WPC  2 ZB10XXx6X@QX@#XP\  PQXP#ѫXx6X@QX@<6X9`("Courier New (TT)XXP\  PQXP\  `*Times New Roman (TT)XXP\  PQXP\  `*Times New Roman (TT)X2 #|P!#XP\  PQXP#` `  hh#(-pp27  <xxADugas/ عBibliographic Essay, English 556: Shakespeare and Popular Culture, 17001800 For more than three centuries Shakespeare's name has been used to support a myriad of causespolitical, literary, and otherwise. In eighteenthcentury England, Tories and Whigs thought Shakespeare was an ideal propaganda tool to use against one another. Today, literary critics as disparate as Stephen Greenblatt and H)l/ne Cixous can agree that Shakespeare transcends all attempts at containment, even though they could never agree exactly who or what is trying to contain him. In short, no author is so thoroughly canonized, both inside and outside the academic community. With 8.8 articles and books appearing on the Bard every day , Shakespeare is the simply the most talkedabout author in our profession. While much valuable work has been done in recent years on Shakespeare's writing of history and his place in the history of his own time, I am concerned with his place in the history of a later time. As Cultural Materialism and New Historicism were reaching feverpitch in the traditional field (i.e., the Renaissance) of Shakespeare scholarship, several historicallyinclined scholars turned their attention to what was and is the most neglected area of Shakespeare studies: the eighteenth century. This neglect is surprising, considering that the eighteenth century was the century in which Shakespeare became a hot public property and an intrinsic, if not defining, part of English national culture. "Shakespeare," a moderatelyknown, criticallyproblematic playwright to many critics during the 1680s, had become "SHAKESPEARE"complete with scholarly editions and critical commentaryby the 1740s. In 1755 he was the protagonist and supposed author of a twovolume novel entitled Memoirs of the Shakespear'sHead in CoventGarden. By the Ghost of Shakespear. In 1765 he was the subject of a major edition, complete with critical introduction and literary biography, by Samuel Johnson. In 1807 he had been rendered into children's stories by Charles and Mary Lamb. And in 1815 we find Emma Woodhouse and Harriet Smith discussing the validity of appropriating his words in Jane Austen's Emma. What is exciting about this area is that it is probably the last place in Shakespeare studies where one can actually do "old" historicist work. A Shakespearean working in the Renaissance could spend her entire career looking for a primary source no more significant than one of Richard Burbage's laundry lists . . . and never find it. In the eighteenth century, however, there is still vast amount of material yet to be discovered that pertains directly to one of the many important adaptations, editions, and critical works written during the century. Employing a variety of critical theoriesMarxist, Post Structural, New Historicist, and Reader Responsethe critics listed below have all tried to answer the question "Why did 'Shakespeare' become 'SHAKESPEARE' in the eighteenth century?" For the purposes of this essay I have listed them according to date of publication rather than grouping them by critical/theoretical camps. I do this because there is a real sense of conversation between this group of Shakespeare scholarsat least among the major booklength studies dealing with this periodthat is rarely found in other areas of Shakespeare studies, probably because those areas are so full of critics that genuine discourse is impossible. Because all of these studies examine Shakespeare in the eighteenth century, they share a certain dependence upon historicistbased scholarship. Similarly, as the earlier books were strongly influenced by the works of two Marxistinclined historians (Anderson and Newman), all of the literary studies that follow them are compelled to address the political/economic powerstructure issues that their forebears discuss, if only to refute them. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 1983). Anderson, an expert on Southeast Asian history, "delineates the process by which the nation came to be imagined, and once imagined, modeled, adopted, and transformed." While much of Anderson's book deals with Asian history and politics, his argument that nationalism, created in the eighteenth century, is a product of printculture and capitalism acting upon human language, provided the historical jumpingoff point for many of the literary studies that follow in this essay. David Wheeler, "EighteenthCentury Adaptations of Shakespeare and the Example of John Dennis," Shakespeare Quarterly 36 (1985): 43849. A review of all of Shakespeare's adaptations during the Restoration, with a detailed discussion of the antiShakespearean pronouncements of Thomas Rymer. Although Wheeler never states his problem or his point, he does argue persuasively that Rymer was an atypical critic in his contempt for Shakespeare, although his criticism was strong enough that Rowe and Pope felt compelled to address it in the prefaces to their editions of a generation later. Arthur Sherbo, The Birth of Shakespeare Studies: Commentators from Rowe (1709) to BoswellMalone (1821) (East Lansing, MI: Colleague Press, 1986). Sherbo aims to rescue from obscurity the littleknown textual and bibliographical scholars whose worked helped to begin the academic Shakespeare industry. Unlike the overwhelming majority of scholars studying Shakespeare's reception in the eighteenth century who follow him, Sherbo does not argue (or even suggest) that the writings of these early commentators disguises a minefield of covert political idealogy. While this approach is wonderfully direct and refreshing, it is unaware of the major premise upon which it rests: that all of these early critics presupposed the existence of an "UrShakespeare" that could be completely recovered through diligent scholarship. Terence Hawkes, That Shakespearean Rag: Essays on the Critical Process (London: Methuen, 1986). Examines the cultural processing of Shakespeare since the seventeenth century for various political and social purposes. Argues that Shakespeare's plays are "inherently plural structures, always open to manifold interpretations"an argument that comes straight from Frank Kermode's definition of a "classic," although Kermode is not cited in connection to this idea. As most of this study focuses on the twentieth century, only Hawkes' (somewhat untidy) approach is useful for the study of Shakespeare in the eighteenth century. Matthew H. Wikander, "The Spitted Infant: Scenic Emblem and Exclusionist Politics in Restoration Adaptations of Shakespeare," Shakespeare Quarterly 37 (1986): 34058. Examining Crowne's two adaptations of the Henry VI plays, Tate's and Otway's adaptations, and Ravenscroft's Titus Andronicus, Wikander argues that all Restoration playwrights who adapted Shakespeare during 167981 did so for political motives. The argument is not convincing because (1) Wikander discusses only those lines from the adaptations that fit his thesis, and (2) he offers no explanation as to why all of these playwrights would select Shakespeare (instead of, say, Beaumont and Fletcher's A King and No King, or any of several John Ford plays, all of which are much more politicallyloaded) as their political mouthpiece. However, given the great number of these plays that were adapted during the Exclusion Crisis I believe that Wikander is actually on to something worthwhile here. Jean F. Howard and Marion O'Connor (eds.), Shakespeare Reproduced: The Text in History and Idealogy (New York: Methuen, 1987). Twelve essays running the gamut of contemporary critical/theoretical trends as applied to Shakespeare, all of which view Shakespeare's drama "as a site of social struggle conducted through discourse." Most prominent are feminists, British Marxists, and American New Historicists, none of whom are capable of thinking for an instant that Shakespeare was a professional playwrightthat is, a person who wrote plays to entertain audiences in order to make money. Instead, Shakespeare is trotted out as the radically politicized champion/critic of whatever flavorofthemonth "ism" that these critics are espousing/denigrating. Gerald Newman, The Rise of English Nationalism: A Cultural History, 17401830 (New York: St. Martin's, 1987). A major historical study of the genesis of English national identity in the eighteenth century. Newman argues that, reacting against the French (who, he claims, held the English upper classes cultural hostage), English artists and intellectuals attributed to earlier generations of Brits all of the moral and political qualities that these artists/intellectuals found lacking in the eighteenthcentury England. Perhaps Newman's most radical theory is that England, not France, is where modern nationalism was born. Brian Vickers, Returning to Shakespeare (London: Routledge, 1989). Seven essays and reviews published by Vickers over the last two decades, plus a new autobiographical preface and one brand new essay on the use of "I" and "thou" in the sonnets. Perhaps the best piece is Vickers' analysis of Coriolanus, which has some connections to Bate's discussion of that play in his Shakespearean Constitutions. While the scholarship is somewhat dated throughout, at least it is not marred by much theoretical trendiness; Vickers' soundness as a critic (especially in the area of rhetoric) will enable him to stand the test of time. Gary Taylor, Reinventing Shakespeare: A Cultural History from the Restoration to the Present (London: Hogarth, 1989). This is an iconoclastic examination of the development of Shakespeare's reputation that advances the proposition that Shakespeare's dominance in British culture is a function of conservative political and socialinterests. Taylor ambitiously (and too often sketchily) attempts to trace Shakespeare's place in British culture from 1642 to 1986 in 461 pages, arguing that, with the  FRestoration in 1660, Shakespeare was also restored. Since that time, the Bard's status  Fhas risen and fallen with the English monarchy. While this is certainly a major study, xxAit is also strident and shallow, and Taylor has (rightly) come under heavy fire for his xxAcursory treatment of so much of his material and for his shameless pandering to the xxAsame "intellectual" popular audience that people like Camille Paglia appeal tonot xxA Fa bad thing in and of itself, unless the resulting sentences look like this: [In the latexxAseventeenth century] "plays went where the playgoers wanted to go, from sexually   <erect to morally upright," or "We have made love to The Tempest so many times that   <the act of textual intercourse itself has begun to bore us." Taylor's last chapter, in 7which he questions whether Shakespeare really deserves his status as the world's pp2greatest poet, seems calculated to drive the Bardophiles into a frenzy. Jonathan Bate, Shakespearean Constitutions: Politics, Theatre, Criticism, 17301830 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989). Bate tries to "show both how Shakespeare was understood in England in the [late] eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and how that understanding helped constitute the cultural life of the period." Covering much of the same ground as Taylor, Bate examines politics. Specifically, he interprets dozens of political caricatures from the eighteenth century, proving that radicals and conservatives alike successfully  Fappropriated Shakespeare for their own factions. Bate argues (like Hawkes' argument stolen from Kermode) that it is Shakespeare's exceptional capacity to be appropriated that is responsible for his endurance. Apart from the cartoons, Bate devotes a good deal of attention to Hazlitt, whose high philosophical principles and radical politics make him a key figure in Shakespeare criticism. Peter Seary, Lewis Theobald and the Editing of Shakespeare (Oxford: Clarendon, 1990). Seary successfully attempts to rehabilitate Theobald in the eyes of modern scholars by arguing that Theobald was, in fact, far superior to his rival, Alexander Pope, in his skills as an editor of Shakespeare. Theobald knew more about the theatre, had read more Elizabethan plays, had access to more of Shakespeare's quartos, and had better Greek than Pope. Seary proves that Theobald also had a more advanced conception of the editor's task than Pope, and his methods mark the beginning of modern practice. Not only does The Dunciad comes off looking like the shabby scribblings of a wouldbe scholar who knows he's been bested, but Theobald's great influence on Shakespeare's reputation in the eighteenth century is finally recognized. Margreta de Grazia, Shakespeare Verbatim: The Reproduction of Authenticity and the 1790 Apparatus (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1991). De Grazia addresses the 1790 Malone edition, the methodological ancestor of most modern editions of Shakespeare. Questioning the premises upon which Malone's work was based, she sees him as an editor whose "project" lay in transforming Shakespeare into a private, selfexpressive writer as revealed by the sonnets. De Grazia also dwells extensively upon Malone's biography of Shakespeare, which she views as a construct of Malone's society, which was uncomfortable with the idea of Shakespeare the criminal and Shakespeare the adulterer. This focus on the historical/ biographical is a problematic choice, given de Grazia's claim that she is arguing  F"against historical scholarship from a position within it." In the end, her assumptions, historical and otherwise, seem more a product of contemporary academic politics than of an awareness of the eighteenthcentury historical context. Jean I. Marsden (ed.), The Appropriation of Shakespeare: PostRenaissance Reconstructions of the Works and the Myth (London: Harvester, 1991). Twelve more essays, this time by the Shakespeare reception in the Restoration/ eighteenth century crowd, including Michael Dobson, Jean Marsden, Margreta de Grazia, and Howard Felperen. Using a lot of Hans Robert Jauss' Towards an Aesthetic of Reception, Marsden et al. "explore the ways in which our culture, as well as that of generations before us, has 'taken possession' not only of Shakespeare's works but of the author of these works." Quite correctly, Marsden points out that, as so little is known of Shakespeare, he has, since the mideighteenth century,meant all things to all people. While I could do without the comparisons between Shakespeare and Elvis, or Shakespeare's Rosalind and the titlecharacter of Yentl, the earlier essays in this collection offer some useful discussions. Michael Dobson, The Making of the National Poet: Shakespeare, Adaptation and Authorship, 16601769 (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1992). Dobson tries to describe how "Shakespeare, generally disregarded by the time of the Restoration, came to occupy by the 1760s the position's of England's preeminent writer." The author argues that this transformation was the cultural expression of England's own transition from the aristocratic regime of the Stuarts to the more commerciallydriven Hanoverian age. Yet another critic who sees the development of Shakespeare's reputation as a purely political matter, who also ultimately defaults to the conservative position that Shakespeare's rise was inevitable and predestined. Jean I Marsden, The ReImagined Text: Shakespeare, Adaptation, & EighteenthCentury Literary Theory (Lexington, KY: U of Kentucky P, 1995). While this is the most recentlypublished book in this group, it is actually an updated version of Marsden's dissertation, making it more a product of the late 1980s than 1995. Consequently, Marsden fails to incorporate (or only superficially incorporates) the majority of the works cited above. She argues that the "Restoration and eighteenth century produced one of the most subversive acts in literary historythe rewriting and restructuring of Shakespeare's plays." This, of course, assumes (1) that there was an authoritative/empowered source that could be subverted, and (2) that Shakespeare's adapters intended to subvert ittwo premises that seem to me foolish to posit and impossible to prove. Marsden is more comfortable with critics such a Rymer and Johnson than with drama, as the first sentence of the book ("In 1660, theatres opened in London after an eighteen year hiatus") indicates. Her structure is also difficult to understand: in Part 1 she covers from 16601725 (17091725 addressed rather sketchily), while in Part II she ` ` examines 17481790, silently omitting 17261747 despite the fact that some of the most important changes in the development of Shakespeare's reputation occur during these years. Her sections"Politicizing Shakespeare," "Theory and Nationalism," "Domesticating Shakespeare"all touch upon fruitful areas. However, these same areas have all been more thoroughly covered by Taylor, Bate, de Grazia, and Dobson.