Shakespeare Reproduced: The Text in History and Ideology, and: Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England, and: Representing the English Renaissance (review)

238 the minnesota review the Uterary objea, which ends up being presented as an instrument of poUtical control, pure and simple. Thae is no grasp of the concept of mediation and an alarming tendency to draw parallels between diffaent varieties of discourse (artistic, poUtical, reUgjous) as if they were all one in the same thing. (AU forms of discourse are poUtical in one way or another, but not in the manner suggested by MaravaU.) In concluding I would Uke to stress that, despite what I have just said, thae is much to be gained from MaravaU's work, replete as it is with truly remarkable insights and valuable data. Moreover, I reaUy would not disagree with his general assessment of the social struggles going on in this period, and I would concur that much of its art and Uterature plays a significant role in those struggles. What I do rejett is the theoretical model he has assembled to explain it all. In sum, MaravaU has dug out an enormous quantity of material which wUl be of undeniable utiUty for anyone concerned with the cultural history of this period; it simply needs to be worked on with different tools. JAMES IFFLAND Shakespeare Reproduced: The Text in History and Ideology edited by Jean E. Howard and Marion F. O'Connor. New York and London: Mahuen, 1987. $49.95 (cloth); $15.95 (papa). Shakespearean Negotiations: The Circulation of Social Energy in Renaissance England by Stephen Greenblatt. Bakeley and Los Angeles: University of CaUfornia Press, 1988. pp. 205, $20.00 (cloth). Representing the English Renaissance edited by Stephen Greenblatt. Bakeley and Los Angeles: University of CaUfornia Press, 1988. pp. 372, $37.50 (cloth); $12.95 (paper). The wealth of "position papas" presented at the last MLA conference in San Frandsco and the publication of several metacritical pieces in established journals document a growing demand for methodological sophistication and ideological awareness in the work done by feminists, new historidsts, cultural materiaUsts/marxists in the field of Renaissance studies.' Shakespeare Reproduced, a volume comprised of "work first prepared for a seminar on Shakespeare and ideology which took place at the International Shakespeare Congress held in West Beriin in April, 1986" 0)> tries very hard to mea this demand. Perhaps there is not much conceptuaUy new in Shakespeare Reproduced, but its energetic and astute treatment of Renaissance culture and texts is productive, and its self-reflexiveness succeeds admirably in foregrounding what is at stake poUticaUy in the interpretive process. Nevertheless, this heightened awareness occasionally manifests itself both in an anxious attempt to be "correct" in every respea, as weU as in a posture of moral high-mindedness. It is clearly no longer acceptable to "just do a reading" of a text and leave it to the reader to deduce the interpretive method and ideological impUcations of the argument. One is expetted to gloss one's reading with a self-analysis. Unfortunately, the desire for correttness (to avoid naive mimeticism, sexism, radsm, conservatism, etc.) often leads to predictable readings: the typical essay in Shakespeare Reproduced wUl find in play a tendency both to use and to deconstrutt a single sodai discourse. Most of the essays are ludd and coherent because they are content with relatively smaU goals within this interpretative framework. But others, Uke Jonathan Goldberg's "Speculations: Macbeth and Source," cannot maintain a clear focus as its desire to cover aU angles proves too great a stress on the expository frame. Goldberg opens with an elaborate critique of Stephen Greenblatt's interpretative method, then attempts to generate, via Derrida, a theory of history, and concludes with a feminist gesture that locates Reviews 239 the play's positive value in the witches (260). In baween the theoraical discourses are sandwiched discussions of Holinshed, Jonson's Masque of Queens, and a hypothaical performance of Macbeth at the court of James I. To be sure, all the methodological and ideological bases are covered, but at a price. The essay is peppered with arresting insights (some of which are left undeveloped) but finally fails to persuade or even hang togaher because it does not have firm control of its own impulses. Walter Cohen's "Political Critidsm of Shakespeare," however, cogently surveys...