32 / CHRONICLESnThen nightly sings the staringnowl,nTu-whit;nTu-who, a merry note,nWhile greasy Joan doth keelnthe pot—n—she jams it into a theory aboutnElizabethan marriage, converting bothnMarion and Joan from farm-girls intonhousewives for whom (there is zeronabout this in the text) “love has tonripen into friendship and tolerance.” Innote that standard Shakespeareannpractice is to identify scullions likenJoan only by their first name. “GreasynJoan” is all of this character that therenis in the play: She exists only in thisnline. But, for some reason, Greernneeded a housewife and an argumentnthat marriage requires mutual toleration.nWhen she attacks Old Capulet fornbeing married to a woman too youngnfor him, she says that “he has notndanced since before his wife wasnborn.” In fact, Capulet says to hisncousin (Act I, Scene V) that he has notnworn a “mask” for some 20 yearsn—which is to say that he has notndisguised himself in order to chasenwomen. All he says about “dancing” isnthat he is now past the right age for it.nBut, again, it is important for Greer toninsist that he is criminally older thannthe woman he married, and she evenndoes some fancy arithmetic which thentext disproves.nHere is Greer’s opinion of lago:nlago is still serviceable to us, asnan objective correlative of thenmindless inventiveness of racistnaggression. lago is still alivenand kicking and fillingnmigrants’ letterboxes withnexcrement.nThere are some problems here—notnleast of which is Greer’s precedingnremark that “it is futile” to pursue thenissue of lago’s mohvation. As for thenpassage itself, that is simply critical badnfaith. Greer would like to find a passagenin Shakespeare that confirms hernopinion on racism. So she invents anplaywright who has foreseen TeddynBoys and Rockers. But that word “still”n— is that what she thinks lago has beenndoing in Othello?nSo far as Romeo and Juliet and ThenTempest are concerned, both are hid­nden commentaries on things thatnGreer dislikes. They are models of an”sick society.” Prospero, for example,nis a monster of capitalism who condemnsnCaliban “to brutish toil andnkeeps him at it by torturing him withncramps, side-stitches, and bone-aches,nin much the same way that those whonenslaved the Brazilian Indians forcednthem to work every day without pay bynthe use of the bludgeon.” I don’t getnthis: Can one give cramps and stitches?nIs Shakespeare anti-Portuguese? Whatnis the point of all this? Possibly, thatnCaliban is “really” a version of then”labouring poor” of London withnwhom Shakespeare sympathized. Butnif that were true, why didn’t he say so?nIsn’t Greer remotely aware that thengreat divines of 1610 had no fearnwhatsoever of accusing monarchy andnaristocracy of neglecting the poor?nThat no allegories were needed bynanyone for a subject weekly exposed innsermons, homilies, and religiousnwarnings? But it is necessary for her tonbelieve in Shakespeare as a secret haternof Western culture—a modern who,nlike Mark Twain, was stuck among thenmedievals and who finally, in a codenuntil now secret, has communicatednwith her.nThis comes very close to crank literature.nOne has to say that the facts ofnthis book give us no confidence in itsnideas.nRonald Berman is author of A Reader’snGuide to Shakespeare’s Plays.nHarmless DrudgerynDictionary of American Conservatismnby Louis Filler, New York;nPhilosophical Library; $29.95.nNo movement or discipline has fullynarrived on the American scene until itnhas been the subject of a dictionary ornencyclopedia. Conservatism has evidentiynmade it, now that Louis Fillernhas dedicated one of his dictionaries tonit. No one with a serious interest innAmerican Conservatism can afford tondo without this Dictionary. Movementnjunkies and Washington Post editorialistsnalike will now be able to browsenfrom Abortion to YAF and back againnnnwith considerable profit. It is a first ofnits kind and is sure to go through manyneditions.nWhen it does, the publishers willnundoubtedly correct the many perplexingnoddities that disfigure an otherwisenuseful reference tool. The sinsnof omission are as serious as the sins ofninclusion. Where are, for example,nM.E. Bradford, George Panichas, andnJohn Howard, Ethics and Public Policynand Reason magazine? Of livingnconservatives. Filler is oblivious exceptnfor the most obvious celebrities. Instead,nhe peoples his books with thenradicals and progressives to which henhas dedicated earlier volumes: JohnnJay Chapman, Edward Bellamy, andnSinclair Lewis. Even more baffling isnhis description of Robert Nisbet as “antransitional figure from liberalism tonconservatism” or of Chronicles as “editednby the late Leopold Tyrmand”n—quite a trick even for our inspirednfounder! Still, for all its many faults,nthe Dictionary of American Conservatismnis a good buy and a bright sign ofnhope for Philosophical Library.nDakota Daysnby Jane GreernThose Days: An American Album bynRichard Critchfield, Garden City,nNew York: Anchor Press/Doubleday;n$19.95.nIt was their ordinariness thatnmade them matter. . . .nIndividual life was by its verynnature a tragedy; it came to annend; for all of us it was going tonbe a short way to that grave.nBut the ordinary life of ansociety was a comedy that justnkept going on. What was at thenheart of those days?nThis is a book I wish I’d written, a lovenstory of the largest and best kind. Likenmost people, I remember my childhood,nthat eternal summer, in a glownof happy forgetfulness, simply out ofnpleasure. Richard Critchfield “remembers,”nas if he had been there, hisnparents’ lives and society before he wasnborn, and shows why it’s important tonremember and to go back even furthern