Shakespeare and the Force of Modern Performance by W. B. Worthen (review)

Abstract

MLR, ioi.i, 2006 227 Troilus and Criseyde and "The Knight's Tale"' (p. 11). As the title of Shakespearean Tragedy as Chivalric Romance makes clear, Hays is pursuing a very different line of thinking, and one that goes far beyond a bare acknowledgement of Chaucerian borrowings. His argument is twofold. Firstly, he claims that romance was 'the preponderant genre in fictional literature' from the onset of printing to the end of the sixteenth century. Secondly, that it is therefore a significant and hitherto neglected context forShakespearian tragedy, to the extent that Shakespeare's major tragedies? Hamlet, Lear, Othello, and Macbeth?might be redesignated 'tragic romances'. The firsthalf of this argument seems to me successful. Survey ing publication data, dramatic adaptations, and manuscript evidence, Hays makes a clear case forthe famil? iarity and availability, forthe pervasive influence, of chivalric romance in Renaissance culture. Tabulating his data, he also suggests some striking peaks and troughs in the output of this literature. (However, it is regrettable that it was not possible to reproduce the underlying bibliographie work in all its detail: we are told that so many manuscripts of chivalric romances were published between such-and-such dates, but not what they were.) Working within a critical tradition that (as Hays argues) gener? ally tends to minimize the presence of chivalric elements in Renaissance culture, literary critics may be more surprised by the interest generated by the second of these arguments. It is illuminating to view Macbeth as a chivalric knight with duties to his lady, obliged to prove his manhood to her though brave deeds. There are source studies: Hamlet is compared with the Anglo-Norman romance Bevis ofHampton, and Robert Greene's play of Orlando furioso identified as a source for Othello. King Lear is read as a drama of chivalric dispossession and restoration. Shakespearian tragedy and chivalric romance do seem an unlikely combination, but Hays's novel perspective produces intriguing and often productive results, although few are likely to accept his larger attempts at generic redefinition. In general, Hays sees chivalric romance as focusing attention upon themes ofgover? nance, legitimacy, and succession, and it should be said that Shakespearean Tragedy as Chivalric Romance is the work of a scholar profoundly out of sympathy with modern critical thinking about the way in which Renaissance drama treats these themes: the footnotes of this volume conduct a vigorous polemical campaign against those who would argue in favour of a politically subversive or otherwise unorthodox Shake? speare. In this, Hays's readings are governed by a sense ofthe prevailing 'idealism' of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century culture, which he also considers to be the distinguishing characteristic of chivalric romance. Other literary critics might dispute such an account, and decide to take a reading of the chivalric elements of Renaissance society in a very differentdirection. The secure achievement of this volume lies in the way in which it prompts us to reconsider a certain construction of cultural history that would seek to deny the presence of any such elements whatsoever. University of St Andrews Alex Davis Shakespeare and theForce ofModern Performance. By W. B. Worthen. Cambridge, New York, and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. 2003. vii+ 274 pp. ?42.50; $58 (pbk ?15.95; $21). ISBN 0-521-81030-2 (pbk 0-521-00800-x). W. B. Worthen's book is a welcome addition to the growing body of studies that deal with various aspects of Shakespearian 'performativity' in the contemporary theatre. He argues, to quote from his own introduction, that 'dramatic performance is conditioned not only from within the theatre, requiring an understanding of the con? ventional performance practices of a given culture, but also from without [. . .] in relation to social and cultural factors, other institutions which define the categories and meanings of performance' (pp. 1-2). 228 Reviews The discussion over four chapters ranges widely. In 'Performing History' Worthen begins by asking 'In what sense is production ofa Shakespeare play meaningfully en? gaged with Shakespeare?' (p. 24), i.e. 'can performance enable the text's past meanings to speak?' (p. 38). The second chapter, 'Globe Performativity', to which I shall return, places the Globe reconstruction alongside iiving history museums' (p. 25) such as Colonial...