MLR, I02.1, 2007 2I I audience are never given 'thegodlike ability to readminds'. Instead, soliloquies are only part of the data that theymust process in order to fathom a play's characters. These issues have an obvious bearing on Shakespeare's plays and, in particular, on Hamlet, the soliloquy's most famous exponent. As will be clear, I have considerable sympathy forHirsh's argument. However, thebook's impact isundermined by its sheer length-470 pages in total-and by the repetitive nature of its argument. Given that its central thesis is relatively simple, Shakespeare and theHistory of Soliloquies would have been farmore effective if it had been written in a punchier and more elegant fashion. Hirsh's determination to advance his argument makes him over-dogmatic, and his indignation thatcritics have failed to engage with his original article is clear. In addition, I suspect that the sta tus of the soliloquy in the earlymodern theatremay have been more fluid than he cares to admit. Self-addressed speech engages with other speech genres, such as the complaint, the death-speech, or the incantation.Moreover, soliloquies in some plays treadwater between the firstand second ofHirsh's categories; a character inEdward Sharpham's The Fleer (c. i6o6), for instance, pauses mid-soliloquy to ask 'doth any man heere loue a whore? I,who? I, I, I, 'tis I'. Although useful, the 'self-address' model of the soliloquy may finallybe too blunt an instrument to account for the full complexity of earlymodern dramatic speech. KEELE UNIVERSITY Lucy MUNRO Poetry and the Creation ofaWhig Literary Culture I68I-I7I4. By ABIGAILWILLIAMS. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005. iv+303 pp. /53. ISBN 978-o-i9 925520-7. Abigail Williams has several aims in this book: to recover a body ofWhig poetry written between the period of the Exclusion Crisis and the death ofQueen Anne, popular in its time but now supposedly 'written out' of literaryhistory; to recon struct its literaryand political values; and toexplain how theTory writers of the early eighteenth century succeeded inblinding later readers to itsexistence. There is much that iscontentious about her argument, and she isonly partly successful inachieving her aims. Overall thebook is more valuable for theempirical evidence itpresents than for itsunderlying thesis. She takes as her starting-point Addison's Account of theGreatest English Poets, in which after lauding the canonical names Addison reaches Charles Montagu, a poet of little interestnow. A key text inher story is Montagu's Epistle to theEarl ofDorset, a leadingWilliamite and patron and himself aminor poet. She laments that poets who supported the exclusion of theDuke ofYork from the throne, William III and his wars, Marlborough as thehero ofBlenheim, and theHanoverian succession have now become marginal, evidenced by the lack ofmodern collected editions. Instead, Tory and Jacobite poets constitute the canon. In the introduction and firstchapter she blames this state of affairs on theway thatmodern readers have fallen for the literaryjudgements of Swift, Gay, and Pope, judgements which she sees as politically motivated, class-based, and anachronistic. Indeed, a key part of her argument is that literaryjudgements are essentially historical, and that it is reductive to talkof 'good' and 'bad' writing. The best chapters in thebook are 3, 4, and 6, on 'Legitimacy and the Warrior King I688-1702', 'PoeticWarfare I702-I7I4', and 'Patronage and the Public Writer in Whig Literary Culture'. There ismuch of interesthere, forexample the readings of Behn's Pindaric Poem toBurnet andWilliam Harrison's Woodstock Park, the discus sion ofmilitarism inpanegyrics to William andMarlborough, and the account of the 2I2 Reviews ways inwhich Whig writing was sustained by patronage. Williams could have taken these analyses furtherby establishing with the help of ESTC the actual figures for Whig and Tory publications. However, her position causes problems, as do some of thedetails of her argument. She will persuade few readers thatPordage or Blackmore are asmuch worth reading asDryden or Pope. It isunconvincing to see neglect of cer tainpoets as evidence of anti-Whig bias; no one could argue thatAddison's prose has been neglected, and many of the Whig poems she cites have appeared in the last forty years inPoems onAffairs ofState. It iseasy toproduce examples of neglected Tory or Jacobite poetry: Pope's...
Read full abstract