West European Studies

Andrew Gurrs Playgoing in Shakespeare London attempted to settle a question long been raised regarding the nature of the William Shakespeares audience, primarily in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. It has long been argued whether Shakespeares plays are elitist or mass-oriented, as this can be deemed important especially in the study of classical literature.

Gurr first approached the study with a thorough class analysis of the people in Shakespeares time. He proposed the existence of the high elite, the middle or burgesses class, and the artisans. He gave special focused on the middle class, and claimed that Shakespeares plays are in fact thematically diverse. He claimed that Shakespeares early plays are sort of comedic and light, while his latter works are most pessimistic and realist, giving more space for literary experimentation. Shakespeare also explored historical and semi-historical themes, as in Othello and Mark Anthony.  The diversity of the themes also gave rise to changes in his audiences, considering that each class has its own taste. Hence, the nature of Shakespeares audience did not dwell in extremes (elitist and mass oriented) but rather, his works made a trip in the class continuum. Gurr also employed certain architectural observations to disprove these two assumptions.

However, his focus on the middle class appeared itself as some sort of synthesis of the contention. He gave credit to how the middle class remained loyal audience to Shakespeares works and thus giving Shakespeare a core audience group. Despite the thematic changes that permeated in his works, this group of middle class appeared as the staple group, especially as Shakespeares plays also remained loyal to some extent to this class by making plays that catered chiefly for citizen appetites.
A rather blurry picture

Gurrs book Playgoing in Shakespeares London provided a substantive picture of William Shakespeares audience. It provided a considerable amount of demographic and anthropological data regarding some of the mainstays in his audience included in relatively thick appendices, giving his observations firm and rock-solid data grounding.

As said earlier, similar attempts of this feat had already been done, most notably by Alfred Harbage (Shakespeares Audience and Shakespeare and the R ival Traditions) and Ann Jennalie Cook (The Audience of Shakespeares Plays A Reconsideration, Shakespeare Studies, VII), focusing their studies primarily on determining the nature of the audience in Shakespeares plays.  The two, however, came up with different findings. Harbage came up with a conclusion that Shakespeares audience is primarily those of the artisan or working class. Cook, on the other hand, said that it is quite the contraryShakespeares audience is made up of the upper classes. However, Gurr claimed that the two that the writers dwelled on two extremes, leading to a compartmentalizing analysis. Gurr claimed that the two scholars denied Shakespeares audience a human element, that which is dynamic, changing and definitely not static, which is precisely what the two did.

Gurr claimed that the audience in Shakespeares era is anchored in the middle class (or citizens, as the called it). The peripheral audience of this middle class changes, depending on the nature of the plays. Nonetheless, the middle class remained the staunchest and most stable audience.

I think this observation by Gurr is plausible, but quite safe-playing. He argued that Shakespeares audience changes however, these changes are rather common-sensical, and in the end, Gurrs work remained rather blurred, especially regariding the matter of determining the exact nature of Shakespeares audience. Moreover, his claim that Shakespeares audience is primarily the common citizen or the middle class is  not really a direct answer to the question he seeks to answer. He even claimed that this middle class is not really a small group, but nonetheless they can be considered a core group. Hence, this group cannot be considered as the primary audience. In this sense is where I think the book remained somewhat vague and inadequate, making the conclusion a rather blurry picture of what Gurr must have set out to do.

Conclusion
Andrew Gurrs book is a very important contribution to the discourse of Shakespearean literature and its (or any form of literature for that matter) to its social and historical context. Gurr made a plausible synthesis of the two assumptions that Shakespeares audiences are either elites or working class people. He provided that Shakespeares main audience is primarily the common, middle class citizens. However, in doing so, he remained vague in his findings and therefore provided only a safe synthesis, rather than a concrete picture of the Elizabethan society.