Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-8gtf8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T16:22:28.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The New Historicism and Its Discontents: Politicizing Renaissance Drama

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Edward Pechter
Edward Pechter*
Affiliation:
Concordia University, Montréal, Québec
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay, while referring particularly to commentary about Renaissance drama, examines the new historicism more generally as one of the most powerful and interesting forms of criticism on the contemporary scene. How do new-historicist critics characterize the text? What do they mean by history? How do they understand the relation between the two? And finally, are there other, arguably more useful kinds of answers available to us than the ones the new historicists typically provide?

Type
Research Article
Information
PMLA , Volume 102 , Issue 3 , May 1987 , pp. 292 - 303
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 1987

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

Althusser, Louis. For Marx. Trans. Brewster, Ben. New York: Random, 1969.Google Scholar
Althusser, Louis. “A Letter on Art in Reply to André Daspre.” Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Trans. Brewster, Ben. New York: Monthly Review, 1971. 221–27.Google Scholar
Barker, Francis, and Hulme, Peter. “Nymphs and Reapers Heavily Vanish: The Discursive Con-texts of The Tempest.” Drakakis 191–205.Google Scholar
Belsey, Catherine. Critical Practice. London: Methuen, 1980.Google Scholar
Belsey, Catherine. “Disrupting Sexual Difference: Meaning and Gender in the Comedies.” Drakakis 166–90.Google Scholar
Booth, Wayne C. “Reply to Richard Berrong.” Critical Inquiry 11 (1984): 697–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Paul. “‘This thing of darkness I acknowledge mine’: The Tempest and the Discourse of Colonialism.” Dollimore and Sinfield, Political Shakespeare 48–71.Google Scholar
Cook, Ann Jennalie. The Privileged Playgoers of Shakespeare's London: 1576–1642. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1981.Google Scholar
Dollimore, Jonathan. “Introduction: Shakespeare, Cultural Materialism and the New Historicism.” Dollimore and Sinfield, Political Shakespeare 2–17.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, and Sinfield, Alan. “History and Ideology: The Instance of Henry V.” Drakakis 206–27.Google Scholar
Dollimore, Jonathan, and Sinfield, Alan., eds. Political Shakespeare: New Essays in Cultural Materialism. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1985.Google Scholar
Drakakis, John, ed. Alternative Shakespeares. London: Methuen, 1985.Google Scholar
Dryden, John. “An Essay of Dramatic Poesy.” Essays of John Dryden. Ed. Ker, Walter P. 2 vols. New York: Russell, 1961. 1: 21–108.Google Scholar
Eagleton, Terry. Criticism and Ideology: A Study in Marxist Literary Theory. London: Verso, 1978.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: Vol. I: An Introduction. Trans. Hurley, Robert. New York: Random, 1978.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. “What Is an Author?” Textual Strategies: Perspectives in Post-Structuralist Criticism. Ed. Harari, Josué V. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1979. 141–60.Google Scholar
Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. London: Hutchinson, 1975.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Jonathan. James I and the Politics of Literature: Jonson, Shakespeare, Donne, and Their Contemporaries. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1983.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Jonathan. “The Politics of Renaissance Literature: A Review Essay.” ELH 49 (1982): 514–42.10.2307/2872994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graff, Gerald. “The Pseudo-Politics of Literature.” Critical Inquiry 9 (1983): 597–610.Google Scholar
Graff, Gerald. “Teaching Power.” Rev. of Robert Scholes's Textual Power: Literary Theory and the Teaching of English. Novel 19 (1986): 179–82.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Stephen, ed. The Forms of Power and the Power of Forms in the Renaissance. Spec. issue of Genre 15 (1982): 1–242. Norman: U of Oklahoma P, 1982.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Stephen, ed. Introduction. Greenblatt, Forms of Power 3–6.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Stephen, ed. “Invisible Bullets: Renaissance Authority and Its Subversion.” Glyph 8 (1981): 40–61. Rpt. and exp. as “Invisible Bullets: Renaissance Authority and Its Subversion, Henry IV and Henry V.” Dollimore and Sinfield, Political Shakespeare 18–47.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Stephen, ed. “King Lear and Harsnett's ‘Devil Fiction.‘” Greenblatt, Forms of Power 239–42.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Stephen, ed. Renaissance Self-Fashioning: From More to Shakespeare. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Stephen, ed. “Shakespeare and the Exorcists.” After Strange Texts: The Role of Theory in the Study of Literature. Ed. Jay, Gregory S. and Miller, David L. Birmingham: U of Alabama P, 1985. 101–23.Google Scholar
Hexter, J. H. Doing History. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1971.Google Scholar
Howard, Jean E. Rev. of Jonathan Goldberg's James I. Shakespeare Quarterly 35 (1984): 234–37.Google Scholar
Jameson, Fredric. The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1981.Google Scholar
Lentricchia, Frank. Criticism and Social Change. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983.Google Scholar
Levin, Richard. New Readings vs. Old Plays. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1979.Google Scholar
Macherey, Pierre. A Theory of Literary Production. Trans. Wall, Geoffrey. London: Routledge, 1978.Google Scholar
Montrose, Louis Adrian. “‘Shaping Fantasies’: Figurations of Gender and Power in Elizabethan Culture.” Representations 2 (1983): 61–94.Google Scholar
Morgann, Maurice. Morgann's Essay on the Dramatic Character of Sir John Falstaff. Ed. Gill, William Arthur. 1912. Freeport: Books for Libraries, 1970.Google Scholar
Quilligan, Maureen. Milton's Spenser: The Politics of Reading. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1983.Google Scholar
Said, Edward W. The World, the Text, and the Critic. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1983.Google Scholar
Simpson, David. “Criticism, Politics, and Style in Wordsworth's Poetry.” Critical Inquiry 11 (1984): 52–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinfield, Alan. “Give an Account of Shakespeare and Education, Showing Why You Think They Are Effective and What You Have Appreciated about Them. Support Your Comments with Precise References.” Dollimore and Sinfield, Political Shakespeare 134–57.Google Scholar
Sinfield, Alan. Literature in Protestant England, 1560–1660. London: Croom, 1983.Google Scholar
Tennenhouse, Leonard. “Strategies of State and Political Plays: A Midsummer Night's Dream, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VIII.” Dollimore and Sinfield, Political Shakespeare 109–28.Google Scholar
Tillyard, E. M. W. Shakespeare's History Plays. 1944. New York: Collier, 1962.Google Scholar
Wilson, John Dover. The Fortunes of Falstaff. 1943. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1964.Google Scholar