MLR, ïïï.ï, ï
ïï
ï ïïï gave up. Vine has done the intellectual history of the early modern world a great service. Nï„ï·ïŁïĄïłïŽïŹï„ Uïźï©ï¶ï„ïČïłï©ïŽïč Jï„ïźïźï©ïŠï„ïČ Rï©ïŁïšïĄïČï€ïł Shakespeare Relocated: Studies in Historical Psychology. By Hï”ï§ïš MïĄïŁïČïĄï„ Rï©ïŁïš- ïïŻïźï€. New York: Peter Lang. ï
ïïï. viii+ïïï pp. ÂŁïï. ISBN ïïïâïâïïïïâ ïïïïâï
. Historical psychology, the key concept in the subtitle of this engagingly written and learned book, has deïŹned Hugh Macrae Richmondâs scholarship for a long time. Although he borrows the term from Zevedei Barbuâs Problems of Historical Psychology (New York: Grove Press, ïïïï), Macrae Richmond ïŹrst used it in î»e School of Love: î»e Evolution of the Stuart Love Lyric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, ïïïï). Over time, he has employed it in most of his other monographs on Shakespeare, on comparative Renaissance literature, and on Shakespeareâs political drama and his comedy of sex. îąis book collects his published essays and unpublished conference papers, in which the author formulates his wish âto consolidate these multiple presentations into a new more or less sequential pattern of argumentâ (p. ï). Historical psychology, which he calls an âintellectual disciplineâ (p. ïï), is a syncretic approach to literary study rather than a formalized discipline. He uses it to explain attitudes to religion, politics, and sexuality in Reformation England and to examine how the interaction of these cultural ïŹelds shapes the psychology of the literary subject. îąis concept also traces the progression of modern attitudes towards politics, morality, and sexuality. îąe intellectual armature that supports the readings produced by historical psychology is writing by cultural theorists from the ïŹrst half of the twentieth century, such as the Swiss cultural theorist Denis de Rougemont, whose writing about âthe genetically advantageous practice of exogamy [. . .] intrinsic to the European tradition of romantic loveâ (p. ïï) helped Macrae Richmond relocate Shakespeareâs writing about love into the realm of the global. Both the framing concept of historical psychology and the example of the cultural critic, which the author uses to extend the work of this concept in literary analysis, point to a crucial aspect of this bookâits opposition to New Historicism. Macrae Richmondâs version of historicism âdiverges markedlyâ (p. ï) from the New Historicism promoted by Stephen Greenblatt, Macrae Richmondâs erstwhile colleague at Berkeley. îąe bookâs aim is to âcontribute perhaps more accurately and yet less narrowlyâ than both the New Historicism and other âanachronistic-ismsâ to an examination of the historical conditions and traditions that shaped literature and drama in the early modern period (p. ï). It takes up feminism, studies of globalism in literature, gender and sexuality studies, and studies of ethnicity. It shows how comparative readings of cultural criticism and Renaissance texts from French, Italian, and Spanish literature provide a historically more accurate connection with English texts by pointing to âsocial and psychological circumstancesâ (p. ïïï) that shaped Shakespeareâs texts. Connections are based on generic, thematic, and formal ïïï Reviews aïŹliations between literary texts. Queer early modern critics, for instance, can ïŹnd much that is stimulating in the chapter on gay performances of Shakespeare, including comparative readings of Shakespeare, Giovanni Battista Girald Cinthio, and Lope de Vega; but they can also read how theory and the authorâs own practice as a director of plays work together. îąe author also dismisses New Criticismâs neglect of a historicist method as a âHumanist Fallacyâ (p. vii). îąe chapters vary in length: some are three pages long, another is a ï
ï-page reprint of an article from the PMLA. îąe book is refreshing because it does not belong to a speciïŹc critical trend or orientation. It comes out at a time when early modern studies and the historicisms it favours have moved on, and one wonders whether these capacious, provocative, clear, and inspiring thought-experiments will ïŹnd their readers. îąe book deserves them. Its strength oîen lies in details of analysis rather than in a bigger conceptual picture, and in the breadth of topics that it covers, such as Richard III and his sadistic rhetoric, John Donne and young Shakespeare, Andrew Marvellâs poem âîąe Galleryâ, the psychology of FalstaïŹ, the Mediterranean in Shakespeare, seduction in Milton, Ronsard, Lope de Vega, and Shakespeare. Relocating Shakespeare means also refocusing oneâs own critical lens to relocate an ideological perspective of reading...