Englishness Identified: Manners and Character 1650–1850. by Paul Langford (review)

Reviews 147 him. Arguing that"[the]changelingand the issues ofparental loss he evokes"unsettletheplay'scomedicresolution, thissectionis somewhatless clearand convincing thanthesubsequent analysisoftheorphanedboysinRichard III,a playthatexplores not onlythe threatsposed by parentalsubstitutesas "protectors "but also thewholeidea ofhistory as a dramaofsubstitutions . Richard'spaxodiclanguage workssimilarly, the whole play thus demonstrating "thenecessity - and the difficulty - of readingbothsubstitutewordsand substituteguardiansaccurately " (187). Drawinga finalparallelbetween ElizabethBishop's"OneArt" (with its compelling focus on "the art of losing") and the Shakespeare textsshe has studied,Dubrowneatlyconcludes thatthey"bothassertmastery overdeprivation and absence and replicatethemwhen some ofthatmasteryslides away" (201). Probing, nuanced,and extraordinarily well-researched, thisbook is important fora numberofreasons, notleast ofwhichis its attentionboth to new historicist methodology and to the tooneglectedinterplay betweengenericform and culturalmaterial. And especiallyin this last respect,one can see how not only scholarsbutalso teachersofShakespearewillbenefit from this workforyearstocome. Paul Langford. EnglishnessIdentified: Mannersand Character 1650-1850. Oxford UP,2000. 389 pp. $39.95. ReviewedbyAnna Neill In thepast decade, plentyhas been said about nationalism and nationalidentity inBritain between thelate-seventeenth and themid-nineteenth centuries. Paul Langford's newbookdeliberatelysidestepsthe stickiestaspects ofthisdebate in several ways. For one thing,his extraordinarily richcatalogue ofresponses to,and descriptions of,Englishcharacterincludesthe observations offoreigners as wellas thoseoftheEnglishthemselves . Bnglishness Identified therefore examinesthecosmopolitan energy ofeighteenth-century Europeantravelers morethan it studiesmanifestations ofnationalfeeling: since he is exploringrepresentations ofEnglishnessfrom the outsideas well as theinside,Langford can attribute contemporary interestin national characterto an Enlightenment preoccupationwiththe mannersofdifferent peoplesin different places, ratherthan to 148 TheJournal forEarlyModern Cultural Studies theriseofnationalistsentiment.Foranotherthing, byconcentratingon Englishness ratherthan Britishness,he is able to evade manyquestions about the significance of war,religion and commerce, orethnicidentity and literary culturein therise ofBritishnationalism - questionsrecently addressedby Linda Colley, KatieTrumpener, Howard Weinbrot, andothers.Langford is less interestedin the culturaland institutional phenomena thatmade itpossibleforBritishsubjectstoimaginethemselves belongingto eitherstate-fostered or oppositionalforms of"nation "than in documenting the shared characteristics and the collective sensibility thatrecord a concrete senseofnationalcommunity .Although thetwocenturiesthathe examinesembrace nationalhappeningsas momentous as unionwithScotlandand theexpansionand consolidation oftheBritish empire, Langford 's "English"are unitedbya collectionofhabits,inclinationsand idiosyncrasies ratherthanbytheirrolesas subjectsoragentsof nationalinstitutions orbearersofnationalistconsciousness. Havingstaked out this somewhatanti-theoretical position, Langford is nonethelessthenquite playfulwithit. His argumentis organizedneither bychronology norbyhistorical theme, butinsteadbythepurportedly mostconspicuoustraitsofEnglishness - energy, candor,decency,taciturnity, reserve, and eccentricity - and each chapterdocumentswithextraordinary detailthemanyand variedcontexts and voicesthathaveidentified Englishcharacteraccording tothesebehavioral coordinates.Yet at the same timeas thesecharacteristics seemfixedand often innate,Langford stillmanages to set themin stronghistorical relief."Englishness," he shows,developsalongside,and adapts or reacts to, the development oftrade,the expansionofnews media,thenewculture ofclubsandcoffeehouses, anti-Walpolism, Wilkiteeighteenth-century radicalism,a newly-conceived relationshipbetweenintimateand public life,and so on. English mannersare spokenofbycontemporaries as thoughtheywere inheritedtraits,yet betweenthe seventeenthand nineteenth centuries,Langford emphasizes,the English"evolved" in contemporary depictions from a nationofbarbariansintotheworld's mostadvanced industrialand commercial people. Byfocusing on therepresentations ofEnglishcharacteroffered bydomestic and foreign commentators who are alertto England's growing prominence intheglobalarena,Langford presentsEnglishidentity from theperspective ofboththeeighteenth-century student ofmannersand thetwenty-first century historianofBritishimperialism . Englishnessis at oncea loose category ofanalysis,a "transitory expressionof[a]territorial unit"(8)thatmakesitpos- Reviews 149 sible to see howa set ofenvironmental factorsgenerally influence behavior, and at thesame timesomething profoundly ofits time - an identity shaped, that is to say, by Britain'sgrowing powerand wealth. The effect ofthiscombination ofanalyticalends,however, is sometimestogivethegrammar ofcharacteras muchanalytical strength as thediachronicframework in whichitoperates. Albeitironically , Langford does at timesappeartomimictheeighteenth -century fascination withnationaltype,seemingon occasion to entertainthe argumentsraised by some ofhis sources thatcharacterhas the powerto shape majornationalinstitutions like the press or the legal system. So, forinstance,the rightto trialbyjury, the accessibilityof the public to courtrooms ,and thefreedom ofthepress could be at least partially attributedto the Englishpropensity to "openness,"while Englishpoliticalfortunes and imperialsuccesses are to some extentattributable to"plainness/ Atsuch moments, thepreoccupationsofeighteenth -century socialtheory seemtobe revivified. Questionsaboutthesocial rupturescaused byradicalcommercial and industrialgrowth, or "theturmoilassociated withan age ofrevolution" (7),areobscuredbytheemphasisinthestudy ofmannerson social continuity and the influenceof gradual changesin materialculture. YetLangford's apparentmethodological loyalty tohisEnlightenmentsourcesis deceptive. In fact,he pays quite a lotofattentionto contemporary depictionsofconflicting aspects ofthe Englishcharacterthathave onlyemergedin responseto imperial and industrialgrowth.The industrialstrength ofthe nation ,he pointsout,was on theone hand attributed to "a high level of self-discipline and personal commitment" among the English,but on the otherhand such qualities directly contradictedwhatcontemporaries regularly perceived as theiridleness. Because idlenessitselfcould be interpreted as a manifestation ofliberty amongtheworking classes, itwas also, paradoxically, linkedtoEnglishgreatness. Similarly paradoxical,thenational beliefin the sanctityofthe home inspiredpatrioticsentiment but also limitedsuch sentimentto a narrowself-interest and conflicted withrepresentations ofEnglishsincerity inpubliclife. Oragain,theadmirably spontaneousbenevolence...