Shakespeare’s Political Realism: The English History Plays by Tim Spiekerman (review)

124 TheJcamud for EartyAkydemCuttim^l Studies is to reconstruct thecontext ofa painting's production without theorizing thatcontext in any verysubstantialway. Bedellis interested in questionsofpatronage, in thestatusoflandscape tourism, andintheplaceofscienceandreligion inAmerican culturein the period,but thereis no pointat whichthe author bringsthese issues together to forma compelling argument aboutwhatis at stakein thewaysthatthissocialworldrepresenteditself .Hence,oneofthebook'sgreatstrengths, itsattentionto detail,to dissimilarities and particularities, and to the widevariety ofwaysin whichdifferent artistsemployed geology in theirwork, threatens tobecomesomething ofa weaknessas well. In thisrespect,TheAnatomy ofNature crystallizes dilemmas currently facing thefieldofarthistory and thehumanities as a whole. Weappeartobe at a pointwheresomeofthetheoretical trends ofthepasttwenty yearshavebeguntoloseenergy. Given, for example, theexhaustive exhumation of"thebody" that we have alreadywitnessed,one can hardlyblame Bedell for declining to push themetaphor of"anatomy" anyfurther than shedoes. Butthisbookseemsequallyreluctant toretreat tothe aoldhistoricism," and one resultofthisambivalence is thelack ofan overall narrative - thebookis consistently interesting inits partsbutthereis no larger story beingtold. What"new" wayof thinking aboutthehistory ofculture, weare left towonder, will emergein a post-New Historicist, increasingly interdisciplinary academy? Interestingly, Bedell recalls that readingNovak's Natureand Culture: American Landscape and Painting, 18251875 (1980) left herwith"many questions," questionsthatultimately inspiredherownresearch. ReadersofTheAnatomy of Nature maybe left inmuchthesame stateofmind.Butthereis no doubtthatthereadis worthwhile, and onecan hopethatthe researchinspired willbe equallyvaluable. Tim Spiekerman,Shakespeare'sPolitical Realism:TheEnglish History Plays. Albany: StateUniversity ofNewYorkPress,2001. 208 pp. $16.95. Reviewed byBrianWalsh Shakespeare'sputativeuniversality is a vexedconceptfor Shakespeareansbutan easyand inviting one foreveryone else. Anunfortunate consequenceofShakespeare'sperceived catholic accessibility is thetemptation toapproachtheseriousstudy ofhis playswithout sensitivity tothehistorical andtheatrical context in Reviews 125 which hiswork evolved.Theassumption thatsuchcontext is not relevant, orthatitoccludesrealappreciation oftherichness ofthe texts, isas dangerous as theopposing assumption thatitcanprovidedefinitive answers. The former viewseemscurrently to be ascendantamongnon-specialists, an apparentreactionto the historical movements inliterary studiesinthepast20 yearsorso, and itis thisahistorical approachthatmakesTimSpiekerman's Shakespeare'sPolitical Realismproblematic.The book is well written and clearly expressed, butwithno realexpertise forthe subjectmatter, andlacking a strong rationale for approaching the plays without a commandof the field,Spiekerman deliversa blandand notparticularly usefulstudy. Spiekerman, a political scientist, aimstoexamine Shakespeare's political outlook in selecthistory plays. Thebookproceedsfrom a thin critique,mountedlargelythroughthe voice of Paul Cantor, ofNewHistoricism as "partisan" initsapproachtopolitical aspectsofthehistories. NewHistoricism, likeanycritical methodology, is vulnerable to skeptical questioning,but Spiekerman failstoprovide a compelling assessment,and does notdemonstrate thesupposedleft-leaning partisanship in contemporary literary theory thatconservative criticsclaimis so pervasive.As a result,itis neverapparentwhatSpiekerman's ownmethodis, or,forthatmatter, whathis bookhas to offer thatis neworunique - eitherin termsofpoliticaltheory orliterary criticism. Politics inthehistory playsis a common topicofdiscussion, and Spiekerman nevermanagesto put a unique stampon his approach. Judging bya substantialsectionoftheintroduction and the entirefinal chapter,the book is ostensiblyabout Machiavellian strainsinShakespeare, butthislineofthought is notprominent inthestudiesoftheplaysthemselves, leaving the goaloftheproject unfocused.Alongwiththeintroduction and concluding chapter, thebookhas four chapters devoted toa particularplayorplays -itcoversKingJohn, Richard II,bothparts ofHenryIV, and HenryV-and adds a briefappendixon the absence ofMagnaCartain KingJohn. The chaptersare titled simplyafterthe plays - HenryV, RichardII etc. - and this is indicativeof the style in which the texts are discussed: Spiekerman is largely descriptive rather thananalytic.Hiswritingstyle is lucidand he occasionally exhibits a keencritical eye, butas a readerhe is mostly competent without everbeingparticularly interesting. He signposts themajorconflicts and tensionswithin theplays,butdoes so through excessiveplotsummaries ,and proceedstobluntanalysesthatproduceblandcon- 126 TheJournal for Early Modem Cultural Studies elusions. There is indeed a generic quality to most of Spiekerman's assertions.Concluding hischapter onHenry V,for instance,he writes: "Shakespeareseemstoteachin thehistory playsthatpoliticswillalwaysinvolve ambitiousmenvying for power,and thatwar,whether civilor foreign, willbe therule rather thantheexception" (150).Thebookis populated withlike statements - claimsthatarenotwrong orfar-fetched butalmost incontrovertibly right, and in beingso, over-general and standard . Thereare in factfewassertionsofsubstancewithwhich onecouldreally takeissue inthisbook,and thatinitself demonstratesitslackofcompelling orsignificant arguments. The chapteron KingJohnis probablythe strongest and exhibits someexceptions tothesecritiques.Spiekerman nicely establishesArthur as a potential threatto Englishsovereignty, and inthebook'scanniestsentences, provides a strong reading of the Bastard in relationto Pandulfand John as political thinkers.Such moments oforiginal, thesis-driven thinking are rare,though, and evenwithin thischapter, theweaknessofthe book is apparent.Demonstrating the problemsof ahistorical analysis, Spiekerman's reading of King John ignores, for instance, theimpactoftheProtestant reformation onthecourse of Englishhistoriography in the sixteenthcentury, a key to understandingthe representation of the church's political involvement in the play. This oversight comes back to taint Spiekerman's appendixon theabsence ofMagnaCartain King John.Thisis a verybrief portion ofthebook,butitsproblems are demonstrative. Spiekerman speculatesthatMagnaCartais nota feature oftheplaybecause Shakespearewas moreinterestedin thequestionoflegitimacy thanthelegalquestionsof thisdocument. Thismaywellbe so, butwhatSpiekerman fails to consider,and what...