Document Type
Article
Publication Date
Spring 2016
Abstract
"Over the last three decades, antitheatrical authors like Stephen Gosson, Phillip Stubbes, and William Prynne have become increasingly visible in the literary and cultural studies of the early modern period. Even so, the tendency has been to treat these authors as ideological extremists: reactionary hacks whose opposition to stage plays originates in outrageous ideas of the self, impossible notions of right and wrong, and bizarre beliefs about humanity’s susceptibility to external suggestion. This characterization can be traced back to several of the pioneering studies in the field, including Jonas Barish’s The Antitheatrical Prejudice (1985) and Laura Levine’s Men in Women’s Clothing (1994), each of which takes the irrationality of the antitheatricalists as a starting point, as well as a structuring assumption. Both of these books have shaped our critical discourse: virtually everyone who has written about antitheatricalism in recent years has been influenced by and is indebted to the readings that these books present. Nevertheless, I believe that these groundbreaking studies plowed the field in such a way as to distort some of its contours. In the present essay, I offer a careful response in hopes of giving us a better sense of the lay of the land."
Recommended Citation
Lehnhof, Kent R. “Antitheatricality and Irrationality: An Alternative View.” Criticism 58.2 (2016): 231–250. doi: 10.13110/criticism.58.2.0231
Peer Reviewed
1
Copyright
Wayne State University Press
Included in
Dramatic Literature, Criticism and Theory Commons, Literature in English, British Isles Commons, Literature in English, North America Commons, Other Theatre and Performance Studies Commons, Playwriting Commons, Theatre History Commons
Comments
This article was originally published in Criticism, volume 58, issue 2, in 2016. DOI: 10.13110/criticism.58.2.0231