"Works, not Playes": Print, Reformatory Theatre and the Privileging of Jonson over Shakespeare in 1640s and 1650s Britain. (1st October 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Orchard, Christopher
• Is Part Of: Shakespeare. Volume 12:Number 4(2016)
• Page Start: 375
• Page End: 388
• Publication Date: 2016-10-01
• Subjects: Beaumont -- Francis -- Civil War -- Cromwell -- Oliver -- Fletcher -- John -- Gayton -- Thomas -- Sheppard -- Samuel; Periodicals; 822.33
• DOI: 10.1080/17450918.2016.1208674
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1745-0918

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Mark Robson has commented that "in critical terms the 'and' in 'Jonson and Shakespeare' indicates not equivalence but co-dependency. Jonson may always be defined by a certain vision of Shakespeare, but that 'Shakespeare' is itself the product of a comparison with Jonson". While this may be true when considering the historical and critical discourse of this relational axis, it is the contention of this essay that there was no co-dependency in the 1640s and 1650s. First, the move towards the printing of plays of select playwrights benefited Jonson more than Shakespeare. Literary filiations connected him with the works of his "sons", whose works, printed after his death, brought to mind Jonson's comparative mastery over any of them and kept Jonson in the spotlight. Second, which plays were selected for publication or were talked about became equally important because they determined how writers were read politically. If Jonson's Sejanus or Cataline was praised for its astute insights into leadership models for Royalist political figures in the 1650s, the publication of Shakespeare's King Lear or The Rape of Lucrece in the same decade could be read as damning critique of the abdication of Royalist authority in the 1640s. Because the political voices of Royalist writers tended to dominate discourses about plays, their conservative vision about the positive connection between the monarchy and drama meant their sympathy was drawn towards playwrights who shared those sentiments. Jonson's political affiliation with monarchy was more in tune with their ideological position than Shakespeare's more sceptical analysis. Third, Jonson benefited from political change. In the 1650s the apparent consolidation of republican power under Cromwell's leadership led formerly Royalist writers to abandon their insistence on the correlation between drama and the monarchy. They pitched Jonson's plays and their "moral sense" as the ideal model for a reformatory theatre that would find acceptance in a new administration. In addition, because Jonson himself renamed his plays as works, writers in the 1650s argued that he had predicted their own strategic position on drama. The consequence of these factors was the pervasive visibility of Jonson and the relative invisibility of Shakespeare.