Playing with a Difference: Revisiting "Pen" and "Voice" in Shakespeare's Theater

Abstract

The question that I propose to begin with is whether and to what extent this lack of confidence can be read conjunction with a late-Elizabethan lapse of assurance coming to terms with circulation of authority between writing and performing theater. Clearly representation of textually inscribed meaning (deriving from author's pen and matter of history, myth, or romance) and practice of performance (issuing physical, audible presence of actor's voice) are not same. Rather than identifying with either of these, Shakespeare's Prologue is / In like conditions as argument. In other words, this Prologue by definition is quarrelsome, a figure of friction and detachment. While opening play he presents the scene to audience, he also and simultaneously represents, is even costumed or suited to stand for, our argument. Characteristically Prologue belongs to and thereby bridges both worlds, represented world of play and (re)presenting world of its production and performance. May we assume, then, that this Prologue, his liminal position, points to an element of vulnerability circulation of authority between two worlds, where reciprocity between writing and playing could, theatrical production, not be viewed in confidence? Whatever answer to this question, locations of authority Elizabethan playhouse were mutable rather than fixed. As far as imaginary world-in-the-play and material act of visible, audible playing-in-the-world of theater could be said to engage one another, that engagement was marked by a cultural difference2