Between Worlds: A Study of the Plays of John Webster by Dena Goldberg (review)

124 LETTERS IN CANADA 1988 Touchstone, who he says is not, with Lear's Fool, who is, as are Enobarbus and Thersites. But just as he seems to have begun a detailed study of Shakespeare's Sprechers and the plays in which they create the 'double perspective' he describes, Greenwood abruptly shifts to a broader discussion ofthe use ofthe figure byShakespeare's contemporaries (Bosola, Malevole). Such jumping from one play and playwright to another is characteristic of this study. On the one hand, Shakespeare seems to be a standard against which the others are contrasted; but on the other, Greenwood seems forced to acknowledge that what he has termed mannerism is far more apparent in those of Shakespeare's contemporaries who often developed manner at the expense of matter. Nevertheless, as the discussion proceeds the focus becomes 'the mannerist Shakespeare'; Lucio and the other elements of Measure for Measure create 'perplexing signals ... which seem to be saying, "Caution, mannerist playwright at work.'" And in Antony and Cleopatra, one of Greenwood's main sources of illustration, 'we see Shakespeare adapting to his purposes the techniques of the mannerist's art used in the service of satirical drama by other playwrights for the King's Men.' Such casual observations are representative of Greenwood's approach and method. While the reader cannot complain of a lack of examples of elements Greenwood claims are mannerist, he has a habit of presenting his interpretations as ifthey were fact. Unfortunately, his earlier unavoidable tentativeness about historical events is seldom apparent where the plays themselves are concerned, and the result is a series of suggestive but superficial and often distorted connections and conclusions. But maybe one shouldn't worry, since what it all seems to come down to is that 'the implicit meditation on the nature of illusion and illusory awareness, always close to the surface in Renaissance drama, is made more overt in its Jacobean phase.' Perhaps the best way to sum up this reader's impression of the book is to say that, with its 'shifting perspectives and stylish style,' it exemplifies its title. While it is written with considerable flair and attractively presented, it also seems more mannered style than significant content: the Epilogue - a Prologue and five chapters precede it - ends with Prospero's 'our little life is rounded with a sleep'; merely the most apparent instance of a self-referential and detaching mannerism that makes a frustrated reader more conscious of the perceiver than informed about the art being perceived. (LESLIE THOMSON) Dena Goldberg. Between Worlds: A Study of the Plays ofJohn Webster Wilfrid Laurier University Press 1987. vii, 167. $21.95 With what seems to be a glance in the direction of New Historicism - but HUMANITIES 125 without the jargon - Dena Goldberg sets out to show how 'the ambivalence in Webster's plays reflects the ambivalence of his historical position'; and, in particular, that his 'art has strong revolutionary elements intermingled with the pessimism and the sense of horror.' Her concern is with 'Webster's dramatic treatment of the theme of individualism and social order, especially as it is expressed in commentary on the philosophy and practice of law in his time.' Goldberg sees 'antirationalism ' and 'anti-authoritarianism' in Webster, and this leads to an analysis that contrasts 'the focus on individual passion and will in the two great tragedies' (The White Devil and The Duchess of Malfi) with 'the emphasis on self-sacrifice and public order' in The Devil's Law Case and Appius and Virginia. Goldberg straightforwardly acknowledges problems at the outset, but doing so does not lessen the serious restrictions they put on her argument. First is the problem of dating, since Goldberg posits a line of development from The White Devil through to Appius and Virginia; second is the possibility of collaboration in the writing of Appius and Virginia. These unknowables put Goldberg in the unenviable situation of defending a position from which she must inevitably retreat. Thus, while she says the order in which the plays were written is 'not crucial' to her analysis, the order in which they are discussed suggests that it is fundamental. And when at the end Goldberg comes to Appius and...