Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
10
TONHOENSELAARS
However,inrecentyears,closeobserversofourindustryshouldalsohaveheard
somescepticalvoices,notachorusyet,butvoicesnolessvocal,sincetheyappearin
themajorjournalsofourcraft.AcaseinpointistheShakespeareQuarterlyreviewof
TheCambridgeCompaniontoShakespeare’sHistoryPlays,editedbyMichaelHatta-
way.
3ReviewingtheCambridgeCompanionforShakespeareQuarterly,Douglas
Brusternotedhow,asareader,hehadexpected“aformalisticandhistoricizedaccount
onthehistoryplay”butfoundthatthiscompanionofferednosuchtreatment.Inhis
perception,thiswasdueto“aparticularaspectofitsorientation:”
LetmesaybluntlythatthisstrikesmeasEUShakespeare,bywhichImeanitisthefirstre-
centcollectionofessaysonShakespearetofeatureasubstantialnumberofscholarsfrominstitu-
tionsinEuropean-Unionstates.Onethirdofthefifteenresearcherscontributingtothisvolume,
forinstance,teachinFrance,Holland,orIreland.Thisassignmentoflaborpointedlysharesthe
wealth,asitwere,withscholarsoutsidethenexusthathastraditionallyincludedEngland,Amer-
ica,Canada,NewZealand,andAustralia,andcertainlyithasaffectedthe“Shakespeare”pre-
sentedhere.Thevolumeinternationalizestheenvironsofthehistoryplayswhileleavingusmuch
lessawareofShakespeare’sownhistoricalandliterary-historicalcontextsthathaveformed
aroundthehistoryplaysoverthepasttwodecades.
4
DouglasBrusterthenturnstooneessayinthecollectionwhich,inhisview,
“crystallizes”thisapproach:“ShakespeareandtheEarlyModernHistoryPlay.”Inthe
sectiondevotedtoCONTEXTS,Hattawayboldlyincludedthiscontributiondealingwith
thestatusofthehistoryplaybothinBritainandontheearlymodernEuropeanconti-
nent.Inthecontributioninquestion,theauthorfocusesonboththeSpanishandthe
NorthernEuropeantheatrestages.
5Doingso,heidentifieswaysinwhich,alreadydur-
ingtheearlyseventeenthcentury,thehistoryplayasagenreaswellasShakespeare’s
owncontributionstoit,enjoyedacertaindegreeofpopularityontheEuropeanconti-
nent.TheauthorprovidesavaluablenewperspectiveontheoriginalShakespearean
materials,andinthiswayoffersatimelycorrectivetoprevailingAnglo-centredviews.
DouglasBruster,however,wasnotamused.Althoughthetitle,“Shakespeareandthe
EarlyModernHistoryPlay,”asheputit,“seemstopromisearichlycontextualized
descriptionofthegenre[...]itisdisappointingtofindthat[theauthorinquestion]de-
fines“earlymodernhistoryplay”notinafocusedway,intermsofEngland’sreper-
tory,butratherinrelationtoSpanishandDutchhistoricaldramas.”“Iamnotsure,”
Brustercontinues,“thatwecanexpectour[=American]studentstograspthecom-
plexitiesofEnglishhistory–thehistorythatShakespearewroteaswellasthatwhich
helived;thewisdomofintroducingthemtothegenrebyaddingthenationalhistories
andcontextsofSpainandtheNetherlandsseemsquestionable.Inanycase,twoand
ahalfpagesonLambertvandenBosch’sRoodeenWitteRoosof1651areperhaps
morethanacompanionlikethiscanbear.Bycontrast,oneofthemoreenjoyable
essaysinthecollection[...]”
6Brusterisascholarofnote,oneshouldtakehiscriticism
3TheCambridgeCompaniontoShakespeare’sHistoryPlays,M.Hattaway(ed.),CambridgeUniver-
sityPress,2002.
4ForD.Bruster’sreview,seeShakespeareQuarterly2004,55:3,328–330;328.
5A.J.Hoenselaars,“ShakespeareandtheEarlyModernHistoryPlay,”inTheCambridgeCompanion
toShakespeare’sHistoryPlays,25–40.
6D.Bruster,op.cit.,328.
