COMMENT
The Old and
the New
Historicism
The persistence of Marxism in
the academy - even a diluted or revisionist Marxism - is a constant
source of astonishment. And though there are explanations, it remains
something of a mystery . To anyone who rejected Marxism as a
philosophy and political theory as well as a social program as far back as
the thirties, the championing of Marxism by successive generations of
academics defies the laws of reason. One would think there had been no
Moscow Trials, no Gulag, no police state, no KGB persecution, no
perestroika,
no
glasnost,
no rejection of Marxism in Central Europe, and in
Russia itself Nothing has happened. History stopped in 1917.
These observations are occasioned by reading Stephen Greenblatt's
new book,
Learnillg
(0
Curse: Essays in Early Modern Culture
(Routledge
Chapman
&
H all) , a collection of essays about Elizabethan and
Renaissance subjects and several pieces about the theory with which he is
associated, the new historicism. Greenblatt is an industrious and fairly
learned scholar, though he is not a critic, as he claims. And the new his–
toricism has gained some popularity, though not wild acclaim, in
scholarly English department circles.
Since I am not an expert in Greenblatt's field, I will leave the
scrutiny of his observations in this area to other specialists, except to note
that his piece on
The Jew oj Malta
seems farfetched. Greenblatt labors a
parallel between Marlowe 's play and Marx's essay on the Jewish ques–
tion, in which he argues that Marx's definition of the Jew as the repre–
sentative figure of capitalism is similar to Marlowe's depiction of Barn–
abas.
But in the more discursive essays, Greenblatt displays a general belief
in a kind of not entirely orthodox form of Marxism. I should preface my
discussion of his political views, however, with the qualification that I am
not sure I understand exactly what Greenblatt is saying, for his writing is
quite ponderous and abstract. Indeed, I have the impression that Green–
blatt often is carefully avoiding precision of meaning.
On the whole, Greenblatt relates to Marxism as though it were the
point of reference, the authoritative theory, for all further speculation.
To this he adds "an openness to the theoretical ferment of the last few
years" and a dash of Foucault, mainly in his placing of power as a central
force in the modern world and in his method of free-associating numer–
ous details - some seemingly irrelevant - to the main historical forces.
Thus, in a discussion of the relation of art to society - though
Greenblatt uses fancier terms and categories - he argues for steering a