David Loewenstein, Janel Mueller, eds. The Cambridge History of Early Modern English Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. xii + 1038 pp. $140.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-521-63156-3.

Reviewed by Mark Dawson (Auckland)
Published on H-Albion (November, 2003)

It is almost uncharitable to label this title the second "installment" in the New Cambridge History of English Literature, comprising as it does some twenty-six original essays in addition to detailed bibliographical apparatus addressing English literature across the period c.1528-1674. As a "major critical reference work" targeted at a wide audience, the volume not only aims to narrate the history of English literature, but also to take account of modern critical trends. Hence its novelty over the last similar endeavor, which issued from the Cambridge presses over three generations ago.

Given this ambitious scale and claims for a diverse readership, a single critique cannot do the entire enterprise justice. The present review therefore considers how well The Cambridge History of Early Modern English Literature (hereafter, CHEMEL) serves to orient a wider audience of historians who happen to have literary interests.

Of course, the territory is relatively new precisely because of the well-established disciplinary rapport between literary criticism and early modern history. As the editorial introduction highlights, the critical phenomenon conveniently known as new historicism means that historians of many different stripes now pay ever-greater attention to literary works as texts. Indeed, CHEMEL includes essays from the pens of several political and socio-cultural historians, if they will forgive a characterization which tends to contradict the interdisciplinary spirit of the volume. That spirit is signalled by the rejection of its predecessor's century-old approach. Instead of an inventory of genres and canonical authors, CHEMEL's essays consider the early modern literary corpus in terms of six over-arching contextual themes: literature's relation to nationalism, courtly politics, religion, metropolitan society, dramatic culture, and domestic life. But before addressing how literature (or, more accurately, different literatures) interfaced with and also, crucially, shaped these contexts over time, CHEMEL offers a reflexive history of literary modes in terms of pedagogy, manuscript circulation, print production, patronage, the situation of the English language within Britain and Ireland, and the importance of multiple, contemporary readerships. Together these first essays underline the importance of the different literary media to the six main themes which are considered chronologically in the rest of the volume.

At their best the essays, both individually and when collectively pivoting on a shared theme, achieve synergy rather than mere synthesis. They name signal works and evoke their stylistic particularities, rather than simply offering a paraphrased roster of their content, as well as maintain a well-structured discussion of pertinent critical issues and general textual trajectories. It is ironic, then, that treatment of the (religious) literature with which the present reviewer is least familiar seems most often to achieve this balance, followed a close second by the series on literary modes. Most importantly perhaps, one comes away with a taste for the literature, inspired to read more of "Latimer's racy colloquialisms" (p. 270) or experience Herrick's festive vitality first-hand. It is sometimes a pity that there is not equal sampling of Marston's satirical mischief or the "rollicking ballad meter" of anti-Cromwellian libel (p. 79). Yet religion does seem to have more than its share of pages to elaborate these details. One might ask, in this case, if more is better.

One certainly does not envy the impossible choices which go into the making of even as lengthy a work of synthesis as the current one. Boundaries have inevitably to be drawn somewhere. There are several points, however, where the boundaries either appear to falter or seem not in keeping with the volume's claim to introduce recent histories of early modern English literature and chart their related critical contours.

There is a tendency to extend coverage of English literature beyond England per se to include "Britain," which itself is not always the full or accurate extent of things since Ireland too sometimes comes into play. This propensity is certainly germane if it is a matter of demonstrating the role of linguistic imperialism in England's relations with the other kingdoms (as in Paula Blank's essay), identifying British or Irish influences on English literature, everything from ethnic stereotypings to stylistic interactions.

What remains puzzling is the need to consider certain themes from a British perspective yet in relation to the often-meager contribution of English literature to the same. Hence, for example, the frankly odd conclusions that there was no coherent Scottish national identity during the early sixteenth or seventeenth centuries and that certain English-language publications inventoried by proximate pages would have made a minor contribution to said Scottish nationalism in any event. Similarly, in relation to the drama, there are repeated elaborations of the absence of a strong tradition north of the Border. Paradoxically, if nothing else, maintaining a sharper English focus might have left room for greater consideration of the role of literature in orienting early modern England relative to the wider world (for example, in terms of colonial literatures, European humanistic borrowings, or Eastern scientific recoveries) and England's own past (for example, coverage of the likes of historical chronicles and tragic-historical drama seems light).

One can also question the decision to gather the essays not according to the six thematic rubrics used by the present reviewer but the four sequential periods of Reformation-Early Tudor, Elizabethan-Jacobean, Early Stuart, and Civil War-Commonwealth. This reliance on a chronological arrangement results in moments of unnecessary repetition and a certain conceptual unevenness. For instance, take a reader wanting an overview of early modern courtly literature. While the first "Reformation" chapter treating this theme by William Sessions stands well enough on its own, it is only when the reader moves to the "Elizabethan-Jacobean" chapter by Catherine Bates that s/he is introduced to important conceptual issues (and debate currently surrounding them) not raised by the first. In turn, some of these same questions are reprised in Leah Marcus's "Early Stuart" segment. Similarly, with nationalism, David Loades and then Claire McEachern provide the first two narrative sections but a more circumspect consideration of the very concept of nationalism is itself left until Johann Sommerville's third contribution (and then again in Derek Hirst's fourth part).

Granted, whatever the main structural principle, readers will need temporal landmarks for orientation in a book which will more often be picked up and put down numerous times rather than read from cover to cover in one or two sittings. However, these same landmarks are collected together in a lengthy chronological appendix and, in the early modern fashion, might not the reminders of the Cecils' official posts and honors, or that Wales was annexed in 1536, have been placed more discretely as marginal prompts? Certainly, one does not really need to be informed repeatedly that Prince Henry died in 1612 (two mentions in one page) or that the Book of Sports was issued in 1633 (three indications across five pages). By contrast, the lifespans and titles of key individuals are provided in some chapters but not others.

Now and then one hopes for greater thematic integration (at least more cross-referencing to other parts of the volume); more consistent interpretive direction (a consolidated, single discussion of concepts common to a particular theme); a streamlined momentum (not all chapters make good use of simple descriptive subheadings for example); not the repeated equation of bare chronology with the history we have been promised. After all, a good part of new historicism's revolution was to move away from "one thing after another" and its associated model of literature as purely reflective of a deeper historical background, in favor of answering questions like why did this text matter, how and when did it achieve a particular effect, and for whom?

It is in terms of history broadly defined that we also encounter one of the more unexpected characteristics of the volume: that it so seldom engages actively with interpretive trends and debates. Even counting footnotes, influential scholars like Stephen Greenblatt receive explicit mention only a handful of times. Of course, if CHEMEL had attempted to be equally a history of twentieth-century literary criticism as it is a history of early modern literature it would have undoubtedly become unwieldy. Also, to its credit, the volume does cut new interpretive paths of its own (in relation to religious and civil war-era literature especially) where previous critical attention has been rather light or not given the prominence it deserves.

All the same, the volume is billed as a "critical reference work" but, in fact, readers risk disappointment if they expect focused, unambiguous summations of enduring interpretive controversies over the social dimensions of the early Stuart theater or the shifting political dynamics (consensual/hegemonic or conflicted/subversive?) of Tudor poetics, for instance. Likewise, while some essays are virtuoso demonstrations of their type of literary history (Steven Zwicker on reading or Joshua Scodel on alternate literary sites), those in search of identification of the basic issues and broader interconnections might be left somewhat disoriented, however dazzling the finer points of interpretation on display.

In the main, CHEMEL addresses religious, political, and ethnic discourses and their relation to elite, confessional, and national identities in fairly straightforward terms. Ultimately, one garners a good sense of the state of play on these issues and many of the relevant principal texts from the chosen period. Mission accomplished by and large.

Unfortunately, one cannot say the same for the volume's handling of social discourses, or the related "classed" and "gendered" identities. Genteel and metropolitan literature and drama do receive extended and insightful coverage. Especially suggestive are both Lawrence Manley's and Martin Butler's essays but, then again, there is no attempt to relate or reconcile their conclusions with those drawn by Thomas Corns or David Bevington on similar themes in their adjoined, chronological segments. More importantly, what of the provincial and rural, or plebeian and marginal? Does the decision to devote separate chapters to the theater (sometimes recapitulating issues already raised in relation to the courtly and metropolitan milieux) come at their expense? Of course, there is not the same richness of either primary texts or scholarly work to allow for quantitatively equal consideration of popular literatures and humbler contexts. The work of Bernard Capp, Andrew McRae, Adam Fox, or Natascha W=rzbach, however, might have made for more sustained and extensive treatment.

If there is a moderate tendency to take class identity for granted (assume a given social place rather than examining literature's role in effecting social placement as a contingent process), a similar weakness is rather more pronounced in the matter of gendered subjectivity. Female authors receive due attention to be sure, yet this is not the same thing as addressing the role(s) of literature(s) in the changing definition of the feminine and masculine, or charting how literary texts influenced the relationship(s) between the sexes over time, or helped inscribe distinctly premodern sexualities. References to "homosexuality," for example, seem out of touch with the often avant-garde part played by literary criticism in first putting such topics as sexual, gender, and social politics on the scholarly agenda. Still, in this last respect perhaps some room to move remains. For, the volume's title notwithstanding, decades which many political and socio-cultural historians deem part of the "early modern" have been reserved for a third, equally monumental installment addressing 1660-1780.

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at: https://networks.h-net.org/h-albion.

Citation: Mark Dawson. Review of Loewenstein, David; Mueller, Janel, eds., The Cambridge History of Early Modern English Literature. H-Albion, H-Net Reviews. November, 2003.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=8412

Copyright © 2003 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews editorial staff at hbooks@mail.h-net.org.