In Praise of Scribes: Manuscripts and Their Makers in Seventeenth-Century England. The Lyell Lectures, Oxford, 1995-1996 by Peter Beal (review)

Abstract

MLR,96.3,200 I 803 radical varieties) mayalready seemsuperfluous orevenan insulting imposition, amidst 'sharp debates onthe continued usefulness ofWestern icons like Shakespeare orindeed ofWestern theories, post-structuralist orotherwise, toanytruly "postcolonial agenda" ' (p. I8).Inoneway, 'postcolonial Shakespeares' affiord a renewed urgency tothepolitical and ethical imperatives thatunderpinned theoreticallyinflected Shakespeare studies inthe first place;inanother, they posestark questions abouttheacademic Shakespeare industry's investment inmechanisms ofcultural power, prestige, andwealth from which itmight otherwise seek todistance itself. It isentirely apposite that thecollection should appearaspart oftheperennial New Accents series, asthe accelerating processes ofglobalization ensure that the question ofhowtonegotiate thereceived pronunciation notonly oftheShakespearean text butalsoofits attendant disciplinary discourses becomes anincreasingly vexed one. Severalof the essaysare explicitly informed by thisperception thatthe postcolonial Shakespeare isnotjustanother 'alternative' tobefiled alongside the others and subsequently traded in theacademic marketplace, buta meansof interrogating thecolonizing roleofnotonly conservative scholarship butalsoits purportedly more radical counterparts. Jerry Brotton, for example, argues that the NewHistoricist tactic ofconstructing TheXempest as a paradigmatic colonial text simultaneously suppresses itsMediterraneantdimensions and,following a pattern deeply entrenched within American literary criticism, fashions itas 'anexemplary bridge between English culture andAmerican letters' (p.27);morepolemically, Jonathan Dollimore rounds oF thecollection byinvoking theethical impetus of postcolonial theory insupport ofa cultural politics that 'strives tounderstand the contradictions welive, andwhich, after making that eXort, doesnot lack the courage torisk truth claims aboutthereal;a cultural politics thatknows thediXerence between human agency andhuman essence andthatrecognizes thatthefeeble relativism ofpost-modernism isonly viable because it'snever tested' (p.275).This senseofgenuine commitment underpins thecollection as a whole, which stresses the progressive aswell asthe reactionary potential ofpostcolonial Shakespeare, and which isatitsmost interesting whenthecritical discourse isitself openedupfor critical scrutiny. Ithappens inMargoHendricks's exploration ofthedialectics of rapeandracein The RapeofLucrece, which isframed bya confessional narrative addressing theironies andcontradictions implicit within herownsituation as an African-American academicat theJohannesberg conference, and in Terence Hawkes's contribution, which entertainingly elaborates itsdistinctive thematics of the postcolonial bydeftly weaving together (amongst other things) Derrida, AngloWelsh military history, theHenriad, andtheidentity of'MrW.H.'. Other topics covered (somemorearduously, andsomemore predictably, thanothers) include Shakespeare's construction ofliterary whiteness, therelations between colonial theory and psychoanalysis, and Shakespeare in education and performance in India,SouthAfrica, andNewZealand.Post-Colonial Shakespeares is an important collection which nooneseriously interested inthe future ofShakespeare studies can affiord toignore. UNIVERSITY OFSURREY ROEHAMPTON ROBERT SHAUGHNESSY InPraise of Scribes. Manuscripts andtheir Makers inSeventeenth-Century England. Ehe Lyell Lectures, Oxford, I995-I996. BYPETER BEAL.Oxford: Clarendon Press.I998. XXV + 3I3 PP £7° Through hismassive Index of English Litera7y Manuscripts (I980-93)andhisannual English Manuscr787t Studies, Peter Bealhasreinvigorated a whole field ofstudy. Having 804 Reviews probably seen,handled) andanalysed moreliterary manuscripts thananyother living person, in thisnewbookhe drawson hisrichstoreofknowledge to demonstrate, infive fascinating, copiously illustrated chapters andsixinformationrich appendices, what textual, historical, andliterary scholars candowith thekind ofdatahehasexamined. Bealbegins with anessay onscribes (orCscriveners'), whom herightly calls'key agents intheprocess ofwritten communication andliterary transmission' (p.v), whosebureaucratic, legal,commercial, and literary activities werecrucially important intheearly modern period. In thecourse ofestablishing thecultural centrality ofscribes, heillustrates the ways they were satirized andcriticized intheir owntime (providing aninteresting appendix ofcontemporary comments onscribes andscriveners), notingthat 'itisalmost asif scriveners hadassumed andaccentuated all thenegative functions, aspects, andimplications ofwriting itself' (p.7). He describes thematerial features ofscribal production andthedistinct characteristics ofthis modeofcommunication asdistinguished from those ofprint, including the scribal andauthorial anonymity, thesocialprestige ofthehandwritten document, the opentextuality ofthesystem ofliterary transmission, andthediffierent relations ofmanuscript andprint toofficial censorship. Although there arelacunaeinhis historical treatment as he movesrapidly towards theRestoration period, when copies ofpoems onaiairsofstate were produced toorder inmodern scriptoria, the development hewants toemphasize isoneinwhich 'literature' moves from elite manuscript culture tothe more democratic world ofprint, anenvironment inwhich some ofthe social pretences ofmanuscript documents areharder tomaintain. Thus, 'Captain Julian', 'theprincipal purveyor ofmanuscript verse inthis [later] period' (p.20)sbecomes theincarnation ofcontemporary anxieties about where literature isheading' (p.30). Inthesecond chapter, Bealdescribes theeditorial textual decisions madeinthe two modern editions ofJohn Donne's Biathanatos, discussing this restricted-audience work interms ofthe conclusions that might bedrawn from the surviving manuscript copies, oneofwhich henewly presents: Canterbury Cathedral MS U2IO/2/2, 'a purely professional copy) madefor someone bya hired scribe(p.40),probably, as heskilfully demonstrates, for Donne'sclosefriend SirHenry Goodyer (andtor for theCountess ofBedford) with whosedescendants itmight be connected). This document, which is'independent ofboth [the SirEdward] Herbert [manuscript] and the[I647] Quarto' (pp.42...