The Third Citizen: Shakespeare's Theater and the Early Modern House of Commons by Oliver Arnold

Abstract

MLR, 104.1, 2009 163 HenryV, andOthello. Hutson's reading ofthetreatment ofevidenceand itsrelation toplotinTitus Andronicus isnotable, as ishercomparison between Shakespeare and Jonson's plotsthat centre on the abuseofforensic rhetoric and theinvention ofsuspi cion.Refuting thetraditional viewthat Jonson isattempting toimitate Shakespeare, Hutsonarguesthat Every Man inhis Humourand MuchAdo about Nothing maybe 'readas playsindialogue withone another overtheethicsof inventing "probable" butfalsescenarios ofsexualsuspicion concerning women' (p.326).As this example illustrates, this book constitutes a fresh engagement with traditional histories and critical understandings ofRenaissancedrama. Anothersuch momentisthe detailed evaluationofKyd's TheSpanishTragedy. Hutson's book isnot onlyfreshin the critical attention itdirectstowards Kyd,butalso inthetype ofanalysisitoffers. She explores revenge tragedy as agenrethat relates tolegalthought andpractice anduse fully moves forward from examinations of theplay'sspectacles ofviolence.Indeed, Hutson isconsciousofthe novelty ofherapproach, andanearlier chapter confronts the difficulties ofreading English Renaissance dramathrough Foucault. Highlighting that the'English epistemology ofjudgement' (p.6)-and this bookdeliberately high lights thespecific characteristics ofEnglish drama-differs from French processesin the waysin which itinvolves the participation ofthecommunity, Hutsonshifts atten tionfrom theatre's visualimpact inordertothink aboutthe'forensic rhetoric ofplot' (p.68). This theoretical intervention isone of thebook'sgreatest strengths, and is notlimited toFoucault. Engaging morewidely withsignificant historical approaches toRenaissancedrama, Hutsonnotesthereluctance toattendtocharacter. Insisting on theusefulness of investigating how sometextual strategies producetheillusion of thelivesandhistories ofdramatic characters more successfully than others, and claimingthatthesetextual strategies area result of thediffusion ofjudicialrhetoric through theeducationsystem, Hutson offers a historicist evaluationofEnglish Renaissancedramathat attends togenre, narrative techniques, andcharacter. Therefore, while 7heInvention ofSuspicionisconsciously located withincritical interest in therelationships betweenlegaland theatrical cultureinRenaissance England, itoffers a unique examination of thesignificant connections between changinglegalprocessesand developments indramaticform and narrative. This ambitiousstudyis thusan important intervention indebatesaboutpolitics,law, and, of course, theatre. Furthermore, theoriginal interpretation that it offers of a range of Shakespeare's plays means that itwill be of interest to a wide audience. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN EDEL LAMB TheThird Citizen:Shakespeare's Theater and the Early ModernHouse ofCommons. ByOLIVERARNOLD. (Parallax: Re-visionsofCultureandSociety)Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press. 2007. xii+308 pp. ?36.50. ISBN978-o 8018-8504-4. At the opening of this interesting and important book Oliver Arnold issues a chal lenge to theNew Historicist focus on thecourt and the crown.We should, he argues, 164 Reviews paymore attention to thetheatre ofpoliticalrepresentation thatis the House of Commons intheperiod.Then,ina sequenceofchapters on 2HenryVI, Titus An dronicus, and The Rape ofLucrece, and then, supremely, on Julius Caesar,hebuilds a convincing case for a change of emphasis. If he is right, it is not just a question ofrebalancing oursenseofpolitical powerinthe periodbetweencrown, court, and commons;itwill involverevising our understanding of therelationship between theatre andpoliticalpowerinShakespeare. In true historicist fashion, theargument advanceson severalfronts: politicalhis tory, theory, iconography, and,ofcourse,sustained analysis ofdramatictexts. We mightbeginwithArnold's analysisof twosetsof engravings, ofKing James en throned inthe House ofLords,flanked byhis lords; andof the Speakersurrounded on four sides byMPs in St Stephen's Chapel. In the first, we are spectators of royal power at the centre of amixed system ofmonarchy, oligarchy, and democracy; in the second,thereisno obviousplace forthespectator, notjustbecause the proceedings are secret, but because we are therebecause our representatives are there. The most provocative and persuasiveofArnold's arguments arewhere he is investigating what representation means: isParliament an epitomeof thecountry? Is everyone, in some sense, 'present' in theirelectedrepresentatives? In phrasessuch as 'the tragedy of representation' and 'thefiction of thepeople'spresence' Arnolddisplays his scepticism bynotingthe way that'representatives displaceand evenefface the people theyrepresent' (p.44).He isalsowaryof theatrical metaphorsfor political power, parliamentary ormonarchic; notleast becausehisargument isthat the public theatre poses a temporary butradicalalternative topoliticalrepresentation. Thekey idea here is 'presence'; for example, 'Cade practices a politics of total presence' in Act ivof 2HenryVI, becausehe 'neither explicitly styles himself therepresentative of the people nor speaks in thegrammar of representation' (p. 97). The heart of thebook, though, is contained in the sustained and innovative read ings of the Roman plays-Coriolanus, ofcourse,as thesourceof theThird Citizen of the title ('We have power in ourselves to do it,but it is a power we have no power todo'). Thereisalso,more surprisingly, Titus Andronicus and TheRape of Lucreceaswell as Julius Caesar. For Titus, Arnold deploys Bourdieu's ideaof 'the alchemy of representation' to illuminate thefirst scene,aswell as finding a fresh way of thinking about thedifferent kindsof (imposed)muteness inLavinia and thepeople.Thechapter on Julius Caesar...