《英语文学导论 An Introduction to English Literature》课程教学资源（参考资料）Shakespeare Studies Today Romanticism Lost

RETURN OF THE AESTHETIC? 31 The inertia is highlighted in Cohen's claim that by"'crossing'form and history,"historical formalism "refines and reforms [Louis Adrian] Montrose'shistoricity of texts and textuality of histories:the historic- ity of forms,and the forms of history"(p.14).In troping Montrose's chiasmus with one of his own,Cohen knows he is traveling a road paved with rhetorically similar intentions (p.4;p.22,note 11;p.26, note 48).In 1982,prior to Montrose's earliest use of the figure (he would go on to massage it into two distinct versions distributed among three separate publications),Stephen Greenblatt produced The Forms of Power and the Power of Forms in the Renaissance.Since this publication effectively established"New Historicism"as the phrase used to identify the endeavor,chiasmus may be said to inhere in the very origin of the line Cohen wishes to extend.Parker carries on this line in her final words about Shakespeare in Literary Fat Ladies,referring to "the order of discourse and the discourse of order"in the plays(p.96).Chiasmus, moreover,is not limited to Shakespeare studies.In an expansive echo of Felski's"as much about the aesthetic dimension of the social world as it is about the social dimension of a work of art,"Michael Clark tells us that Roland Barthes's concept of Text does not situate the word in the world,as historicists would attempt to do,nor the world in the word,as formalists might argue:it confounds those terms entirely by treating the word as world,by recognizing in the word the weighty materiality of its worldly existence as part of our lived experience.(p.7) The presence of chiasmus in so much current work is probably explained by the aura of authority derived from ideas dating back to antiquity,Concors discordia and the Aristotelian mean,which seek not to split the difference between opposing values but to include them within a comprehensively balanced response(Pechter,Dryden,pp.62-87).The classical origins are mediated by neoclassicism,as evident in the last of the two "Thames couplets"in Sir John Denham's Coopers Hill(1668), "Though deep,yet clear,though gentle,yet not dull,/Strong without rage,without ore-flowing full,"which were,according to Brendan O Hehir,"imitated,parodied,contemplated and admired to infinity dur- ing the following century"(p.36).Charged with the powerful ideas and feelings of this rich tradition,chiasmus may be said to be the defining trope of the reconciliation agenda.Even those critics who do not actu- ally use the figure implicitly appropriate its values as the structure by which their own claims to harmonize divergent interests are sustained

Return of the Aesthetic? 31 The inertia is highlighted in Cohen’s claim that by “ ‘crossing’ form and history,” historical formalism “refines and reforms [Louis Adrian] Montrose’s ‘historicity of texts and textuality of histories’: the historic￾ity of forms, and the forms of history” (p. 14). In troping Montrose’s chiasmus with one of his own, Cohen knows he is traveling a road paved with rhetorically similar intentions (p. 4; p. 22, note 11; p. 26, note 48). In 1982, prior to Montrose’s earliest use of the figure (he would go on to massage it into two distinct versions distributed among three separate publications), Stephen Greenblatt produced The Forms of Power and the Power of Forms in the Renaissance. Since this publication effectively established “New Historicism” as the phrase used to identify the endeavor, chiasmus may be said to inhere in the very origin of the line Cohen wishes to extend. Parker carries on this line in her final words about Shakespeare in Literary Fat Ladies, referring to “the order of discourse and the discourse of order” in the plays (p. 96). Chiasmus, moreover, is not limited to Shakespeare studies. In an expansive echo of Felski’s “as much about the aesthetic dimension of the social world as it is about the social dimension of a work of art,” Michael Clark tells us that Roland Barthes’s concept of Text does not situate the word in the world, as historicists would attempt to do, nor the world in the word, as formalists might argue: it confounds those terms entirely by treating the word as world, by recognizing in the word the weighty materiality of its worldly existence as part of our lived experience. (p. 7) The presence of chiasmus in so much current work is probably explained by the aura of authority derived from ideas dating back to antiquity, Concors discordia and the Aristotelian mean, which seek not to split the difference between opposing values but to include them within a comprehensively balanced response (Pechter, Dryden, pp. 62–87). The classical origins are mediated by neoclassicism, as evident in the last of the two “Thames couplets” in Sir John Denham’s Coopers Hill (1668), “Though deep, yet clear, though gentle, yet not dull, / Strong without rage, without ore-flowing full,” which were, according to Brendan O Hehir, “imitated, parodied, contemplated and admired to infinity dur￾ing the following century” (p. 36). Charged with the powerful ideas and feelings of this rich tradition, chiasmus may be said to be the defining trope of the reconciliation agenda. Even those critics who do not actu￾ally use the figure implicitly appropriate its values as the structure by which their own claims to harmonize divergent interests are sustained

32 Shakespeare Studies Today Or,rather,left unsustained;for as Cohen's finely detailed analysis demonstrates,even as the language works to convey the impression of reconciliation,the actuality of reconciliation continues to elude our grasp.Despite the strong arguments with which it has been represented by so many critics over so long a period of time,the endorsements it has received from the most influential of scholars (over-the-top blurb puffs on the back cover of Rasmussen's book from Stanley Fish,David Bevington,and Arthur Kinney),and its immediate appeal to common sense and goodwill-despite all this,the desire for a"rapprochement" between"close reading and cultural poetics"is as fully unsatisfied now as when it was first expressed.Given this long history of frustration, the project begins to look like a rhetorical construction in the strictly pejorative sense-stylistic effects substituting for a critical coherence. If this is so,there is some basis to fear that"the historicity of forms and the forms of history"will turn out to be just one more dead chiasmus floating around us as we stagnate in the critical doldrums. I:Disciplinary Coherence,Disciplinary Difference What makes the reconciliation agenda so much easier to put into words than into action?What obstacles limit its fulfillment?One answer is suggested by"The Rhetoric of Literary Criticism,"the piece synopsized in the Introduction,which describes the "institutionalized norms"and "field-dependent constraints on the published interpretation of litera- ture"(p.77).Fahnestock and Secor assume (1)that uncommunicated knowledge is inert (as the Duke puts it in Measure for Measure,"if our virtues Did not go forth of us,'twere all alike As if we had them not"[1.1.33-5]);and (2)that effective communication,in the case of a complex discourse like Shakespeare studies,depends on a myriad of rhetorical protocols and conceptual guidelines.Shakespeareans play an elaborate and highly conventionalized language game,and to play it well requires playing by the rules.The same might be said about the participants in other language games-campaign orators,car sales- men,pastoral poets,et al.;but as practitioners of academic discourse, Shakespeareans have a particular responsibility to the norms of intel- lectual coherence specific to our game,and these norms are defined by the boundaries that differentiate the territories of specialized knowl- edge.It is first of all here,in our obligations to the discipline-specific value of intellectual coherence,that the reconciliation agenda runs into problems

32 Shakespeare Studies Today Or, rather, left unsustained; for as Cohen’s finely detailed analysis demonstrates, even as the language works to convey the impression of reconciliation, the actuality of reconciliation continues to elude our grasp. Despite the strong arguments with which it has been represented by so many critics over so long a period of time, the endorsements it has received from the most influential of scholars (over-the-top blurb puffs on the back cover of Rasmussen’s book from Stanley Fish, David Bevington, and Arthur Kinney), and its immediate appeal to common sense and goodwill—despite all this, the desire for a “rapprochement” between “close reading and cultural poetics” is as fully unsatisfied now as when it was first expressed. Given this long history of frustration, the project begins to look like a rhetorical construction in the strictly pejorative sense—stylistic effects substituting for a critical coherence. If this is so, there is some basis to fear that “the historicity of forms and the forms of history” will turn out to be just one more dead chiasmus floating around us as we stagnate in the critical doldrums. I: Disciplinary Coherence, Disciplinary Difference What makes the reconciliation agenda so much easier to put into words than into action? What obstacles limit its fulfillment? One answer is suggested by “The Rhetoric of Literary Criticism,” the piece synopsized in the Introduction, which describes the “institutionalized norms” and “field-dependent constraints on the published interpretation of litera￾ture” (p. 77). Fahnestock and Secor assume (1) that uncommunicated knowledge is inert (as the Duke puts it in Measure for Measure, “if our virtues / Did not go forth of us, ’twere all alike / As if we had them not” [1.1.33–5]); and (2) that effective communication, in the case of a complex discourse like Shakespeare studies, depends on a myriad of rhetorical protocols and conceptual guidelines. Shakespeareans play an elaborate and highly conventionalized language game, and to play it well requires playing by the rules. The same might be said about the participants in other language games—campaign orators, car sales￾men, pastoral poets, et al.; but as practitioners of academic discourse, Shakespeareans have a particular responsibility to the norms of intel￾lectual coherence specific to our game, and these norms are defined by the boundaries that differentiate the territories of specialized knowl￾edge. It is first of all here, in our obligations to the discipline-specific value of intellectual coherence, that the reconciliation agenda runs into problems

RETURN OF THE AESTHETIC? 33 Stephen Orgel,addressing the World Shakespeare Congress convened in 1981 under the rubric"Shakespeare,Man of the Theater"(both the date and the rubric are worth noting),argues that the playscript behind every Shakespearean text,as"the property of the performers,not of playwrights,audiences,or readers,"is "essentially unstable and changes as the performers decide to change it."From this perspective,Orgel concludes"that the real play is the performance,not the text;that to fix the text,transform it into a book,is to defeat it"("Shakespeare,"p.43, Orgel's emphases).Five years later,Orgel teases out the implications of this argument for a critical practice aspiring to historicist claims.In the Renaissance,he claims, Even authorial texts would have been far more fluid,far more unstable,than most of us,with our yearnings toward final and authoritative versions,will wish to allow.We believe that texts develop and evolve toward publication,and that publishing texts fixes them;we expend great efforts on "establishing"texts that we can then call"authentic."The claim is historically inaccurate, and blinds us to the true nature of the phenomena we are dealing with.("Authentic Shakespeare,"10) With“true nature,.”“historically accurate,”and“essentially..Teal,'” Orgel deploys highly charged concepts to promote a far-reaching claim. His argument is directed in the first instance against the practices of Shakespearean critical editing;but since editing,by establishing the object of study,is interpretive through and through-"not a prereq- uisite to scholarly literary criticism,"as G.Thomas Tanselle puts it, but“a part of that criticism”(Textual Study,”p.337)-Orgel's claim has consequences for interpretive activity in general,especially for the kind of practical criticism by which New Critics sought to represent the unified design of literary texts.As Orgel sees it,such a method,at least when applied to Renaissance plays,is"historically inaccurate"and “blind to the true nature of the phenomena.” To exemplify his preferred practice,Orgel focuses on five Fuseli and Zoffani illustrations of Garrick and Mrs.Pritchard in a scene"deriving initially"from a 1744 production of Macbeth("Authentic Shakespeare," 14)."Each in its way makes claims to authenticity,"he says,"but means something quite different by the concept....What we want is not the authentic play,with its unstable,infinitely revisable script,but an authentic Shakespeare,to whom every generation's version of classic drama may be ascribed"("Authentic Shakespeare,"24).Orgel describes

Return of the Aesthetic? 33 Stephen Orgel, addressing the World Shakespeare Congress convened in 1981 under the rubric “Shakespeare, Man of the Theater” (both the date and the rubric are worth noting), argues that the playscript behind every Shakespearean text, as “the property of the performers, not of playwrights, audiences, or readers,” is “essentially unstable and changes as the performers decide to change it.” From this perspective, Orgel concludes “that the real play is the performance, not the text; that to fix the text, transform it into a book, is to defeat it” (“Shakespeare,” p. 43, Orgel’s emphases). Five years later, Orgel teases out the implications of this argument for a critical practice aspiring to historicist claims. In the Renaissance, he claims, Even authorial texts would have been far more fluid, far more unstable, than most of us, with our yearnings toward final and authoritative versions, will wish to allow. We believe that texts develop and evolve toward publication, and that publishing texts fixes them; we expend great efforts on “establishing” texts that we can then call “authentic.” The claim is historically inaccurate, and blinds us to the true nature of the phenomena we are dealing with. (“Authentic Shakespeare,” 10) With “true nature,” “historically accurate,” and “essentially . . . real,” Orgel deploys highly charged concepts to promote a far-reaching claim. His argument is directed in the first instance against the practices of Shakespearean critical editing; but since editing, by establishing the object of study, is interpretive through and through—“not a prereq￾uisite to scholarly literary criticism,” as G. Thomas Tanselle puts it, but “a part of that criticism” (“Textual Study,” p. 337)—Orgel’s claim has consequences for interpretive activity in general, especially for the kind of practical criticism by which New Critics sought to represent the unified design of literary texts. As Orgel sees it, such a method, at least when applied to Renaissance plays, is “historically inaccurate” and “blind to the true nature of the phenomena.” To exemplify his preferred practice, Orgel focuses on five Fuseli and Zoffani illustrations of Garrick and Mrs. Pritchard in a scene “deriving initially” from a 1744 production of Macbeth (“Authentic Shakespeare,” 14). “Each in its way makes claims to authenticity,” he says, “but means something quite different by the concept. . . . What we want is not the authentic play, with its unstable, infinitely revisable script, but an authentic Shakespeare, to whom every generation’s version of classic drama may be ascribed” (“Authentic Shakespeare,” 24). Orgel describes

34 Shakespeare Studies Today these illustrations as"performances of the same Shakespearean scene," but his claim is rather their dissociation from anything we might imag- ine as an originating Shakespearean authority:the "substitution of the elegant attire of high society for the costumes of the stage makes a clear...assertion that has nothing to do with Macbeth:that actors and actresses are gentlemen and ladies"("Authentic Shakespeare,"20). "Nothing to do with Macbeth":in disconnecting the "authentic play"as infinitely revisable performance so sharply from the"authentic Shakespeare,"the cultural icon (the Bard,the commodity with the right stuff),the entire apparatus of "The Authentic Shakespeare"might be transferred to the authorship controversy.Instead of eighteenth- century illustrations,we could study the texts of J.Thomas Looney and Charlton Ogburn,say,as cultural artifacts in a struggle for the legitimating power of Shakespeare.The authorship question has regu- larly centered on questions of social legitimation (how could an igno- rant glover's son from a provincial market town know so much about the ways of the Court?how produce such monumental achievements?), and it still centers on legitimation,though now that the concept of an inherited aristocracy has lost its cachet,the issue has been re-framed in terms of an elite professionalism.Hence Ogburn's analogy between the professors and the bureaucrats,one group resisting his parents' Oxfordian claims,the other his pleas to disengage from Vietnam:"I fought the Indo-China battle while I was helping my parents fight the Shakespeare battle,and,by God,they had a lot in common!What I was saying was not the thing to say.The State Department had the author- ity.Who was I?"(Lardner,89). Through all these modifications,one feature remains constant,pre- cisely the feature Orgel emphasizes-dissociation.The authority of the name "Shakespeare"has nothing to do with the plays Shakespeare (or somebody else)wrote.You might argue that both the illustrations and the authorship controversy have something to do with Macbeth,since Macbeth itself has something to do with rank and social legitimacy,equivocally right and wrong ways to become Thane of Cawdor or King of Scotland, for instance,or with those violated gender norms-doing more than “all that may become a man'',“unsex me here'”-that prevent us from attaining the status of"gentlemen and ladies."Presumably,though,this argument would rely on a notion of textual stability,"Macbeth itself," that is blind to the true nature of the phenomena. How in any case should we understand the assumptions motivat- ing such a strong dissociative claim?To synopsize the current story: the transformation from a religious and aristocratic to a secular and

34 Shakespeare Studies Today these illustrations as “performances of the same Shakespearean scene,” but his claim is rather their dissociation from anything we might imag￾ine as an originating Shakespearean authority: the “substitution of the elegant attire of high society for the costumes of the stage makes a clear . . . assertion that has nothing to do with Macbeth: that actors and actresses are gentlemen and ladies” (“Authentic Shakespeare,” 20). “Nothing to do with Macbeth”: in disconnecting the “authentic play” as infinitely revisable performance so sharply from the “authentic Shakespeare,” the cultural icon (the Bard, the commodity with the right stuff), the entire apparatus of “The Authentic Shakespeare” might be transferred to the authorship controversy. Instead of eighteenth￾century illustrations, we could study the texts of J. Thomas Looney and Charlton Ogburn, say, as cultural artifacts in a struggle for the legitimating power of Shakespeare. The authorship question has regu￾larly centered on questions of social legitimation (how could an igno￾rant glover’s son from a provincial market town know so much about the ways of the Court? how produce such monumental achievements?), and it still centers on legitimation, though now that the concept of an inherited aristocracy has lost its cachet, the issue has been re-framed in terms of an elite professionalism. Hence Ogburn’s analogy between the professors and the bureaucrats, one group resisting his parents’ Oxfordian claims, the other his pleas to disengage from Vietnam: “I fought the Indo-China battle while I was helping my parents fight the Shakespeare battle, and, by God, they had a lot in common! What I was saying was not the thing to say. The State Department had the author￾ity. Who was I?” (Lardner, 89). Through all these modifications, one feature remains constant, pre￾cisely the feature Orgel emphasizes—dissociation. The authority of the name “Shakespeare” has nothing to do with the plays Shakespeare (or somebody else) wrote. You might argue that both the illustrations and the authorship controversy have something to do with Macbeth, since Macbeth itself has something to do with rank and social legitimacy, equivocally right and wrong ways to become Thane of Cawdor or King of Scotland, for instance, or with those violated gender norms—doing more than “all that may become a man”; “unsex me here”—that prevent us from attaining the status of “gentlemen and ladies.” Presumably, though, this argument would rely on a notion of textual stability, “Macbeth itself,” that is blind to the true nature of the phenomena. How in any case should we understand the assumptions motivat￾ing such a strong dissociative claim? To synopsize the current story: the transformation from a religious and aristocratic to a secular and

RETURN OF THE AESTHETIC? 35 mercantile realm democratizes but also commodifies culture,generat- ing the need for a re-auratized measure of authority within an emergent public sphere.This need produces literature as a back formation,which entails the establishment of a literary canon,which in turn requires the determination of a center.Since any center will do,the accession of "Shakespeare"to the privileged position Michael Dobson describes as the "national poet"is essentially independent of any intrinsic qualities attributed to the plays.(I take the skeptical quotation marks around Shakespeare from W.B.Worthen,whose brilliant Shakespeare and the Authority of Performance shares Orgel's strong advocacy of performa- tive rather than literary values.)"Shakespeare"is a structural necessity without positive content;its full power derives from malleable empti- ness.“Shakespeare”is that it is. Not everyone understands the study of Shakespeare in these terms. Michael Bristol,for instance,claims that there is more to Shakespeare's staying power than the repetitive chronicle of appropriation and return on invest- ment.Shakespeare's plays are not just ephemeral products of the culture industry.[I]would suggest that the supply side hypothesis is at best incomplete,and that the story of Shakespeare's cultural endurance can be "nothing so crude"as an account of commer- cial practices all by itself,no matter how detailed or how revela- tory.A full explanation of Shakespeare's cultural authority also has to consider the specific shape of"the great stories."(Big-time Shakespeare,p.117,123) From Bristol's perspective,the staying power of "Shakespeare"is not totally disconnected from Shakespeare:the "specific shape"of the plays themselves contributes to their enduring interest.In subsequent edito- rial work,Orgel has apparently come around to something like Bristol's position.Merely by undertaking editorial work,as in his Oxford Winter's Tale,Orgel seems to ignore the claim,advanced eight years earlier in "The Authentic Shakespeare,"that"to fix the text [in]a book is to defeat it";and in the specific procedures implemented in his edition,as John Jowett remarks,"Orgel edits undeflected by"the "theoretical compli- cations"of his previous work ("Year's Work,"p.267).Nora Johnson notes the same inconsistency.In contrast to earlier claims on behalf of an authorless and infinitely revisable play script,the "essential drift- ing”with which Derrida characterizes“orphaned writing'”(Margins, p.316),Orgel now declares that"James represented the royal mind as

Return of the Aesthetic? 35 mercantile realm democratizes but also commodifies culture, generat￾ing the need for a re-auratized measure of authority within an emergent public sphere. This need produces literature as a back formation, which entails the establishment of a literary canon, which in turn requires the determination of a center. Since any center will do, the accession of “Shakespeare” to the privileged position Michael Dobson describes as the “national poet” is essentially independent of any intrinsic qualities attributed to the plays. (I take the skeptical quotation marks around Shakespeare from W. B. Worthen, whose brilliant Shakespeare and the Authority of Performance shares Orgel’s strong advocacy of performa￾tive rather than literary values.) “Shakespeare” is a structural necessity without positive content; its full power derives from malleable empti￾ness. “Shakespeare” is that it is. Not everyone understands the study of Shakespeare in these terms. Michael Bristol, for instance, claims that there is more to Shakespeare’s staying power than the repetitive chronicle of appropriation and return on invest￾ment. Shakespeare’s plays are not just ephemeral products of the culture industry. [I] would suggest that the supply side hypothesis is at best incomplete, and that the story of Shakespeare’s cultural endurance can be “nothing so crude” as an account of commer￾cial practices all by itself, no matter how detailed or how revela￾tory. A full explanation of Shakespeare’s cultural authority also has to consider the specific shape of “the great stories.” (Big-time Shakespeare, p. 117, 123) From Bristol’s perspective, the staying power of “Shakespeare” is not totally disconnected from Shakespeare: the “specific shape” of the plays themselves contributes to their enduring interest. In subsequent edito￾rial work, Orgel has apparently come around to something like Bristol’s position. Merely by undertaking editorial work, as in his Oxford Winter’s Tale, Orgel seems to ignore the claim, advanced eight years earlier in “The Authentic Shakespeare,” that “to fix the text [in] a book is to defeat it”; and in the specific procedures implemented in his edition, as John Jowett remarks, “Orgel edits undeflected by” the “theoretical compli￾cations” of his previous work (“Year’s Work,” p. 267). Nora Johnson notes the same inconsistency. In contrast to earlier claims on behalf of an authorless and infinitely revisable play script, the “essential drift￾ing” with which Derrida characterizes “orphaned writing” (Margins, p. 316), Orgel now declares that “James represented the royal mind as