SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Litera: Dil Edebiyat ve Kültür Araştırmaları Dergisi / 2024 / Cilt: 34 Sayı: 2

Terence in England: Literary Narcissism, Self-Reflexivity, and Metatheatrical Comedy in The Parnassus Plays

Selena Özbaş(Istanbul Yeni Yüzyıl University, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Department of English Language and Literature)0000-0002-7710-9296
Pages
361–378
Publication Date
2024-12-24
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In turn, it re-establishes the prologue as a paratextual act of metatheatricality which informs the character of its comedic structure.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article aims at exploring the Terentian influence on the group of academic dramas known as the Parnassus plays which was staged at the University of Cambridge from 1598 to 1601 in the context of literary narcissism.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Identifying the literary narcissist paradigm as heir to the cultural politics of the fin-de-siecle and drawing on the revival of interest in metatheatricality in contemporary classical scholarship, first it will be argued that Terence’s prologues not only further a bouletic manner of authorial intention but also generate a metatheatrical form of self-commentary.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In turn, it re-establishes the prologue as a paratextual act of metatheatricality which informs the character of its comedic structure.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Literary narcissism · self-reflexivity · Terentian comedy

Abstract

This article aims at exploring the Terentian influence on the group of academic dramas known as the Parnassus plays which was staged at the University of Cambridge from 1598 to 1601 in the context of literary narcissism. Identifying the literary narcissist paradigm as heir to the cultural politics of the fin-de-siecle and drawing on the revival of interest in metatheatricality in contemporary classical scholarship, first it will be argued that Terence’s prologues not only further a bouletic manner of authorial intention but also generate a metatheatrical form of self-commentary. As a development on that point, the Terentian influence on the university stage in seventeenth-century England will be discussed. In identifying a visibly Terentian sentiment in the Parnassus plays, it will be maintained that the trilogy allows an early modern reading in self-reflexivity that is documented in the metafictional programme of the prologue. The anticipated conclusion draws on the point that the narcissistic agenda of the Parnassus plays signal a growing liberty taken with self-commentary at a mimetic level which, due to its Terentian background, facilitates a reproduction of metatheatrical comedy. The importance of this point lies within the fact that by reproducing the literary narcissism of Latin laughter, university drama under the Tudor rule secures the sardonic wit of its Roman forebearers as annexed to the mechanics of Renaissance authorship. In turn, it re-establishes the prologue as a paratextual act of metatheatricality which informs the character of its comedic structure.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özbaş, S. (2024). Terence in England: Literary Narcissism, Self-Reflexivity, and Metatheatrical Comedy in The Parnassus Plays. Litera: Dil Edebiyat ve Kültür Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 2, 361–378. https://doi.org/10.26650/LITERA2024-1481519

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (29)

  1. Agnew, J. C. (1986). Worlds Apart: The Market and the Theater in Anglo-American Thought, 1550-1750. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  2. Alcorn, Marshall W. (1994). Narcissism and the Literary Libido: Rhetoric, Text, and Subjectivity. New York and London: New York University Press. google scholar
  3. Andrews, R. (1993). Scripts and Scenarios: The performance of comedy in Renaissance Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  4. Anonymous. (1949). The Three Parnassus Plays (1598-1601). J. B. Leishman (Ed.), London: The Broadwater Press. google scholar
  5. Aristotle. (1926). Art of Rhetoric. Translated by (J. H. Freese, Trans.). (Vol. 22). Loeb Classical Library 193. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. google scholar
  6. Ashplant, T. G. (2012). Freud, Fin-de-siecle Politics, and the Making of Psychoanalysis. In S. Alexander & B. Taylor (Eds.). History and Psyche: Culture, Psychoanalysis, and the Past (pp. 27-48). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. google scholar
  7. Boas, F. S. (1914). University Drama in the Tudor Age. Oxford: Clarendon Press. google scholar
  8. Brand, C. P. (1995). “The Renaissance of Comedy: The Achievement of Italian “Commedia Erudita.”” The Modern Language Review 90 (4), xxix-xlii. https://doi.org/10.2307/3733146. google scholar
  9. Busch, W. (1892). Balduin Bahlamm, der verhinderte Dichter. München: Fr. Bassermann. google scholar
  10. Cioni, F. (2018). “Refashioning Italian theatrical and dramatic conventions: prologues, epilogues and inductions in early modern English drama.” Early Modern Culture Online 4 (1), 1-41. https://doi.org/10.15845/emco.v4i1.1508. google scholar
  11. Dinkler, M. B. (2017). “Narcissus has been with us all along: Ancient stories as narcissistic narratives.” Frontiers of Narrative Studies 3 (1), 33-49. https://doi.org/10.1515/fns-2017-0003. google scholar
  12. Drichel, S. (2016). “Cartesian Narcissism.” American Imago 73 (3), 239-274. 10.1353/aim.2016.0014. google scholar
  13. Eco, U. (1984). “The frames of comic ‘freedom.” T. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Carnival!, 1-10. Berlin and New York: Mouton Publishers. google scholar
  14. Freud, S. (1957). “On Narcissism.” J. Strachey (Ed.), The Standard Edition of The Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. (Vol. 14, pp. 73-102). London: The Hogarth Press. google scholar
  15. Genette, G. (1997). Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. (J. E. Lewin, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  16. Goldberg, S. M. (1986). Understanding Terence. Princeton: Princeton University Press. google scholar
  17. Guastella, G. (2015). Ornatu prologi: Terence’s Prologues on the Stage/on the Page. In A. J. Turner and G. Torello-Hill (Eds.), Terence between Late Antiquity and the Age of Printing: Illustration, Commentary and Performance (pp. 200-218). Leiden and Boston: Brill. google scholar
  18. Hale, F. (1920). “The Influence of Latin drama on Elizabethan drama.” (Master’s Thesis, University of Birmingham, UK). Retrieved from: https://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/4534/1/Hale20MRes.pdf google scholar
  19. Hutcheon, L. (1980). Narcissistic Narrative: The Metafictional Paradox. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. google scholar
  20. Janko, R. (1984). Aristotle on Comedy: Towards a reconstruction of Poetics II. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. google scholar
  21. Knorr, O. (2007). Metatheatrical Humor in the Comedies of Terence. In P. Kruschwitz et.al. (Eds.), Terentius Poeta (pp. 141-48). Munich: C. H. Beck Verlag. google scholar
  22. Mathas, A. (2010). Narcissism and Paranoia in the Age of Goethe. Newark: University of Delaware Press. google scholar
  23. Meacham, T. (2020). The Performance Tradition of The Medieval English University: The Works of Thomas Chaundler. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. google scholar
  24. Plautus. (2008). Four Comedies. (E. Segal, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. google scholar
  25. Sharrock, A. (2009). Reading Roman Comedy: Poetics and Playfulness in Plautus and Terence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  26. Sharrock, A. (2019). Introduction: Roman Comedy. In M.T. Dinter (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Roman Comedy (pp. 1-16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. google scholar
  27. Slater, N. W. (2000). Plautus in Performance: The Theatre of The Mind. Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers. google scholar
  28. Terence. (2001). The Woman of Andros, The Self-Tormentor, The Eunuch. (Vol. 1). J. Barsby (Ed.), Loeb Classical Library 22. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. google scholar
  29. Weimann, R. (1996). Authority and Representation in Early Modern Discourse. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. google scholar