David Scott Kastan's Shakespeare After Theory: The Age Of Theory

In this collection of essays, David Scott Kastan addresses Shakespeare studies in what he deems a “post-theoretical moment.” According to Chapter 1, theory is institutionally singular but intellectually plural, theory is always theories. While agreeing with the notion that the age of theory is over, Kastan does not devalue theory. Rather, he suggests that instead of producing new theories we must address the controversies in already existing ones. Since theory showed us that meaning was not inherent but rather dependent upon the situation, action, and context of the piece. These reliances are otherwise known as history. Kastan emphasizes the importance of theory and history and their relation to one another. He asserts that, “what [he is] arguing

This argument is unusual because while most agree that there is a relation between the two subjects not many contend that they can be truly interdisciplinary in the way that biochemistry or other subjects are. New Historicism attempted to bridge the gap however only became important in the literary field. While, literary scholars see the value in history, historians less often see the ways in which literature can inform their studies. Kastan states that his book Shakespeare After Theory is genuinely interdisciplinary because he analyzes Shakespeare’s works through their production, material for, authorial intentions, and mediations. He addresses the plays not only as texts and objects but also as historical artifacts, paying attention to the ways they encountered the world. Therefore, not only does Kastan argue that literary studies and history can and should be interdisciplinary, but also asserts that his book manages to combine the two in a genuine

I have been involved in the theater since I was a child so I was aware of the ways that actors and directors adapt plays to fit their own interpretation but I did not know that in Shakespeare’s day those adaptations were reflected in the print. It is very surprising to me that his works were published as they were acted as opposed to how they were first written. This made me think of the Taming of the Shrew and how we discussed the many interpretations of various parts. To this day various casts will portray Kate and Petruchio in different lights. I found this to be an example of the ways that history can be of use to us when analyzing literary texts. Kastan reveals that in the past these interpretations of the play were much more influential than they are now. Today, doing another take on a Shakespearian play is creative experiment, while in Shakespeare’s day modifications were fundamental to how the text would be perceived in the future. The emphasis on history and its place in literary study such as this proved compelling and seems to hold great value. It is something I plan on considering in my future studies of