Shakespeare, Marlowe, Jonson: New Directions in Biography (review)

This interesting and eclectic study is one of a number of recent books marking a dissatisfaction with the limits of New Historicism and proposing a revival of older (formal or historical) methods, now infused with a new sophistication. In this case, as J. R. Mulryne explains in the introduction, "It is possible . . . to discern . . . not only a renewed enthusiasm for, and confidence in, the discipline of biography, but also and equally an awareness of the conflicting commitments to 'fact' and 'fiction' that are inherent in the form itself" (2). This statement outlines a worthwhile goal, and one that is apparent in many of the essays that follow. But Mulryne often carries his polemic further, evidencing an animus against all poststructuralist criticism, which is summarily lumped together under the rubric of "theory" (although one of the most frequent charges against the New Historicist was that it was insufficiently theorized). Thus he trumpets "the exhaustion of theory-led approaches to Early Modern dramatic writing" (1) and applauds the fact that the "shadow of 'theory'" is now "removed or at least suspended" (3).

The "thus-I-refute-Berkeley" attitude sometimes evident in the introduction also makes an appearance in the earlier essays on Shakespeare. Alan Nelson, in an otherwise useful and interesting article about biographical methods in general and some contemporary references to Shakespeare in particular, insists that he is "confronting history as it really happened" (56, his italics). John Carey does a more thorough job of presenting what Mulryne terms "the theoretical justification in escaping from theory" (10) in his history of the "death of author," but his dismissal of Roland Barthes's criticism because of its anticapitalist underpinnings seems unpersuasive, at least to this reader. And even in essays with different approaches, the justifications and generalizations here are often less interesting than the particular analyses. Blair Worden, for example, develops at unnecessary length the idea that Shakespeare's beliefs are "unknowable" (29) before providing an extremely persuasive argument that the play presented by Essex's men in February 1602 was not Shakespeare's Richard II (as has generally been assumed), but a dramatization of a historical narrative by John Hayward.

The later essays on Shakespeare seem less polemical in force, and they are better for it. Richard Dutton counters the standard focus on the London theater through an account of the careers of two actors of the time — who were also his ancestors. Allison Shell's juxtaposition of Robert Southwell and Shakespeare, of religious and secular poetry, is both sophisticated and complex, as are Helen Cooper's speculations on Shakespeare's possible appearances, both textual and actual, in Guy of Warwick. John Velz's investigation into how Shakespeare may have become acquainted with the Geneva Bible is, on the other hand, a bit too speculative for my tastes, but it does make an interesting contribution to current debates about Shakespeare's religion. And Peter Holland provides us with a wonderful piece of metabiography in his discussion of Sidney Lee's article on Shakespeare in the first version of the Dictionary of National Biography.

As one would expect, the essays on Marlowe and Jonson seem both less anxious about their enterprise and less impelled to justify it; they are also more willing — and able — to make connections between their authors' lives and their works. In the only purely biographical piece here, Charles Nicholl sheds new light on documents surrounding Marlowe's death, and provides a fascinating portrait of the shadowy Thomas Drury, who may have played an important part in this and other contemporary intrigues. Lisa Hopkins examines the importance of Scotland for Marlowe, providing us with new insight into his later aesthetic, and James Knowles, focusing on Jonson's walking tour, does something similar for his author. Patrick Cheney and David Riggs offer extremely suggestive perspectives on Marlowe's self-representation: Cheney focuses on Marlowe's identification with Ovid, both in his own works and in those of Shakespeare...