Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:20:18.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Poetics and Politics of Bardicide

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Richard Levin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Death of the Author creates a hermeneutic vacuum that must be filled by some other determinant of meaning. For many of the new Marxist critics of Shakespeare, this author surrogate is a universal law of textual behavior. The text becomes an enemy that adopts various strategies (displacing the real subject, concealing contradictions, offering an imaginary resolution, etc.) to trick us into accepting its hegemonic ideology, but it always manages to expose and defeat itself. This construction of the text serves the political professions of these critics, since it enables them to wage—and win—a war against the forces of evil represented by the textual project and thus to act out in this displaced arena their “commitment” to transform society. Many feminist neo-Freudian critics of Shakespeare use a similar universal law wherein the text's masculine project (or fantasy) is always subverted by a feminine subtext, often embodied in an absent but omnipresent mother.

Type
Special Topic: The Politics of Critical Language
Information
PMLA , Volume 105 , Issue 3 , May 1990 , pp. 491 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Adelman, Janet. ‘“Born of Woman’: Fantasies of Maternal Power in Macbeth.” Cannibals, Witches, and Divorce: Estranging the Renaissance. Ed. Garber, Marjorie. Selected Papers from the English Institute ns 11. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1987. 90–121.Google Scholar
Barker, Francis. The Tremulous Private Body: Essays on Subjection. London: Methuen, 1984.Google Scholar
Barker, Francis, and Hulme, Peter. “Nymphs and Reapers Heavily Vanish: The Discursive Con-texts of The Tempest.” Drakakis 191–205.Google Scholar
Barthes, Roland. “The Death of the Author.” 1968. Image-Music-Text. Trans, and ed. Stephen Heath. London: Fontana, 1977. 142–48.Google Scholar
Belsey, Catherine. Critical Practice. London: Methuen, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsey, Catherine. “Disrupting Sexual Difference: Meaning and Gender in the Comedies.” Drakakis 166–90.Google Scholar
Belsey, Catherine. The Subject of Tragedy: Identity and Difference in Renaissance Drama. London: Methuen, 1985.Google Scholar
Berger, Harry. “Text against Performance in Shakespeare: The Example of Macbeth.” Genre 15 (1982): 49–79.Google Scholar
Brown, Paul. “ ‘This Thing of Darkness I Acknowledge Mine’: The Tempest and the Discourse of Colonialism.” Dollimore and Sinfield 48–71.Google Scholar
Cook, Carol. “‘The Sign and Semblance of Her Honor’: Reading Gender Difference in Much Ado about Nothing.” PMLA 101 (1986): 186–202.Google Scholar
Dollimore, Jonathan. Radical Tragedy: Religion, Ideology and Power in the Drama of Shakespeare and His Contemporaries. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1984.Google Scholar
Dollimore, Jonathan. “Transgression and Surveillance in Measure for Measure.” Dollimore and Sinfield 72–87.Google Scholar
Dollimore, Jonathan, and Sinfield, Alan. “History and Ideology: The Instance of Henry v.” Drakakis 206–27.Google Scholar
Dollimore, Jonathan, eds. Political Shakespeare: New Essays in Cultural Materialism. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1985.Google Scholar
Drakakis, John, ed. Alternative Shakespeares. London: Methuen, 1985.Google Scholar
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1983.Google Scholar
Eagleton, Terry. William Shakespeare. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.Google Scholar
Erickson, Peter. Rev. of Political Shakespeare, ed. Dollimore and Sinfield. Shakespeare Quarterly 37 (1986): 251–55.Google Scholar
Evans, Malcolm. Signifying Nothing: Truth's True Contents in Shakespeare's Text. Athens: U of Georgia P, 1986.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Margaret, Quilligan, Maureen, and Vickers, Nancy, eds. Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1986.Google Scholar
Forum. PMLA 103 (1988): 817–19; 104 (1989): 77–79.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. “What Is an Author?” 1969. Rev. version. Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-structuralist Criticism. Trans, and ed. Josuá Harari. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1979. 141–60.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Stephen, ed. Representing the English Renaissance. Berkeley: U of California P, 1988.Google Scholar
Howard, Jean E. “Crossdressing, the Theatre, and Gender Struggle in Early Modern England.” Shakespeare Quarterly 39 (1988): 418–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Jean E. “The New Historicism in Renaissance Studies.” English Literary Renaissance 16 (1986): 13–43.Google Scholar
Howard, Jean E. “Recent Studies in Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama.” Studies in English Literature 27 (1987): 321–79.Google Scholar
Howard, Jean E. “Renaissance Antitheatricality and the Politics of Gender and Rank in Much Ado about Nothing.” Shakespeare Reproduced: The Text in History and Ideology. Ed. Jean, E. Howard and Marion O'Connor. New York: Methuen, 1987. 163–87.Google Scholar
Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1981.Google Scholar
Kahn, Coppália. “The Absent Mother in King Lear.” Ferguson, Quilligan, and Vickers 33–49.Google Scholar
Kavanagh, James. “Shakespeare in Ideology.” Drakakis 144–65.Google Scholar
Levin, Richard. “Feminist Thematics and Shakespearean Tragedy.” PMLA 103 (1988): 125–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Richard. New Readings vs. Old Plays: Recent Trends in theRe-interpretation of English Renaissance Drama. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1979.Google Scholar
McLuskie, Kathleen. “The Patriarchal Bard: Feminist Criticism and Shakespeare: King Lear and Measure for Measure.” Dollimore and Sinfield 88–108.Google Scholar
Montrose, Louis Adrian. “‘Shaping Fantasies’: Figurations of Gender and Power in Elizabethan Culture.” 1983. Greenblatt 31–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Timothy. “Othello's Foul Generic Thoughts and Methods.” Persons in Groups: Social Behavior as Identity Formation in Medieval and Renaissance Europe. Ed. Trexler, Richard. Binghamton: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1985. 67–77.Google Scholar
Newman, Karen. “Renaissance Family Politics and Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew.” Renaissance Historicism. Ed. Kinney, Arthur and Collins, Dan. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1987. 131–45.Google Scholar
Orgel, Stephen. “Prospero's Wife.” 1984. Greenblatt 217–29.Google Scholar
Pechter, Edward. “The New Historicism and Its Discontents: Politicizing Renaissance Drama.” PMLA 102 (1987): 292–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shakespeare, William. The Riverside Shakespeare. Ed. Evans, G. Blakemore et al. Boston: Houghton, 1979.Google Scholar
Snow, Edward. “Sexual Anxiety and the Male Order of Things in Othello.” English Literary Renaissance 10 (1980): 384–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stallybrass, Peter. “Patriarchal Territories: The Body Enclosed.” Ferguson, Quilligan, and Vickers 123–43.Google Scholar
Sundelson, David. Shakespeare's Restorations of the Father. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1983.Google Scholar