The Mirror of Confusion: The Representation of French History in English Renaissance Drama.

Andrew M. Kirk. (Garland Studies in the Renaissance, 6.) New York and London: Garland, 1996.4 pls + 229 pp. $40. ISBN: n.a.

Kirk's thesis is that French historiography provides the reader of early modern English drama with an image of "difference," a mirror or lens that "defines another place and another way to see history, a difference that allowed French history to give the English an alternative perspective on themselves" (3). Using existentialist terminology and adapting eclectic historical and cultural perspectives, he characterizes France as a unique "other," worthy of separate consideration as a neighboring nation with similar roots but a different history.

Early chapters distinguish Kirk's position from both providential and cultural English studies. He emphasizes French historiography in an informative section which could stand alone. Succeeding discussions examine Marlowe's The Massacre at Paris, the anonymous Edward III, Shakespeare's French histories, and Chapman's dramas about Bussy, Byron, and Chabot. Along with his generalizations about essentialist difference, Kirk makes an interesting argument for French historiography as less dependent than the English on providential readings, substituting Machiavellian, secular analyses of events. Along with exposing the turbulence of French religious conflicts, he draws special attention to the relative freedom with which French historians blamed their monarchs for military failures as opposed to English historians' reticence.

When Kirk emphasizes English masculine virtu contending with French feminine fortuna in English historical drama, however, he sheds light on an English vision of France as a nation dominated by mutability, a power to which "effeminate" French kings often succumb. Drawing on recent cultural studies, Kirk likens France to newly explored areas as female: "open," "available," and "depopulated." In characterizing Edward III, Talbot, or Henry V, the English dramatists draw a blunt and constant Englishman meeting a devious yet vulnerable feminized other. One of Kirk's strongest discussions of gender ambiguity is the portrayal of Joan of Arc in 1 Henry VI. Surrounded by effeminate men, she steps into the warrior role of the virago, yet she also seduces the French ruler into support for her cause. Only the English demonize her.

Kirks assumptions are stimulating, but he also risks the kind of monolithic stereotyping he sets out to avoid. Such labels as "essentially" female or even "essentially" English obscure individual characterization and ignore other factors in motivation including social class. Jean Howard, for instance, agrees with a gendered reading of the Henry VI plays but points to Jack Cade, Simpson, and others whose presence suggest a social order threatened by more than gender insurgency. In fact, Kirks discussion of gender and class would benefit from a closer examination of the past ten years of feminist criticism and a more complete view of authors such as Marilyn French, whom he cites out of her overall context.

The final and strongest section of Kirk's study, considering Chapman's French heroes, stands out because he does not overemphasize gender. With good support from Madeleine Doran and others, he defends both the defiant Bussy and the stoic Chabot as men who "embody the power to remain constant in an inconstant world, an ability that their sovereigns notoriously lack" (156). Kirk indicates his awareness of Chapman's complexity before clarifying the historically-based argument he will make.

Kirk generally advances his thesis. Some sections need clearer content and logic, however. At times the repetition of gendered readings in the text and notes is unnecessary because the essential point has been established. For instance, a reader does not need gender to discuss Senecan and Ciceronean style, a large topic in itself. Nor does Plato's myth of the charioteer fit well between two assertions about gender. Logically, Kirk's discussion of Aristotle's recommendations for plot structure blurs the distinction between tragedy and history, and some readers will think that historical narration and dramatic representation deserve a clearer separation from each other.

Nevertheless, this book makes a contribution worth noticing in discussions of English historical drama. The section on French historiography alone adds to our knowledge, and the concept that the English never quite see their neighbors clearly provokes reflection because Kirk convinces us that they see enough to find their own flaws if they but heed the reflection.

MARGARET J. ARNOLD University of Kansas