Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe by Charles G. NauertReview by: Jon BalserakThe Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 39, No. 1 (Spring, 2008), pp. 180-181Published by: The Sixteenth Century JournalStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20478789 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 20:22

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Sixteenth Century Journal is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheSixteenth Century Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 20:22:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

180 Sixteenth Century Journal XXXIX/ 1 (2008)

represented male genitalia as a scrotal sac in order to emphasize men's reproductive capac ities. Newer forms of this accessory, however, constructed male genitalia as distinctly phal lic, suggesting an emergent masculine identity based on the valorization of penile penetration. Chapters 3 and 4 shift the focus away from accessories of dress and attend, instead, to materials that are at once part of and not part of the body. Chapter 3 stands out for its erudition and imagination. A lively discussion of beards, both as theatrical props and as a fundamental feature of masculinity in the culture at large, it examines manhood as con structed in opposition not only to femininity but also to boyhood. Chapter 4's exploration of early seventeenth-century political and religious writers' interest in the relationship between hair length and proper manhood lays the ground for innovative readings of the Roundhead-Cavalier debates, as well as texts such as Milton's Paradise Lost and Samson Agonistes.

Fisher concludes the book by situating seventeenth-century philosophical discussions of the individual in the context of burgeoning theories of the indivisible atom. After having demonstrated that detachable parts played an integral role in materializing gender, he sketches out some of the reasons why these prostheses came to be relegated to the realm of secondary or superfluous sexual characteristics. His consideration of the ways in which Descartes, Hobbes, and other seventeenth-century writers hold up indivisibility as the defining characteristic of the autonomous man is suggestive and sets the stage for future studies. If Fisher is correct that the individual becomes the undivided man, without the need of ornamentation or additional parts (and I believe he is) then what of woman? How does the shift Fisher charts anticipate the construction of masculinity as normative and femininity as various and thus as itself a kind of add-on?

This beautifully researched and deftly argued tour through the early modern sex/gen der system is a pleasure to read. The author is never overwhelmed by his rich array of sources and confidently judges how to frame his evidence and when to let it speak for itself. Throughout, we are ably guided by a historian's eye: attentive to detail, drawn to contradic tion, and always in close contact with the specificities of the material at hand. Fisher's inclu sion of richly suggestive (at times startling) portraits and frontispieces enhances an already illustrative discussion. Those interested not only in early modern sexuality and gender and

material culture, but also in religion, early modern science, and the mind/body conundrum will benefit immensely from Fisher's rewarding study of the processes by which gender was materialized in early modern literature and culture.

, ,W ., ..

Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe, 2nd. ed. Charles G. Nauert. Cam bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 253 pp. $25.99. ISBN 978-0-521-54781-9.

REVIEWED BY: Jon Balserak, University of Birmingham

Charles Nauert's acclaimed volume, Humanism and the Culture of Renaissance Europe, first appeared in 1995 and has been greatly appreciated by both scholars and students in the classroom. Thus, the second edition of this work is sure to be met with similar appreciation and indeed ought to, in the opinion of this reviewer.

Nauert, whose mentor was himself a highly respected student of the Renaissance, the late William J. Bouwsma, is one scholar who interprets the Renaissance not so much in terms of adherence to particular ideas such as an appreciation of human dignity, the sup port of republicanism, and the like, but rather in terms of the rhetorical culture of human ism. This has proved to be an interpretation impressive for its strengths and sensible in its

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 20:22:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Book Reviews 181

outlook, and one which Nauert's first edition did an excellent job of propounding. His sec ond edition should only function to strengthen this reading of humanism.

In this second edition one finds essentially four changes. Nauert's treatment of the changes in education in Italy endeavors to take into account new publications on the topic, with the result that he acknowledges to a greater degree than is found in the first edition the complexity of the question. Secondly, his discussion of the notion of Italian prehumanism has been revised. It is again because of the appearance of new publications that he felt the need to rework this material. In both these areas, he does not alter his basic position. The third change is found in that Nauert adds a section on the role of women in the Renaissance. His treatment of this important topic is most welcome. One can certainly debate its merits, and there is no doubt that there will be debate. At five pages, it could be considered rather brief. But is that a fair criticism? In fairness to Nauert, one has to consider the limitations inherent in the work of revising for a new edition of an already existing study. It is, after all, not a completely new study; the two things are quite different. Thus if one would like to see Nauert add a much more substantial section on the role of women, one might at least want to contemplate these limitations before raising the objection. These three changes appear in chapters 1 and 2. This means that these two chapters have been significantly reworked in comparison to the first edition; indeed, chapter 2 is new to the second edition. Finally, the fourth change is a new bibliographical essay which is extremely helpful for its comments on publications within the field.

Some comments on the whole work seem an appropriate way to end. Nauert is a good, clear writer. He introduces his subject in a way which will be easily accessible to students, even undergraduate students, and yet in a way that does not feel condescending or simplis tic. His use of headings for subsections within chapters makes it extremely easy for the reader to peruse a chapter for the purpose of obtaining a sense of its contents and also to fol low an argument as one is reading. Nauert raises intelligent questions throughout this study and is not wordy, pompous, or unreasonable. There are one or two occasions where one would like to see a subject, argument, or position set out in more detail and perhaps with a more deliberate consideration of opposing viewpoints. But these are few in number and not obtrusive in any way. In summary, this study is an excellent and extremely useful one.

Shakespeare, National Poet-Playwright. Patrick Cheney. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer sity Press, 2004. 319 pp. $75.00. ISBN 978-0-521-83923-5.

REVIEWED BY: Amanda Cockburn, McGill University

In this ambitious study, Patrick Cheney challenges the critical view that Shakespeare was a consummate "man of the theatre," and proposes instead that the Bard be recognized as an entirely different phenomenon, the poet-playwright-an alternative construction of authorship that conjoins poetry and theatre. Indeed, Cheney boldly argues that this rela tionship between poetry and theatre is the "main-frame" of Shakespeare's art and is rooted in the two dominant, opposing aesthetics of the day. Rather than viewing Shakespeare's poetry as a mere "interlude" in his more prominent work as dramatist, Cheney's argument concentrates on the poems-including nondramatic verse, sonnets, and songs within the plays-to emphasize their significance in understanding Shakespearean authorship (3).

His first argument is grounded in the materiality of the text and the bibliographic his tory. Cheney artfully brings into focus a tradition of overlooking Shakespeare's poetic authorship from the earliest publications. Cheney indicates that the 1623 First Folio

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.181 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 20:22:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions