George Washington University

The Reign of Elizabeth I. by Christopher Haigh

Review by: Lois Potter
Source: Shakespeare Quarterly, Vol. 42, No. 3 (Autumn, 1991), pp. 365-366
Published by: Folger Shakespeare Library in association with George Washington University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2870851
Accessed: 26-08-2014 18:08 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Folger Shakespeare Library and George Washington University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Shakespeare Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 18:08:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BOOK REVIEWS 365

to thewaysin whichstructureand styleinteractin thistragedy,languagetranslating

itselfintoaction.As Young saysat theopeningof thissection,"The truthis thatin
Macbeth, morethanin anyotherplayof Shakespeare's,thesetwoelementsalternately
fuseand playeach other'sparts."

The Reign of Elizabeth I. Edited by CHRISTOPHER HAIGH. Athens:

Universityof Georgia Press, 1987. Pp. vii + 301. $15.00 paper.

Reviewed by Lois POTTER

It is notunusual foreditorsto state,as ChristopherHaigh does in hispreface,that
a collectionhas been "planned as a coherentwhole" (p. vii). Haigh has, however,
succeededbetterthanmanywhomakethisclaim.His contributors rangefromsenior
historiansto risingstars,but theyare linkedby theiremphasison continuity rather
thanchange,detailratherthangranddesign,how thingslooked to contemporaries
ratherthanhowtheymightbe interpreted withhindsight.One of themostadmirable
consequences of this is
approach good a deal of thesortof nuts-and-bolts
detailoften
missingfromthe workof more teleologicalhistorians:how a bill got passed in the
ElizabethanParliament;how the variouscourtdepartmentswere organized; how,
stepbystep,Elizabethwas forcedfromalliancewithSpain to warwithSpain. These
detailsare genuinelyinteresting, and itshouldbe added thatthewritingthroughout
has a livelinessthat,judging from Haigh's own contributions, can probablybe
creditedat least partlyto his influence.
The lucid introductionand the up-to-datereading listsmake it clear thateach
chapteris self-consciously situatedas part of an ongoing revisionistproject.The
book's argumentis furtherreinforcedby its structure.Though the chapterson
Elizabeth'sfirstyear, by Norman L. Jones, and on her foreignpolicy,by G. D.
Ramsay,are to some extentnarrativein form,mostof theothersfocuson institutions
ratherthan events.And institutions, it is made abundantlyclear, have an inbuilt
resistanceto change.This factemergesparticularly wellfromthechaptersbySimon
Adams, on the structureof the courtitself,and byJ. D. Alsop, on the Exchequer.
Publicofficewas a rewardforservicespast,nota challengeofferedto someonewith
potential.Major Treasuryofficescould be hereditaryor held in reversion;manyof
theofficers werelinkedwitheach otherthroughfamilytiesas well,and a newofficial
mighthave to waitforyearsbeforehe could hope to bringin hisown men and make
anyreal impact.Attemptsat reformwerehandicappedbythefactthattheonlyones
who understoodtheworkingsof thesystemwerethosewho had a vestedinterestin
keepingit as it was.
Conservativeforces were equally powerfuloutside the court. Jones's chapter
emphasizesthe importanceof Catholicsand the House of Lords in the balance of
intereststhat finallymade up the Elizabethanreligioussettlement.G. R. Elton's
fascinating reportfromthefrontlinesofresearchon Parliament(he ends byinsisting
that"all thisstillneeds a lot of workingout" [p. 100]) revealsthatthisinstitution,so
oftenstudiedforevidenceof a growing"opposition"movement,was not onlyweak
compared to the Crown (and weakerin the Commonsthan in the Lords) but also
poorlyattendedthroughouttheperiod;apparentlyitsmembershad no idea of their
own potentialfor disruptingthe stateand backed hastilyaway fromanyone who
looked to be doing so.
Even thefinalchapter,Paul Slack'saccountof povertyand socialregulation,which
surveysthegeneralmovementfromprivateto publiccharityresultingfromthePoor
Law, gives no real indicationof any possibilityof social change. Althoughmany
people at thetime(likeR. H. Tawneyin thiscentury)believedthatcharityhad grown
cold in the post-Reformation era, Slack contendsthatthiswas not in factthe case:
therewas aboutas muchpoor reliefin thelaterperiodas in theearlierone. Whatdid

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 18:08:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
366 SHAKESPEARE QUARTERLY

change, however,was the attitudetowardthe poor on the part of the "middling

ranks";whenthe latter"adopted theviewof theirsuperiorsthatpopular behaviour
was deviant,disorderlyand dangerous"(p. 241), thepoor weredeprivedof potential
leadersof rebellion.
Shakespeareanscholarswillprobablybe particularly interestedin thetwochapters
on religiousissues,whichhave obviouslybenefitedfromtheauthors'readingof each
others' contributions.PatrickCollinson'sessay shows how the slow work of the
Reformationwas done, as, during Elizabeth'sreign, England and "Englishness"
became increasinglyidentifiedwitha godlysocietyand a preachingministry.His
accountis thenqueried in the subsequentpiece by Haigh himself,whichnot only
stressesthepersistenceof Catholicattitudesand practicesbutprovidesevidencethat,
for many people, all that godly preachingand catechizinglooked like a formof
troublemaking.Taken along withSlack's chapter,thisdebate mighthelp to give
substanceto discussionsof exactlywhatconstitutes the"popular"in popularculture.
This is nota book about personalities:courtfactionsturnout to be less important
thanis usuallythought,thoughAdams mentionsthe importanceof the womenof
Elizabeth'sPrivyChamber(about whomone would liketo knowmore),the general
likingfor Hatton, and the general dislikeof Ralegh. Indeed, afterthe firstfew
chapters,thequeen herselfplaysonlya smallrole,thoughat one rathernovelettish
momentJones declaresthatshe had a temper"as fieryas herred hair"(p. 27). At first
it seems as if the book mightbe settingout to reduce her role stillfurther.Haigh's
introduction showshowcarefully createdhermythwas,evenin herlifetime, and how
her
completely posthumousreputationdepended on thatof her successor: the more
unpopularJamesI became,themoreglowingweretheaccountsof thegreatqueen's
reign.Yet if playingdown the problemsshe facedmakesher successesless remark-
able,thefactremainsthather reignwas on thewholesuccessful.Foreignpolicymay
nothave been brilliantly handled-indeed, itis notevenclearthattherewasa foreign
policyat all-but, as G. D. Ramsay'schaptershows,Elizabethdid succeedin keeping
thevitalclothtrademoving,despitetheneed to findnew marketsin Germanywhen
thosein Burgundybecame a casualtyof worseningrelationswithSpain. Similarly,
PenryWilliamspointsout thattherelationshipbetweencourtand country,ifmessy,
was probablyslightlymore effective thanthatineitherFranceor Spain at the same
period,though thisseems to have been partlybecause Elizabeth'sfellowrulershad to
governkingdomsmuch more far-flung thanhers.Jones'saccountof her firstyear
showsher learningquicklyfromexperience;Adams concludesthat,althoughshe
could be difficultto workwith,herdislikeof extrememeasuresmade her courta far
moremercifulplace thanthatoverwhichherfatherhad presided.In short,Elizabeth
comesout of thewholeexerciseremarkably well.It is notforthissortof assessment,
however,thatmostreaderswillvaluethebook.Itsstrength lies,rather,in thefactthat
it can be used as an introduction bothto the Elizabethanperiod and to the current
stateof historicalthinkingabout thatperiod.

Hamlet in My Mind's Eye. By MICHAEL COHEN. Athens and Lon-

don: Universityof Georgia Press, 1989. Pp. x + 173. $26.00
cloth.

Reviewed by ALEXANDER LEGGATT

Beginningwiththe statementthat "Hamletis a play of choices" (p. 1), Michael

Cohen sets out some of those choicesin a scene-by-scene commentary.He is con-
cernedwiththedecisionsperformers make,and he drawson a fewselectedproduc-
tionsto illustrateparticularpoints.But thesereferences,thoughfrequent,are brief
and ad hoc;theydo notadd up to a sustainedcommentary on theplayin thetheater.
Cohen's ultimateappeal is to the theaterof the mind,in whicha solitaryreadercan

This content downloaded from 200.130.19.157 on Tue, 26 Aug 2014 18:08:26 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions