McAlindon Thomas - Shakespeare Minus Theory

TOM McALINDON

First published 2004 by Ashgate Publishing

Published 2016 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright Tom McAlindon, 2004

The author has asserted his11/24/2016 12:08PM moral right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

McAlindon, T. (Thomas), 1932
Shakespeare minus theory
1. Shakespeare, William, 15641616 Criticism and
interpretation 2. English drama Early modern and
Elizabethan, 15001600 History and criticism
I. Title
822.33

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

McAlindon, T. (Thomas)
Shakespeare minus theory / Tom McAlindon.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references.
1. Shakespeare, William, 15641616 Criticism and interpretation. I. Title.

PR2976.M286 2004
822.33dc22

200365068

ISBN 13: 978-0-7546-3981-7 (hbk)

This collection of essays seeks to defend and demonstrate a method of close reading and historical contextualisation of Shakespeare and his contemporaries that it has been customary of late to describe (most often derisively) as traditional and liberal humanist, and which, although still widely practised, seldom advertises itself as such. There is, however, a strongly oppositional thrust in the collection. Three of the nine essays are critiques of the claims and methods of radical, postmodernist criticism (new historicism and cultural materialism especially); they illustrate my conviction that some leading scholars in the field of Renaissance literature and drama, who deserve credit for shifting attention to new areas of interest, must also be charged with responsibility for a marked decline in standards of analysis, interpretation, and argument. I am not the first to protest against this development, but our numbers are few. Liberal tolerance in relation to oppositional views, respect for innovation, misplaced regard for the political idealism of radical theory and practice, and professional prudence have too often combined to allow parodies of rigorous scholarship to pass as the real thing.

The remaining six essays are interpretive studies, all but one of which involve challenges to radical readings of the plays involved. The chapter on Henry V is much the longest, its length being due to the fact that I am here challenging a traditional as well as radical views of the play. The concluding chapter, on Marlowes Doctor Faustus, is included because it gives some idea of the thoroughness with which major non-Shakespearean texts have been forced to fit the radical template; because it focuses on theatricality, a subject of almost obsessive concern with many new historicists; and because it highlights Marlowes (serendipitously) ironic perspective on a famous scholars fatally selective reading of a key text.

For permission to reprint, I am grateful to the editors of the following journals, in which .

I would especially like to thank Rowland Wymer, Robin Headlam-Wells, James Booth, Angela Leighton, and John Roe, whose comments on one or more of these chapters have proved most helpful.