Penitential Politics and Poetics: Catholic Auricular Confession and Reformed Church Repentance as Techniques of Government in Shakespeare

• Main Authors: Hui-Hua Wang, 王慧華
• Other Authors: 姜台芬
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2006
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/17741307816753903352

博士 === 國立臺灣大學 === 外國語文學研究所 === 94 === This dissertation explores Shakespeare’s representation of two religious practices, Catholic auricular confession and Reformed Church repentance, in the context of their development up to James I. Critics who read Shakespeare by referring to the two forms of penitence contradict one another as to which type is represented in a certain Shakespearean play. Some also disagree on what attitude Shakespeare’s play possibly holds for Catholic confession as a social institution. A comparison of some other readings suggests that some of Shakespeare’s plays do not agree with one another about how much Reformed Church repentance can achieve in regulating political relationships. Drawing upon some historical data and studies on the two penitential practices up to James I, I try to distinguish the two kinds of penitence, so as to identify which kind is mainly depicted in a certain Shakespearean play. I also offer a possible range of early modern people''s attitudes toward the two practices, in order to pinpoint the view likely to be held by the dramatist’s works. A temporal coincidence or adjacency between Shakespeare''s theatrical productions (Measure for Measure and The Winter’s Tale) and royal stipulation on penitence strongly argues that Shakespeare’s works represent the two as instruments for social control, in order to echo and support his patron King James’ socio-political view of the two practices. In 1604, James I stipulated that priests had to report the sins confessed to them by sinners to the government for judicial correction, no matter what kind of confession, Catholic or Protestant, the sinners make. The same year, Shakespeare staged his courtly drama Measure for Measure, in which a ruler is dressed as confessor-friar to find out his people''s crimes. Six years later, Shakespeare featured in The Winter’s Tale (1610) another ruler King Leontes, who governs himself by the principle of the Elizabethan repentance to recover the order he disrupts. Over half of Shakespeare''s plays reflect upon his royal patron as well as many of his contemporaries'' political view of the two rites. The plays dramatize the two practices as being instrumental for the rulers’ government of their subjects, as well as for self-government or self-regulation. Chapters One and Two investigate Catholic auricular confession and Reformed Church repentance as both religious and social practices up to James I. Special attentions are paid to the two practices'' characteristics, the early modern people’s various views on them, and the factors which give rise to a political view regarding the two spiritual institutions. Special analyses will be given to the features, strengths and downsides of Catholic auricular confession as a social regulator via modern historical studies. Chapters Three and Four propose that Shakespeare plays explore King James and some of his contemporaries’ idea of the two practices as essential for maintaining socio-political order. Chapter Three argues that it is the Catholic penitential rite that Measure for Measure is concerned about. The play focuses on how Duke Vincentio governs his people according to the Catholic penitential principle. The play’s portrayal of the duke as a friar-confessor yields some threads of thoughts for our speculation on the early modern politics. Chapter Four contends that about two-thirds of Shakespeare’s plays accentuate the importance of Reformed Church repentance for self and communal regulation. How well the plays’ characters meet the requirement prescribed in the Elizabethan homily “Of Repentance” determines whether the endings of the stories be tragic or comic. The modes of the two religious practices not only are promoted as the organizers of the material worlds represented in Shakespeare’s relevant plays, but also provide his virtual theatrical worlds with a structuring principle. The modes of the two practices also charts a path to direct many of his characters’ as well as his audience’s mental energy so as to arouse their conscience. My conclusion points out the significance of reading Shakespeare as part of the politicized early modern penitential culture and reflects upon history-literature relationships based on my findings.