文藝復興時期的倫敦劇院係位於城區外，依據穆藍尼（Mullaney） 的觀點，這種地緣關係的配置正好使其成為放浪形骸的特許場所，得以透過劇場的戲劇性而在舞台上盡情地對主流的意識形態加以玩弄、嘲諷。本文藉由穆藍尼對文藝復興時期劇場空間之詮釋為出發點，探討莎翁歷史劇裏的喜劇空間。依常理推測，關於文藝復興時期的歷史記載不僅是屬於當政者的權力範圍，更應該是受到嚴密的控管與審查。歷史的論述空間理應專屬於君王及具歷史開創性的各種英雄人物所擁有，然而，當歷史被莎翁搬上舞台時，其經由戲劇性所創造的歷史可能性就遠非編纂史家所可想像，原本在歷史上無關緊要的人物及事件也成了賣點。例如在第二輯四部曲中的福斯塔（Falstaff）、在《亨利六世》第二部中的傑克．凱德（Jack Cade）以及在《約翰王》中的私生子等，他們皆搶盡了風頭，藉由似是而非、顛三倒四的言論而製造出令人不禁莞爾的效果。他們所營造出的喜劇空間，不僅使得歷史發展邏輯的因果關係暫時停擺，甚至進而反諷君王及英雄的行事邏輯與論述。在莎翁的歷史劇中，這些看似不受控管的喜劇空間，正反應出當時劇場放浪形骸的特性。

Steven Mullaney writes that Renaissance theatres in London, because they were located on the outskirts of the city, were able to become places of licensed licentiousness where the dominant ideologies of the day could be played against the theatricality of the stage. This paper takes Mullaney’s view of Renaissance theatrical space as a point of departure to examine comic spaces in Shakespeare’s history plays. Presumably, Renaissance historiography, as a discursive space reserved exclusively for the nobility and history-making figures, belonged to the power center and was, therefore, strictly censored. Yet when history appears in Shakespeare’s history plays, the theatricality of the peripheral stage made it possible to say more than what could be found in official historiography. These plays could slide between historical figures and events and the unhistorical drama offered by characters such as Falstaff, in the second tetralogy, Jack Cade, in the second part of Henry VI, and the Bastard in King John. These characters’ transgressive or distorted values are good for a laugh, but also create a comic space in which it was possible to suspend the logic of officially sanctioned history and mock the unacknowledged rationale underlining the actions of the crown and heroic figures. Such unruly comic spaces in Shakespeare’s history plays are, I argue, reflective of the licentious aspects of the Renaissance theatre.