This study (decidedly one of analyse interne) was essentially composed of three readings of Shakespeare’s First Folio. The first performative reading juxtaposed occurrences of play-within-the-play and disguise to the cue to cue structure of each Folio play and thus showed that these metatheatrical devices are almost always structurally significant. In terms of the thesis as a whole, this graphic analysis, or window on the Folio, provided a near concrete element upon which the two following textual surveys could themselves be juxtaposed (as the three accompanying Rolls invite the reader to do). The second reading collated most of Shakespeare’s textual references to the theatre, and showed their persistence and stability throughout his dramatic writings. The third and final reading, while collecting most of Shakespeare’s references to art, imitation and painting, showed the marked prevalence of an apparent mistrust of mimetic representation. Looking back, perspectively, on all three readings it almost appears as if this mistrust may have been (if not the foundation) at least one of the pillars of Shakespeare’s theatrical aesthetic.

So how transparent was Shakespeare’s theatre? The short answer surely is: very transparent. Which means perhaps that some allowances should be made — when interpreting his plays — for the particular poetics of an original performance context that did indeed lend itself to the interplay between the imaginary world of the play and the reality of its theatrical representation. As to whether or not this transparency was the result of a moral dilemma, it is entirely possible that Shakespeare’s purported Mannerism was of a homegrown variety and thus more puritanical in spirit than italianate. A pseudo-mannerism that might have found its best aesthetic expression in the undermining of mimetic representation in order to reveal the essential insubstantiality of an art that leaves “not a racke behinde” (Tempest 4.1.156 TLN 1827).

But what should perhaps be studied further is whether or not Shakespeare was indeed, as Barton herself writes, “concerned with the play metaphor to a degree unusual even among his contemporaries” (1964, p.89). Was Shakespeare’s theatre more transparent than that of his contemporaries? Of course, there are indications that Ben Jonson, for one, was concerned with it. His Devil is an Ass, which was performed at Blackfriars in 1616, practically opens with one its character’s (Fitzdottrell) announcing that “Today, I go to the Blackfriars Playhouse” (1.6.31). And as for conflating the arts (as Shakespeare seems to do), Middleton & Deker’s The Roaring Girl (1610) provides a telling example, as one of its character’s — Sir Alexander — describes his home:

\\

\\

"Nay when you look into my galleries (…)
You’re highly pleased to see what’s set down there:
Stories of men and women mixed together (…)
Within one square a thousand heads are laid
So close that all of heads the room seems made;
As many faces there, filled with blithe looks
Show like the promising titles of new books
Writ merrily, the readers being their own eyes,
Which seem to move and to give plaudities;
And here and there, whilst with obsequious ears
Thronged heaps do listen, a cut-purse thrusts and leers
With hawks eyes for his prey — I need not show him (…)
Then, Sir, below,
The very floor, as t’were, waves to and fro,
And, like a floating island, seems to move
Upon a sea bound in with shores above." (1.2.14-32)

\\

\\

Thus the paintings in Sir Alexander’s galleries — themselves being like “promising titles of new books” — are suddenly transformed into the theatre itself with its own tiers of galleries and floating (Tempest like) island of a stage.

\\

\\

So there were, at least, some who were concerned with the play metaphor. But were they to the same degree as Shakespeare? Of course, to properly answer this question, we would need more Hinmans to provide us with their TLN. But, in any case, Barton says that they weren’t. So perhaps we should take her word for it (we, ourselves, trust her judgment implicitly).

This study (decidedly one of analyse interne) was essentially composed of three readings of Shakespeare’s First Folio. The first performative reading juxtaposed occurrences of play-within-the-play and disguise to the cue to cue structure of each Folio play and thus showed that these metatheatrical devices are almost always structurally significant. The second reading collated most of Shakespeare’s textual references to the theatre, and showed their persistence and stability throughout his dramatic writings. The third and final reading, while collecting most of Shakespeare’s references to art, imitation and painting, showed the marked prevalence of an apparent mistrust of mimetic representation. Looking back, perspectively, on all three readings it almost appears as if this mistrust may have been (if not the foundation) at least one of the pillars of Shakespeare’s theatrical aesthetic.

So. How transparent was Shakespeare’s theatre? The short answer surely is: very transparent. But the question now is whether this transparency wasn’t the result of a moral dilemma that found its best aesthetic expression in the undermining of mimetic representation and the revelation of the essential insubstantiality of its art. Perhaps Shakespeare’s purported Mannerism was of a homegrown variety, in spirit, more puritanical than italianate.
\\

\\

What should perhaps also need to be studied further is if Shakespeare was indeed, as Barton herself writes, “concerned with the play metaphor to a degree unusual even among his contemporaries” (1964, p.89). Was Shakespeare’s theatre more transparent than that of his contemporaries? Of course, in order to properly answer this question, we would need more Hinmans to provide us with their TLN. But, in any case, Barton says they weren’t. So perhaps we should take her word for it (we, ourselves, trust her implicitly).

Even though we may have begun by attempting to emulate the comprehensive (and almost obsessional) work of scholars such as E. K. Chambers, W. W. Greg, Charlton Hinman and A. C. Dessen, we’ve rather ended up counterfeiting the pseudo-scientific whimsy of Fluxus artist Robert Filiou (whose Recherche sur l’origine roll of 1974 has certainly influenced our own) as well as — in our thesis’ very presentation — Joseph Cornell’ shadow-boxes: those beautiful if triste collections of assiduously picked-up pieces, and found objects. Indeed, William’s Window’s final form is as a reliquary of time.

So. How transparent was Shakespeare’s theatre? The short answer surely is: very transparent. But the question now is whether this transparency wasn’t the result of a moral dilemma that found its best aesthetic expression in the undermining of mimetic representation and the revelation of the essential insubstantiality of its art.

!!!!!John Cage
!!!!!(James Joyce, Marcel Duchamp, Erik Satie: an Alphabet)

!!!!!John Cage !!!!!(James Joyce, Marcel Duchamp, Erik Satie: an Alphabet)

!!!!!John Cage
!!!!!(James Joyce, Marcel Duchamp, Erik Satie: an Alphabet)

!!!!"I don’t know how many books on Hamlet there are that set out to elucidate its mysteries. I prefer the ones that pay attention but stop short of explanation."

!!!!John Cage (James Joyce, Marcel Duchamp, Erik Satie: an Alphabet)

\\

\\

"I don’t know how many books on Hamlet there are that set out to elucidate its mysteries. I prefer the ones that pay attention but stop short of explanation."

\\

John Cage
(James Joyce, Marcel Duchamp, Erik Satie: an Alphabet)

\\

\\

This study was essentially composed of three readings of Shakespeare’s First Folio. The first performative reading juxtaposed occurrences of play-within-the-play and disguise to the cue to cue structure of each Folio play and thus showed that these metatheatrical devices are almost always structurally significant. The second reading collated most of Shakespeare’s textual references to the theatre, and showed their persistence and stability throughout his dramatic writings. The third and final reading, while collecting most of Shakespeare’s references to art, imitation and painting, showed the marked prevalence of an apparent mistrust of mimetic representation. Looking back, perspectively, on all three readings it almost appears as if this mistrust may have been (if not the foundation) at least one of the pillars of Shakespeare’s theatrical aesthetic.

\\

\\

So. How transparent was Shakespeare’s theatre? The short answer surely is: very transparent. But the question now is whether this transparency wasn’t the result of a moral dilemma that found its best aesthetic expression by undermining mimetic representation in order to reveal the essential insubstantiality of its art.

\\

\\

If our work on transparency (as one of the principal qualities of Shakespeare metatheatricality) developed into a comprehensive survey of most (if not all) instances of metatheatre in the plays of the First Folio, it effectively concludes with the Rolls visual and chronological expression of this data.

\\

\\

Even though we may have begun by attempting to emulate the comprehensive (and almost obsessional) work of scholars such as E. K. Chambers, W. W. Greg, Charlton Hinman and A. C. Dessen, we’ve rather ended up counterfeiting the pseudo-scientific whimsy of Fluxus artist Robert Filiou (whose Recherche sur l’origine roll of 1974 has certainly influenced our own) as well as — in our thesis’ very presentation — Joseph Cornell’ shadowboxes of assiduously picked-up pieces, and found objects. Thus William’s Window’s final form is as a reliquary of time.

\\

\\