Scan barcode
shaunnow38's review against another edition
3.0
In Practicing the City: Early Modern London on Stage, Nina Levine unearths various artifacts of early modern London in an effort to correlate “performance” on the early modern stage to the trends and events of the day. Levine begins by asking her audience to “presuppose” the early modern stage as a place where the city itself is perform, while also acting as a space for understanding those familiar performances (3). The value of space is integral to Levine’s argument, as the space of the early modern stage mediates the city; with the stage acting as a self-conscious recreation of the daily doings of the city while also acting as a critical apparatus for those common events. The monograph is divided into four sections, with each section covering a different play or set of plays. In addition to textual analysis on the plays themselves, Levine incorporates documents, reports, and supplemental texts in order to decode the ways in which the plays represent and perform the bustle and commercialization of the burgeoning city.
The first section covers the mechanisms of credit and accreditation within Shakespeare’s 1 Henry IV & 2 Henry IV. Levine first grapples with the problematic anachronisms that come with the introduction of a feudal monarch into a proto-capitalist credit-based economic realm. This is accomplished by demonstrating that the cityscape of London with the Henry IV plays already exist in an anachronistic “credit economy that extends from late-century London to the medieval court of the Lancastrians”, as shown by the presence of the tavern at Eastcheap, and early modern notions of debt (23). Levine persuasively demonstrates the infiltration of the early modern into the medieval, and holds this up as a signifier of the potential for dramatic practices to both perform and alter notions about day-to-day city practices. While acknowledging that the Henry IV plays are not primarily about the burgeoning mercantile/imperialistic economy, Levine effectively points out that it provides space for this sort of economy, while also focusing on the presence of shifting understandings of credit within the drama from that of medieval status accreditation to credit based upon mercantile merit. Levine notes that Hal becomes an early modern monarch in his understanding of debt and accreditation, rather than a medieval one who relies on the inherent loyalty of his lords, through his experiences with the mercantile realms of London.
The second chapter examines the manuscript of Sir Thomas More and what it has to say about civil unrest and collaborative practices in the theatre and the city during the 16th century. As a supplement to her analysis of the manuscript of Sir Thomas More, Levine presents libels, like the Dutch Church libel, as acts of collaborative insurrections, much like those that Sir Thomas More presents in its opening scenes. These libels inform Levine’s understanding of civic unrest, as well as the possibilities for group authorship amongst rioters and playwrights alike. Levine then uses the manuscript as a self-reflexive act of rebellion, citing Edmund Tillney’s censorings of the rioting within the play. This chapter does much in order to understand the nature of the London mob and notions of collective identity during the period, but it does gloss over the fact that there is no conclusive performance record of Sir Thomas More. This seeming lack of performance precludes the play from being representative of the dual nature of performance on the early modern stage, regardless of how informative of collaborative practices it is.
In the third chapter covers languages and language learning through a dissection of William Haughton’s Englishmen for my Money and various language learning books, including the popular The French Schoolmaster by Claudius Hollyband. Levine advances her discussion of xenophobia during this period, and the increasing presence and importance of foreigners in both London and on the stage. Issues of foreign identity bind this chapter somewhat with the prior one, as the popular uprisings of Sir Thomas More are incited by the growing presence of immigrants from the continent. This chapter demonstrates the fascination with these “aliens”, and the increasing need for the study of languages other than English. Levine focuses less on the play here, and more on the increasing need for language learning books for mercantile ventures, as well as the liminal position that foreigners held within 16th century London. As a result, the play becomes something of an afterthought until the very end, where Levine instructs us on the connection between the foreign identities with Englishmen for my Money, and the increasingly fraught presence of foreigners within London.
The last chapter of analysis focuses on the advent of different modes of telling time in early modern London. Levine is not examining innovations in watch making technology during the period, but the tabulation of large scale time, including the advent of mercantile time and trend’s based death analysis. Using the London mortality bills and the city comedy The Roaring Girl by Thomas Dekker and Thomas Middleton, Levine articulates the different modalities of time present in early modern London with some discussion of how this contrasted with natural time associated with religious practices. The difference of temporal configuration is not lost on Levine, and she goes to great lengths in order to clarify that the mortality bills and The Roaring Girl do not present the same configurations of time, but two differently situated understandings of time. Levine’s discussion of The Roaring Girl also provides insight into the obsession with mechanical expressions of time that was present within early modern London.
The end of the study characterizes this study as one of individuals who are becoming political actants through dramatic practices and dramatic understandings. The concluding chapter provides a discussion of the relation of prescribed meaning and proscribed meaning that these plays touch upon, as well as reiterating the propaedeutic nature of drama in early modern London.
Levine covers a good amount of territory with the variety of her subjects, but the selection of plays comes across as odd. There does not seem to be anything particularly representative of the drama of the period here, with three histories and two city comedies. The plays seem chosen to fit the artifact, rather than the drama being demonstrative of the events of the city. The arguments that the dramas hold a double purpose in practicing the city then become tenuous, as there seems to be more evidence that the plays merely reflect the city. A more comprehensive analysis of plays, perhaps from further dramas that are not immediately about London but about life in early modern cities in general, would highlight the active nature that these plays have in heightening audience understandings of their own London. The analyses of primary documents are strong, and the dramatic analyses of the Henry IV plays and Sir Thomas More are just as strong. A bolstering of the second round of analyses, as well as an expansion of the texts discussed would make a good analysis on the stage representations of the city into a great one.
The first section covers the mechanisms of credit and accreditation within Shakespeare’s 1 Henry IV & 2 Henry IV. Levine first grapples with the problematic anachronisms that come with the introduction of a feudal monarch into a proto-capitalist credit-based economic realm. This is accomplished by demonstrating that the cityscape of London with the Henry IV plays already exist in an anachronistic “credit economy that extends from late-century London to the medieval court of the Lancastrians”, as shown by the presence of the tavern at Eastcheap, and early modern notions of debt (23). Levine persuasively demonstrates the infiltration of the early modern into the medieval, and holds this up as a signifier of the potential for dramatic practices to both perform and alter notions about day-to-day city practices. While acknowledging that the Henry IV plays are not primarily about the burgeoning mercantile/imperialistic economy, Levine effectively points out that it provides space for this sort of economy, while also focusing on the presence of shifting understandings of credit within the drama from that of medieval status accreditation to credit based upon mercantile merit. Levine notes that Hal becomes an early modern monarch in his understanding of debt and accreditation, rather than a medieval one who relies on the inherent loyalty of his lords, through his experiences with the mercantile realms of London.
The second chapter examines the manuscript of Sir Thomas More and what it has to say about civil unrest and collaborative practices in the theatre and the city during the 16th century. As a supplement to her analysis of the manuscript of Sir Thomas More, Levine presents libels, like the Dutch Church libel, as acts of collaborative insurrections, much like those that Sir Thomas More presents in its opening scenes. These libels inform Levine’s understanding of civic unrest, as well as the possibilities for group authorship amongst rioters and playwrights alike. Levine then uses the manuscript as a self-reflexive act of rebellion, citing Edmund Tillney’s censorings of the rioting within the play. This chapter does much in order to understand the nature of the London mob and notions of collective identity during the period, but it does gloss over the fact that there is no conclusive performance record of Sir Thomas More. This seeming lack of performance precludes the play from being representative of the dual nature of performance on the early modern stage, regardless of how informative of collaborative practices it is.
In the third chapter covers languages and language learning through a dissection of William Haughton’s Englishmen for my Money and various language learning books, including the popular The French Schoolmaster by Claudius Hollyband. Levine advances her discussion of xenophobia during this period, and the increasing presence and importance of foreigners in both London and on the stage. Issues of foreign identity bind this chapter somewhat with the prior one, as the popular uprisings of Sir Thomas More are incited by the growing presence of immigrants from the continent. This chapter demonstrates the fascination with these “aliens”, and the increasing need for the study of languages other than English. Levine focuses less on the play here, and more on the increasing need for language learning books for mercantile ventures, as well as the liminal position that foreigners held within 16th century London. As a result, the play becomes something of an afterthought until the very end, where Levine instructs us on the connection between the foreign identities with Englishmen for my Money, and the increasingly fraught presence of foreigners within London.
The last chapter of analysis focuses on the advent of different modes of telling time in early modern London. Levine is not examining innovations in watch making technology during the period, but the tabulation of large scale time, including the advent of mercantile time and trend’s based death analysis. Using the London mortality bills and the city comedy The Roaring Girl by Thomas Dekker and Thomas Middleton, Levine articulates the different modalities of time present in early modern London with some discussion of how this contrasted with natural time associated with religious practices. The difference of temporal configuration is not lost on Levine, and she goes to great lengths in order to clarify that the mortality bills and The Roaring Girl do not present the same configurations of time, but two differently situated understandings of time. Levine’s discussion of The Roaring Girl also provides insight into the obsession with mechanical expressions of time that was present within early modern London.
The end of the study characterizes this study as one of individuals who are becoming political actants through dramatic practices and dramatic understandings. The concluding chapter provides a discussion of the relation of prescribed meaning and proscribed meaning that these plays touch upon, as well as reiterating the propaedeutic nature of drama in early modern London.
Levine covers a good amount of territory with the variety of her subjects, but the selection of plays comes across as odd. There does not seem to be anything particularly representative of the drama of the period here, with three histories and two city comedies. The plays seem chosen to fit the artifact, rather than the drama being demonstrative of the events of the city. The arguments that the dramas hold a double purpose in practicing the city then become tenuous, as there seems to be more evidence that the plays merely reflect the city. A more comprehensive analysis of plays, perhaps from further dramas that are not immediately about London but about life in early modern cities in general, would highlight the active nature that these plays have in heightening audience understandings of their own London. The analyses of primary documents are strong, and the dramatic analyses of the Henry IV plays and Sir Thomas More are just as strong. A bolstering of the second round of analyses, as well as an expansion of the texts discussed would make a good analysis on the stage representations of the city into a great one.
More...