
And in the people plant obedience,
While yet the Prince did live, whose name and power
By lawful summons and authority
Might make a Parliament to be of force,
And might have set the state in quiet stay.
(Act V, scene ii, ll 244-71)
- The play also made a stylistic innovation. Every act opens with a dumb show which symbolises the action that is going to take place and at the end of that act, the chorus summarises the moral importance of the dumb show. For instance, the fourth act begins with the appearance of the three furies on stage and ends with the chorus saying how the furies signified the unnatural murders that were committed in the course of the play.
Gorboduc was an extremely successful play and was imitated again in plays like Misfortunes of Arthur, acted before the Queen at Greenwich in 1587, and Tancred and Gismunda (1568), but none of these plays could reach the height of their original.
Arden of Feversham
An anonymous play that was first enacted and published in 1592 and is known as the first domestic tragedy of the period. At one time, scholars believed that the play was written by Shakespeare himself. The plot of the play is based on an actual murder that took place at Faversham in Kent in 1551, and is narrated in Holinshed‘s Chronicle. The plot of the play revolves around the murder committed by the mistress of Arden, Alice, of her husband. The crime is soon discovered and she is executed along with her lover and fellow conspirator, Mosbie.
The plot may sound simplistic but it fulfils all the demands of a good tragedy, not only in the medieval and early Renaissance sense of tragedy as a death or retribution for sin, but also in the modern sense of tragedy as a ritual celebration of community values and traditions. The characters of Alice and Mosbie reflect a deep psychological understanding of evil inherent in the human mind. From a wife, who insists Mosbie not to commit the crime
It is not love that loves to murther love.
…
I pray thee, Mosbie, let our springtime wither;
Our harvest else will yield but loathsome weeds.
Forget, I pray thee, what hath pass‘d betwixt us,
For now I blush and tremble at the thoughts.
(Act III, scene v, ll 59, 66-69)
to a wife who stabs her husband to death, the downfall of Alice might remind you of the moral dilemmas of Macbeth and his gradual evolution into a villain. The play uses religion as a symbol, though the downfall of Alice is not measured by religious parameters. Rather there is a moral order which is violated by all those who try to destroy the sanctity of the marriage vows. In many ways does this play forecast the later development of Elizabethan drama: for instance, the use of stichomythia which acts as splendid device in the scene where Arden is murdered; the dialogue becomes shorter, if compared to the long arduous speeches of Gorboduc; and also the use of soliloquy to reveal the psychological complexity of the characters. It is worth quoting a few lines of Mosbie‘s soliloquy in Act III, scene v, where he betrays the mental anguish of a man who has forfeited good for evil; all his sense of moral and emotional security has left him, and he has progressed so far in the paths of evil that it is hard for him to come back:
Yet Mistress Arden lives; but she’s myself,
And holy church rites makes us two but one.
But what for that? I may not trust you, Alice:
You have supplanted Arden for my sake,
And will extirpen me to plant another.
‘Tis fearful sleeping in a serpent’s bed,
And I will cleanly rid my hands of her.
(ll 37-43)
The play also uses a few dominant images like that of blood with all its religious connotations (for instance look at the speech of Alice in the trial scene, where she says, ‗Leave now to trouble me with worldly things,/ And let me meditate upon my Savior Christ,/ Whose blood must save me for the blood I shed.), or the image of a deer or lamb to represent Arden as the sacrificial victim, or that of light and darkness, and so on. The play also has comic interludes, which instead of breaking the unity of action, contributes to the thematic development of the play.
Development of Comedy in England
Like tragedy, the revival of classical learning popularised the genre of comedy in England. It is not that the spirit of laughter was lacking in the early works (consider, for instance, the Miracle play where Noah‘s wife refuses to board the Ark because of physical discomfort, or the satiric portrayal of the pilgrims in Chaucer‘s Canterbury Tales); but comedy as a dramatic form could only be conceived with the help of the Roman masters of art: Plautus and Terence. As a part of the learned tradition, these classical comedies were mostly performed in the universities before they could be imitated in a more suitable form for the English stage. Happe reports that ‗the performances of Terence and Plautus went on from time to time in Cambridge from 1510-11 through to 1585-86 and beyond, principally at King‘s Queen‘s and Trinity Colleges. At least twenty-five performances can still be dated from this period….‘ (P 97) Plays of Plautus were performed for Henry VIII in 1519, and for Wolsey in 1528.
The importance of Terence‘s plays rose in England particularly due to the change in educational practice. Terence was taught both at school and universities. Erasmus, the educationist, was particularly fond of Terence‘s pure language. He told Colet, in 1514, to inspire the students to learn Terence‘s comedies by heart not only for the diction but also for developing a sense of decorum and rationality. He also edited the works of Terence in 1532.
Along with Terence, the works of Donatus, a fourth-century grammarian, also became popular during this time. Donatus divided the comedy into four parts: prologue, protasis (in which characters were introduced), epitasis (in which the plot was complicated) and catastrophe (resolution of errors that leads to the happy ending). Donatus had used Terence as his model. The stock characters of Terence‘s comedy also became quite popular with the writings of Sir Thomas More.
The English imitators of classical comedies usually borrowed some specific situations from their Latin masters: for example a series of intrigues which are occasioned by the motif of a long-lost child or a soldier engaged in ridiculous boasting. The difference between satire and farce was not always that strongly maintained.
Ralph Roister Doister
Usually identified as the first English comedy, this play was based on Plautine composition and was written and produced before 1553 and printed in 1566. The play is attributed to Nicholas Udall, who was the headmaster of Eton from 1534 to1541. It was then a practice at the large public schools to perform Latin plays on special occasions. Udall took the opportunity to produce an English play. The play imitated the Latin classic in characterisation and the structure of the plot, but the subject matter is definitely indigenous.
The plot of the play revolves around Ralph Roister Doister, a Miles Gloriosus or a boastful soldier, who believes that every woman should love him. He is accompanied by Matthew Merrygreek, who is a typical sycophant, and exploits the weaknesses of Ralph. Matthew provokes Ralph to continue with his courtship of the virtuous Christian Custance, who is betrothed Gawin Goodluck, a merchant. While Gawin is away on voyage, Ralph sends love tokens and letters to Dame Custance, who though takes no interest in him, enjoys his foolish protestations of love. However, a servant of her reports the incident to Gawin who returns with jealous suspicion. The play ends happily once the real intentions of the lady is proved and Ralph himself admits of his errors.
The action of the play is arranged in five acts, keeping with the traditional norms. Apart from the characterisation, the classical learning of the writer is also revealed in creating some extremely hilarious situations. One example of it is the reading of the love letter that was sent by Ralph to Dame Custance, which is deliberately misread by Merrygreek. He reads all the punctuations wrong and thereby alters the meaning of the sentences.
‘Sweet mistress, whereas I love you nothing at all,
Regarding your substance and riches chief of all,
For your personage, beauty, demeanour and wit
I commend me to you never a whit.
Sorry to hear report of your good welfare.
For (as I hear say) such your conditions are
That ye be worthy favour of no living man;
To be abhorred of no living man;
To be taken for a woman inclined to vice;
Nothing at all to virtue giving her due price.’
The actual intention of the piece is as follows:
Sweet mistress, whereas I love you – nothing at all Regarding your riches and substance, chief of all For you personage, beauty, demeanour and wit-I commend me unto you. Never a whit
Sorry to hear report of your good welfare;
For (as I hear say) such your conditions are
That ye be worthy favour; of no living man
To be abhorred; of every honest man
To be taken for a woman inclined to vice
Nothing at all; to virtue giving her due price.
The passage found its way into Thomas Wilson‘s The Rule of Reason, where it is seen as an instance of mispunctuation, leading to ‗ambiguity‘.
The play made a remarkable departure from the classical traditions by incorporating songs which reflected the various moods of the characters. It also portrays a strong upright character in Dame Constance who could be seen as the forerunner of Shakespeare‘s heroines in comedies.
Gammer Gurton’s Needle
The play is attributed to a ‗Mr S.‘ who is later day identified variously as Bishop Still, John Bridges, and William Stevenson (Compton-Rickett 98). It was performed in 1553. Like Ralph Roister Doister it is modelled on Terentian composition, but unlike it, it makes no direct reference to the classical subject matter. He instead presents the picture of a rural England in Tudor times which is further improved by the use of the mummerset diction‘ (Happe 100).
The plot of the play is simple: Gammer Gurton loses her needle and Diccon the Bedlam (a forerunner of the Fool of Shakespeare‘s plays) accuses Dame Chat, the Alewife of stealing it. This leads to major confusion and the whole village is involved in looking for the needle which is found in the breeches of Hodge, the farm servant. One may accuse the play of being farcical and coarse but the characterisation is skilfully done. Hodge becomes the generic title for any farm labourer; Dame Chat and Gammer Gurton are the prototypes of village gossips. The playwright avoids any attempts of moralising but one can easily see how he has parodied the classical convention of finding the lost child in finding the lost needle. Thus the play is not simply an imitation of the classical comedies but a closer understanding of the conventions which are translated into a form that is more English in its temperament.
Conclusion
The revival of learning due to the Renaissance and the wedding of the political with the religious, caused by the Reformation propelled the English drama into a maturity that would be essential for its later development. The drama was no longer an extension of religious practices; it developed a form of its own. The classical writers not only supplied new themes and motifs for the later day playwrights, they also set the parameters of composition. As the drama moved from the church to the market to the inns, it gradually emerged as financially independent medium that could survive on its own. This independence would lead to more experimentation and save drama from being a mere propaganda in the hands of the Monarch. It would truly become the representative of the thoughts of the age, and thereby project the human emotions which cannot be repressed by politics or religion.
Summing Up
|
| you can view video on Early Drama and Gorboduc | |
Reference
- Boas, F.S. University Drama in the Tudor Age. London: Oxford University Press, 1914.
- — (ed). Five Pre-Shakespearean Classics. London: Oxford University Press, 1970.
- Bradbrook, M. C. The Growth and Structure of Elizabethan Comedy. London: Chatto and Windus, 1961.
- Compton-Rickett, Authur. A History of English Literature: From Earliest Times to 1916. New Delhi: Universal Book, 1991.
- Happé, Peter. English Drama Before Shakespeare. London and New York: Longman, 1999.
- Leech, Clifford, T. W. Craik and et al. The Revel’s History of Drama in English, Vol II, 1500-1576. London: Routledge, 1980.
- McILwraith, A. K. (ed). Five Elizabethan Tragedies. London: Oxford University Press, 1959.
- Rees, B. R. ‘English Seneca: A Preamble.’ Greece & Rome, Second Series, Vol. 16, No. 2 (October, 1969), pp. 119-133.
- Salinger, L. G. ‘The Social Setting.’ Boris Ford (ed), The Age of Shakespeare, Vol II, Hammondsworth, England: Penguin, 1955.
- Watson, Sara Ruth. ‘Gorboduc and the Theory of Tyrannicide’. The Modern Language Review, Vol. 34, No. 3 (July, 1939), pp. 355-366.
- Winston, Jessica. ‘Seneca in Early Elizabethan England.’ Renaissance Quarterly, Vol. 59, No. 1(Spring 2006), pp. 29-58