The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 21.0303  Friday, 23 July 2010

From:         Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:         July 21, 2010 10:07:41 AM EDT
Subject: 21.0284  Microhistory
Comment:      Re: SHK 21.0284  Microhistory

My thanks to Duncan Salkeld for his taking the risk and exhuming the "old topic" of 
presentism. It continues to have relevance in my view. And thanks to Harry Rusche 
for his kind words about learning something important from the anthology Terrence 
Hawkes and I co-edited for Routledge in 2007. It's always heartening to hear 
reactions like this.

It took a few days to procure a copy of Duncan Salkeld's article (Cahiers 
Elisabethains, 76 (Autumn 2009), 35-43-it will probably take a college library with 
a good Interlibrary Loan service for most list-members-but I did so. I read it with 
interest and had very mixed reactions. On the one hand, I appreciate the intelligent 
and fair-minded summary of our argument and some of the (varied) examples of 
presentism discussed. I agreed with much of what Salkeld said and want to underline 
that if, as we discussed the complex interactions of past and present in reading 
400-year old texts like Shakespeare's text, we sometimes wrote as if the past and 
the present were clearly distinct, it was because of language and rhetoric rather 
than theoretical intuition, and as Salkeld notes we attempted to counter this 
possible (mis-) reading of our ideas at other points in the article.

My main misgiving about Salkeld's article has to do with the project of "micro-
history" which the second half of it deals with. I truly hope that literary 
criticism does not evolve into the study of finding Thomas Kyd lurking under some 
beloved's bed in the late sixteenth century! Perhaps I misunderstood the example. 
But I think one of the crucial important functions of literary study in contemporary 
Western societies is to as a way of asking and attempting to answer the big 
questions of meaning and significance and of power and powerlessness. We continue to 
need "macro-history" understood as rooted in our own present situation to do this. 
Micro-history, I fear, can too easily fall into the trap of Peter Stallybrass's 
joking label, "the new boredom."

Don't get me wrong. There will always be notes and queries in literary study, and 
the scholarly search for facts is never going to go away. Nor -- and perhaps things 
are different on alternate shores of the Atlantic -- do I see any danger of the 
demise of historical criticism and the search for facts in Shakespeare studies. It 
was rather our perception that historical approaches had become so hegemonic that 
other kinds of criticism, like "presentism," were in danger of being ruled out as 
viable forms of professional scholarship in the institutions of higher learning, 
that several of us had the idea of championing at this point in professional history 
kinds of criticism that had been going on in many different forms for a long time 
anyway. Salkeld seems to have the opposite fear, that presentism has become so 
influential that historicism is now in danger! I can assure one and all that this is 
very far from the case and that there remains the need to argue for a place for 
presentism in professional academic criticism.

--Hugh Grady

S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed 
on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility 
for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Gift to SHAKSPER

Consider making a gift to support SHAKSPER.