Emulation on the Shakespearean Stage by Vernon Guy Dickson (review)

Abstract

Vernon Guy Dickson. Emulation on Shakespearean Stage. Studies in Performance and Early Modern Drama. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate, 2013. Pp. xx + 189. 60.00 [pounds sterling]. Early in Emulation on Shakespearean Stage, Vernon Guy Dickson quotes Quintilians The Orators Education: I do want Paraphrase to be mere passive reproduction, but to rival and vie with original in expressing same thoughts (quoted 11). Appearing in final paragraph of Dicksons book, another quotation from The Orators Education tempers ancient rhetoricians teaching on contentious imitation: no man can draw level with man in whose footsteps he feels bound to tread (quoted 172). In Dicksons account, in English combined these precepts. At once competition and homage, textual expression and lived behavior, emulation was seen as rote repetition but as an act of or construction, self-construction in daily life--governed by decorum, though also potentially generative of transgressive invention (12). This understanding of moreover, created that bred individuals who read selves closely like texts and attempted to shape themselves based on wide range of models, and persons, historical and contemporary--sometimes as agonists, sometimes as exemplars, sometimes simply as peers (xvii). In mounting case for this culture of emulation, Dickson draws on and deviates from Rene Girard's mimetic rivalry, Stephen Greenblatt's Renaissance self-fashioning, and Thomas M. Greenes era of imitation. Emulation on Shakespearean Stage thus ends up enacting very concept it examines. The result is study of English rhetorical and dramatic practice that provides useful review of scholarship and reads early modern drama in often generative ways. Emulation on Shakespearean Stage begins with genealogy of of in which early modern dramatists and their audiences engaged. In chapter 1 Dickson reviews principal early theories of imitation, with particular attention to Aristotle and Quintilian and to Thomas Wilson, Roger Ascham, and Sir Philip Sidney. This chapter proves especially useful in demonstrating differences in priorities between ancient and early modern rhetoricians and among English writers. For instance, although they all emphasize self-fashioning through emulative education, Wilson privileges imitation in context of classroom learning; Ascham, of social codes of behavior; and Sidney, of virtuous action (14-24). This blurring of texts (fiction and nonfiction, art and life), Dickson argues, is only foundational to emulative theory in but also the necessary condition of humanist ideal of an emulative theater on Shakespearean stage (62). The next four chapters closely read plays by Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, and Philip Massinger that take classical Rome, including its texts, culture, and ethos, as object of emulation. Each of plays also portrays a confounding enactment of Roman models (29). This compelling turn of phrase appears in chapter 2, arguably strongest chapter in book. Here, Dickson demonstrates how in Andronicus characters compete to outdo available texts and each others imitations of these texts and precedents, constructing a destructive pattern of conflicted, partial, and uncritical emulations (28). Classroom learning sets Shakespearean stage for Roman patterns of behavior that ought to promote social and political action worthy of but miscalculations in characters' discernments of what and how to emulate lead to escalating retributive violence rather than mercy. Although not as overt as Titus (53), Hamlet enacts failure of emulative reading of classical models to yield anything other than rote repetition. In chapter 3 Dickson focuses on Hamlet and lapse of decorum (match[ing] deeds to . …