Meanings of All for Love , 1677-1813

Abstract

ongoing emphasis in literary studies on work of literature as cultural artifact, or as one in a number of texts, literary and otherwise, that derive meaning only from their interdependence, has had surprisingly little impact on Restoration and eighteenth-century theater studies, particularly discussion of plays themselves. Since playwright's script is but one factor in any performance, concern for intertextuality should lead to exploration of mutability of any durable play's meaning, especially in a theater world that constantly evolves, as this one did. Yet, whether located in aesthetics, in political or social issues, or even in circumstances or personalities around which a is written, meaning or significance assigned to that is almost invariably a fixed one. This critical tendency neglects two remarkable features of drama in so-called long eighteenth century: extent to which audiences dictated content and mood of plays, and extent to which audiences, theaters, and new plays differed from each other. In prologue after prologue as well as in critical commentaries, playwrights and theater connoisseurs lament that tastes of audiences--on which a play's success depended--debase fare proffered. Such objections (and sheer number of them) point to subordination of playwright's aesthetic concerns to audience expectations about a play. (l) This raises interesting questions about those plays that had any longevity during this period but that do not have a readily apprehensible universality of kind generally attributed to, say, Shakespearian drama. If, as they did, audience demands kept pace with rapidly changing political and cultural milieus and theater personnel and atmospheres, then in order to appeal to these ever-changing demands durable plays of this period must be endowed with qualities that are incompatible with fixed meanings sought for them. An outstanding example of a with a critical history as remarkable as its endurance on eighteenth-century stage is one that in fact kept a Shakespearian from boards throughout entire period. John Dryden's All For (also known in its own time as Antony and Cleopatra) replaced Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra until 1813. (2) Howard Weinbrot long ago showed futility of looking to Shakespeare for key to All for Love, leaving critics still pondering reason for endurance of this starkly neoclassical play--one formal to a degree that even Dryden himself expressed nervousness about. (3) critical dilemma has been confounded by doggedly traditional approach, however: attention has focused not on those qualities that allowed it to survive chameleon stages and fickle audiences from Restoration to Regency, but on uncovering a particular moral, aesthetic, historical, or political meaning. (4) red herring was perhaps thrown out by Dryden himself: excellency of Moral promised in preface (10). Pursuit of this moral, or at least of some pinpointable meaning that makes sense of it, has led to titles like The Significance of All For Love (1970) and to assurances that the value system of play lies in a circumscribed historical context (2000). (5) result of such searches for a single encompassing meaning is that only consistency amongst criticism of All for is, as Harry Solomon notes, its inconsistency. (6) play's elusiveness is itself, however, key to its durability. In light of its stage history, All For clearly has an openness and flexibility that, even as they have remained resistant to critical analysis, allowed to adapt to quite different theaters and audience needs. It was able to please audiences of 1670s and 1680s who were directed in their responses by Charles II, his libertine courtiers, and political and philosophical issues that riveted Restoration. …