Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies (review)

Reviews123 dynamics of relations among early modern English women. The social trend during this period toward an upwardly mobile merchant class certainly deserves more than a couple of paragraphs in the last chapter. Of course, the strength of Brown's ultimate argument is also a potential weakness, in that it presents a social history in which women possess more agency than they could possiblyhave obtained given the social,legal, and religious restrictions imposed upon them. In the epilogue, where she situates early modern women's jest literature as the beginning ofwomen's resistance to patriarchy, Brown readily admits that her readings ofjests are probably conditioned by her desire to find the roots of a feminist trend, if not a movement. Although her conclusions may seem overly optimistic, Brown nevertheless succeeds in bringing to our attention the ways in which early modern women of the lower classes resisted cultural norms by insisting that it is far better to be a shrew than a sheep. Margaret Dupuis Western Michigan University James Hirsh. Shakespeare and the History of Soliloquies. Madison, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2003. Pp.470 pages. $75.00 More than once while reading James Hirsh's new book I was reminded ofprevious readings ofAristotle's Poetics. I mean this comparison as the highest possible compliment, for Hirsh, like Aristotle, writes with absolute clarity, splendid logic, and superb analytical vigor. As his argument unfolds step by deliberate step, he helps us see more clearly not only matters we thought we already knew but also much that, until now, had previously seemed only vague or even unsuspected. Like Aristotle, Hirsh is a master of deducing every last implication from a seemingly simple premise. Like Aristotle, he uses inductive as well as deductive logic, showing himselfdeeply familiar with the practical history of his subject even as he charts the necessary philosophical and aesthetic consequences of the facts he uncovers. Like Aristotle, he circles back upon himself again and again, reminding us ofwhere we have been and then just as patiently leading us in some unforeseen direction—a direction which, in retrospect, always makes perfectly logical sense. Like the Poetics this book is obviously the product ofyears ofserious studyand deep refelction, and like the Poetics, it is a book that fundamentally alters one's view of the intellectual landscape it surveys . It is, in short, an essential book on a major topic—a book that any true student of Shakespeare (or indeed of Western drama) will need and want to 124ComparativeDrama have close by. Even those who disagree with some of Hirsh's claims (particularly his most startlingclaim—about the familiar"To be,or not to be"soliloquy in Hamlet) will need to give his arguments the same kind of careful consideration already given them by Hirsh himself. In an academic world awash in muddyjargon, Hirsh writes with complete lucidity ofphrase and thought. His approach, stylistically and philosophically, is literally no-nonsense: not a word in this book fails to perform its intended task of clear communication. Because of this lucid style, Hirsh's book will still seem fresh fifty or a hundred years from now; it will not (like many writings presently considered"au courant") seem quaint or curiously old-fashioned. His is a book that can be recommended as easily to an intelligent undergraduate as to a committed grad student or serious general reader. It is a model of clarity not only in diction but also in scholarship and argumentation. It traces the history ofWestern drama from the Greeks to the present without ever leaving a reader wondering what is meant or why Hirsh thinks as he does. Anyone who disagrees with this bookwill at least know precisely what Hirsh means and how he arrives at his exact conclusions. Typical of Hirsh's style of argument and phrasing are these sentences from his introduction: I have not discovered any evidence that any soliloquy in any European play before the middle of the seventeenth century was designed as an interior monologue or was perceived as one by playgoers. Thus, before the middle of the seventeenth century there were only two kinds of soliloquies , audience address and self-address, both of which represented...