Between Nations: Shakespeare, Spenser, Marvell, and the Question of Britain (review)

Reviews 199 . Examining a slightly later time-frame, Jim Bennett reminds us that Christopher Wren began his career as Gresham professor of astronomy (1657-61) and w o n an international reputation in this field, before attaining greater fame by using mathematics in a more earthly sphere. Finally, Mordechai Feingold sets the achievements of mathematicians at Gresham College in the broader context of England's growing 'mathematical community' of the seventeenth century. The professors ofGresham were repeatedly criticised for teaching mathematical subjects which paid too little attention to commercial relevance. There are strong echoes here ofmodern demands that tertiary institutions should be driven entirelyby the needs ofthe marketplace. Writing with his usual authority, Feingold rejects this line, arguing that it was precisely because Gresham College refused to become solely an institution of applied learning that the mathematicians there proved 'instrumental in creating a scientific centre' in London (p. 174). However, it is equally sobering to read Feingold's claim that one reason for the decline of Gresham College by the 1670s was its continuing adherence to old-fashioned frontal lectures, which had become largely obsolete by the 1640s! This collection of essays is very m u c h a curate's egg. As a book, i t lacks genuine coherence and some points about Gresham or his college are repeated in several different essays. Except for Blanchard's essay, this volume does not tell us m u c h that is new about Sir Thomas Gresham himself. For that, w e must wait for Blanchard's work for the New DNB and the forthcoming edition of Gresham's letters, which is being published by the London Record Society. Of the essays presented here, thoseby Blanchard, Robert Goulding, Clucas and Feingold, in particular, stand out. Paul E. J . H a m m e r Department of History University of Adelaide Baker, David J., Between Nations: Shakespeare, Spenser, Marvell, and t Question ofBritain, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1997; cloth; pp. viii, 221; R.R.P. AUS$64.95. [Distributed in Australia by Cambridge University Press] 200 Reviews This book is something to celebrate. It is at once a fine piece of literary criticism and an impressive excursion into contemporary modes of historiography. It is also modest and unpretentious, though without being unduly self-deprecatory. At times it is dense, but it never obfuscates; the use of postmodern terminologies makes some of it hard reading, but the enterprise is endlessly worthwhile. David Baker makes his points very well throughout this most interesting book. The only weakness, or disappointment, worth mentioning is in his limited range of cross-reference. While the works of Shakespeare, Spenser and Marvell selected for analysis receive subtle and wonderfully illuminating treatment, Baker's recourse to those authors' other works is restricted. For example, there was more to be said about Spenser's, especially in relation to The Faerie Queene, and much more about Shakespeare's plays other than Henry V. There is nary a mention of King Lear, for example, but what better site for discussion of Shakespeare's topical incursion into 'British' issues could there be? This is a small complaint, however, and it is best to get it out of the way quickly and quietly. The work as a whole represents a new height in cultural studies, taking literature into wider dimensions of enquiry in a way that should be treated with respect by historians and political theorists alike. The thesis of David Baker's book is well summarised in his pithy introduction. H e is chiefly interested in what 'Britain' is, was, or might have been. His approach is at once ontological, epistemological and taxonomic, but never as wearisome as the words I have just used are when normally strung together. H e gives an account of his experience ofJ . G. A. Pocock's thought, with its shifting and developing perspective over a period of thirty-five years of writing, as the basis for his own enquiry. Lest some readers glean that he is overly Pocock-dependent, let it be said that Baker shows an impressive grasp of a wide range in political thought and historiography, ranging from the theory of John Breuilly and Michel-Rolph...