Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T01:46:06.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Representation and Performance: The Uses of Authority in Shakespeare's Theater

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Robert Weimann
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The twentieth century has witnessed a crumbling not just of diverse types of authority but of the social and intellectual foundations on which the very idea of authority is built. This “crisis of authority” needs to be viewed in historical perspective. Ever since the Protestant Reformation, attempts have been made to internalize authority, “to shift the basis of its verification from external and public modes to internal and private ones” (Harris 1). This controversial shifting of credentials is connected to a comparable change in the representational forms and functions of authorizing discourse. The increasingly uncertain premises of representation, especially its ambivalence as a mode of linguistic and cultural organization, appear to have much to do with the “present confusion” of authority (Arendt 95). Since many voices have been raised against representation, there is little need to document the intellectual disaffection it has produced, except to recall what, in our context, is the most characteristic charge of all: namely, that the much deplored power of representation to order and to command language and to impose on it “the imperious unity of Discourse” (Foucault 386) forces on us an incompatible link between language and humankind.

Type
2. Underwriting Performance: Appropriation, Legitimation, Exchange
Information
PMLA , Volume 107 , Issue 3: Special Topic: On Poetry , May 1992 , pp. 497 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Adams, E. M. “The Philosophical Grounds of the Present Crisis of Authority.” Harris 3–24.Google Scholar
Agnew, Jean-Christophe. Worlds Apart: The Market and the Theater in Anglo-American Thought, 1550–1750. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986.Google Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. “What Is Authority?” Between Past and Present. New York: Penguin, 1987. 91–141.Google Scholar
Bell, Daniel. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism. New York: Basic, 1976.Google Scholar
Berger, Harry Jr. Imaginary Audition: Shakespeare on Stage and Page. Berkeley: U of California P, 1989.Google Scholar
Bethell, S. L. Shakespeare and the Popular Dramatic Tradition. London: King, 1944.Google Scholar
Bruster, Douglas. “Horns of Plenty: Drama and the Market in the Age of Shakespeare.” Diss. Harvard U, 1990.Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth. The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action. Berkeley: U of California P, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, Marvin. Places of Performance: The Semiotics of Theatre Architecture. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1989.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Trans. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1976.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “Sending: On Representation.” Social Research 49 (1982): 294–326.Google Scholar
Elam, Keir. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London: Methuen, 1980.Google Scholar
Evans, Malcolm. Signifying Nothing: Truth's True Contents in Shakespeare's Text. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1986.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Random, 1973.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Catherine. The Industrial Reformation of English Fiction: Social Discourse and Narrative Form, 1832–1867. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1985.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures. Trans. Lawrence, Frederick. Cambridge: MIT P, 1987.Google Scholar
Harris, R. Baine, ed. Authority: A Philosophical Analysis. University: U of Alabama P, 1975.Google Scholar
Hornby, Richard. Script into Performance: A Structuralist Approach. New York: Paragon, 1987.Google Scholar
Howard, Jean E., and O'Connor, Mario F., eds. Shakespeare Reproduced: The Text in History and Ideology. London: Methuen, 1987.Google Scholar
Lentricchia, Frank. Criticism and Social Change. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1985.Google Scholar
Mullaney, Steven. The Place of the Stage: License, Play, and Power in Renaissance England. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1988.Google Scholar
Rossiter, A. P. Angel with Horns and Other Shakespeare Lectures. Ed. Storey, Graham. London: Longmans, 1961.Google Scholar
Schechner, Richard. Performance Theory. Rev. ed. London: Routledge, 1988.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works. Ed. Alexander, Peter. London: Collins, 1951.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Ed. Jenkins, Harold. London: Methuen, 1982.Google Scholar
Shakespeare, William. Troilus and Cressida. Ed. Palmer, Kenneth. London: Methuen, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Marvin, and Thompson, Ruth, eds. Shakespeare and the Sense of Performance: Essays in the Tradition of Performance Criticism in Honor of Bernard Beckerman. London: Associated UP, 1989.Google Scholar
Weimann, Robert. “Bifold Authority in Shakespeare's Theatre.” Shakespeare Quarterly 39 (1988): 401–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weimann, Robert. Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theater: Studies in the Social Dimension of Dramatic Form and Function. Ed. Schwartz, Robert. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1987.Google Scholar
Weimann, Robert. “Text, Author-Function, and Appropriation in Modern Narrative: Toward a Sociology of Representation.” Critical Inquiry 14 (1988): 431–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, Susan. The Dialectics of Representation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1985.Google Scholar
Wiles, David. Shakespeare's Clown: Actor and Text in the Elizabethan Playhouse. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worthen, W. B. “Deeper Meanings and Theatrical Technique: The Rhetoric of Performance Criticism.” Shakespeare Quarterly 40 (1989): 441–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar