< previous page | page_20 | next page > |
Page 20 corpse and legacy are passed back and forth with definite regularity. This passing back and forth, this annual reappropriation of the corpse, though it may be partly apocryphal, is nonetheless an apt metaphor for the Left—Right debate over who owns Shakespeare. Leftist criticism may not actually be agreeable to returning the stolen Shakespearean body to the traditionalists, nor may the traditionalists agree to the theft, but every time Jonathan Goldberg or Catherine Belsey goes after Levin, or Bradshaw goes after Greenblatt, or Levin goes after feminists, or Pechter goes after the Left and the Right, or Vickers goes after everybody, the Shakespearean body is circulated—is passed around freely—among the most fierce rival critics. Such circulation constitutes literary life. Traditionalists could not be further off the mark when they accuse radical critics of killing Shakespeare, but it could make some sense if they were right. It requires no explanation why Shakespeare, who has been the property of a conservative intellectual elite for most of this century, should attract traditional scholars. But we may wonder why critics dedicated to profound social change would waste their time on an author who, in the work of some new historicists, is portrayed as an extension of the state apparatus and reproducer of the socio-political status quo. Clearly, if ideology is the central concern, then bourgeois, patriarchal, authoritarian Shakespeare promotes the wrong values. What is more, as Terry Eagleton has conceded on several occasions, a new reading of a Shakespeare play—no matter how radical—is not going to bring about the revolution. Why, then, not remove Shakespeare from the curriculum and replace him with authors who better suit radical agendas? The question is naive, and the answer is simple: because Shakespeare serves radical critics just as well as he serves conservative ones. Shakespeare has accrued so much cultural capital over the years that all sides have equal need of him—professionally, politically, and financially.6 To let conservatives “have” Shakespeare would be strategically stupid. A competent Marxist or feminist reading of his work instantly situates the critic at the heart of academic debate, in a place where not only Shakespeareans but literary scholars of all fields converge. Likewise, a conservative critic who wishes his or her views disseminated among the largest possible literary audience is most likely to achieve that aim with a study connected to Shakespeare, who remains the most widely read author. The list of scholars—radical and non-radical—who boast Shakespeare as the centerpiece of their career is long and |
||
< previous page | page_20 | next page > |