Shakespeare and Renaissance Politics by Andrew Hadfield, and: Shakespeare, Spenser and the Matter of Britain by Andrew Hadfield (review)

Abstract

YES, 38.i & 2, 2008 269 ofconceptually tooled-up enthusiasts' (p.23).These areperhapsindissoluble difficulties - how do you demonstrate Spenser's radicalism in an idiom that isnot 'conceptually tooled-up'? Yet the suspicion persists thatone elaborate paradigm isbeing displaced by anotherequallyrecondite language withoutnecessarily offering a more nuanced account of the Spenserian aesthetic. While the rhetoric of the aesthetic is present throughout, detailed readings are more fugitive.If the 'new aestheticism' is to be the next big thing,I cannot help feeling that itshould be more aesthetic in itsown critical practice. Similarly, although Radical Spenseroffersa radical challenge to Spenserians, I am sceptical of its 'utopian', and even green, Spenser. This isnot to say thatSpenser's textsdo not persistentlyquestion theirown theoretical bases, or that many of his repre sentationsof authorityaremore troubled thaneither Milton orMarx recognized; rather, it is toquery thewisdom of radicalizing Spenser inour own ideological image. THE OPEN UNIVERSITY RicHARD DANSON BROWN Shakespeare and Renaissance Politics. ByANDrEw HADFIELD. ArdenCritical Companions. London:Thomson Learning. 2004.xii+ 315PP.?19.99. ISBN: 978-I-903436-17-2. Shakespeare, Spenserand the Matter ofBritain.By ANDREw HADFIELD. EarlyModern Litera ture inHistory. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 2004. X + 220 pp. ?52; ISBN: 978-0-333-99313-2. In thepreface to Shakespeare andRenaissancePolitics, Andrew Hadfield aligns hiswork with New Historicist approaches toShakespeare before recognizing that 'thisseam of literary criticism isclose tobeing exhausted' (p.vii).These twobooks give theopportunity fora reappraisal of current trends inRenaissance historicism.While Hadfield does not in variably followNew Historicist orthodoxy of revealing how Renaissance literature was 'implicated in thehistoryof class oppression, misogyny, racism and other ideologies of exploitation' (p.vii), he reads literary texts from a firmlyhistoricist perspective. The literaryis seen through the lensof thehistorical; in Shakespeare and Politics,a wide range of plays are viewed as allegorical representations of contemporary events.As with the movement as a whole, there ismuch to recommend thisapproach as a corrective to hegemonic universalist and conservative readings of canonical literary texts.Yet, as Hadfield's caveat indicates, the question of how much analytical gold remains in this particular interpretative mine remains provocative. Shakespeare, Spenser and the Matter ofBritain isa collection of essays centringon the theme of national identity between the I540S and I62os. Following on fromthework of scholars likeRichard Helgerson, Hadfield juxtaposes the literarywriting of Shakespeare and Spenser with a broad range of non-literary and non-canonical texts;as he explains, 'we need to examine a wide number of printed books [ ...] ifwe truly wish to reconstruct thevariety of Renaissance public culture' (p. io). Public culture in thiscontext covers a range of political and ideological crises, including the unsuccessful translation of Reformation Protestantism to Ireland, theElizabethan plantation ofMunster, theStuart succession, and theanxieties about thecreation of a British identity. Hadfield's focus on non-literary texts is a particular strength: he includes detailed accounts of Richard Beacon's SolonHis Follie (I594) andWilliam Herbert's Croftus SiveDe Hibernia Liber (159I). 270 Reviews He uses theseworks alongside Spenser's View of the PresentStateof Irelandto argue that therewas an ideological shift in English humanism away from irenicCiceronianism towards amore militant Tacitean stance as theposition in Munster deteriorated through the I58os and gos: Advising theprince carefullyand cautiously throughcoded language and well-chosen examples had togiveway to a more urgent and dispassionate mode of analysis that would reach thosewho had thepower toact decisively' (p. I04).As through out thebook, a livelysense of the contested quality of public policy and conceptions of nation emerges; there isno doubt about thevalue of thiskind of historicism. However, Hadfield's reading of literary texts is less sure-footed here. Although he makes a valiant attempt todisentangle the convoluted national and political resonances of Cymbeline, his reading of the textrestson theclaim thatCymbeline must be a portrait of James. Cymbeline mirrors James chieflybecause both monarchs are very luckyand because theyuse the same image 'that thekingwas like thehead of thekingdom'. The problem with thisreading is that itdoes not go farenough: while the image of king as head is 'spectacularly present in [. . .] theheadless corpse of Cloten', there isno attempt to tally the frightening marriage of thepolitical with the sexual and the psychological in thispivotal scene (p. I65). The essay on 'Spenser and the Stuart Succession' poses similar difficulties.Spenser's fictionalized account of the execution...