Review of Forse

Forse, J. H., Art Imitates Business: Commercial and Political Influences in Elizabethan Theatre. Pp. iii + 298. Bowling Green, Ohio: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1993. Hardbound $39.95; paperbound $15.95.

Notes and Queries, ccxl, 1995

The history professor James H. Forse is admittedly no authority on aesthetics. So he should surely have exercised more caution about (for example) inferring from the Sonnets that Shakespeare thought of himself as an actor rather than a poet; this overlooks not only “this poet” (17.7) and “thy poet” (79.7) but the supreme poetical achievement of the entire volume. Historical expertise, however, is exactly what Shakespeare studies require, for the crucial reason which this book explicitly avows and defends: “much that people think about Shakespeare's, and other Elizabethan playwrights’, plays is based on attitudes formed long after they, and Shakespeare, died”. Unfortunately, this phrase is prefixed “until recently”, and it introduces intended examples of supposedly superior modern knowledge (about theShrew plays) which misrepresent all the current literary theories as well as the known historical and textual facts. Thus the author's own attitudes and assumptions remain wide open to the same basic objection.

     This is especially sad because he is a first-rate original researcher who has dug deep enough to raise a rewarding harvest from this neglected and so far barren field. First, however, he must follow his own implied rule of relying solely on historical facts and eschewing all literary opinion, whether at second or first hand. As it is, he cannot always tell one era from another; thus he persistently treats as “Elizabethan” plays that remained unrecorded in performance and unknown in print until twenty years after that monarch's death, such as the First Folio texts of 2-3 Henry VI, or The Taming of the Shrew. This confused chronology undermines chapters 1-2 (on theatre business practices, and Shakespeare's allegedly main occupation as an actor) and 4-5 (The Taming of the Shrew and Will Kemp's conjectured involvement in certain supposed piracies). Similarly, Professor Forse unquestioningly accepts modern academic assurances that Tudor dramatists retained no continuing financial rights in their plays, although on his own showing so exceptionally keen and astute a businessman as Shakespeare catering for a mass market, would surely have struck his own advantageous deals with his various publishers and theatre companies. That rational premise vitiates much of this book’s calculations of comparative income, which would otherwise have been a novel, and valuable, feature.

     On balance however the account remains in modest profit. In particular, chapters 3 and 6-9 (on women's roles, Shylock, The Isle of Dogs the Blackfriars boys, and the Essex rebellion respectively) contain valuable information and insights. However, the new material displayed here and elsewhere needs to be restyled so as to cater for practical use rather than the latest fashion. Meanwhile, too much of this book testifies mainly to the immense commercial influence of literary theorists.