Preferred Citation: Mallin, Eric S. Inscribing the Time: Shakespeare and the End of Elizabethan England.

Berkeley: University of California Press, c1995 1995. http: ark.cdli!.or" ark: 1#$#$ ft#n#9n%&'

Inscribing the Time

Shakespeare and the End of Elizabethan England Eric S. Mallin
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS

Berkeley Los Angeles Oxford

!""# The Regents $% the Uni&ersit' $% Cali%$rnia

(or 'y 'other, and the 'e'ory of her 'other

Preferred Citation: Mallin, Eric S. Inscribing the Time: Shakespeare and the End of Elizabethan England. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1995 1995. http: ark.cdli!.or" ark: 1#$#$ ft#n#9n%&'

(or 'y 'other, and the 'e'ory of her 'other ) *i )

Ac(n$)le*gments
+ a' deli"hted to ackno,led"e those ,ho have helped, directly or indirectly, ,ith this !ook. -hanks "o to the University of California Press for per'ission to reprint chapter 1, ,hich appeared in a sli"htly shorter for' in Representations .vol. /9, ,inter 199$0. + ,o1ld also like to ackno,led"e the En"lish 2epart'ent of the University of -e*as at 31stin for "ivin" 'e t,o i'portant thin"s: a'ple ti'e to ,rite and a fine place to ,ork. 4eah S. Marc1s and (rank 5hi"ha' have !een "1idin" li"hts in 'y ti'e at -e*as, and their "enerosity

has !een s1stainin". 2olora 5o6cieho,ski read '1ch of the 'an1script and 'ade several !rilliant s1""estions, so'eti'es ca1sin" 'e to ,ish that she had ,ritten it. 7ohn P. 81'rich ,orked thro1"h the !ook heroically, stayin" enth1siastic a!o1t it even ,hen + co1ld not. + thank the' all for their re'arka!le colle"iality. + ,o1ld also like to e*press deep appreciation to Bill S1therland, 7oseph 9r1ppa, and 5ayne 4esser for findin" ,ays to 'ake 'y life easier thro1"ho1t the ard1o1s process of co'pletin" the 'an1script. 2oris 9retsch'er of the University of California Press has !een e*tre'ely helpf1l and attentive, shepherdin" this ,ork in a ti'ely 'anner .despite 'y delays0 thro1"h vario1s sta"es of prod1ction. -he Press:s three anony'o1s revie,ers offered e*cellent s1""estions on 'atters !oth essential and orna'ental. 3t a critical sta"e in the preparation of the !ook, Melissa ;il!ert cheerf1lly provided s1per! research assistance. ) *ii ) Inscribing the Time had its ori"ins as a Stanford University dissertation ,ritten 1nder the a1spices of 2avid 8i""s, 7ohn Bender, and 8onald 8e!hol&. -hey helped 'e, as so'eone once said, to ac<1ire for' and to avoid pitfalls= they also prepared 'e for so'e of the pleas1res of Shakespeare st1dies. Michael -. ;il'ore, 3lan 4evitan, and 3llen ;ross'an first introd1ced 'e to literary analysis !efore + co1ld f1lly 1nderstand ,hat they ,ere teachin", !1t so'e of ,hat they ta1"ht and ho, they ta1"ht it has stayed ,ith 'e. + a' "ratef1l for that, and 'y readers sho1ld !e too. + have also learned fro' 'y friends. >ilary M. Schor and Christopher 3'es have !een s'art, steady, and e*traordinarily s1pportive lon"?distance co'panions for 'any years no,. @thers ,ho have helped ,ith this ,ork or ,ith 'ore i'portant 'atters: 7a'es Bookless, Pe""y Bradley, Seth Brody, Pa1l >o,e, 8onald >. +scoff, and 4eonard 4ipit&. My !est infl1ences have ta1"ht 'e to read, to reason, and not to "ive 1p too soon. Elissa Mallin?2a,e first sho,ed 'e the po,er of art to e*press stran"e 6oy. 8e!ecca 5. 4aBr1' teaches 'e daily a!o1t love and la!or= she re'ains 'y 'ost i'portant collea"1e. 3nd 'y 'other, Sonia 8. 4ipit&, "ave 'e everythin" + needed to co'plete this !ook. -he pro6ect and its a1thor co1ld not have 'ade sense ,itho1t her. )1)

Intr$*+cti$n
I
>istory never repeats itself, !1t it offers analo"ies. 7. E. Aeale, Essays in Eli&a!ethan >istory -his !ook is a st1dy of three Shakespeare playsBTroilus and Cressida, Hamlet , and T elfth !ight B in their conte'porary historical conte*ts. -hese plays disclose three very different acc1'1lations of En"lish political and social an*iety d1rin" the tense transitional years !et,een the Eli&a!ethan and 7aco!ean re"i'es.C1D + ar"1e that the dra'as i'a"ine their stories as versions of conte'porary history: they contain for'ations and defor'ations of plots, ideolo"ies, events, and psycholo"ical

acco''odations at the end of the Eli&a!ethan era. -hro1"ho1t + shall clai' that EhistoryEB!y ,hich + narro,ly 'ean the specific past of 8enaissance sociopolitical and literary conditionsBproves in Shakespeare:s theater to !e a constant force ,ith varia!le coefficients. So'eti'es history is the direct referent of the dra'atic !1siness= 'ore often it is the deferred, s1!'er"ed conspirator in the plot= at still other ti'es it proves to !e an alienated, hostile presence dislod"in" the ,ork fro' sec1re 'oorin"s or 'eanin"s. Shakespeare:s -roy, 2en'ark, and +llyria are not repetitions of En"land= they are, as the epi"raph fro' 7. E. Aeale is 'eant to s1""est, analo"ies.C/D 3s analo"ies of history the plays constantly appro*i'ate and appropriate for's of the realB"overn'ental or"ani&ations, physiolo"i? )/) cal processes, spirit1al str1""lesBin their fictions. My ar"1'ents depart fro' so'e ne,?historical st1dies !y takin" the te*ts: topicalities not only as referent !1t as literary structure = the conte'porary history 'aterially shapes and 'isshapes the dra'a. + e*a'ine in the first chapter the ,ay divisive Eli&a!ethan co1rt politics and self?del1sional ideolo"ies are 'apped into the chiastic relationships of violence in Troilus and Cressida . +n chapter / + consider another c1lt1ral fact ,ith str1ct1ral i'plications for the plays: epide'ic disease. +n Hamlet .as to a lesser e*tent in Troilus and Cressida 0, the idea of conta"ion afflicts the root relations of lan"1a"e, 'ind, and r1le, and these relations have clear historical correlatesBnot necessarily deter'inants !1t, a"ain, definite analo"ies. -he st1dy of pla"1e in Hamlet contin1es fi"1rally in the third chapter ,ith a readin" of selected conta'inatin" histories in 7a'es:s royal s1ccession. By a Econta'inatin"E history + 'ean an episode or 'e'ory that pro!le'ati&es the tidy order and 'eanin" of the ne, rei"nBspecifically, a set of events that interacts ,ith and 1nder'ines Shakespearean theatrical architect1re. +n Hamlet , conta"ion and s1ccession are co'ple'entary topical an*ieties, !1t to co'e to ter's ,ith these ,e '1st confront an even 'ore sharply foc1sed iss1e of locality: the stat1s of the te*t itself. +n chapters / and #, + e*a'ine the second or E"oodE <1arto of Hamlet !eca1se that te*t re"isters 'ost s1""estively, and recovera!ly, the 'aterial interactions of i'a"ination and history. @f co1rse, 61st !eca1se a te*t interacts ,ith its environ'ent does not 'ean that it necessarily !eco'es c1lt1re:s "lassy essence. Hamlet :s for'al and te*t1al pert1r!ations are anythin" !1t passively reflective of the t1r'oil at the end of Eli&a!eth:s rei"n. 3esthetic prod1cts typically re,rite their s1rro1ndin" circ1'stances. -o do so, ho,ever, they often s1!'er"e or displace the historical referent to ease the stress of the 'o'entBth1s speakin" vol1!ly a!o1t that 'o'ent and s1!li'inally reintrod1cin" stress. +n the final chapter, on T elfth !ight , + atte'pt to dislocate 'y o,n pre'ises, that is, to read referentiality that has 'oved a,ay fro' the 'o'ent of theatrical prod1ction. +n +llyria, Shakespeare shifts the conte*t1al fra'e a,ay fro' 1F$1. 5ith its 'e'orial treat'ent of Ea kind of P1ritanE threat, its 'ediated co1rtships, and its 1nalloyed fe'inine tri1'phs, T elfth !ight tries to evade the present and sets itself !ack in the historical 'iddle distance. -hese te*ts so'eti'es r1thlessly display, so'eti'es avoid or inter history:s 'ost 1psettin" i'plications. -hey convey '1ltilevel an*iety, concentrations of c1lt1ral tra1'a that they do not, indeed cannot, f1lly )#) or"ani&e or analy&e. 3nd 1F$$ to 1F$# are especially "ood yearsBkeepin" in 'ind the 8enaissance do1!le ed"e of the phrase E"ood yearsEBto e*a'ine.C#D -he late Eli&a!ethan era had a preternat1ral

sense of its o,n endin"= the close of the period ,as self?conscio1sly likened to the end of -roy, a "reat civili&ation in its death throes. 3t the sa'e ti'e, the hope of a ne, kin" co'pensated for the de!ility, as 'any 'ale co1rtiers sa, it, of an a"ed <1een. -his ,as, in other ,ords, a period !ristlin" ,ith half? revealed personal, ideolo"ical, and political activity. My ori"inal idea for this st1dy ,as to seek in historical infor'ation so'e ,atta"e to !ri"hten these plays: di''er passa"e,ays. B1t as the in<1iry pro"ressed, it !eca'e apparent that Einfor'ationE itself offered only el1sive si'1lacra of historical 'eanin"= and the se'antic slipperiness, the li'ited capacity of histories to fi* their o,n .let alone Shakespeare:s0 si"nificances, led 'e to the present set of readin"s, ,hich seek to analy&e ho, lan"1a"e and local kno,led"e codeter'ine Shakespearean evasiveness. -his !ook, then, atte'pts to ill1'inate three te'porally conti"1o1s plays !y e*cavatin" their possi!le relations to historical ori"ins and conte*ts. -o so'e e*tent, ho,ever, the idea of ori"ins is a fiction, a 'a"ic !1llet that shatters interpretive o!str1ctions to the past= an ori"in, like a reference, is really only an infinite re"ress of references. 4ike ori"in and reference, conte*t too represents a constr1ct shaped fro' a desire to kno,, to sta!ili&e ,hat is al,ays in 'otion. -he notion of conte*t in post?'odernity '1st see' a <1aint and factitio1s convention. Aonetheless, it is an indispensa!le one. Understandin" that the historical conte*t is to so'e e*tent an ar!itrary constr1ct does not alter the fact that s1ch constr1cts are episte'olo"ical necessities ,hich orient co"nition in cr1cial ,ays. +f ,e connect ver!al te*ts to social ones, ,e cannot !1t ad'it that people live, kno,, conver"e, fail, fi"ht, create, and adapt in conte*ts, e*perienced not as ar!itrary !1t as the !o1nded real. -his reality is factored thro1"h a ,ide array of social possi!ilities: "ender and se*1ality, class and stat1s, race and creed. 5hat 'akes the idea of conte*ts episte'olo"ically thorny is that persons in different s1!6ect positions 'ove thro1"h a !road ran"e of e*perience or 3lth1sserian Elived relation to the realE= Ethe realE chan"es, dependin" 1pon one:s aesthetic or historical conte*t1ali&ation of the partic1lar s1!6ect position. Conte*t inevita!ly alters the 1nderstood nat1re of persons and their histories. -his interdependence of te*t .historical s1!6ect, aesthetic o!6ect0 and conte*t .historical 'o'ent, ideolo"ical condition or str1ct1re0, ho,ever lackin" in e*plicit social reference, is neatly fi"1red in 5allace Ste? )G) vens:s ,ell?kno,n poe' E3necdote of the 7ar.E -his ,ork s'artly reverses polarities of te*t and conte*t, properly erasin" each as a separate entity. -he poe':s speaker sets or has set an o!6ect, a te*t of sorts, in a notorio1sly "eneral re"ion or conte*t: + placed a 6ar in -ennessee, 3nd ro1nd it ,as, 1pon a hill. +t 'ade the slovenly ,ilderness S1rro1nd that hill.CGD Even tho1"h 1ncontained, the conte*t is E'adeE to do the !iddin" of the te*t= the 6ar enforces co'pliance fro' the ,ilderness. B1t the te*t, the 6ar, is itself literally a container: it is a fi"1re for conte*t, a6ar to the possi!ility of .se'antic0 openin"s and closin"s= and the slovenly ,ilderness, see'in"ly the fra'e for the 6ar, itself stands for a very traditional artistic te"t B1nr1ly nat1re, ta'ed !y art. So Stevens:s openin" stan&a en"1lfs in one landscape of 1nderstandin" the inter?penetration of te*t and conte*t, !oth of ,hich inha!it and disr1pt the fra'e that descri!es the'. So'e of the theoretical diffic1lty of conte*ts can !e alleviated in a Stevensian ,ay, !y seein" the' as contin1o1s ,ith or transparent to the te*tBor !etter still, as havin" !een created or 'ade to s1rro1nd the te*t b# the te*t, even as the 6ar event1ally Etook do'inion every,hereE inside the poe' and inside the landscape it

controls. Shakespearean conte*ts al,ays recreate this !order indeter'inacy: the plays e*tend fro' the for'ations that are their s1!te*t1al s1!6ect. (ar fro' !ein" the preserve of disinterested c1lt1ral infor'ation, this theater is al,ays a version of ,hat it contains, i'plicated in the ,orld it descri!es. 3s (redric 7a'eson has said: -he literary or aesthetic act . . . al,ays entertains so'e active relationship ,ith the 8eal= yet in order to do so, it cannot si'ply allo, ErealityE to persevere inertly in its o,n !ein", o1tside the te*t and at a distance. +t '1st rather dra, the 8eal into its o,n te*t1re. . . . -he sy'!olic act therefore !e"ins !y "eneratin" and prod1cin" its o,n conte*t in the sa'e 'o'ent of e'er"ence in ,hich it steps !ack fro' it, takin" its 'eas1re ,ith a vie, to,ard its o,n pro6ects of transfor'ation.C5D 3 fle*i!le cate"ory in and of itself, Econte*tE varies dra'atically as ,ell a'on" recent 8enaissance literary theorists. (or so'e ne, historicists, a relevant fra'e for interpretation 'ay !e far displaced fro' the te*t:s te'poral or spatial vicinity. -he 'ar"ins of conte*t can stretch o1t over oceans, years, and artistic for's. (or e*a'ple, to Stephen ;reen!latt, an 3l!recht 2Hrer print sho,s so'ethin" critical a!o1t the representa? )5) tional stat1s of re!ellion ,hich is reconfi"1red in Shakespeare:s / Henr# $I = a story a!o1t (rench her'aphroditis' f1rnishes a ,ay of 1nderstandin" se*1al ho'olo"ies and erotic e*chan"es in T elfth !ight .CFD 5alter Cohen calls this interpretive techni<1e Ear!itrary connectednessE: E-he strate"y is "overned 'ethodolo"ically !y the ass1'ption that any one aspect of society is related to any other. Ao or"ani&in" principle deter'ines these relationships: any social practice has at least a potential connection to any theatrical practice. . . . -he co''it'ent to ar!itrary connectedness inevita!ly li'its the pers1asiveness of '1ch ne, historicist ,ork.ECID Cohen proceeds to e*pose so'e of the contradictions in ;reen!latt:s ,ork, !1t he ad'its that !eca1se Etheater itself is a contradictory instit1tion,E the des1ltory evidentiary proced1res of ne, historicis' are so'e,hat 'iti"ated Eat a hi"her level of a!straction.E Cohen is ri"ht to perceive virt1es and fla,s in the techni<1e. -his 'ode of readin" tends not to !e specificall# e*planatory !eca1se it so often strays far fro' the te*t at hand= !1t it does often ,ork Eat a hi"her level of a!stractionE to dissolve the notion of conte*t in a prod1ctive rather than red1ctive ,ay. -his her'ene1tic re'inds 1s that an ele'ent of ar!itrary connectedness inheres in every interpretive act. 5hat, after all, co1nts as a ErelevantE piece of infor'ationJ -he Ear!itraryE or perhaps nonlocal for' of ne, historicis' reconstr1cts ideolo"ical or disc1rsive for'ations and practices and relates the' to se'antic flashpoints in a "iven te*t. B1t for all its sophistication, the 'ethod fre<1ently depends on the pres1'ption of a sta!le set of historical 'eanin"s ,hich, ho,ever 1npredicta!ly connected, tend to cast an even li"ht over the ra""ed s1rfaces of the te*t. EPo,er,E Ea1thority,E even E"enderE have often ,orked si'ilarly in ne,?historicist readin"s over severely differin" conte*ts, and history in this discipline can co'e to see' too disciplined, a s1rprisin"ly confined si"nifier. (or !etter or ,orse, + have so1"ht to li'it ar!itrariness !y foc1sin" on a specific te'poral re"ion of disr1ption: the transition fro' the Eli&a!ethan to the 7aco!ean re"i'es. + have also tried to convey the sense of fl1* and desta!ili&ation inherent in this historical 'o'ent. 3s '1ch as possi!le, + confine 'y in<1iries here to local press1res that operate, often 1npredicta!ly, ,ithin a space of chan"e.C%D Beca1se + a' not descri!in" a "eneral Epoetics of c1lt1reE so '1ch as a partic1lar poetics of the theater:s 1se of c1lt1re, + a' pled"ed to pertinent conte*ts insofar as these can !e deter'ined and c1rtailed. 4ocality,

e'ployed as a 'ain interpretive te'plate, allo,s the critic to read the literary te*t thro1"h its most probable stresses and histories and to deli'it the prof1sion of )F) narratives that ca1se !oth ar!itrary and likely infl1ences to !lend. 4ocal readin" can narro, the !e,ilderin" se'antic ran"e of the plays !y pinnin" the' to a near!y conte*t= it can also, ho,ever, enlar"e a dra'a:s si"nifyin" potential sho1ld the te*t .like Hamlet , for instance0 fail to specify li'itations to conte*t1al 'eanin"s. Beca1se conte*ts, like Ehistorical 'o'ents,E are theoretically infinite, constr1in" the' al,ays involves an act of contain'ent, a resistance to the all1rin" fact or alternative story. >ere, then, are so'e of 'y self?i'posed interpretive "1idelines in this !ook. 3ltho1"h it is diffic1lt to 'ark the ter'ini of historical 'o'ents, + have "enerally confined 'y analyses to the period defined in the !ook:s s1!title, orBas in the case of Scottish s1ccession history and the early P1ritan 'ove'ent, disc1ssed in chapters # and G respectivelyBto those histories ,hich have clear and on"oin" i'plications for this period and these te*ts. 4ike,ise, + have atte'pted to li'it conte*t spatially. -his !ook ass1'es that these are En"lish histories that Shakespeare is on the ver"e of ,ritin"= their forei"n settin"s distantiate reference only to sec1re, not fr1strate, local interest. ;iven the fact that fashion, reli"ion, and even "enre circ1late a'on" nations, it 'ay see' 1nnecessary to restrict topicality to En"lish concerns, ,hich co1ld neverBas so'e of the !reathless reports of forei"n a'!assadors attest Bre'ain strictly En"lish. B1t in this partic1lar historical niche, Shakespeare:s plays concern the'selves ,ith the c1lt1ral peril of specifically En"lish politics and ideolo"y. -hese dra'as are hardly co"ent vehicles for 6in"oistic senti'ent= !1t their central concerns are local, ho,ever !roadly representative .i.e., E1niversalE0 that locality 'ana"es to !e. (inally, + proceed on the ass1'ption that historical conte*ts '1st de'onstra!ly pla# into plot, the'e, "enre, i'a"e, or sta"in"= the dra'a:s central literary feat1res '1st !e apposite to or co"nate ,ith so'e si"nificant c1lt1ral fact or presence and so create a representational resonance ,ith history. Selective narro,in" of conte*ts offers the !est chance to recover the interco1rse !et,een te*t and ti'e. + have tried, then, to slo, do,n the fra'es of historical reference that !l1r past in Shakespeare:s plays= or to p1t it another ,ay, + have placed the 6ar of the te*t ,ithin and a!o1t its kno,n historical conditions. -he trick ,ord in that last sentence is Ekno,n.E -his !ook atte'pts to deploy !1t also to e*tend and reconfi"1re the historically kno,n. Ao s'all pres1'ption for a non?historian, this effort can nonetheless !e 61stified !y the nat1re of historical kno,led"e, ,hich + take to !e lar"ely doc1'entary Bthat is, te*t1al, and th1s al,ays le"iti'ately s1!6ect to )I) rereadin". 3n interpretive insta!ility '1st !e ackno,led"ed at once: the past that + read thro1"h Shakespeare:s te*ts has already !een read !y those te*ts and finessed, over ti'e, !y "enerations of historians and critics= and the idea of the theater that + atte'pt to no1rish thro1"h cooked .i.e., selected and processed0 data cannot provide any certain access to the lived past of the plays. -his dile''a of 'ediated histories can !e eased if ,e see the te*t itself as an historical repository, ,ith a direct, participatory relation to its ti'e. +n this re"ard, ,e 'ay follo, (o1ca1lt:s early ,ork in atte'ptin" to esta!lish Earchaeolo"iesE of kno,led"e resident in c1lt1ral prod1ctions. Perhaps an analo"y in 'ore traditional archaeolo"ical ter's is in order. @ne interestin" for'ation co''on in the Middle East is the tell, a hill?shaped site on ,hich several "enerations or even

civili&ations have s1ccessively !1ilt. 3n artificial constr1ctBEthe acc1'1lated re'ains of one or 'ore ancient settle'entsEC9D Bthe tell stands to a 'odern a"e as co'prehension:s ro1"h draft, a version of historical fact anticipatin" the refine'ents of ta*ono'ists, c1rators, and theoreticians. Co'pressin" the past, the site presents a convenient if defor'ed epito'e of c1lt1ral activity. Beca1se the tell displays ,itho1t 'akin" definitive disclos1res, it is, !efittin" its ho'ony', a kind of narrative. 4ike any story, the tell is an occasion for analysis, the "ro1nd,ork for topical 1nderstandin". -o read literat1re !y ,ay of the past, one 'ay 1sef1lly re"ard the te*t as a tell?like str1ct1re: a repository of tiered and c1lled histories co'pressed into shapes that forer1n 'eanin". -he archaeolo"ical site rese'!les the literary artifact in that !oth co'prise s1perposed layers of si"nificance.C1$D -he 'ore deeply s1!'er"ed the level, the 'ore diffic1lt it is to retrieve and reconstr1ct ,itho1t alterin" itB!1t the !etter preserved that level 'ay !e !eca1se of its chthonic e'!eddedness. +n te*ts as in tells, cr1cial referentiality tends not to !e disposed too close to the s1rface. -he archaeolo"ical 'odel offers the hope that so'e trace essence of the real can !e reclai'edB certainly not ,itho1t losin" so'e data, !1t perhaps ,itho1t scatterin" entirely the for's of the distant past. -he literary artifact differs in i'portant ,ays, of co1rse, fro' the tell, partic1larly in its constit1tive 'aterials: the ver!al ,ork asse'!les s1!li'inal, co"nitive, and tonal ele'ents fro' its c1lt1re, the Eprior historical or ideolo"ical subte"t ,E in 7a'eson:s ,ords, of the society .%olitical &nconscious , %10. B1t the analo"y of te*t to tell can ill1'inate the theoretical pitfalls of interpretive e*cavations. +n hopin" to find the thin" in itself, the past?as?it?,as, archaeolo"ical ,ork 'ay accidentally erase periodic or epochal divisions= later historical intr1sion often dist1r!s the )%) stratifications that can, in the !est case, act as a diachronic key to the local.e0. 5hat is 'ore, !eca1se of its spatial li'its, the tell, like the te*t, is !o1nd to ske, the sa'ple of c1lt1ral activity= it cannot !e f1lly representative. (inally, the str1ct1re can silently, 1nintelli"i!ly a!sor! enco1nters ,ith other civili&ations !y ,hich the c1lt1re 1nder st1dy has !eco'e enriched or infected. -he 1ncertainties of readin" s1ch a di" s1""est so'e of the ha&ards of historical in<1iry. B1t the site, like the te*t, re'ains opa<1e to every 1nderstandin" that is not historical. So in ar"1in" that Shakespeare:s theatrical plots tell versions of historical events or 'eanin"s, + depend on this fle*i!le, archaeolo"ical sense of EtellE: a provisional orderin" of artifacts= a narratin" of 1ncertain histories that have !een asse'!led !1t not ,holly interpreted. -he plays ,rite across re"i'es, con6oin the real and the fictive, ,itho1t al,ays 'arkin" the !o1ndaries. -his 1ncertainty leads 1s to the notion of inscription. +n e*ercisin" the conceit of the tellBthe artic1late c1lt1re or artifactB+ have !e"1n to define inscription thro1"h an antithetical ter'. (or inscri!in", or ,ritin"?in, is the opposite of tellin", or speakin" o1t. Ket they are co'ple'entary opposites. 5hereas the tell speaks a collective voice, synecdochically sa'plin" or disinterestedly co'pressin" a ,hole c1lt1ral str1ct1ration, inscription posits selective, individ1al a"ency and intentionality: a person ,ho inscri!es is 1p to so'ethin". 5hen Shakespeare ,rites the c1lt1re that shapes his te*ts, he !eco'es 'ore than 'erely an indifferent prod1cer of c1lt1ral o!6ects or a 'edi1' thro1"h ,hich events are told= he is also reader, redactor, and rhapsode. Meanin"s lod"ed in scriptive acts are rarely "overned co'pletely !y a 1nified a1thorial intention. B1t the Ea1thor f1nctionE that !elon"s to the na'e of Shakespeare is her'ene1tically 1sef1l and not necessarily si'plistic. 5hat:s in that na'e is the pres1pposition of a set of conscio1s desi"ns that the plays and their sta"ed histories so'eti'es o!ey, so'eti'es s1!vert. -o 1nderstand the idea of inscriptionBthe idea that history is, and is s1scepti!le of, representation in te*tsB,e '1st accept that there are points at ,hich te*t, history, and a1thorial intention ,ork in concert, points ,here they clash,

and yet other points ,here they conspire to create a'!i"1o1s i'pressions. -he theater ,rites and records diffuse c1lt1ral intentions, transcendin" any sin"le historical s1!6ect:s or a1thor:s !1siness or desire. B1t this characteri&ation of the sta"e sho1ld not o!literate the notion of the a1thor, the inscri!er. -r1e to 'y o,n poststr1ct1ral acade'ic conte*ts, + 1nderstand the te*t as '1ltiple: the intersection of a ran"e of disco1rses. -h1s the )9) early 'odern c1lt1re as a ,hole can !e said to have helped ,rite Shakespeare:s plays, even as late? t,entieth?cent1ry 3'erican c1lt1re helps ,rite the ,ay + interpret the'. +f the dra'atist cannot avoid inscri!in" the ti'e into his te*tsB,hether or not he intends the ra'ifications of the inscriptionsC11D B he also has the a!ility to reconstit1te, thro1"h Ethe fierce endeavor of ChisD art,E specific histories in partic1lar ,ays. @ne loc1s for theater:s inscriptive intert,inin" of c1lt1ral and a1thorial intention, and one that !ears heavily on 'y readin"s of each of these plays, is the repeatedly sta"ed historical fi"1re of L1een Eli&a!eth. -here ,as little do1!t that play,ri"hts and poets placed her in their ,ork in vario1s "1ises. She spoke of her o,n position as theatrical .E5e princes, + tell yo1, are set on sta"es, in the si"ht and vie, of all the ,orld d1ly o!served,E she is fa'o1sly s1pposed to have said0,C1/D and the theater !orro,ed a royal presti"e !y openly and s1!tly perfor'in" her. 5hat e'er"es fro' the practice is the '1ltiplicity of her perceived selves, an i'pression of poly'orphis' partly created and partly perceived that did not al,ays acco'plish its stated "oal of honorin" her. +n the ,ell?kno,n letter of 15%9 Eanne*edE to the first edition of The 'aerie (ueene , Spenser ,rote to 5alter 8ale"h of his alle"orical 'ethod in the poe', a representational strate"y of the sort that + have tried to retrieve and analy&e in this !ook: +n that (aery L1eene + 'eane "lory in 'y "enerall intention, !1t in 'y partic1lar + concei1e the 'ost e*cellent and "lorio1s person of o1r so1eraine the L1eene, and her kin"do'e in (aery land. 3nd yet in so'e places els, + doe other,ise shado, her. (or considerin" she !eareth t,o persons, the one of a 'ost royall L1eene or E'presse, the other of a 'ost vert1o1s and !ea1tif1ll 4ady, this latter part in so'e places + doe e*presse in Belphoe!e, fashionin" her na'e accordin" to yo1r o,ne e*cellent conceipt of Cynthia, .Phoe!e and Cynthia !ein" !oth na'es of 2iana.0C1#D -his so'e,hat coy description of the poe' s'ooths over the political dissonance inherent in these alle"orical divisions, separations, and '1ltiple na'in"s. By confessin" that Ein so'e places els, + doe other,ise shado, her,E Spenser is ed"in" to,ard a state'ent a!o1t the darker, 'ore shado,y representations of Eli&a!ethan policy and character in the poe', 'ade 61stifia!le !y the human i'perfections in the E'ost vert1o1s and !ea1tif1ll 4ady.E -his Eletter of the a1thors e*po1ndin" his ,hole intention in the co1rse of this ,orkE cannot possi!ly live 1p to its !illin", !eca1se the a1thor:s 1nderstandin" of his o,n intention is at once veiled and e*traordinarily conflicted. -here are desi"ned and accidental leaka"es of 'eanin" in the alle"orical techni<1eBSpenser:s '1l? ) 1$ ) tiple personifications of Eli&a!ethan <1alities and strate"iesBthat no acco1nt of intentions can ca1lk. +t ,o1ld !e ,ron" to s1""est that the fra"'entary inscription has a life all its o,n= !1t the life it receives fro' the poet certainly o1tlives atte'pts .even the poet:s atte'pts0 to confine it se'antically. -he point is that, as Spenser ad'its !1t 1nderstates, inscription is '1ltiple in practice and res1lt, and it is not

co'pletely ans,era!le to intentionality. 3ny te*t that atte'pts to collate '1ltiple historical realities ,ill find itself, or those realities, fra"'ented, like a c1!ist ,ork that tries to represent three di'ensions on a sin"le s1rface. -h1s the 'eanin"s of history s1ffer, in literary inscriptions, e'er"encies of dis61nction, contradiction, and discord. -hese crises 'ay have !een part of an ori"inal perception a!o1t the partic1lar s1!6ect, !1t they 'ay also arise as a res1lt of that s1!6ect:s incarnation in representational flesh of 'any fi"1res. S1ch an aesthetic proced1re opens the te*t to oppositional, 1nflatterin", or 1ncontrolled lineations. 5e can stay ,ith the e*a'ple of the <1een. 7ohn 4yly:s End#mion: The )an in the )oon .c. 15910 sta"es the 'etaphorics of fr1strated co1rtiership in Eli&a!eth:s sphere. Endy'ion, the lover ,ho fails of favor .indirectly, 4yly hi'self0 has ,asted his yo1th in ,orship of the 1nattaina!le 'onarch, here 'ytholo"i&ed as Cynthia. +n love ,ith the 'oon, Endy'ion is cast into a forty?year sleep !y Cynthia:s 6ealo1s rival, -ell1s, ,ho has failed to sec1re his affections and seeks to prevent those affections fro' ai'in" else,here. >o'a"e to the <1een !rin"s .at first, it see's0 no re,ards, only a horri!ly pre'at1re senescence= !1t finally the r1ler restores Endy'ion to yo1th ,ith a kiss. By the end of the play, Cynthia, still ro'antically 1nattaina!le, !eco'es so'e,hat less e'otionally distant as she 'ana"es and sanctions several ro'antic co1plin"s ,hich sec1re the co'edy. B1t 'ore interestin" than the 'ain plot of deflected ro'ance is a 'irrorin" s1!plot feat1rin" an a'1sin" !ra""art ,arrior na'ed Sir -ophas. 4ike Endy'ion, ,ho' he rese'!les in his narcissis' and his appetites, the miles gloriosus finds hi'self in love ,ith a po,erf1l ,o'an, one 61st as 1nattaina!le in her ,ay as is the <1een. Sir -ophas:s choice is none other than an old ,itch, 2ipsas, the enchantress ,ho ,as e'ployed !y -ell1s to cast the spell on Endy'ion. -he inscriptive 'echanis' here co1ld scarcely !e 'ore conflicted. Endy'ion:s predica'ent can !e traced to three ,o'en, a trinity that is s1!li'inally a 1nity: an 1nattaina!le <1een, a 6ealo1s lover, and a ha""ard, 1"ly ,itch. E5itho1t a do1!t Endy'ion is !e,itched,E his friend E1'enides co''ents lon" before the spell is cast .1.1.11F0.C1GD -he clear parallel of 2ipsas and Cynthia, and the rivalry .conver"in" on indistin? ) 11 ) "1isha!ility0 of the <1een and -ell1s, conspire to 1nder'ine ,hat the play see's to anno1nce: the s1pposed inco'para!ility of Cynthia. -he '1ltiplicity of the <1een:s i'a"es and rolesB"oddess on earth, 'ystical provider of !o1nty, controller of erotic relationships at co1rtBactivates an artistic process that ad'its 1nfavora!le aspects of Eli&a!eth:s .h1'an and 'onarchical0 personality into the representational field. 3nd these aspects, of co1rse, ,ill !ear differential ,ei"ht dependin" on the te'poral and social conte*t of the ,ork. + think that 4yly atte'pts a "en1ine if 'is"1ided contri!1tion to the <1een:s 'ytholo"y in this play, fendin" offB,ith 'i*ed s1ccessBso'e of the 'ore 1n!eco'in" associations of inconstancy, distance, and tyranny ,ith ,hich the 'oon co1ld !e associated, so as to clai' for Eli&a!eth an i'a"e .as did 8ale"h in E-he Book of the @cean to CynthiaE0 of eternally re"eneratin" yo1th and "ravitational po,er. B1t this is, as the fi"1re of 2ipsas s1""ests, an i'a"e ,ith so'e local, te'poral press1re on it. (or in 1591, the <1een ,as fifty?seven years old. 3ro1nd the last decade of her rei"n, inscriptions of Eli&a!eth co1ld no lon"er evade the force of ti'e= the years "athered on the 'onarch:s 'ortal !ody and on her i'a"e in te*ts. By the end of the decade the pro!le' had "ro,n plan"ent. -ho'as 2ekker, for e*a'ple, !e"ins The %leasant Comedie of *ld 'ortunatus ,ith this s1"ary e*chan"e: 1. 3re yo1 then travellin" to the te'ple of Eliza J /. Even to her te'ple are 'y fee!le li''es travellin". So'e cal her %andora , so'e +loriana , so'e C#nthia : so'e ,elphoebe , so'e -straea : all !y severall na'es to e*presse severall loves: Ket all

those na'es 'ake !1t one celestiall !ody, as all those loves 'eete to create !1t one so1le. .Prolo"1e, 1MF0C15D 3ll these na'es, ho,ever, have their o,n 'ytholo"ies, ,hich can collide to for' i'pacted ideolo"ical contradictions that 1nderc1t the s1pposed o!eisant intent. @ne ,onders, for instance, ho, the tro1!lin" se*1al i'a"e of Pandora and the i'plications of the 1nsta!le Cynthia .Estill inconstant, yet never ,averin",E as 4yly a'!ivalently calls her C#.G.//#D0 rhy'e ,ith the 61ridical serio1sness of the 3straea na'e. 5riters 1nder the <1een:s i'pressBEEli&a!ethanE ,ritersBfre<1ently played these i'a"es off one another, so'e to an effect of !land ho'a"e, !1t others to the discord so1ndin" here. -he pro!le' is not si'ply that the prof1sion of royal i'a"es !eco'es 1n'ana"ea!le= as + disc1ss in 'y treat'ent of Troilus and Cressida , the 'ore serio1s point is that the prof1sion so'eti'es !etrayed an ina!ility to re'ain 1na'!i"1o1sly en? ) 1/ ) th1siastic a!o1t the <1een. 2ekker:s play appeared in 1599, in Eli&a!eth:s si*ty?si*th year, and the topic of Eli&a .,hose a"e "oes 1n'entioned in the passa"e0 is introd1ced !y t,o old 'en. -he yo1n"er "eneration, of ,hich 2ekker ,as part, had conspic1o1sly "reater diffic1lty than do these characters in s1stainin" s1ch praise. +t is hard to i'a"ine that the darker s1!te*t of the <1een:s a"e purposi.el# l1rks !eneath the lavish praise of Eli&a!eth at the !e"innin" of 2ekker:s play= it is harder still to s1ppose that the ta!oo s1!6ect of her years does not fi"1re into the 'eanin"s of this passa"e. 3 readin" of inscription cannot resolve intention, !1t it can s1""est the conditions that ena!le and strain it. 3s a st1dy of inscriptive processes, this !ook is a close readin" of history:s f1nctional co'ple*ity in Shakespeare:s plays. 3lan 4i1:s insi"ht that ne, historicis':s for'alist !iases and voca!1lary "enerate 'any of its characteristic interpretive 'ane1vers ,ill apply here.C1FD -he technolo"ies of close readin" can profita!ly descri!eBand of co1rse, prod1ceB<1alified desta!ili&ations of historical 'eanin". Ae,?critical principles can also tease s1rprises fro' the interco1rse !et,een te*ts and events that see' !y no, e*ha1sted or overread. .S1rely there is no 61stification for t,o 'ore chapters on Hamlet 1nless a ne, play or a play reada!le in ne, ,ays e'er"es fro' the attention.0 Close readin" ,orks ,ell in e*plicatin" the appearance of history in te*ts !eca1se that appearance is precisely the a""re"ate of details. +nscri!in" is a 'iniat1rist operation. -hese plays defor' and re?for' si"nificant events and iss1es, !1t they also re"ister a plen1' of 'in1te historical i'p1lses. Conse<1ently, recoverin" the historical si"nified depends on dilation, on 'a"nifyin" te*t1al and te'poral <1iddities. >istory in these plays tends not to !e painted in !road alle"orical strokes or to "estic1late ,ildly as in roman / clef farce. 8ather, it fi"1res a deflection and red1ction of the real. @ne conse<1ence of the theater:s sensitivity to s1!li'inal environ'ental conditions is a loss of contin1ity bet een si"nals fro' the c1lt1re. -heatrical representations of history tend to,ard the !roken, the inter'ittent, and th1s tend not to sponsor perfectly co"ent sche'as or ,orldvie,sBas ,o1ld, for instance, certain types of alle"ory. -he fail1re of te*ts to inscri!e their c1lt1res ,ith perfect coherence is not necessarily an aesthetic fail1re= indeed, it 'ay sho, the play,ri"ht:s "en1ine atte'pt at 'i'esisBa Etr1eE perception a!o1t the fra"'entary nat1re of the historical ,orld. 3lternatively, the sheared?off sense of history in te*ts 'ay hi"hli"ht the a1thor:s a!ility to for"e sta""ered, fractal, or co'posite i'a"es and 1nderstandin"s of 'aterial reality. -he aleatory ) 1# )

nat1re of topical reference in the theater deprives 1s of one !enefit that ne, criticis' !esto,ed: the l1*1ry of neat, reada!le patterns. +t is often diffic1lt .a"ain, as the chapters on Hamlet testify0 to resolve analyses of conflictin" and so'eti'es 1nintelli"i!le data, no 'atter ho, narro,ly the historical conte*ts are constr1ed. + do not 'ean to clai' that these Shakespeare plays are entirely 1nhin"ed fro' pattern or .especially0 fro' one another. +ndeed, even ,ith their different "enres, their diver"ent tonalities and referential str1ct1res, these three plays have so'e strikin" si'ilarities. +n fact, a pro'inent trope of si'ilarity occ1pies each ,ork: e'1lation in Troilus and Cressida , conta"ion in Hamlet , and echo in T elfth !ight . -hese feat1res are not p1rely rhetorical tropes s1ch as L1intilian or Scali"er descri!ed. +nstead, each of these fi"1res has a str1ct1ral or the'atic i'plication. E*perienced readers of Shakespeare ,ill already !e fa'iliar ,ith the sy'!olic e*tensions of these tropes: they incl1de the plays: co''on o!sessions ,ith t,innin", s1rro"acy, i'itation, e*chan"e, dis"1ise, infl1ence, and repetition. Each of the tropes f1nctions in the plots of the plays as a decenterin" device, splittin" off privile"e, identity, or force fro' its sanctioned possessor and redistri!1tin" it a'on" other clai'ants for po,er or sy'pathy. Echo, ,hich + read as pertinent to T elfth !ight :s s1!te*t, is perhaps the 'ost co''on and !eni"n of these fi"1res. 3s a trope ,ith its o,n 'ytho"raphy, it carries a history of passivity, even potentially a kind of "enerosity= echo sei&es !1t ret1rns, in the act of sei&1re, the voice of the other. By contrast, e'1lation .Troilus and Cressida 0 and conta"ion .Hamlet 0 are 'ore e*plicitly violent, appropriative for's of si'ilit1de, !efittin" their plays: the'atic and "eneric indications. -hese three rhetorical str1ct1res or"ani&e plot and the li'its of dra'atic s1!6ectivity= they also s1""est i'portant aspects of the theater:s inscriptive proced1res. + take these fi"1res .the'selves <1ite si'ilar and intert,ined0 to !e 'etony'ic of each te*t:s relationship to its histories. -hat is, tropes of si'ilarity are rhetorical 'odels for the dra'as: interco1rse ,ith the c1lt1re they recreate. +nternally, the tropes offer a version of order and or"ani&ation. Ket, as 8enN ;irard has ar"1ed, a str1ct1re !ased on rec1rsion or .especially0 i'itative do1!lin" pro'ises not order !1t dissol1tion, endless reciprocal a"on.C1ID -he sa'e contradiction o!tains for the te*ts: si'ilit1des of c1lt1re. -he act of reprod1cin" the historical field ,o1ld see' to pro'ise so'e sort of cate"orical or 'i'etic order= in fact, the inscription of the ti'e yields endless pert1r!ations in 'eanin". -he trope of rese'!lance ,ithin a ,ork, like the theater:s int1ss1sception of literary feat1res and parallel historical for's, ) 1G ) i'plodes neat distinctions !et,een te*t and history and coerces the !reakdo,n of representational cate"ories. -he te*ts: rhetorical rec1rsions of their conte*ts, co'plicated as they are, call to 'ind an area of scientific in<1iry kno,n pop1larly as chaos theory. 8ecent investi"ations have la!eled as EchaoticE certain physical pheno'ena ,hich resist classification or description !y Ae,tonian paradi"'s. Chaos syste's incl1de ,eather patterns, heart fi!rillation cycles, the 'otion of o!6ects i''ersed in li<1ids, and the for'ation of coastlines. 5hat fascinates researchers of chaos is the presence of order ,ithin the apparently 1n"overned arena of activity. Patterns arise fro' these syste's: tendency to proliferate self? si'ilarity. -hat is, a chaotic event 'akes reco'!inant, sy''etrical patterns o1t of a portion of the syste' as a ,hole.C1%D -he "eneral notion involves not 61st sy''etry !1t replication across scale. -he representationality of chaos syste's is the iss1e here: the syste's: s'allest niche tends to iterate, in "eneral shape ,ith f1rther for'al disr1ptions, the lar"er co'ple*. 3nd the presence of for' e'!edded in t1r!1lent str1ct1resBlet 1s think of the' as te*tsBholds o1t the possi!ility that so'e sta!ility co1ld e*ist in even thoro1"hly nonlinear str1ct1res or aesthetic prod1cts.C19D -he infinite conte*ts of history are a chaos syste' of ,hich the ,orks of Shakespeare, and of every ,riter, are a self?si'ilar part. So it

sho1ld not s1rprise 1s that these ,orks i'perfectly replicate the folds, ,horls, and dyna'is's of the lar"er s1rro1nd. -he appeal .and of co1rse, the pro!le'0 of chaos theory is its accessi!ility to so 'any int1itions= 'any 'etaphoric connections to the chaos paradi"' can !e 'ade ,itho1t strain. @ne s1ch connection, central to this !ook:s concerns ,ith conta"ion as a c1lt1ral ha!it, is thro1"h the idea of the vir1s, the 1npredicta!ly replicatin" 'echanis's of ,hich are only no, co'in" to !e 1nderstood. 5itho1t ori"inal 2A3 of its o,n, a vir1s is involved in the hostile prod1ction of a self?si'ilarity derived fro' a host or"anis'. -e*ts are, of co1rse, 'ore and other than chaotic propa"ations of history, 'ore than viral reprod1ctions of an 1nresistin" cell of the real. -he disease 'etaphor, ho,ever, conveys the parasitic inti'acy of te*ts and conte*ts, as ,ell as the dan"ers of dissolvin" the !o1ndaries !et,een the'. S1san Sonta" has 'entioned that Ei''1nolo"ists class the !ody:s cancer cells as :non?self,: Eas distin"1ished fro' the EselfE of ori"inal !iolo"ical 'aterial.C/$D B1t that nonself is eerily prod1ced !y so'e co'!ination of environ'ental factors, syste'ic de!ility, and "enetic s1!stance, a set of ca1ses ,hich pro!le'ati&es the vir1s:s destr1ction, linked as the "er' is to the self that ho1ses it. Condi? ) 15 ) tions that tri""er the "ro,th of a vir1s, the o1t!reak of a ,ar,C/1D or the creation of a Shakespeare play are deeply 1npredicta!le: the avatars of coincidence, of ca1ses 'ysterio1s or al,ays ins1fficiently e*planatory. 3s an acco1nt of c1lt1ral or artistic for'ation, a chaos or conta"ion 'odel 'akes 'ore sense than deter'inistic theories !eca1se the inn1'era!le infl1ences of c1lt1re are, at their core, rando' events ,ith only satellite predicta!ilities. -he 'athe'atician Benoit Mandel!rot, ,ritin" a!o1t the calc1lations needed to "enerate a statistical 'odel of a coastline, co1ld ,ell !e disco1rsin" a!o1t art and its relation to history ,hen he notes that a deter'inistic approach E,o1ld !e . . . doo'ed to fail1re !eca1se each coastline is 'olded thro1"h the a"es !y '1ltiple infl1ences that are not recorded and cannot !e reconstit1ted in any detail. -he "oal of achievin" a f1ll description is hopeless, and sho1ld not even !e entertainedE .<1oted in >ayles, Chaos ,ound , 1FI0. -his state'ent, ideolo"ically deficient if applied to c1lt1ral for'ations, nonetheless carries a 1sef1l re'inder for historicists: the te*t:s conditions of prod1ction si'ply cannot !e specified in f1ll. Effects in the ,orld are not necessarily linear or proportionate to their ca1ses= an effect s1ch as a te*t is especially, thankf1lly 1npredicta!le, and al,ays at so'e distance fro' its Eca1se.E +f the ,ork of art ,ere 'erely a rec1rsion of chaotic historical patterns, or a EtellE ,hose layers co'prise cross?sections of its o,n fo1ndin" c1lt1re, it ,o1ld then see' to lack all a1tono'y. @nce ,e posit that c1lt1ral infl1ences prod1ce, ho,ever 1npredicta!ly, te*t1al effects, the idea of the te*t:s 1tter contin"ency is inevita!le. +nscription initially offers hope here, insofar as it si"nifies artistic control and a"ency: if the c1lt1re can !e inscri!ed in the te*t, then the latter a1to'atically contains, ne1trali&es, or other,ise 'ana"es the for'er. B1t this acco1nt of the process is inco'plete. -he act of inscri!in" history in te*ts 'ay begin a1thorially as an atte'pt to contain or reify chaotic 'eanin"s .,hich is ho, 'y readin"s of literary historio"raphy !e"an0. B1t it 'ore often !eco'es, in spite of itself, the practice of protracting and replicatin" a chaos of histories thro1"h the artistic 'edi1'. +n the case of the three plays st1died here, their the'atic tropes of si'ilarity evoke principles of apparent internal and referential orderBonly, as + have said, to !reak do,n for'al cate"ories and perspectives. 71st as the rese'!lances of >ector and 3chilles, >a'let and Cla1di1s, or Oiola and Se!astian are the occasion for lar"e?scale conf1sions, so the te*ts: self?si'ilarity to the environin" histories of ,hich they are part dissolves the ontolo"ical !o1ndaries !et,een the theater and its infl1ences, analo"1es, and inter?

) 1F ) te*ts. >istory, latent in the plots of the dra'as, dissolves the self nonself or e*ternal internal dialectic that feeds the for'alist h1n"er. Shakespeare:s plays, ,hich have 1ntil fairly recently !een re"arded as antiseptically literary, are in fact thoro1"hly to1ched .the 8enaissance ter' for Econta'inatedE as ,ell as E'addenedE0 !y the ele'ents of the ti'e. @ne ass1'ption 1nder,ritin" this !ook is that te*t1al a'!i"1ity or aporia co'ple*ly e'!odies historical 1ndecida!ility. More than an ad61vant factor in te*t1al parado*es and cr1*es, history is a ca1sal one. +n this respect inscription is both an intentional and an inevita!le act: the res1lt of a1thorial choice and c1lt1ral co'p1lsion. Even in cases of Shakespeare:s deli!erate deploy'ent of referentiality, 1ne*pected co'plications inherent in the facts !reak forth, rattlin" the a1thor:s "rasp of the operations. +nscription?as?control can !e alar'ed !y inscription?as?infiltration. -he c1lt1re inscri!es, lod"es itself in te*ts= the te*ts, in t1rn, ,ith and ,itho1t a1thorial sanction, ,rite o1t the 'eanin"s of this occ1pancy.

II
@ne o1"ht to resist the te'ptation, even in introd1ctions, to 'ake a*io's o1t of 1ncertainties. Still, s1ch for'1las are 1sef1l as positional 'arkers. So + shall clai', first, that the si"nificance of an historical 'o'ent is al,ays 1nkno,a!le at that 'o'ent, 61st as the originar# relation of te*ts to their conte*ts is indeter'inate. So'e historical episodes, ,hich fro' o1r c1rrent vanta"e point appear to have only a sin"le 'eanin", do1!tless had, at the ti'e, n1'ero1s se'antic re"isters. +n the second <1arto of Hamlet , + ar"1e, Shakespeare inscri!es a'on" other thin"s the physical and psychic dan"er of the !1!onic pla"1e. -his inscription accords nicely ,ith a career "enre transition= after Hamlet , the happy endin" !eco'es nearly i'possi!le for Shakespeare, or at least e*tre'ely e*pensive. B1t even tho1"h the historical fact of conta"ion keeps co'pany ,ith Shakespeare:s canonical shift to tra"edy or tra"ico'edy, different responses to the diseaseBliterary and other,iseB,ere certainly possi!le. -he event, that is, ,as coded across a ,ide ran"e of "eneric possi!ilities, and these possi!ilities co'plicate easy ass1'ptions a!o1t the valence of the historical fact. -here is, for e*a'ple, the 7onsonian take on pla"1e, sta"ed in The -lchemist .1F$90, ,here persons of ,it, opport1nity, and ,eird fortit1de can tri1'ph hilario1sly= or -ho'as Aashe:s The &nfortunate Tra.eller .159#0, a 'a6or pla"1e te*t, ,here disease la1nches a plot that spra,ls to,ard the "ro? ) 1I ) tes<1e and a,ay fro' pathos or tradition. -ho'as 2ekker:s pla"1e pa'phlets .1F$#M#F0 cond1ct, like Aashe:s ,ork, !rilliantly inventive "enre e*peri'ents in ,hich sickness !rin"s on a kind of civic psycho'achia. (ro' another an"le, Christopher Marlo,e fashions in Tamburlaine .c. 15%I0 an heroic .or antiheroic0 version of the ,orld?con<1erin" pestilence that challen"es !oth si'ple 3ristotelian responses s1ch as pity or terror and si'ple 'oral reactions ,hich 1s1ally prevail in c1lt1ral crises. 3nd Shakespeare ,as <1ite prepared in other ,orksB0o.e1s 0abor1s 0ost, - )idsummer !ight1s 2ream, T elfth !ight Bto deploy the idea of pla"1e or conta"ion as a co'ic device, a trick of desire and "ro1p psycholo"y. -h1s, ,hat o1"ht to !e the 'ost le"i!le eventsBthe 'ost appallin" tra"edies or, conversely, the happiest occ1rrencesBare not necessarily inscri!ed or interpreted in a 1nifor' ,ay. Even 'ore threatenin" to a sin"le vie, of the 'eanin" of a partic1lar historical pheno'enon is the possi!ility of conte'porary indifference: the chance that, as 31den co''ents on Br1e"hel:s Icarus , so'e persons ,ill si'ply sail cal'ly on, 1ni'pressed ,ith 'arvelo1s disaster.C//D +ndeed, these are responses encoded in 7onson:s and 2ekker:s ,orks a!o1t the pla"1e. So + a' led to a second a*io': the se'antic i'pact of a partic1lar history ,ill al,ays !e a pro6ection !ack,ards !y an invested reader or c1lt1re.

3s an e*a'ple of the ,ays in ,hich ,orks of art prod1ce relativity a!o1t the history they inscri!e, + ,o1ld like to consider !riefly another pla"1e of c1rrent vinta"e and its inscription in a ,ork of pop1lar c1lt1re. -he 1sef1lness of this e*a'ple ,ill !e in its re'inder that the thick physiolo"ical o!sessions of tra"edy are certainly not pec1liar to the 8enaissance and that these o!sessions are al,ays factored !y historical forces.C/#D -o anticipate so'e of 'y readin"s of Shakespearean interactions ,ith history, then, and to !rin" so'e diff1se interpretive iss1es in this !ook into foc1s, + offer a !rief topical readin" of a recent ,ork of 3'erican cine'a. +n 2avid Cronen!er":s re'ake of The 'l# .-,entieth?Cent1ry (o*, 19%F0, the tra"ic hero, !rilliant scientist Seth Br1ndle, s1ffers fro' 'otion sickness. Beca1se he cannot "et <1ickly fro' place to place ,itho1t feelin" <1easy, he invents an ela!orate teleportation 'achine, a '1lti?cha'!ered constr1ction or"ani&ed thro1"h a co'p1ter that codes and recodes the 'aterial to !e transported. -he asto1ndin" device vapori&es o!6ects in one cha'!er and reasse'!les the', s1pposedly 1nchan"ed, in another. >o,ever, there are so'e "litches in the process: at the !e"innin" of the 'ovie, Br1ndle can teleport only inani'ate o!6ects, !eca1se, as he e*plains it, there is so'ethin" a!o1t flesh that the central process? ) 1% ) in" 1nit of the co'p1ter does not 1nderstand. -he hero e*plains the pro!le' to Oeronica, a 6o1rnalist ,ho has !een doc1'entin" the e*peri'ent and has also recently !eco'e his s,eetheart. 3fter their love'akin", Br1ndle has the insi"ht ,hich ena!les his tri1'ph and disaster: co'p1ters are st1pid, he says, and kno, only ,hat yo1 tell the'= E+ '1st not kno, eno1"h a!o1t the flesh 'yself= +:' "oin" to have to learn.E >e ac<1ires the re<1isite kno,led"eBthe 'ovie is silent a!o1t ho,Bto ena!le teleportation of livin" thin"s. @ne evenin", sli"htly dr1nk and ,orried a!o1t Oeronica:s fidelity .act1ally, she has left for the evenin" to end a relationship ,ith a for'er partner0, Br1ndle rashly decides to teleport hi'self. B1t in the co1rse of the e*peri'ent, a co''on ho1sefly fort1ito1sly enters the transportation cha'!ers, and Br1ndle:s "enetic co'ponents are so'eho, f1sed and encoded ,ith the fly:s on his reasse'!ly= the co'p1ter interpolates the conflictin" "enetic data to create ,hat event1ally !eco'es a 'onstro1s hy!rid, a 'an?insect. .4ater, ,hen he 1nderstands ,hat has occ1rred, Br1ndle notes ,ith ,onder that his teleporter has !eco'e a "ene splicer.0 +n Cronen!er":s version, the transfor'ation is not i''ediately apparent, and the a1dience does not at first kno, ,hat effect the entry of the fly into the EtelepodE ,ill have on the s1!6ect. 3s it happens, the 'aiden voya"e t1rns o1t to !e the one that kills hi'. Oeronica soon notices Seth 1nder"oin" so'e alar'in" 'eta'orphoses. -he for'erly cal', rational 'an !eco'es psychotically ener"etic and "rossly appetitive, !oth "astrono'ically and se*1ally. B1t as the first si"ns of his '1tation !eco'e evident, another stran"e thin" happens on screen, this ti'e concernin" the 'ovie:s conversation ,ith conte'porary c1lt1re and history. Even after he 1nderstands ho, the e*peri'ent has 'iscarried, ho, he has !een "enetically f1sed ,ith the fly, Seth tells Oeronica that he has contracted an illness, not s1ffered a hideo1s accident: EKo1 ,ere ri"ht= +:' diseased, and it 'i"ht !e conta"io1s so'eho,. . . . + think Cthe sicknessD is sho,in" itself as a !i&arre for' of cancer. . . . +:' 61st "oin" to disinte"rate in a novel ,ay, and then +:ll die.E -hese lines are "iven their "loss !y Br1ndle:s increasin"ly scary appearance. >is skin !eco'es 'ottled, lesioned= not yet teratoid, in the early sta"es of his 'eta'orphosis he 'erely looks dist1r!in"ly ill. >e looks, in fact, like he has contracted 9aposi:s sarco'a, a rare and disfi"1rin" .Ea !i&arre . . . a novelE0 for' of skin cancer that is one of the !est?kno,n si"ns of patients ,ith 3c<1ired +''1ne 2eficiency Syndro'e .3+2S0.C/GD

Seth Br1ndle:s dile''a diver"es palpa!ly fro' that of the EtypicalE ) 19 ) 3'erican 3+2S victi', the >+O?positive ho'ose*1al 'ale. Still, certain points of contact are fi"1red and deflected. Br1ndle:s transfor'ation is 'arked !y hei"htened se*1al desire and pro'isc1ity, characteristics fre<1ently assi"ned early in the epide'ic, even !y sy'pathetic a1thors, to 'e'!ers of the "ay co''1nity, ,ho ,ere constantly pilloried for failin" to control their E1nnat1ralE 1r"es and th1s for spreadin" the sickness.C/5D (1rther'ore, Br1ndle:s ena!lin" kno,led"e, the 1nderstandin" that facilitates his teleportation e*peri'ent .and the ac<1isition of the sy'!olic disease0 is definitively erotic, a learnin" a!o1t the flesh, as he p1ts it= 3+2S, of co1rse, is 'ost co''only contracted thro1"h se*. -he eroticis' of the disastro1s e*peri'ent is f1rther feat1red ,hen Br1ndle cond1cts his self? teleportation in the n1de= the fil' offers no e*planation ,hy he cannot pass thro1"h the cha'!er f1lly clothed. >is 1nfaithf1l deed .a !etrayal of the ,o'an ,ho is, he thinks, !etrayin" hi'0 is a private en"a"e'ent of the naked flesh. +t is also an act that has !een infiltrated !y a sort of vir1s. +f Br1ndle co'es to rese'!le in so'e 'eas1re a victi' of disease, the fly is the patho"en, a nat1ral, rando', invasive ele'entBan 1nnoticea!le detail of daily life that can !eco'e deadly. 71st as the flea ,as for so 'any cent1ries virt1ally 1nthinka!le as the c1lprit in !1!onic pla"1e o1t!reaks, so the 'ovie insect ,reaks havoc o1t of all predicta!le proportion to its apparent po,er. B1t the fly 'ay !e an appropriate sy'!olic vessel for fears a!o1t 3+2S in ,ays the 'ovie never f1lly intends or 1nderstands. 3nd in this unconscious co''1nication ,ith its conte*t, the fil' can !e interpreted as an inscriptive doc1'ent, read in ,ays si'ilar to the readin"s of Shakespeare in this !ook. -he insect:s 'ore 1nsavory characteristics and appetites appeal, in a ,ay, to e*pectations and pre61dices that lie deep !eneath the fil':s nervo1sness a!o1t .ho'o0eroticis'. Pro'isc1o1s !reeder, revoltin" "o1r'andBa point ,e are not cine'atically sparedBand diseased co?propha"e .a feat1re ,e never have to confront0, the fly s1!li'inally foc1ses the deepest antiho'oerotic i'p1lses of heterose*1al c1lt1re. +t is associated not only ,ith sickness in "eneral !1t 'ore specifically ,ith a conflation of food, se*, and e*cre'ent. -he 'ost to*ically antiho'ose*1al persons in o1r society fi*ated early in the 3+2S crisis on these associations and char"ed "ay 'en ,ith se*1al ha!its indistin"1isha!le fro' the nat1ral !ehavior of the insect. +n 19%#, 2r. Pa1l Ca'eron of Ae!raska referred to the 'ale ho'ose*1al co''1nity as Ea livin", !reathin" cesspool of patho"ens. . . . >ere is a s1!class of people ,ho, as a f1nction of their se*1ality, are cons1'in" prodi"io1s a'o1nts . . . of fecal 'aterial.EC/FD ) /$ ) -he Cronen!er" fly not only prod1ces a sy'!olic vir1s in the 'ain character. +t also ind1ces 1nreali&ed associations ,ith a pro"ressive and fatal ail'ent that plays 1pon a partic1lar late?t,entieth?cent1ry fear Bthe fear that kno,led"e of the flesh can lead to disease and death. -o interpret the fil' and its pivotal creat1re in an historical conte*t, the vie,er '1st 1nderstand the fly:s d1al f1nction as origin of sickness .i.e., as 'etaphoric vir1s0 and as victi' of the sickness, a conver"ence the plot 'akes plain: after his internali&ation of the insect:s "enetic code and his transfor'ation, the scientist !eco'es, as he calls hi'self, EBr1ndlefly.E (i"1rin" at once the 1ndetecta!le "er', the carrier and victi' of illness, and, 'ore o!li<1ely, a set of pre61dices a!o1t the >+O?infected 'ale, the insect and the scientist a!sor! and disperse historical indicators in a nonlo"ical ,ay. Ket the Efly,E like the 'ovie itself, filters, contains, !1t does not e*actly hi"hli"ht its c1lt1ral referent. -he 'ovie:s 'ost !itter and pointed all1sion to the 3+2S crisis is <1ite indirect: it co'es in an ironic aside that co''ents on ,hat !r1tally st1pid 'oralists have said a!o1t the diseaseBthat it is, in effect, ;od:s .or Aat1re:s0 reven"e a"ainst ho'ose*1als. +n atte'ptin" to e*plain to Oeronica the si"nificance of his transfor'ation, Seth notes in

passin", E+ see' to !e stricken !y a disease ,ith a p1rpose, ,o1ldn:t yo1 sayJE @ther than this co''ent, ho,ever, the hero:s de'ise has little or nothin" to do e*plicitly ,ith 3+2S, and ho'ose*1ality does not have a voice in the story. Br1ndle:s !rief rese'!lance in The 'l# to an 3+2S patient did not 'ark a ,atershed 'o'ent for >olly,ood:s treat'ent of the disease, nor did it chan"e the ,ays in ,hich it ,as possi!le to think a!o1t sickness= indeed, the presence of 3+2S or ne,?disease disco1rse in the 'ovie has "one lar"ely 1nnoticed.C/ID So ,hy is the tr1ncated, slanted reference there at allJ Even tho1"h the 'ovie cannot !e said to !e Ea!o1tE the ail'ent in any e*tensive ,ay, Br1ndle:s lesions are si"ns, 'odern versions of the pla"1y death tokens ,hich cried EAo recoveryE .Troilus and Cressida , /.#.1I90 a!o1t victi's of pestilence. >istory insin1ates itself in The 'l# like a disease. Aeither a perfect nor perfectly conscio1s 'etaphor for the hero:s s1fferin", 3+2S still f1nctions s1!li'inally to ,arn 1s of the despair and the terror of !odily deterioration ,hich a,ait 'any a victi' of the illness= this is the precise fate a,aitin" Seth Br1ndle. -he analo"y !et,een Br1ndle and that of an 3+2S patient tellsBin the archaeolo"ical senseBthe encroachin" tra"edy of the hero: this 1tterly 1n!elieva!le fiction all1des askance to a 'or!idly prevalent, too?co''on horror story in o1r 'idst. Br1ndle:s idiosyncratic fate, his co'plete sin"1larity, ,o1ld see' to <1arantine the 3+2S references ,ithin the ) /1 ) !arrier of the !i&arre plot= the character see's to defeat si'ilit1des. -his, ho,ever, is e*actly the lesson that ,e have had to learn, that the de'o"raphy of pande'ics has ta1"ht: diseases cross pop1lation !o1ndaries and distri!1te risk= and, as + shall s1""est thro1"h readin" Shakespearean tropes of si'ilarity, epide'ics enforce likeness ,ithin and !eyond the 'ar"ins of te*ts. -he veiled all1sion, the 1ndeveloped 1ndertone are o!6ects of le"iti'ate critical st1dy no, that te*ts can !e t1rned inside o1t to sho, ho, they have s,allo,ed history. -here are 'ore o!vio1sly si"nificant 'otifs in The 'l# than the one + have !een disc1ssin"=C/%D the ,ork E'eansE '1ch the sa'e thin", has the sa'e effect on an a1dience, ,itho1t the fil'ic lan"1a"e of disease penetratin" it. Cronen!er":s horror fiction cannot and does not pretend to 'ake people think responsi!ly .or at all0 a!o1t the conse<1ences of the 3+2S epide'ic= indeed, the fil':s "eneric classification as pop1lar horror fiction ,o1ld see' to a!sent it fro' the !1rden of serious historical referentiality, altho1"h + think it is a 'istake not to take its all1sions serio1sly, ho,ever indirectly they are presented. -he historical presence of 3+2S contri!1tes to The 'l# a disco1rse of disaster, a tone of 'ortality= !1t the n1ances of s1ch a disco1rse are sheathed and dor'ant in the te*t, and they can .and 1s1ally do0 pass ,itho1t notice. 3s these spec1lations a!o1t cine'a are 'eant to i'ply, the 'eanin" of history in te*ts is at once s1!stantial and fleetin", the prod1ct of control and accident. 5hat 'ay !e"in as a half?conscio1s a1thorial strate"y to 'anip1late historical reference can !eco'e the interpreter:s prophylactic effort to constrain infectio1s 'eanin"s that have escaped artistic constraint. +n Shakespeare:s 'iddle or transitional plays, the realBfi"1red in this !ook as L1een Eli&a!eth and the earl of Esse*, the first 7aco!ean pla"1e, the P1ritan 'ove'entBhas an i'pact that '1st al,ays !e interpolated, pro6ected !ack,ards, !eca1se ,e cannot kno, the e*tent to ,hich c1lt1ral t1r'oil affects individ1al 'ental landscapes. +f 'atters of p1!lic record s1ch as 'o'ento1s chan"es in politics or de'o"raphics can !eco'e insepara!le fro' the nerve and fi!er of a literary te*t, so too can a "eneral 1nease or a private array of co'ple* pleas1res and inconveniences. Many of the specific and local conditions of i'a"inative prod1ction ,ill never !e recovered: the ,eather, the 'ood of friends, the "ate receipts for the 'onth. Shakespeare:s ,ork re'ains ,alled off, !y reason of its te'poral and c1lt1ral distance, fro' the kind of inti'ate historical co'prehension that ,o1ld entirely confir' the readin"s + 1ndertake.

+ndeed, even 'y personal an*ietiesB ) // ) ,hich do1!tless helped 'e select the histories + interpret as 1ndenia!le te*t1al presencesBcontrol these readin"s hapha&ardly, not deter'inistically. >istorical referentiality in Shakespeare:s ,ork '1st al,ays evoke dire do1!t. -he proportions and arran"e'ent of this !ook derive fro' this do1!t, fro' 'y advancin" conviction a!o1t the si'1ltaneo1s vitality and el1siveness of topical 'eanin"s in Shakespeare:s theater. +ndeed, even as these readin"s 'ake stron" clai's for Shakespearean inscriptions of his ti'e, they 'ove steadily a,ay fro' the ass1'ption of the plays: direct topical correspondences ,ith their c1lt1re. -he ,ay + have arran"ed the' here, the three dra'as de'onstrate an increasin" resistance to history, descri!in" an arc fro' a fairly neat if pro!le'atic deploy'ent of historical character and event .Troilus and Cressida 0 thro1"h an e*tre'ely '1rky conta"ion of referentiality .Hamlet 0 to the virt1al a!sence of si"nificant local reference .T elfth !ight 0. Hamlet , Shakespeare:s 'ost episte'olo"ically 1nsta!le play and the 'ost 1nsta!le te*t in its relation to histories, "ets the !1lk of 'y critical attention here= it is fra'ed !y one? chapter st1dies of the topically co"ent historical satire and the all1sively dis61nctive co'edy. -he t,o !racketin" te*ts occ1py less space in 'y readin" of Shakespeare:s conte*t1ality !eca1se they are in so'e sense less !othered a!o1t the presence of history ,ithin their !orders. -o 'ove fro' -roy to +llyria, ,ith 2en'ark !et,een, is to travel fro' 'i*ed "enre to fi*ed "enre. My artificial sche'e tentatively s1""ests that ,hen Shakespeare:s 'iddle plays stray fro' "eneric re"1larity, they cleave to referentiality, as if history:s anchor act1ally freed for' fro' convention. -he "ender coordinates of the te*ts also shift as this st1dy 'oves fro' -roy:s co'pro'ised tra"ic ,orld to +llyria:s 'elancholy co'ic one. Specifically, in this arran"e'ent, the potential for an 1ndi'inished fe'ale po,er "rad1ally increases, and 'iso"yny decreases accordin"ly. Perhaps this, too, is the 1pshot of "enreB4inda Ba'!er:s Comic 3omen, Tragic )en paradi"' co'es to 'indC/9D B!1t ,hereas in other co'edies a latent 'iso"yny can !e sensed !eneath fe'ale trials and tri1'phs, in T elfth !ight ,o'en are, for once in Shakespeare, portrayed not as trivial, enervated, or e'asc1latin" fi"1res !1t as pleas1ra!ly forcef1l practitioners of their co'plicated ,ills. + hope that the 'ove'ent to +llyria in this !ook ,orks as so'ethin" of a corrective to the '1ch decried and denied ne,?historicist tendency to 1nderval1e fe'inist theory and conscio1sness. Perhaps the 'ar"inali&ation of the topic to the pen1lti'ate para"raph of this introd1ction see's ) /# ) only to confir' the tendency. B1t the transfor'ations of "ender hierarchies and erotic potencies in these plays are central concerns of this !ook. -hese transfor'ations inscri!e history= they fi"1re the social str1ct1res and possi!ilities of fe'ale po,er in the 8enaissance. S1ch iss1es, it sho1ld !e noted, are so often s1!ordinated to 'asc1linist concerns in the plays the'selvesBT elfth !ight e*ceptedB that it is so'eti'es diffic1lt to restore referentiality to the fe'inist pro6ect. -his diffic1lty, ho,ever, sho1ld itself !eco'e the s1!6ect of historicist readin"s. Michel de Certea1 re'inds 1s that the Epro6ect of historio"raphy is the inverse of the poetic oneE: C>istorio"raphyD consists of f1rnishin" disco1rse ,ith referentiality, to 'ake it f1nction as Ee*pressive,E to le"iti'i&e it !y 'eans of the Ereal,E in short, to initiate disco1rse as that ,hich is s1pposed to have kno,led"e. -he la, of historio"raphy f1nctions to o!sc1re nothin"ness, to s1ppress the void, to fill the "ap. -he disco1rse '1st not appear separate

fro' its referents. -he a!sence or loss at the ori"in of its constr1ct '1st not !e 1nveiled. . . . 4iterary history:s f1nction is to tirelessly restore referentiality= it prod1ces s1ch referentiality and forces its reco"nition fro' the te*t. 4iterary history th1s . . . transfor's the te*t into an instit1tion, if ,e define the instit1tion as the instr1'ent ,hich renders credi!le the ade<1ation of disco1rse and reality !y i'posin" its disco1rse as the la, "overnin" the real.C#$D -his !racin" cynicis' a!o1t the historio"raphical pro6ect can stand as a sentry at the "ates of 'y readin"s, ,arnin" passers!y that referentiality is a!o1t to !e restoredB!1t Ethe a!sence or loss at the ori"inE of history or disco1rse ,ill not !e veiled. +n fact, + a' interested in contri!1tin" to Shakespearean reinstit1tionali&ation in de Certea1:s ter's, even tho1"h theatrical disco1rse cannot !e f1lly ade<1ated to the real. >o,, then, is the restoration of referentiality to the te*t to !e 61stified if this referentiality lacks tr1th val1e or ontolo"ical necessityJ (or 'y p1rposes, the savin" notion lies in the pl1rali&ation of conte*ts, the multiplicit# of reference in ,hich disco1rse circ1lates, ,hether that disco1rse is historio"raphical, poetical, or the speakin" practice of everyday life. 71st as de Certea1 ar"1es that Eone can re"ard historio"raphy as so'ethin" of a 'i* of science and fictionE ./$#0, so shall + re"ard Shakespeare no, as a 'i* of historical facts and theatrical fictions, !oth of ,hich dra, .on0 a si'ilit1de of the real. ) /5 )

One, Em+l$+s Facti$ns an* the C$lla-se $% Chi&alr'

Troilus and Cressida +n The State of England -nno 2om. 4566 , -ho'as 5ilson descri!es a co1ntry !esie"ed. 2espite its reno,ned 'ilitary force and ,ell?fortified capital city, En"land s1ffered a pervasive fear of attack. (re<1ent skir'ishes ,ith +reland and r1'ors of i''inent Spanish invasion fostered a national preocc1pation ,ith ,ar. +ndeed, 5ilson:s description of private arsenals portrays an entire co1ntry ar'ed and at the ready for !attle: (or the provisions of ar'o1r every ho,seholder is char"ed to have in his ho,se, in a readiness, s1ch ar'es as is appointed !y the Co''isioners, and there is no ho,seholder so poore that is not char"ed ,ith so'e thin", at least a !ill, s,ord, or da""er, ,ho soever he is, 1nless he !e a !e""ar.C1D -his late Eli&a!ethan o!session ,as !orn of vi"ilance a"ainst a forei"n 'enace, !1t it also had an ideolo"ical co'ponent. +t 'anifested the 'onarch:s personal sy'!olo"y: invasion ,as a 'etaphoric threat to the inviolate Oir"in L1een and her real'. Policy and ideolo"y conver"ed in En"land:s national ener"ies, ,hich ,ere directed lar"ely to defensive as opposed to a""ressive or interventionist ends.C/D 5ilson notes, for instance, that the Eco'on so1ldiers that are sent o1t of the real'e !e of the !asest and 'ost 1ne*perienced, the !est !ein" reserved to defend fro' invasionE .State of England , #G0. 8arely conciliatory, the co1ntry neither escalated hostilities .profiteerin" 'issions e*cepted0 nor so1"ht peace. En"land:s conco'itant state of sie"e ,as, oddly, a 'arker of s1ccess. ) /F )

3s lon" as the co1ntry .like its <1een0 co1ld repel attack, it ,o1ld 'aintain po,er. +n her fa'ed speech to the troops at -il!1ry in 15%%, anticipatin" an inc1rsion !y the Spanish 3r'ada, Eli&a!eth provocatively declai'ed her credo: + a' co'e a'on"st yo1 . . . to lay do,n for 'y ;od and for 'y 9in"do' and for 'y people 'y honor and 'y !lood even in the d1st. + kno, + have the !ody !1t of a ,eak and fee!le ,o'an, !1t + have the heart and sto'ach of a kin", and of a kin" of En"land too, and think fo1l scorn that Par'a or Spain, or any prince of E1rope sho1ld dare to invade the !orders of 'y real'= to ,hich, rather than any dishono1r shall "ro, !y 'e, + 'yself ,ill take 1p ar's.C#D -he first sentence syntactically i'plies and ,ithdra,s eroticis' .E+ a' co'e . . . to lay do,n . . . 'y honor and 'y !loodE0 in its e*pression of Eli&a!eth:s 'ilitary intentions. -akin" 1p ar's here is a ,holly selfprotective 'eas1re. -he <1een 'eans to defend a"ainst an invasion that co1ld, like a se*1al violation, en"ender i"no'iny. Eli&a!eth at -il!1ry disclosed the psycholo"ical effect of her policy: the ed"y passivity of ,aitin" for an attack. +nvasion an*iety prod1ced a 'ilitary strate"y and a national condition of nervo1sness, inspirin" s1ch ela!orate preparations as ,ere seen at -il!1ry and other points of entry.CGD 4ike Cressida in Troilus and Cressida , the co1ntry lay on its !ack to defend its !elly, Eat all these ,ards,E Eat a tho1sand ,atchesE .Troilus and Cressida , 1././5$0.C5D Cressida:s ,ords to Pandar1s descri!e !oth a se*1al and a 'artial strate"y, one that !efits a play a!o1t a ,ar that !e"an as a rape. >er parado*ical description of defenseBshe ,ill lie 1pon her !ack to defend her !elly, E1pon 'y secrecy, to defend 'ine honesty= 'y 'ask, to defend 'y !ea1tyE .1././G%M G90Bcan also !e taken as a pec1liarly Eli&a!ethan 'ode of !ehavior. -he <1een 'aintained her sy'!olic and literal inviola!ility thro1"h vi"ilant ,ards and ,atches, !1t she ad'itted fe'inine v1lnera!ility as a defense of her .'asc1line0 a1thority. 5ith the heart and sto'ach of a kin" !1t the !ody of a ,eak and fee!le ,o'an, Eli&a!eth 'ade s1!stantial ideolo"ical "ains fro' a see'in"ly s1scepti!le post1re. Cressida:s policy .1ns1ccessf1l tho1"h it is0 artic1lates, on a 'in1te scale, a version of Eli&a!eth:s= the play ,orld of Troilus and Cressida .c. 1F$/0 co'prises far 'ore co'prehensive and co'plicated sta"in"s of late Eli&a!ethan ideolo"y, policy, and events. -he ne1rosis of invasion 'ade En"land so'ethin" of a -roy, a nation ten years at ,ar ,itho1t stron" hope of either victory or tr1ce. -roy, !e? ) /I ) sie"ed and paraly&ed, i'a"inatively refi"1res the tro1!led last years of -1dor r1le.

I
En"land:s disen"a"ed, perpet1al 'ilitancy in the 159$s ,as replicated in a hostile at'osphere at co1rt. Protracted str1""les ,ith Spain and +reland 'a"nified tensions ,ithin the 1pper levels of "overn'ent. -he no!les divided alon" anti? and pro?,ar lines. -he Cecil fa'ilyB5illia' Cecil, 4ord B1rlei"h .treas1rer of the real'0 and his son 8o!ert .secretary to the <1een0Bled the faction that pro'oted peace ,ith Spain and +reland. -he opposin", 'ilitant faction follo,ed 8o!ert 2evere1*, the second earl of Esse*. -he conflict !et,een Esse* and the Cecils ,as no 'ere set?to !et,een co''on political opponents= it ,as in fact a central social dra'a in the last years of the rei"n. Even tho1"h, as -ho'as 5ilson s1""estively notes, there ,ere Eso'e "ood 4a,es 'ade to avoid e'1lacion a'on"st no!le'en and "entle'en and also factions,ECFD those la,s '1st have f1nctioned to entice !y see'in" to prohi!it. (or

as is "enerally reco"ni&ed, the proliferation of e'1lation and factions ,as a cr1cial characteristic of Eli&a!eth:s 'ethod of r1le. (ro' the !e"innin" of her rei"n the <1een had e'ployed factionalis' as a kind of ecosyste'.CID -o prevent challen"es to the 'onarchy, the no!les ,ere enco1ra"ed to conceive of one another as the sole o!stacles to positions of "reater and "reater stren"th. (actionalis', like the national 'ilitary post1re and Cressida:s 'is1nderstood se*1ality, ,as essentially defensive, a strate"y to control and redirect hostility. -he (rench a'!assador e*traordinaire to En"land in 159I, 3ndrN >1ra1lt, sie1r de Maisse, noticed that -he co1rt is ordinarily f1ll of discontent and factions, and the L1een is ,ell pleased to 'aintain it so, and then the 4ord -reas1rer, old as he is, is e*ceedin"ly a'!itio1s and finds nothin" !1t a'1se'ent in these co1rt !roils, and his son is alto"ether i''ersed in the'.C%D +n their !risk ca'pai"n for force and place, Eli&a!eth:s no!les did '1ch of her ,ork for her. 8o!ert Aa1nton later ,rote of the <1een that Ethe principall note of her rai"ne ,ill !e that she r1led '1ch !y faction and parties, ,hich she herself !oth 'ade, 1pheld, and ,eakened as her o,n "reat 61d"e'ent advised.EC9D Certainly, early in her r1le, Eli&a!eth circ1'scri!ed 'ost of the factional conflict she created. B1t if aristocratic hostility ,as the ) /% ) prod1ct of an i'posed plan, there ,ere indications at the end of the si*teenth cent1ry that the desi"n co1ld not contain its 'aterials. -he co1rtiers ,ho ca'e to the fore in the 159$s had an a'!itio1s slyness a!o1t the' that B1rlei"h and 4eicester dared not display ,hen Eli&a!eth ,as in her pri'e.C1$D -he 1s1ally perspicacio1s <1een ,as late to ackno,led"e the ne, cli'ate= in 1F$1 she la'ented, EAo, the ,it of the fo* is every,here on foot, so as hardly a faithf1l or virt1o1s 'an 'ay !e fo1nd.EC11D -he overreachin" peers prod1ced 'ore intense str1""les than Eli&a!eth had anticipated, and these str1""les disr1pted the delicate !alance she had s1stained for so lon". 5hen Esse* finally led an ar'ed contin"ent a"ainst 5hitehall in 1F$1, the co1p ,as directed a"ainst the earl:s rivals, not a"ainst the <1een. -he faction syste' ,as c1rio1sly effective in deflectin" hostility fro' Eli&a!eth= nevertheless, the str1""le for pro'inence at co1rt precipitated the a!ortive re!ellion.C1/D E3 "ood <1arrel to dra, e'1lo1s factions, and !leed to death 1ponE ./.#.I50 over,hel'ed the str1ct1re of r1le that Eli&a!eth had 1sed for so'e forty years. 2esi"ned to restrain disorder, factionalis' act1ally f1eled it. -he syste', as Esse*:s career 1lti'ately s1""ests, !ackfired violently.C1#D +t ,as apparent even !efore the re!ellion that factions e*tended far !eyond Eli&a!eth:s intentional infl1ence. 3d'inistrative divisiveness !eca'e the ,idespread nor'. Even 5ilson, ,ho ,as only a tan"ent to the circle of the co1rt, co1ld o!serve: +n all "reat offices and places of char"e they doe all,ayse place & persons of contrary factions and that are !redd of s1ch ca1ses, or "ro,ne to s1ch "reatness, as they are ever irreconcila!le, to the end, each havin" his ene'yes eye to overlooke hi', it 'ay 'ake hi' looke the ,arilier to the char"e, and that if any !ody sho1ld incline to any 1nfaithf1lnesse in s1ch char"es of i'portance as concern the p1!lic<1e safety, it 'i"ht !e spied !efore it !e !ro1"ht to any dan"ero1s head. . . . -his is seene al,ayse in ye -o,re, the place of 'ost tr1st, ,here the 4ieftenant and St1ard, 'aster of the @rdnance and 4ieftenant of the sa'e, have !een ever in 'y re'e'!rance vo,ed ene'yes, and this is too apparent in the 2ep1tyes of +reland P ;ovnor of M1nster att this ti'e and heretofore. .State of England , G/MG#0 -he drift of 5ilson:s political science is clear. -he faction syste' ,as necessarily 1nsta!le, for it deployed 'i"hty opposites in critical and ad6acent posts= the nation !alanced 1neasily in conflict. (ro'

the co1rt to the -o,er to the pro*y "overn'ent in +reland, hostility prevailed as internal policy "re, precario1s and p1!lic. Co1rt !attles at the end of the rei"n had their stor'y center in the Esse* and Cecil conflict, yet they ) /9 ) s1rpassed policy or even personality and entered a different cate"ory, that of inescapa!le "overn'ental rift. Proliferatin" factions see'ed to 'anifest a patholo"ical dis1nity of political str1ct1re and spirit, a conta"io1s e'1lation of disorder. -he 'ost pro'inent feat1re of the rei"n in its last years ,as this spreadin" a"on inside it= internal strife prolon"ed e*ternal pro!le's and diseased the real'. +n Troilus and Cressida , Shakespeare transfor's a de facto Eli&a!ethan policy and its 1nforeseen conse<1ences into a central plot co'plication of the -ro6an 5ar story. @r ,e 'i"ht say that he inscri!es and a1"'ents the rese'!lance !et,een a 'a6or crisis of that story and a cr1cial political pro!le' of his ti'e. -he Iliad !e"ins ,ith a civil ,ar for s1pre'acy !et,een 3chilles and 3"a'e'non. 3chilles soon ,ithdra,s fro' the fi"htin" to protest 3"a'e'non:s appropriation of his Epri&e,E Briseis= his a!sence ha'strin"s the ;recian forces, ,hich re'ain ineffective 1ntil his ret1rn. B1t rather than portray the ;reek dile''a in >o'eric ter's as an offended hero:s protest a"ainst rapacio1s a1thority, Shakespeare fra'es the crisis as a pla"1e of personal interest "ro1ps. Oe*in" factionalis' 1nderlies the fail1re of the ;reek ar'y and co'pels Ulysses to e*po1nd on the loss of Ede"ree.E >e attri!1tes the prolon"ation of the -ro6an 5ar to ad'inistrative ne"lect and a conse<1ent divisiveness in the ca'p: U4KSSES : -roy yet 1pon his !ases had !een do,n 3nd the "reat >ector:s s,ord had lack:d a 'aster B1t for these instances. -he specialty of r1le hath !een ne"lected= 3nd look, ho, 'any ;recian tents do stand >ollo, 1pon this plain, so 'any hollo, factions. .1.#.I5M%$0

Ulysses: speech ina1"1rates a topical representation of internecine political strife and its effects. 71st as irreconcila!le ene'ies see'ed to infect every li'! of En"lish "overn'ent, so hollo, factions spread a'on" the ;reeks and fra"'ent the 'ilitia. +nattentive, ineffect1al a1thority and an entirely self?centered no!ility "enerate this t1r'oil. 3"a'e'non, alle"edly the leader of ;reece, is incapa!le of dia"nosin" or even noticin" the pro!le' !esettin" his co''and. +ndeed, Ulysses: decla'ation on de"ree 1nderc1ts .and th1s co''ents sharply on0 the "eneral:s cl1'sy atte'pts to rationali&e the ar'y:s protracted fail1re .1.#.1M#$0. -he aristocracy, indifferent to disorder, constantly en"a"es in p1rposeless .nonteleolo"ical0 acts of s1!? ) #$ ) version, and these acts prove irresisti!le. E*plicatin" the ;reeks: ,oes, Ulysses cannot help !1t perfor' the disr1ptive thin" he decries: first !y takin" center sta"e fro' 3"a'e'non and indictin" Ethe specialty of r1leE= ne*t !y openly confessin" his scorn for his s1perior .E-he "eneral:s disdained By hi' one step !eneathE C1.#.1/9M#$D0= and finally !y envio1sly locatin" the !la'e for the ar'y:s fail1res in a fello, ,arrior, th1s refle*ively provin" his point and perpet1atin" the pro!le' of

divisiveness. 3ccordin" to Ulysses, the ;recian pro!le' is nearly feat1reless, e'ptied o1t, 1nreada!le Bhollo, factions in hollo, tents 1pon a plainByet there is one clear si"nifier: E-he "reat 3chilles, ,ho' opinion cro,ns -he sine, and the forehand of o1r hostE .1.#.1G/MG#0, dist1r!s the order of thin"s. 3chilles derives his '1sc1lar soverei"nty fro' Eopinion,E an essential feat1re of any co1rt dyna'ic. >e !eco'es the only consens1s a"ent of force in the ,orld of -roy= the entire ,ar, it see's, is his prero"ative. Po,er is sit1ated, ne"otiated, !1rles<1ed in his tent in a "reat parody of Eli&a!ethan peer affairs. -he 3chilles faction en"a"es in co1ncils, political intri"1e, satire, the "ossip of the pa'pered, and even co1rt entertain'ents: -hersites Eis a privile"ed 'anE ./.#.F$0 s1ch as 'onarchs had. 5hen Ulysses ad'its that Eopinion cro,nsE his collea"1e?o1t?of?ar's the Esine, and the forehandE of ;reece, he inadvertently "rants to 3chilles the fi"1rative !ody of "overnance. Si"nificantly ho,ever, s1ch ad hoc, 1nsolicited po,er 'akes hi' an en"ine of disr1ption. >is tentkeepin" is all the ra"eBa fashion trend that sparks conta"io1s an"er. 3chilles:s ,ithdra,al "enerates f1rio1s, sin"le?,in" factions s1ch as 36a*, a poor e'1lator of casual a1tono'y. 36a*, E"ro,n self?,ill:d,E 'i'ics 3chilles, Ekeeps his tent like hi'= Makes factio1s feastsE .1.#.19$M910. -his 1nconscientio1s o!6ector has !e"1n to da'a"e the ;recian ca1se thro1"h i'itative inaction and editoriali&ation= he rails Eon o1r state of ,ar Bold as an oracleE .1.#.191M9/0. -h1s 3chilles:s preference for his private Efaction of foolsE ./.1.1/10 a'o1nts to an ins1rrection= his a!sence fro' the ,ars is a po,er that 'i'eo"raphic e'1lation 'akes perilo1s. Ao ar'y, no ad'inistration, can afford s1ch a trend of depart1res. 3chilles:s po,er in s1!versive absence ironically fi"1res the decenterin" of force relations in -roy. -he 'ost potent ,arrior, the for'er "lorio1s i'a"e of herois', 1ndoes hierarchy si'ply thro1"h his secl1sion. +n 159%, so'e three or fo1r years prior to Troilus and Cressida , ;eor"e Chap'an p1!lished an 1nfinished translation of the Iliad ,ith a dedication to the earl of Esse*. -o Chap'an, 8o!ert 2evere1* had ) #1 ) a nearly 'ythic stat1re= he represented de'idivinity, an even 'ore heroic EtypeE than that of the co1rtier?soldier?scholar. -he ,ork is therefore inscri!ed E-o the Most >onored no, livin" +nstance of the 3chilleian vert1es eterni&ed !y divine >o'ere, the Earl of Esse*.EC1GD -his address enacts the re<1isite fa,nin" over a potential patron, !1t it also represents a personal and a c1lt1ral perception. (or Esse* as an e*e'plar of 3chillean attri!1tes in En"land .,hether these ,ere virt1es or not is at <1estion0. -he Oenetian a'!assador (rancisco Contarini, ,ritin" in 1599, 1ne<1ivocally calls hi' Ethe "reatest persona"e in En"land, the 'an ,ho has en6oyed 'ore of the L1een:s favor than anyone else.EC15D Esse*:s dashin" de'eanor and restless self?pro'otion contri!1ted to his a1ra of "lory, !1t his 'ost visi!le attri!1te ,as his a""ressive 'ilitaris'. 2e Maisse reports that E3'on" the co1rtiers the Earl of Esse* is the chief person in the 8eal'. . . . >e is entirely "iven over to ar's and the ,ar, and is the only 'an in En"land ,ho has ,on any reno,n there!yE .7ournal , ##0. 2evere1* took enth1siastic part in the 'ost conspic1o1s state 'ilitary operations= his herois' at 8o1en .15910 and Cadi& .159F0 ,as already the st1ff of national le"end. B1t ,hen he fell fro' favor at co1rt, ,hen the factional t1r'oil there "re, oppressive, or ,hen his proposed ,ar policies 'et ,ith royal indecision or disapproval, the earl also fre<1ently ind1l"ed in a disr1ptive, 3chillean recl1siveness. 2e Maisse repeatedly descri!es 2evere1* as an a!sence 'ore than a presence: E-he Earl of Esse*, for his part, is very independent= on the least pre?te*t "iven hi' he ,ithdra,s and ,o1ld "o to his o,n ho1seE .1%0. -he friendly and sy'pathetic a'!assador arrived in En"land after Esse*:s ret1rn fro' the failed ca'pai"n to the 3&ores= altho1"h de Maisse often so1"ht an a1dience ,ith the se<1estered earl, he 'et a"ain and a"ain ,ith only r1'ors: E3ccordin" to report CEsse*D ,as fei"nin" illness, and had !een in

dis"race ,ith the L1een since ret1rnin" fro' his voya"eE .##0. Esse*:s s1rly ,ithdra,als ,ere ,ell kno,n to Chap'an= as a res1lt, Ethe 159% Iliads discloses Chap'an:s st1died, eccentric atte'pt to apolo"i&e for 3chilles:s isolation,EC1FD Chap'an:s pro'otion of the earl as 3chilles is a s1stained 61stification of an individ1alist ,hose separation fro' society is intended to indict corr1pt social practice. -he dedication to Esse* contin1es: Most tr1e 3chilles .,ho' !y sacred prophecie >o'ere did !1t prefi"1re in his ad'ira!le o!6ect and in ,hose 1n'atched vert1es shyne the di"nities of ) #/ ) the so1le and the ,hole e*cellence of royall h1'anitie0, let not the Pessantco''on polities of the ,orld . . . stirre yo1r divine te'per fro' perseverance in "odlike p1rs1te of Eternitie. .Chapman1s Homer , 5$G0 -he >o'eric 3chilles is the perfect fi"1re for an Esse* apolo"ia !eca1se, as Cedric 5hit'an has said, Einte"rity in 3chilles achieves the for' and a1thority of i''anent divinity, ,ith its inviola!le, lonely sin"leness, half repellent !eca1se of its al'ost inh1'an a1sterity, !1t irresisti!le in its passion and perfected selfhood.EC1ID 4ike his >o'eric archetype, Chap'an:s 3chilles is a sensitive, ,ron"ed ,arrior ,ho ri"hteo1sly ,ithdra,s fro' the !attle to confo1nd 3"a'e'non:s over,eenin" a1thority. B1t any e*tensive p1rs1it of the parallel prod1ces a 'ore co'plicated readin". Esse*:s ,ithdra,als, 1n<1estiona!ly a challen"e to po,er, ,ere neither so si'ply virt1o1s nor so clearly 'otivated as Chap'an i'plies: indeed, they ,ere transparently a for' of ins1!ordination. 5hat ,as 'ore tro1!lin", partic1larly re"ardin" the i'plications of factionalis' for the order of the rei"n, ,as that the earl attracted in his a!sences a follo,in" of Edesperate and disrep1ta!le professional soldiersE ,ho, accordin" to de Maisse, had !een Eillreco'pensedE !y co1rt rivals .7ournal , G90. -his ento1ra"e for'ed a co1nterco1rt to ,hich Esse* retreated in ti'es of e*tre'e stress. 3s his fort1nes ,aned, the earl !eca'e pro"ressively diffic1lt to appease, and his independence ,as seen as a palpa!le threat.C1%D -he E"reatest persona"e in En"landE ,as a constant loc1s of political insta!ility. +n referrin" to Esse* as 3chilles, ;eor"e Chap'an accidentally creates an o!tr1sive irony. (or 3chilles, the "reatest of the ;reeks, is also, like Esse*, a terrific n1isance. +n the late 159$s, 2evere1* had indeed !eco'e the Eno, livin" instanceE of 3chillean attri!1tes: an honored fi"hter ,ho s1lked, s1rro1nded !y his th1""ish Myr'idons .his 'alcontent soldiers and co1rtiers0 ,hen honor ,as o1t of reach. >e ca'e to e'!ody the dark side of 'artial individ1alis'. 3fter the earl:s 1nsanctioned, rash ret1rn fro' the +rish ,ars and i''ediate confine'ent for diso!edience in 1599, Chap'an:s ideal of a nearly 1n!le'ished herois' no lon"er see'ed pla1si!le. +nterestin"ly, it ,as an ideal in ,hich Shakespeare had participated, tho1"h ,ith characteristic ca1tion. -he follo,in" passa"e fro' Henr# $ , ,hile re6oicin" in Esse*:s anticipated tri1'ph, see's a,are of hi' as a rival force and nervo1sly s1!ordinates praise for the "eneral to pla1dits for the 'onarch. 3fter i'a"inin" >enry !ein" s,ept into 4ondon like so'e con<1erin" Caesar, the ) ## ) chor1s co'pares the reception Esse* ,ill pro!a!ly receive, if all "oes ,ell: 3s !y a lo,er !1t !y lovin" likelihood, 5ere no, the "eneral of o1r "racio1s E'press, 3s in "ood ti'e he 'ay, fro' +reland co'in", Brin"in" re!ellion !roached on his s,ord,

>o, 'any ,o1ld the peacef1l city <1it, -o ,elco'e hi'Q M1ch 'ore, and '1ch 'ore ca1se, 2id they this >arry. .3ct 5, Chor1s, /9M#50C19D B1t follo,in" the earl:s re!ellion and fall in 1F$1, the epic, heroic ideal no lon"er even see'ed possible . 5ith the s1!versively se<1estered 3chilles, Shakespeare erases and re,rites Chap'an:s portrait of independent herois'. @f co1rse, the para'eters of the heroic had already !een erased and redefined. (or Esse* inscri!es as '1ch as he is inscri!ed= he is part of the c1lt1ral pen and ink, the 'aterial conditions of concept1al possi!ility for Troilus and Cressida .C/$D Shakespeare:s 3chilles, in t1rn, fi"1res the 'otivational co'ple*ity and pro!le'atic centrality that ,ere, in another conte*t, Esse*:s o,n. 3s Chap'an ,o1ld prefer to for"et, conte*t is inescapa!le. Ao 'atter ho, far 3chilles re'oves hi'self fro' the ,ars, he inevita!ly affects and is i'plicated in Ethe Pessant?co''on polities of the ,orld.E >e is p1lled !ack to the !attle, even as 2evere1* ,as ine*ora!ly dra,n to co1rt and is dra,n !y the play ,orld: a s1!6ect press1red !y representational politics in ,hich he participates f1lly and in ,hich character and selfhood are al,ays !ein" read and ,ritten.C/1D +n his period of dis"race Esse* co'plained that Ethey print 'e and 'ake 'e speak to the ,orld, and shortly they ,ill play 'e 1pon the sta"e.EC//D >e ,as correct. -he revisionist portrait of f1"itive po,er in Troilus and Cressida evokes an historical 'o'ent in ,hich EPessant?co''on politiesE and their representation are not only 1navoida!le, !1t conta"io1s. -h1s does the rhetoric of conta"ion, essentially a lan"1a"e of conte"t , clin" s1""estively to 3chilles in the play. Ulysses descri!es hi' as s1fferin" fro' a ter'inal disease: E>e is so pla"1y pro1d that the deathtokens of it Cry :Ao recovery:E ./.#.1I%MI90. B1t pla"1es spread. 3chilles is the pre'ier victi' and carrier of epide'ics, for ,hile his arro"ance <1arantines hi', his ea"er i'itators disse'inate the politics of avoidance. >is ,ithdra,al 'akes hi' ever 'ore the foc1s of ,ar and the pla"1e of factions. ) #G ) -he conta"io1s centrality of 3chilles has a dra'at1r"ic ele'ent a!o1t it. 2eter'ined to prove ins1!ordination, Ulysses hilario1sly recites the send?1p of Aestor and 3"a'e'non that Patrocl1s perfor's for the 3chilles faction .1.#.151M%G0. 5hat Ulysses act1ally de'onstrates, ho,ever, is the s1!versive co''1nica!ility of 3chilles: local theater. -he indi"nity to ,hich Patrocl1s and 3chilles s1!6ect the ;reek co1ncil in their coterie playho1se !eco'es an irresisti!le script for Ulysses: o1tra"eo1s perfor'ance= re!ellio1sness infectio1sly, dra'atically reprod1ces itself. Troilus and Cressida encrypts the theater:s assa1lt on a1thority, and in the process introd1ces another 2evere1*? 3chilles overlay. (or the 'ost pro!a!le historical conte*t of an enco1nter !et,een Esse* and Shakespeare involves 61st this iss1e of contestatory theater. By co''issionin" Shakespeare:s co'pany, the 4ord Cha'!erlain:s Men, to play Richard II on the eve of his 1prisin" in 1F$1, the earl 'eant to incite so'e for' of revolt thro1"h the 'i'etic enact'ent of a deposition.C/#D >e hoped, that is, to 1se the theater as a conta"io1sly s1!versive force. 3chilles, irresisti!ly i'ita!le, analo"o1sly spreads s1!version !oth factional and theatrical. Both Esse* and 3chilles s1ffer and trans'it a pla"1e ,hich, as the he"e'ony sees it, ,eakens the !ones of state: E3nd in the i'itation of these t,ain . . . . . . 'any are infectE .1.#.1%5M%I0. -he patho"enic fi"1res spread Ean envio1s feverE that 'akes everyone Esick @f his s1periorE .1.#.1#/M##0, corr1pted !y the conta"io1s desire for a de"ree of a1tono'y denied !y the very notion of Ede"ree.EC/GD -he play defines ,ith precision the social and historical 'echanis' of this illness: Epale and !loodless e'1lationE .1.#.1#G0. +n tryin" to "oad 3chilles !ack into the ,ars, Ulysses flatters hi' ,ith a ta!lea1

of his for'er "reatness. >e says even the "ods s1ffer fro' 6ealo1sy of the hero: 3chilles: E"lorio1s deeds !1t in these fields of late Made e'1lo1s 'issions :'on"st the "ods the'selves, 3nd drave "reat Mars to factionE .#.#.1%%M9$0. E'1lation and its prod1ct, factionalis', al,ays flo1rish to"ether thro1"h the collapsin" of difference, even pres1'a!ly the ontolo"ical difference !et,een 'en and "ods. Beca1se co1rt factionalis' ,as an e<1ili!ratin" str1ct1re, it sp1rred the no!les to a1"'ent the distinctions that it dissolved. -heir circ1lar sol1tion ,as e'1lation, ,hich 7oel (ine'an .dra,in" on 8enN ;irard:s ,ork0 defines as Ethat parado*ical la!or of envy that seeks to find difference in i'itationE= it is Ethe e'otional 'odality appropriate to the sche'e of differentiatin" violence !et,een e<1als.EC/5D E'1lation at Eli&a!eth:s co1rt ,as a 'ethod of advance'ent: i'itate yo1r fello, co1rtier so co'pletely as to ) #5 ) 'ake hi' o!solete.C/FD +n a syste' that pro'oted n1llifyin" !alance, that cali!rated po,er relations to the disadvanta"e of those 'ost actively en"a"ed in it, every self?creative "est1re prod1ced only i'itation. -he Ehollo, factionsE to ,hich Ulysses refers e*actly confi"1re this !1siness of copyin" ,hat one seeks to destroy. (ine'an pertinently notices that e'1lation is Ea desire divided a"ainst itself . . . !est ill1'inated !y (re1d:s a'!i"1o1s acco1nt of an e"o ,hose identifications are si'1ltaneo1sly s1!6ective and o!6ective, narcissistic and anacliticE .E(ratricide and C1ckoldry,E 1$I0. S1ch desiro1s hostility, Ethe no!lest hatef1l loveE .G.1.#G0, is al,ays an i'p1lse in those ,ho seek to de'olish rivals they depend 1pon, rivals ,ho are the very i'pet1s for self?for'ation.C/ID 2espite its psycholo"ical co'ple*ity, the e'1lative i'p1lse is not an individ1al or personal !1t rather a viral, syste'ic pheno'enon. -hose ,ho occ1py a "rid of social roles on the sa'e level in a "iven or"ani&ational str1ct1re .co1rtiers, assistant professors, e*ec1tives0 tend to !e rendered co'petitively indistinct. +n Troilus and Cressida , the pro!le' of e'1lation is partic1larly keen for the ;reeks, ,hose states'en and soldiers are of nearly identical lofty rank. -he ;recian forces incl1de Esi*ty and nine that ,ore -heir cro,nets re"alE .Prolo"1e, 5MF0Bindependent princes, interchan"ea!le 'e'!ers of an a""re"ate, dis1nified aristocracy that lacks a co'pellin" acco1nt of intrinsic val1e or difference. 5hen Ulysses says Ee'1lation hath a tho1sand sons -hat one !y one p1rs1eE .#.#.15FM5I0, he con61res the asse'!ly?line ni"ht'are of patriarchal violence that prod1ces indistin"1isha!le persons.C/%D Society fosters conta"io1s i'itations that fr1strate the distinctions it pretends to treas1re. 5hat is 'es'eri&in" a!o1t the idea of e'1lation in the dra'a is its 'etac1lt1ral conflation of t o historical coordinates: the o!sessive co'petition !et,een the aptly na'ed EpeersE of the real'= and the conditions of Shakespearean representation.C/9D (or as a 'i'etic act, e'1lation is al,ays to so'e e*tent an aesthetic one as ,ell. +t is a poetics of s1ccess thro1"h i'itative cond1ct. Political !ehavior and aesthetic for' appropriate and infiltrate one another= as the no!ility enacts an increasin"ly hostile dra'a of i'itative "est1re and strate"e', the Shakespearean theater i'plicates itself in this historical conte*t !y e'1latin" itBsi'1ltaneo1sly artic1latin" and de!asin" the c1lt1ral referent. Portrayed ,ithin !1t also enacted !y the play, e'1lation escapes contain'ent= it is al,ays an ail'ent, an infection co1rsin" ,ithin and ,itho1t. 71st as violent e'1lation in the Eli&a!ethan co1rt ,ro1"ht havoc on c1lt1ral te'plates s1ch as honor, no!ility, and distinction, Troilus and ) #F ) Cressida , too, conta'inates ,hat it copies. -he e'1lo1s dra'a treats the overtold tale of -roy !1t displaces its predecessor and co'petitor te*ts thro1"h its escalatin", sarcastic violence and its radical

o!literation of the ideolo"ies that no lon"er validate that tale. -his dra'a is an enterprise sick ,ith its o,n kno,led"e of conte'porary dra'atic, political, and erotic practice. -he Shakespearean e'1lation of the -roy story is a profo1ndly defor'in" pro6ect of literat1re readin" history.

II
E2a'e,E fait il, E6:ai !ien oR parler de vostre pris, 'ais che n:est ore 'ie= et de -roie rai 6o1 oR conter k:ele f1 6a de 'o1t "rant sei"norie= or n:i p1et on fors les plaches trover . . .E E4ady,E says he, E+ have indeed heard talk of yo1r "reatness, !1t there is nothin" left of it. + have also heard talk of -roy, ho, it ,as once a "reat po,er= no,adays they can 61st !arely find the site.E Conon de BNth1neC#$D -he -ro6an 5ar is a !attle !et,een t,o sets of co1rtiers for possession of a <1een. -he story th1s fra'es the essential social and political dyna'ic of the Eli&a!ethan co1rt, ,here the Cecil and Esse* factions so1"ht, in 4a,rence Stone:s ,ords, Econtrol of the L1een:s p1rse and person.EC#1D B1t if Shakespeare replicates so'e parallels !et,een En"lish co1rt affairs and the tale of -roy, he also ske,s others, settin" the pict1re of conte'porary politics c1rio1sly a,ry. -he 'ost o!vio1s and i'portant !reach !et,een the play and its c1lt1ral conte*t is that neither the -ro6an nor the ;reek side has a fi"1re '1ch like Eli&a!eth. Political force in +lion resides solely in the dodderin" patriarch Pria' and his !oistero1s !oys= the ;reek ca'p, too, is as far fro' a "ynocracy as i'a"ina!le. -he -ro6ans and ;reeks, as co'!atants for a tote'ic se*1al and 'aterial siteBthe !ody of >elenBe'1late the crises of the Eli&a!ethan aristocracy thro1"h fra"'ented o1tline and indirection. -he relationship of a literary ,ork to a c1lt1re that sponsored, coerced, or prohi!ited it has !een nicely defined !y Ed,ard Said as Ethe eccentric , dialectical inter'in"lin" of history ,ith for' in te*ts.EC#/D B1t if Shakespeare:s inter'in"lin"s are eccentric, they are also for the 'ost part sy'!olic, p1rposef1l, 'otivated. -he e*a'ple of co1rt parties s1"? ) #I ) "ests 61st s1ch a prod1ction of 'eanin". (actionalis' for 'any years !ore Eli&a!eth:s i'pri'at1r and si"nat1re, yet the a1thor of strife in the ;recian ca'p is not a r1ler !1t a co1rtier. .@r t,o co1rtiers, inas'1ch as Ulysses dia"noses and so recreates the pro!le' that 3chilles has ca1sed.0 >o,ever, this canted parallel, far fro' si"nifyin" the te*t:s distance fro' its historical 'o'ent, act1ally reprod1ces the 'a6or topical pro!le'. Co1rtier control over the factions in ;reece confi"1res an i'potence in royal or 'onarchical a1thority ith respect to s1ch str1ct1res. 3"a'e'non:s estran"e'ent fro' his o,n a1thority and fro' his fello, kin"s ena!les factio1s ins1!ordination. 4ike,ise, the presentation of factional rivalry as first a pla"1e and then an e* post facto policyBE-heir fraction is 'ore o1r ,ish than their factionE ./.#.1$10, Aestor says of a potential 3chilles?36a* allianceB1nderscores a c1rrent "overn'ental fail1re. Eli&a!eth:s re"1latory 'echanis' takes dra'atic for' as a hierarchical and or"ani&ational ne'esis. 2issi'ilar arran"e'ents in the play and c1lt1re hi"hli"ht analo"ical si'ilarities: they are differences encoded to sho, sa'eness and 1lti'ately to insin1ate deficiencies of conte'porary r1le. B1t so'e dis61nctions are less easily decoded than others.

+n associatin" the ;recian ca'p ,ith Eli&a!eth:s co1rt, the play deflects the sin"le e"pected correspondence !et,een te*t and ,orld. (or ;eoffrey of Mon'o1th:s 'ytho"raphic acco1nt of Britain:s ori"ins had lon" since esta!lished an identity !et,een En"land and -roy. 3eneas:s "reat "randson Br1te or Br1t1s ,as said to have fo1nded Britain after the fall of the ancient city. +n Spenser:s for'1lation, Eno!le Britons spron" fro' -ro6ans !old, 3nd -roynovant ,as !1ilt of old -roy:s ashes coldE .'aerie (ueene , #.9.#%0. +f 4ondon .-roynovant0 is re"arded as a phoeni* spr1n" fro' the ashes of a "reat civili&ation, then the reco"ni&a!le En"lish pro!le' of factionalis' in Troilus and Cressida sy'!olically afflicts the ,ron" side. 5hat can ,e 'ake of this alterationJ +t see's at first to conf1te the cherished -1dor 'yth of -ro6an ori"ins, a 'yth that ,as !eco'in" increasin"ly 1nconvincin" to,ard the end of the <1een:s rei"n. 3s (rances Kates e*plains, Eli&a!eth:s ancestors E,ere of 5elsh or ancient British descent. 5hen the -1dors ascended the throne of En"land, so r1ns the 'yth, the ancient -ro6an?British race of 'onarchs once 'ore res1'ed the i'perial po,er and !ro1"ht in a "olden a"e of peace and plenty.EC##D @r so it 'i"ht have appeared for '1ch of the <1een:s r1le. B1t !y the end of her 'onarchy, this story ,as assailed convincin"ly= the historicity of EBr1t1sE ,as in considera!le do1!t. -he fi"1re ,as skeptically dis? ) #% ) 'antled !y no less an a1thority than Eli&a!eth:s historian, 5illia' Ca'den: ;effrey 3p 3rth1r Mon'o1th, ro1te h1ndred yeares a"o, ,as the first . . . that to "ratifie o1r Britains prod1ced 1nto the' this Br1t1s, descended fro' the "ods, !y !irth also a -ro6ane, to !ee the a1thor of the British Aation. . . . (1rther'ore . . . very 'any o1t of the "rave Senate of "reat Clerks, !y na'e, Boccace, Oives, >adr. 71ni1s, Polydore . . . and other 'en of deepe 61d"e'ent, a"ree 6oyntly in one verdict, and denie, that ever there ,as any s1ch in the ,orld as this Br1t1s: also, that learned 'en of o1r o,ne co1ntry, as 'any, ackno,led"e hi' not, !1t re6ect hi' as a 'eere co1nterfet. . . . C#GD -he 1nrelia!ility of 'ythification is vario1sly portrayed in Troilus and Cressida , 'ost 'e'ora!ly in 3chilles: assertion that he has killed >ector after the Myr'idons have in fact done the deed. Ket the de!1nkin" of 'yth cannot !y itself e*plain specific trans'o"rifications s1ch as the assi"n'ent of a characteristic En"lish pro!le' to the ;reeks instead of the -ro6ans. 5hat can !etter acco1nt for the Shakespearean alteration is the te*t:s for'al Edialectical inter'in"lin"E ,ith its historical conte*ts. -he play:s plot for'ation sche'ati&es its pro*i'ate relation to late -1dor conditions. (or history is not reprod1ced eccentrically in Troilus and Cressida = it is disposed !ilaterally. Both ;reek and -ro6an ca'ps recollect conte'porary political acts and str1ct1res= !oth sides, and their transactions, esta!lish co'pellin" circ1its of te*t and ,orld. -he -ro6ans in the play are coe*tensive ,ith the ;reeks in their referentiality= they si'ply evoke other aspects of a specifically Eli&a!ethan dissol1tion. -roy differs in the heavier ideological frei"ht of its representations. -hro1"ho1t the dra'a, the sons of Pria' identify the'selves ,ith the for's and conventions of chivalry. -hey cleave to a traditional ideal of kni"hthood and EhonorE: co1ra"e, loyalty, dedication to ca1se and r1ler and lady. .-he -ro6ans s1ffer occasional lapses ,hen it occ1rs to the' that ca1se, r1ler, and lady are irre'edia!ly separate= for '1ch of Eli&a!eth:s rei"n, these ,ere three in one.0 -he -ro6an chivalric ideal derives its literary i'pet1s fro' the ro'ance epics of the Middle 3"es= in Troilus and Cressida the 'edieval herita"e of the story see's to !elon" al'ost e*cl1sively to the -ro6ans.C#5D -he ;reek lords are sit1ated stylistically in the late 8enaissance, s1rprisin"ly conte'porary in the ,eary

cynicis' of their political 'ane1vers. -he -ro6an 'en, !y contrast, e'er"e thro1"h attit1de and lan"1a"e as va"1ely anti<1ated. B1t only va"1ely: their co1rtly !ehavior in love and !attle, '1sty? see'in" ) #9 ) eno1"h !y 1F$$, nonetheless recreates a cr1cial facet of the Eli&a!ethan c1lt. -he chivalric pre'ise lay !ehind virt1ally every late -1dor co1rt for'ality: pro"resses, pa"eant entertain'ents, anniversary cele!rations, diplo'atic e'!assies, conferrals of di"nities. -he enact'ent of the ideal in the period ,as, on its s1rface, an e*pression of 'onarchical "lory and the no!les: 1ndyin" fealty. B1t chivalry, enth1siastically res1scitated for Eli&a!eth:s rei"n, s1rvived .like the story of En"land0 ,ith so'ethin" of a false "enealo"y. Chivalry !arely 'ana"ed to contain its hereditary discord and contradictions. +n its 'edieval for', chivalry 'asked sava"e and 1nre"enerate self? interest= deadly sins ,ere 'eliorated only !y their veneer of 'artial "lory. +n so'e cases the line !et,een chivalry and cri'inality ,as fri"htenin"ly thin. -he E1ropean Middle 3"es s1ffered a sco1r"e of condottieri , 'ercenaries ,ho so1"ht the honor of ,ars E!y !irth and vocationE !1t ,hose "reedy rava"es ,ere co'para!le to the effect of an epide'ic.C#FD 9ni"hthood "lorified !ravery and 'artial pro,ess, !1t in so doin", it le"iti'ated and re,arded rapacity. Ket this a'!ivalence ,as, it co1ld !e ar"1ed, al,ays part of the co1rtly appeal. -o 5illia' Ca*ton .in the preface to Malory:s )orte 21-rthur 0, the 3rth1rian tales contain 'any 6oyo1s and playsa1nt hystoryes and no!le and reno'ed actes of h1'anyte, "entylnesse, and chyvalryes. (or herein 'ay !e seen no!le chyvalrye, c1rtosye, h1'anyte, frendlynesse, hardynesse, love, frendshyp, co,ardyse, '1rdre, hate, vert1e, and synne. 2oo after the "ood and leve the evyl.C#ID -he apposition of Eh1'anyte, "entylnesse, and chyvalryesE ,ith Eco,ardyse, '1rdre, hate, vert1e, and synneE s1""ests that e*e'plars of "ood and evil intert,ine in the literary co1rtesy tradition. Moral a'!ivalence lends it force as an e*pression of h1'an history and 'otivations. -he chivalric sanctionin" of "reed, violence, and ad1ltery .service to a ,o'an ,as typically service and love of an already 'arried ,o'an0 led -1dor h1'anists s1ch as 8o"er 3scha' to decry the E!old !a,dry and open 'ansla1"hterE of the kni"htly ethos.C#%D So chivalry ca'e to the Eli&a!ethans as a pro!le'atic, even tainted for'. +n the later Middle 3"es, a strate"ic 'anip1lation had helped salva"e it as a code of honor. Malcol' Oale has ,ritten that in order to Esec1re the alle"iance of the no!ility and the kni"htly classes, princes and 'onarchs fo1nd it e*pedient to "raft the po,erf1l concept of personal hono1r on to that of loyalty to the soverei"n.EC#9D -hat is, the ) G$ ) kni"hts and no!les ne"otiated a ne, relationship to 'onarchy in ,hich they sacrificed so'e of their a1tono'o1s po,er. 5hat did they "ainJ -he theatrical pleas1res of distinction, reco"nition, even safety Ba life, as (rancis Bacon once reco''ended to Esse*, in the li"ht, not in the heat. Eli&a!ethan chivalry at its ape* s1ccessf1lly replayed this contract1al relation. -he chivalric 'ode ,as an a"ree'ent and co''odity as '1ch as a style of service= it had incalc1la!le e*chan"e val1e as a 'eans to favor, priority, and place. +n t1rn, !esto,in" honor and honors for op1lent, ostentatio1s service, the <1een deployed chivalric conventions to 'aintain the order of the co1rt. Chivalry !eca'e a to1"h container of vastly different contents and discontents: it 'ana"ed the "elid, !ookish for'alities of

aristocratic ho'a"e as ,ell as the !oilin" rivalries of the 'ost a'!itio1s no!les. +t provided a sta"e 1pon ,hich factionalis' ,as perfor'ed. -he <1een:s 3ccession 2ay tilts and pro"ress entertain'ents 1sed the chivalric 'ode to help enclose potentially disr1ptive !ids for "lory in a sta!ili&in" theater of service.CG$D -his a'!ition contain'ent dialectic ,as press1red late in the rei"n !y the pro!le's, as 4o1is Montrose notes, of E"ender and "eneration.ECG1D +n the Eli&a!ethan version of chivalry, Ethe essence of kni"hthood ,as service to a ladyE=CG/D faithf1lness to an 1nattaina!le erotic o!6ect !eca'e a condition of co1rtier s1ccess. -he neochivalric c1lt co'!ined 'edieval, 'ilitary the'atics of honor and loyalty ,ith a'oro1s overtones to ens1re the <1een:s 1tter centrality. B1t these the'atic threads co1ld not !e ,oven ,itho1t entan"le'ents. -he Eli&a!ethan redaction of co1rtly practice ,as 6eopardi&ed in the 159$s !y the r1ler:s increasin" "enerational distance fro' her co1rtiers. -he pro!le' operated on the literal and fi"1rative levels: neither Eli&a!eth:s a"e nor her lon"?e'ployed 'aternal sy'!olo"y co1ld co'forta!ly acco''odate erotic aspects of her i'a"e. -he erotic?'aternal 61*taposition can never !e, past a certain point, entirely co'forta!le.CG#D -he <1een:s i'a"e ,as Eco'prehensive, diff1se, and a'!i"1o1s,E !1t her self?fashionin"s !eca'e contradictory= in their contradictions, 1n!elieva!le.CGGD -he o!6ect of erotic o!eisance ,ho took no lovers ,as so'eho, the 'other of her co1ntry ,ho had no children. 2espite s1ch dis61nctions, the a"in" <1een re'ained a potentially !o1nteo1s 'aternal fi"1re in econo'ic ter's, dispensin" the 'ilk of patents and 'onopolies to her yo1thf1l, needy no!ility. Eli&a!eth:s 'otherly persona ,as !y far the 'ost psycholo"ically and chronolo"ically forcef1l of her self?constr1ctions in the last decade of her rei"n. -he yo1n" co1rtiers, 1nr1ly sons 'ore than lovers .and never spo1ses0, fo1nd ) G1 ) and placed the'selves in a conflict1al relationship ,ith this fe'ale po,er.CG5D -he sy'!olic and physical si"ns of Eli&a!eth:s advanced a"e sorted ill ,ith her -il!1ry personaBdefensive, inviola!le, !1t enticin"Band ,ith the chivalric pre'ise of her eternal desira!ility. + do not 'ean to say that advanced years and se*1ality are inco'pati!le, nor that attractiveness vanishes at any partic1lar point in life= si'ply that the i'a"e of eternal freshness and yo1th, 1pon ,hich the chivalric fiction to so'e e*tent depends, is i'possi!le to s1stain once !odily corr1ption !eco'es 1nar"1a!le. 3nd in Eli&a!eth:s case, the disinte"ration of the co1rtly 'ode, or at least of its efficacy, coincides ,ith that corr1ption. 4ate -1dor chivalric perfor'ances and the poetry that recreates the' tried 'i"htily to circ1'vent the harsh fact of decline, !1t the effort fell short and so'eti'es !ackfired. (or instance, ;eor"e Peele:s -nglorum 'eriae records the 3ccession 2ay tilt of 1595 and cele!rates Eli&a!eth:s recent escape fro' the 4ope& assassination plot. -he ,ork descri!es the <1een in "lo,in", reverential lan"1a"e, !1t the poet:s acco1nt concl1des ,ith a c1rio1s prayer: EMay she shine in !ea1tie fresh and sheene >1ndreds of yeares o1r thrice reno,ned <1een.ECGFD S1rely Peele 'eans that the 'ental i'a"e of Eli&a!eth:s present !ea1ty sho1ld end1re foreverJ B1t his ,ords s1''on instead the specter of the anile 'onarch, in the thirty?seventh year of her rei"n, co1nternat1rally livin" on and on, enthroned, e'!al'ed, for cent1ries. -he chivalric "est1re to,ard her physical !ea1ty, in denyin" the fact of 'ortality, t1rns !ack on itself. @ther disr1ptions of the chivalric ,ere 'ore clearly intentional. +n 159%, ,hile deli!eratin" a!o1t ,ho' to appoint to the lord dep1tyship in +reland, Eli&a!eth fell into a !itter disp1te ,ith the earl of Esse*. 21rin" one partic1larly heated ar"1'ent, the earlBerst,hile flo,er of latter?day -1dor chivalry B,as reported to have t1rned his !ack scornf1lly on his soverei"n as he added a vicio1s ins1lt: he said Eher conditions ,ere as crooked as her carcase.ECGID -o co''ent on the <1een:s a"ed and defor'ed !ody constit1ted an attack 1pon it, and Eli&a!eth pro'ptly str1ck her for'er favorite. Aot one to !ack

do,n, Esse* laid his hand on his s,ord hilt. -he death knell of chivalry so1nded !y this episode rever!erates 1ntil the end of the rei"n. Esse* repeated his diso!edience on a lar"er scale in +reland and yet a"ain in his re!ellion. Eli&a!eth:s inevita!le physical deterioration ,as not 61st the s1!6ect !1t the ena!lin" fact of Esse*:s effrontery= her physical v1lnera!ility li!erated trans"ressive i'p1lses and re'oved a f1lcr1' on ,hich the no!ility once safely !alanced its po,ers and desires. (or all the stren"th of Eli&a? ) G/ ) !ethan chivalry, it ran a "reat risk in locatin" ideolo"y in the <1een:s !ody nat1ral. Underlyin" the pro!le' of the declinin" chivalric i'a"e ,as the !asic iss1e of "ender difference: Eli&a!eth:s political potency ,as a thoro1"h c1lt1ral ano'aly. Montrose reflects ,ith ad'ira!le 1nderstate'ent that Ethe political nationB,hich ,as ,holly a nation of 'enBso'eti'es fo1nd it annoyin" or pert1r!in" to serve a prince ,ho ,as also a ,o'an, a ,o'an ,ho ,as 1ns1!6ected to a 'an.ECG%D -his chafin" ,as ,orsened !y a!idin" resent'ent of Eli&a!eth:s 'anip1lative intr1sions in co1rtiers: personal lives. +t ,as not eno1"h to pli"ht political troth: the <1een:s 'en ,ere e*pected to 'aintain the appearance of se*1al fidelity to her, or ever so ca1tio1sly to s1!'it their alternate desires for her approval.CG9D -he Oir"in L1een, insistent cynos1re of 'ale attention, directed the co1rt co'ple* of ro'ance and se*1alityBan arran"e'ent that defines delayed "ratification. Many of Eli&a!eth:s sharp political 'ane1vers ,ere cond1cted ,ithin this co'ple* !1t ,ere fre<1ently 'isread as solely "ender?related pheno'ena. 5hen 3'!assador de Maisse so1"ht to learn fro' Eli&a!eth ,hether En"land ,o1ld actively p1rs1e the Spanish ,ars, he co1ld o!tain only e<1ivocal ans,ers: E-hey la!ored 1nder t,o thin"s at this Co1rt,E he concl1ded, Edelay and inconstancy, ,hich proceeded chiefly fro' the se* of the L1eenE .de Maisse, 7ournal , 1150.C5$D -he a'!assador 'eant, in his e*asperated, androcentric ,ay, that delay and inconstancy are fe'ale traits, !1t they also characteri&ed the 'onarch:s politic se*1ality. 2elay and inconstancy ,ere precision tools for social 'aintenance, as inte"ral to 'aintainin" sta!ility in a 'ale?press1red co1rt as ,ere the e'1lo1s rivals the'selves. -hro1"h EdelayE the <1een ,isely e'ployed the erotic 1nderstandin" that avails CressidaB1ntil the -ro6an ,o'an is trapped in the ;recian ,orld of 'en, and EinconstancyE !eco'es the only option: Ket hold + off. 5o'en are an"els, ,ooin": -hin"s ,on are done= 6oy:s so1l lies in the doin". -hat she !elov:d kno,s na1"ht that kno,s not this: Men pri&e the thin" 1n"ain:d 'ore than it is. .1././91M9G0 -he fact that 'en pri&e the thin" 1n"ained, or desire ,hat they do not have, ,as the 'otivational and re"1latory fo1ndation of Eli&a!ethan factionalis' and chivalry. Ket constant strivin" for inade<1ate e'ol1'ent .political, fiscal, or psychose*1al0 'ay event1ally have 1nder'ined loyalties. 3!o1t Eli&a? ) G# ) !eth, de Maisse !elieved that Eif !y chance she sho1ld die, it is certain that the En"lish ,o1ld never a"ain s1!'it to the r1le of a ,o'anE .7ournal , 11M1/0. (r1strated !y the <1een:s ca"ey responses to his overt1res for infor'ation, he can hardly !e taken for a disinterested reporter of prevailin" opinion. B1t the a'!assador:s irrita!le co''ent activates the possi!ility that deferred "ratification f1eled so'e 'en:s hostility for fe'ale r1le.

-he pro!le' ,ith 'aintainin" the chivalric ideal ,as th1s not solely in 1pholdin" the fiction of Eli&a!eth:s infinite desira!ility !1t 'ore "enerally in s1!li'atin" the '1ltiple, intensely stren1o1s conditions of that desira!ility. -he co1rt ,as dissilient, "enerationally fract1red, 'anned .as it ,ere0 !y an increasin"ly i'patient and ac<1isitive no!ility. -he 1n,orka!ility of the co1rtly 'ode in the late 159$s ,as in so'e sense its deep, "ender?related insincerit# : dedicated 'asc1line self?interest took precedence over o!li"atory chivalric service to a ,o'an. >o,ever, the precario1s "eni1s of Eli&a!ethan chivalry ,as that it offered the co1rtier pleas1res and re,ards precisely co'pensatory for tensions in "ender relations. 4ate -1dor chivalry ,as a for1' for the visi!ility of 'asc1line co1rtier po,er. Eli&a!eth:s 3ccession 2ay tilts provided the 'ost p1!lic site of this po,er. Styled after 'edieval chivalric antecedents, the tilts ,ere ann1al cele!rations of the <1een:s ascendance to the throne.C51D -hey feat1red displays of 'artial pro,ess in ,hich "entle'en and no!les 6o1sted across a !arrier= the 'an ,ho splintered the 'ost lances ,on a pri&e fro' the <1een. 4ike Troilus and Cressida , !ear !aitin", and p1!lic e*ec1tions, the tilts translated violence into theater. -onally at deep odds ,ith the persistent, encroachin" reality of ,ar, s1ch chivalric e*hi!itions achieved a "olden ,orld of a'1sin" and saniti&ed discord. B1t ,hile the to1rna'ent served as an ideolo"ical state apparat1s, ce'entin" the sy'!olic association !et,een the defense of the co1ntry and the chivalric defense of the 'onarch, it also p1!lici&ed a critical difference !et,een the <1een and her 'en. -he act of ,arBEli&a!eth:s 3'a&onian sy'!olo"y not,ithstandin"B,as the indisp1ta!le area of 'ale s1periority, of 'ale control , in this rei"n. Both ,arfare and the artificial chivalric theater of the tilts offered the co1rtier an o1tlet for a""ression that ,as not controlled !y the <1een. -he to1rna'ents: kinetic dispersal of 'asc1line ener"y 'ay have alleviated so'e tensions, !1t it "enerated others. (or p1!lic 'ock?,arfare afforded irresisti!le and inspirin" self?e*pos1re. -he co1rtier:s physical stren"th, horse'anship, and "lory !eca'e the s1!6ects of the to1rna'ents= Eli&a!eth !e? ) GG ) ca'e an honored o!6ect, a 'otionless spectator and recipient of sincere or disin"en1o1s attentions. -he yo1n" no!ility, "lory?seekin" and 'ilitant, fl1shed ,ith its o,n "reatness, 1psta"ed the 'onarch. +n reani'atin" the dor'ant, "enetic dan"ers of 'edieval chivalry, the tilts deli'ited a 'ale arena that necessarily e*cl1ded the fe'ale e*cept as o!server. S1ch an e*cl1sion achieved, if only 'o'entarily, the drea' of 'asc1line po,er at co1rt, !1t this drea' ,as not easily shaken.C5/D -he f1nctions and dysf1nctions of Eli&a!ethan chivalry take 1s !ack to Troilus and Cressida , ,here the -ro6ans 'anifest in sin"le?co'!at challen"es and to1rna'ent activity a co'para!le e'ploy'ent and di'in1tion of the co1rtly enterprise. +n -roy, the fail1re of the chivalric 'ode is related to profo1nd resent'ent of the ,o'an for ,ho' the no!les fi"ht= yet that resent'ent is i'plicated not in the a"e or do'inance of the erotic o!6ect !1t in its redefinition. (or in Shakespeare:s -roy, e'1lo1s, f1rio1s 'ale desire is its o,n and only o!6ect. -he reali"n'ent of the erotic i'p1lse 1nderlies the ve*ed state of Eli&a!ethan and -ro6an co1rtliness.

III
-he first sta"ed 'eetin" of the ;reeks and -ro6ans sets the divisive, conflictin" tones of chivalry in Troilus and Cressida at a hi"h pitch. 3eneas visits the ;reek ca'p in act 1, scene #, to deliver >ector:s sin"leco'!at challen"e, th1s initiatin" the -ro6ans: 'ock?heroic disco1rse. B1t 3eneas:s fail1re to reco"ni&e his interloc1tor, co1pled ,ith the parodic, stylistic e*cesses of his atte'pts to do so, threaten to ca1se all conversational 'iddle "ro1nd to cave in:

3EAE3S :

(air leave and lar"e sec1rity. >o, 'ay 3 stran"er to those 'ost i'perial looks 9no, the' fro' eyes of other 'ortalsJ

3;3MEMA@A >o,J : 3EAE3S : 3y. + ask, that + 'ay ,aken reverence, 3nd !id the cheek !e ready ,ith a !l1sh Modest as 'ornin" ,hen she coldly eyes -he yo1thf1l Phoe!1s. 5hich is that "od in office "1idin" 'enJ 5hich is the hi"h and 'i"hty 3"a'e'nonJ .1.#.///M#10

) G5 ) 3n actor 'i"ht deliver 3eneas:s speech ,ith either foppish sincerity or snooty conte'pt. +t contains !oth these ele'ents as ,ell as a see'in"ly "rat1ito1s ho'oerotic overtone of a !l1shin" !ride in an a1!ade. 3"a'e'non responds to the speech ,ith a 'arvelo1s aporia: E-his -ro6an scorns 1s, or the 'en of -roy 3re cere'onio1s co1rtiers.E >e kno,s that either he is !ein" ins1lted or that the pec1liar -ro6ans al,ays speak this ,ay. 3"a'e'non:s perple*ed "loss e*poses the t,o poles of Eli&a!ethan chivalric 'eanin": cere'ony as co1rtesy, cere'ony as s1!version. @nce 3eneas delivers >ector:s challen"e, the sincerity of the co1rtly 'ode !eco'es no less s1spect. -he challen"e itself is a protest a"ainst prevailin" conditions. 3ltho1"h it is peaceti'e in -roy .a tr1ce is on0, >ector is Eresty "ro,nE .1.#./F/0 and seeks disr1ption. @1t of the !oredo' and an*iety that settle on soldiers prevented fro' creatin" their perfor'ative fa'e, the "reatest -ro6an tries, thro1"h 3eneas, to pick a chivalric fi"ht ,ith the ;reeks. >e does so in ter's of a defense of his lady:s e*cellence and honor: +f there !e one a'on" the fair:st of ;reece -hat holds his hono1r hi"her than his ease, -hat feeds his praise 'ore than he fears his peril, -hat kno,s his valo1r and kno,s not his fear, -hat loves his 'istress 'ore than in confession 5ith tr1ant vo,s to her o,n lips he loves, 3nd dare avo, her !ea1ty and her ,orth +n other ar's than hersBto hi' this challen"e: >ector, in vie, of -ro6ans and of ;reeks, Shall 'ake it "ood, or do his !est to do it, >e hath a lady ,iser, fairer, tr1er, -han ever ;reek did co1ple in his ar's=

3nd ,ill to'orro, ,ith his tr1'pet call Mid,ay !et,een yo1r tents and ,alls of -roy -o ro1se a ;recian that is tr1e in love. +f any co'e, >ector shall hono1r hi': +f none, he:ll say in -roy, ,hen he retires, -he ;recian da'es are s1n!1rnt and not ,orth -he splinter of a lance. Even so '1ch. .1.#./FGM%/0 >ector:s invitation to the Esportf1lE co'!at is not 'otivated !y either a need or desire to defend his ,ife, 3ndro'ache, ,ho re'ains 1nna'ed in the speech. +ndeed, the ,o'an in the challen"e f1nctions as a deeply a'!ivalent rhetorical constr1ct. -his panderin", 'ediated invitation ) GF ) reads Eli&a!ethan co1rtly !ehavior and dra,s its s1!stance fro' the fo1nt of conte'porary c1lt1ral practice.C5#D >ector:s challen"e e'ploys a lan"1a"e of co1rtly love as a prete*t for 'ilitary activity, !1t the pri'ary i'p1lses of the speech are antife'inist and, correlatively, ho'oerotic. -he -ro6an challen"e is a callin"?o1tBthe collo<1ialis' neatly i'plies the open, theatrical nat1re of s1ch invitationsB,ith no na'ed adversary. >ector plays the role of cha'pion a"ainst all co'ers that Sir >enry 4ee, and later the earls of C1'!erland and Esse*, perfor'ed at the tilts.C5GD L1een:s cha'pion ,as a coveted role in the to1rna'ents= it p1!licly denoted a serio1s honor, esta!lishin" a link !et,een ro'antic and 'ilitary ele'ents at the ideolo"ical core of the Eli&a!ethan c1lt.C55D -here is a critical difference in the case of the proposed -ro6an to1rna'ent, ho,ever. -he fact that conferred order and sense on the 'ock6o1sts in Eli&a!eth:s ti'e, their raison d:Stre, ,as the presence of the <1een. B1t at >ector:s challen"e, and 'ore si"nificantly at the chivalric d1el itself in act G, no ,o'an can validate the ter's of the fi"ht !eca1se no ,o'an is there. -he d1el !oth e*cl1des ,o'en and re'oves a1thority fi"1res as ,ell, for neither 3"a'e'non nor Pria' sets the !attle conditions: at the d1el of >ector and 36a*, 3eneas and 2io'edes play the 'arshals of the lists to deter'ine the e*tre'ity of the co'!at. -he chivalric challen"e and the follo,in" to1sle prod1ce a 'ale arena of courtier rule , an 3ccession 2ay tilt for no!les only, ,ith no <1een invited. >ector:s to1rna'ent?style love challen"e, phrased in honor of his 'istress, is like a "a'e for school!oys onlyBno "irls allo,ed. +n the a!sence of ,o'en, real and representational, >ector "enerates a ho'oerotic disco1rse. >e calls on Ethe fair:st of ;reece,E !1t he 'eans the 'en. 3fter an insin1ation that vo,s !et,een ,arriors and ,o'en are al,ays Etr1ant,E he appeals to any ;reek ,ho can avo, his lady:s E!ea1ty and her ,orth +n other ar's than hers.E -he ,ordplay depends of co1rse on the t,o 'eanin"s of arms , !1t the Eother ar'sE are not 'erely ,eaponry: they are, pointedly, >ector:s li'!s as ,ell. >is invitation is desi"ned to 'ake the ;reek lovers 1nfaithf1l to their ,o'en. -he -ro6an hero in this speech !eco'es a s1rro"ate o!6ect of desire. 3eneas plainly anno1nces that the enterprise is ho'oerotic: >ector ,ill call Eto ro1se a ;recian that is tr1e in love.E +f any sho1ld Eco'eE after >ector aro1ses hi', the -ro6an ,ill do hi' honor.C5FD Ao, erotic !ondin" !et,een ,arriors is co''on eno1"h in literat1re, altho1"h it is "enerally directed to,ard a !eloved co'panion, not an ene'y.C5ID 5hat ) GI ) 'akes this speech partic1larly interestin" is that it does not posit an ene'y. +nstead, the lan"1a"e

deflects the e*pected hostility fro' the chivalric rival to the traditional p1tative chivalric love o!6ects. -he speech deni"rates ,o'en in the "1ise of their defense= it e*c1lpates the 'en fro' and i'plicates the ,o'en in any ne"ative o1tco'e of the d1el.C5%D Sho1ld the ;reek ,arriors fail to 'eet >ector, he ,ill not !la'e the'= rather, he:ll slander the ;recian da'es, ,ho, he ,ill say, are Es1n!1rnt and not ,orth -he splinter of a lance.E ES1n!1rntE connotes Einfected ,ith venereal diseaseE= the splintered lance s1""ests an i'paired penis: the ;recian da'es, >ector ,ill say, are not ,orth the risk of syphilis. C59D Chivalric style cloaks the 'ost 1nco1rtly, hostile senti'ents in "lea'in" ar'or. 3t the sa'e ti'e, s1ch 'eanin"s are pro!a!ly not in the ran"e of >ector:s intentions. -he fiss1res in the -ro6an 'on1'ent to chivalry are plastered over !y ha!it of force. >ector:s challen"e pricks dra'atic tension !eca1se the ;reeks conspic1o1sly lack any ,o'en in their ca'p at this point. 5hat they do have, ho,ever, is the only openly cond1cted ho'ose*1al relationship in the Shakespearean canon. 3chilles and Patrocl1s are lovers, and their private !ond is s1!stantial: it is the only loyalty that 'ana"es to s1rvive the depredations of the ,ar.CF$D ;ranted, their relationship is seen as an 1nholy alliance !y the ;reek co1ncil, !1t not for se*1al reasons= the politicos are an"ry only that 3chilles, and E,ith hi' Patrocl1s Upon a la&y !ed the livelon" day Breaks sc1rril 6estsE .1.#.1GFMG%0, 'ockin" ,hat is left of ;recian a1thority. .-hersites vie,s the lovers as Eprepostero1s,E !1t he is scarcely a to1chstone for accepta!le social activity.0 -he 'ale?enfolded desire of the ;reeks is especially co'pellin" conte*t1ally !eca1se, as Ulysses notes, >ector:s love call does have an intended o!6ect: E-his challen"e that the "allant >ector sends . . . 8elates in p1rpose only to 3chillesE .1.#.#/1M/#0. -he ar's that >ector finally 1ses to ro1se 3chilles fro' his dro,sy tent are !attle ar's that destroy Patrocl1s, his o!stacle for 3chilles: attentions. 3chilles seeks horri!le "ratification for the loss, catchin" >ector E1nar':dE: Ethis is the 'an + seekE .5.%.1$0. ;iven the nonco1rtly, 'asc1line?oriented, dis"r1ntled ;recian soldiers, it is odd ho, <1ickly, al!eit a,k,ardly, 3"a'e'non and Aestor respond to >ector:s challen"e, as if chivalry ,ere a transc1lt1ral val1e. 3ltho1"h the chivalric style is 'ore appropriate to the -ro6ans: sit1ation, it speaks to the concerns of !oth ca'ps !y perfor'in" a slick, cere'onio1s deval1ation of ,o'en and !y clai'in" the ,orth of a lo1sy fi"ht. S1re eno1"h, the ;reek response to >ector i'plicitly contin? ) G% ) 1es chivalric 'iso"yny inBand !eyondBthe play ,orld. 8espondin" to 3eneas, Aestor !oasts that if no yo1n" cha'pion can !e fo1nd, he ,ill 'eet >ector to defend the honor of his o,n ladyBa very old lady, ,ho, as Aestor says, E5as fairer than his "randa', and as chaste 3s 'ay !e in the ,orldE .1.#? /9%M990. 3lon" ,ith the do1!ts a!o1t fe'ale chastity that infiltrate the s1!61nctive last line, Aestor:s ,ords con61re a dicey conte'porary ta!lea1: the 1nco'forta!le, possi!ly ridic1lo1s defense of an ancient ,o'an:s virt1e. 3eneas, co1rtier e*traordinaire, snidely ans,ers, EAo, heavens forfend s1ch scarcity of yo1thE .#$10. 4ike Aestor:s lady, and like the i'a"e of the a"ed Eli&a!eth !1ried !eneath his lan"1a"e, chivalry itself is creaky, o1t of date. Aearly all the -ro6ans speak the lan"1a"e of chivalric ro'ance as an ideolo"ical safety hatch for their cri'inal ,ife?stealin" and their latent 'iso"yny. B1t of the ;reeks, only the faintly daffy Aestor can respond in the co1rtly ,ay to >ector:s challen"e. -he idio' of kni"htly sincerity is nearly o!solescent slan" to the ;reeks, !eca1se only their older "eneration can apprehend ,hat has clearly !eco'e 1nintelli"i!le to the rest of the': the concept of defendin" a ,o'an:s honor. -he repressive 'iso"yny in the ranks 'ay !e ascri!ed in part to fears of inade<1acy and do1!ts a!o1t fe'ale constancy, !oth arisin" fro' the circ1'stances of this partic1lar ,ar. +n -roy, ,hen the heterose*1al pre'ise holds, the kni"ht fi"hts for a lady on ,ho' Etho1sands of rival desires conver"eE= CF1D the fe'ale chivalric !eloved therefore !eco'es not .like Eli&a!eth0 a so1rce of 6oy and s1stenance

!1t .like Eli&a!eth0 the fo1nt of do1!t and paranoia. 3fter the ,o'an:s inevita!le re6ection of 'ost of those desires, she is transfor'ed !y the re6ected s1itors into so'ethin" hatef1l, ,hile the 'en are stran"ely e*onerated for any hint of 'iscond1ct in the co1rtship "a'e. 2io'edes ill1'inates this process in the 'ost violent ver!al attack on a ,o'an in the dra'a. +n an intervie, ,ith Paris .G.1.F9M I50, he ai's s1ch vitriol at >elen .E(or every false drop in her !a,dy veins 3 ;recian:s life hath s1nkE0 that an a1dience 'ay !riefly for"et that the ,ar is a prod1ct of Paris:s, not >elen:s l1sts= and, 'ore tellin"ly, that 2io'edes had earlier e*pressed his consens1al desire for the ;recian <1een: 3EAE3S : >ad + so "ood occasion to lie lon" 3s yo1, Prince Paris, nothin" !1t heavenly !1siness Sho1ld ro! 'y !ed?'ate of 'y co'pany.

2+@ME2ES -hat:s 'y 'ind, too. : I0

.G.1.GM

) G9 ) B1t Paris re'e'!ers the e*chan"e and ironically 1nderc1ts 2io'edes: vit1peration ,ith his o,n !rand of 'iso"yny: E(air 2io'ed, yo1 do as chap'en do, 2ispraise the thin" that they desire to !1yE .G.1.IFMII0. 2eni"ration of the fe'ale erotic o!6ect spreads thro1"h the ar'iesBa s1!te*t1al t,in of e'1lo1s factionalis'. (ollo,in" the transfer of Cressida to the ;reeks, Ulysses proposes the E"eneral kissin"E reception cere'ony, a 'ock?chivalric rit1al stron"ly evocative of a "ro1p rape. 5hen it is Ulysses: t1rn to clai' a kiss, Cressida cleverly denies hi'. >e then sava"ely deno1nces her as one of the Esl1ttish spoils of opport1nity 3nd da1"hters of the "a'eE .G.5.F/MF#0. -his o1t!1rst is patently retri!1tive for her neat h1'iliation of hi' !efore his fello,s= !1t >ector:s sennet so1nds i''ediately after Ulysses: an"ry speech, and the entire ;reek presence on sta"e cries: E-he -ro6an:s tr1'pet.E So despite evidence to the contrary, Cressida:s ,antonness is 'ade to see' conta"io1sly irref1ta!le thro1"h 1nani'o1s a1ral conta'inationBE-he -ro6an .s0tr1'pet.ECF/D Cressida:s tr1'peted transfor'ation !y "ro1p accord reveals the ar'ies: conspiracy to honor their o,n 1nlovely psychic arran"e'ents. +f the co1rtiers: 'iso"yny arises fro' re6ected or fr1strated heterose*1al desire, as it see's to do in the case of 2io'edes and Ulysses, that desire is nonetheless al a#s ratified in the co'pany of 'en. -he "eneral kissin" scene has a po,erf1lly ho'oerotic, locker?roo' ed"e= Cressida !eco'es a 'eans !y ,hich the 'en 'eas1re their 'asc1linity a"ainst one another. 5orth notin" is that !oth 3chilles and Patrocl1s participate in the kissin" of Cressida= it is not so '1ch that the lines of ho'oand hetero? eroticis' !l1r in -roy as that one se*1al for' is the fra'e or container for the other. 71st as >ector:s 6a1nty "enital challen"e eli'inates ,o'en as serio1s contenders for 'ale attention, the kissin" of Cressida replays on a s'all scale the lar"er occasion of the ,ar: the 1se of a ,o'an as prete*t and pretense for the enth1siastic display of 'ale desires to and !efore other 'en: E>ector, in vie, of -ro6ans and of ;reeks, Shall 'ake it "ood, or do his !est to do it.E >elen is not the "oal of the ,ar: she is its local e*c1se. 5o'en !rin" ar'ies of 'en to"ether. 3nd like the ad6ective chi.alrous itself, ,arfare definitively e*cl1des ,o'en. Even -roil1s:s one?shot affair ,ith Cressida is a plot device to perpet1ate and intensify the 'asc1line en"a"e'ent. -roil1s raises no o!6ection to her e*chan"e for 3ntenor !eca1se he is conditioned to think

of the trade of a ,o'an for a 'an as a "ood s,ap. Certainly, the transaction ener"i&es !oth sides. 3t the 'o'ent of her e*chan"e, -roil1s and ) 5$ ) 2io'edes ind1l"e in a '1t1ally aro1sin" display of chivalric chest th1'ps and antichivalric ta1nts, all the ,hile i"norin" the silenced ,o'an. -he ,arriors no, have an e*c1se to e*cite one another as Cressida vanishes a"ainst the !ackdrop of their reflective interests. -he 'echanis' of the co1rtiers: conflict 'ay see' to !e, as 8enN ;irard ,o1ld have it, 'i'etic desire, !oth 'en havin" !een inspired !y the other:s interest in the ,o'an= !1t that trian"1lation distorts the ob.ious vector of desire in this scene.CF#D Everythin" here, and in the play as a ,hole, 'oves alon" the patent or s1!'er"ed a*is of ho'oeroticis', the dedication to 'ale interco1rse. -he i'a"inative disappearance of ,o'en is a necessary conse<1enceBpossi!ly a "oalBof the e'1lo1s, self?o!sessed conflict. Eve 9osofsky Sed",ick has offered sal1tary ,arnin"s a"ainst seein" in 'ale ho'ose*1ality a si'ple Eepito'e, a personification, an effect, or perhaps a pri'ary ca1se of ,o'an?hatin".ECFGD She de'onstrates ,ith respect to Shakespeare:s sonnets that te*t1al 'iso"yny Eplays off a"ainst the ran"e of 'ale !ondsE .##0BEho'osocial,E not necessarily se*1al !ondsB,hich can foster a heterose*1ality that eclipses ,o'en and is Erelatively 1nthreatened !y the fe'ini&ation of one 'an in relation to anotherE .#F0. B1t in Troilus and Cressida , 'ale ho'osocial relations so thoro1"hly e*cl1de and de!ase ,o'en that the 1nconscio1s 'iso"ynistic pro6ect is 'ade to see' necessary and reasona!le. +n fact, the !ond !et,een 'en in !oth -roy and Eli&a!eth:s co1rt Eplays off a"ainstE .ca1sality !ein" 1nrecovera!le here0 the need to achieve or dislocate, retrieve or do'inate, the so1rce of fe'ale po,er. >ector:s challen"e is an invitation to eli'inate !y ho'osocially replacin" the ,o'an:s social val1e as an o!6ect of se*1al activity. Men fe'ini&e the'selves in other ,ays to appropriate other fe'ale prero"atives: 3chilles and Esse* !oth play Cressida:s and Eli&a!eth:s "a'e of keep?a,ay to sec1re their o,n desira!ility, positionin" the'selves ho'osocially to decenter the ,o'an. -he t,o "enres of ho'osocial !ehavior in the te*t can !e seen as chivalric or antichivalric, >ectores<1e or 3chillean: the first is active, spec1lar, 'ilitant, conservative, apparently .not really0 heterose*1ally inflected= the other is listless, covert, pacifistic, and passively s1!versive, clearly .not entirely0 ho'ose*1ally inclined. B1t no 'atter ,hat the se*1al direction of ho'ophilia 'ay !e, all 'ale relations in -roy ,ork to the detri'ent of the fe'ales. -his fact can !e dra'atically startlin". (or instance, -roil1s and Pandar1s en6oy their traffic in ,o'an, the Cressida !1siness, as a ,ay of honin" and f1lfillin" their '1t1al desires.CF5D Cressida:s tryst ,ith her lover ends a!r1ptly in ) 51 ) act G, scene /, ,hen her 1ncle arrives to 'ock her. Bothered at his intr1sion, she 1tters a half?kno,in", ha1ntin" 1nderstate'ent: E+ shall have s1ch a lifeE .G././/0. -roil1s and Pandar1s soon share a dirty 6oke at her e*pense= so'e thirty lines later, ,ord co'es of her e*chan"e for 3ntenor. -he certain fail1re, the disaster of heterose*1al relations that is the -ro6an 5ar story enforces a pres1'ptive preference for ho'osocial confi"1rations in this te*t. 3fter Ulysses reveals a sha'ef1l .heterose*1al0 reason for 3chilles: ,ithdra,al fro' the fi"htin"BE:-is kno,n, 3chilles, that yo1 are in love 5ith one of Pria':s da1"htersE .#.#.19#M9G0Bhe tries to reenlist the hero ,ith this rich apothe"': E3nd !etter ,o1ld it fit 3chilles '1ch -o thro, do,n >ector than Poly*enaE .#.#./$FMI0. Ulysses: ho'oerotic "oad to 'anly action, a replay of >ector:s to the ;reeks, is <1ickly seconded !y Patrocl1s: 3 ,o'an i'p1dent and 'annish "ro,n

+s not 'ore loath:d than an effe'inate 'an +n ti'e of action. . . . S,eet, ro1se yo1rself. .#.#./1FM/10 Sed",ick:s point a!o1t a 'ale heterose*1ality that eclipses ,o'en is especially relevant to 3chilles, ,ho cond1cts a secret affair ,ith Pria':s invisi!le da1"hter Poly*ena !1t a fairly p1!lic dalliance ,ith Patrocl1s E1pon a la&y !ed the livelon" dayE .1.#.1GI0. 3chilles: a'!ivalent se*1ality .addressed ,ith the re<1ired antife'inist in61nction0 co'pletes and co'ple'ents >ector:s chivalric evac1ation of heterose*1ality in the love challen"e. 5hat is defined as Eeffe'inateE here is passivity, !1t that is the very thin" that 'arks 3chilles: heterose*1ality: for his fe'ale !eloved, Poly*ena, has 'ade hi' pled"e his ,ithdra,al fro' the ,ars. 4ove for ,o'en prevents fi"htin"= love for 'en de'ands it, as Patrocl1s here .and later, !y his death0 calls 3chilles !ack to the !attle. 5hereas !oth >ector:s and 3chilles: heterose*1al relationships end in separation, the t,o "reatest ,arriors end ,ith one another, in a kind of ho'osocial cons1''ation. -he desire for co''1nion ,ith 'en in a 'ilitary or se*1al conte*t 'ay have an in,ard?t1rnin", self? directed valence to it. 3s a res1lt of his collea"1es: entreaties, 3chilles e*presses a physical need to see his co1nterplayer, !1t the ter's of his desire s1""est so'ethin" dist1r!in" a!o1t its nat1re and perhaps its historical for'ation: ) 5/ ) + have a ,o'an:s lon"in", 3n appetite that + a' sick ,ithal, -o see "reat >ector in his ,eeds of peace, -o talk ,ith hi', and to !ehold his visa"e, Even to 'y f1ll of vie,. .#.#./#FMG$0 3chilles conceives of his desire as fe'inine .and th1s, of co1rse, de!ilitatin"0 !1t descri!es it s1""estively in narcissistic ter's. >e h1n"ers to see >ector in his o,n condition, 1nar'ed, entented= it is an essentialist and e'1lo1s desire, !ent to fit a narcissistic fra'e. E'1lation, that conflict1al loss of difference, is itself narcissisticBa social 'odel of relations that t1rns o1t,ard only to feed in,ard, a self?o!sessin", self?pro'otin", and self?destroyin" infinite re"ression or 'otivational loop. -he e'1lo1s desire is for the self to rese'!le another ,hich it already rese'!les !y virt1e of the very desire. 3nd ,hile !oth ter's, e'1lation and narcissis', si"nify a destr1ctive i'itation, they also all1de to a pro!le'atic str1ct1re of love. +f there is a psycholo"ical point in this play on the contin11' !et,een ho'osocial and heterose*1al desire, an interstice ,here 3chilles resides, it is the vorte* of e'1lo1s narcissis', in ,hich the 'ale can conceive of hi'self as fe'ale .via the 'ale other0 in order to respond co'pletely to a self?directed need. Male narcissis' in the te*t is a co"nate of ho'ophilia that parodically depends on a heterose*1al vie, of relations.CFFD -he e*i"encies of i'itative narcissis' also descri!e the chivalric pro6ect, ,hich provides 'ale participants ,ith the kind of reflective self?"ratification that fe'ales, !y definition, cannot s1pply. 5hen >ector and 36a* finally 'eet for their kni"htly d1el, 3eneas e*plains to 3chilles that E-his 36a* is half 'ade of >ector:s !lood= +n love ,hereof, half >ector stays at ho'eE .G.5.%#M%G0. 3chilles instantly 1nderstands the fi"ht in erotic ter's: E3 'aiden !attle, thenJ @, + perceive yo1E .G.5.%I0. -hese ,arriors ,ill dra, no !lood fro' one another, and so ,ill re'ain 1npenetrated, 'aidenly. Aarcissis' too is 'aidenly, foreclosin" cons1''ation. >ector:s rel1ctance to fi"ht 36a* / l1outrance

s1""ests not an incest ta!oo so '1ch as a ,ay of preservin" and enclosin" the i'a"e of the self in the ene'y: 4et 'e e'!race thee, 36a*. By hi' that th1nders, tho1 hast l1sty ar's= >ector ,o1ld have the' fall 1pon hi' th1s. .G.5.1#GM#F0 ) 5# ) >ector:s chivalric acts are f1lly e'1lo1s and ho'ophilic= his 'eetin"s ,ith 3chilles, then, have the sy'!olic density of self?enco1nter a!o1t the'. +n Troilus and Cressida , the chivalric and the narcissistic 'er"e ,hen the ar'ies co'e passionately to"ether, pitched in their e*tre'ity to,ard a '1t1ally "lorifyin" violence. -he ,arriors are 'irror lovers in ar'sBrivals in love.

IV
-o ,hat e*tent do these conflictin" se*1al re"isters reprod1ce an Eli&a!ethan co1rt co'ple*J +n ,hat ,ays can ,e recover the historical reality of s1ch potentially 1ndifferentiated ter's as narcissis' and ho'osocial !ondin" for a readin" of Troilus and Cressida J Certainly, the social fact of these cate"ories is e*ceedin"ly hard to specify. Aarcissis' is a h1"ely incl1sive, inchoate desi"nation= 'ale !onds have !een ever present in patriarchal social and literary te*ts since .at least0 the Iliad . -o apply Enarcissis'E as a periodi&in" concept, + appeal only to the .nonclinical0 notion of an 1lti'ately self?destr1ctive self? interest= for Eho'osocial !onds,E those relations !et,een 'en that e*cl1de, de"rade, or i'a"inatively o!literate ,o'en. -hat the con61nction of these ter's can si"nify in any deli'ited, historical fashion is a hope + pin on the earl of Esse*, the a*ial fi"1re in Troilus and Cressida :s c1lt1ral referentiality. Esse* a"ain evokes relevant coordinatesBin his 1navailin" o!session ,ith his o,n i'a"e and infl1ence and in his 'asc1linist strate"ies for circ1'ventin" and s1!d1in" the <1een:s centrality. -he presence and a!sence of L1een Eli&a!eth ,ithin syste's of 'ale self?re"ard is cr1cial here. + have descri!ed factionalis' and chivalry as specific prod1ctions and dispositions of her co1rt:s se*1al politics. @nly thro1"h the a!sent presence of Eli&a!eth, refracted in the di' li"ht fro' Shakespeare:s -roy, can Enarcissis'E and Eho'osocial relationsE !e seen as correlative descriptions of co'pensatory historical str1ct1res. -he <1een "rants 'eanin" to these ta*ono'ies of selves at ,ar. 5ar: it is a hypnotic o!6ect of 'ale attention= for Esse*, it ,as also a ho'osocial escape ro1te fro' the po,er of his 'onarch. +n the sphere of Mars, far 'ore than in that of Oen1s, Esse* co1ld achieve 1ns1!6ected and p1rposely irritatin" freedo' fro' fe'ale r1le. >is 'artial attit1de ,as for"ed at the !e"innin" of his co1rt career in sy'pathy ,ith a "ro1p of poor yo1n"er sons of the "entry ,ho chose 'ilitary instead of aristocratic service= the post?3r'ada skir'ishes offered an o1tlet for their !locked social ener"ies. +n spite .or !eca1se0 of the stron" royal ) 5G ) s1spicion of co1rtier ento1ra"es, Esse* !eca'e spirit1al and 'artial leader of several of these 'en: he ,rote, E+ love the' for 'ine o,n sake, for + find s,eetness in their conversation, stron" assistance in their e'ploy'ent, and happiness in their friendship. + love the' for their virt1es: sake and for their "reatness of 'ind. . . . +f ,e 'ay have peace, they have p1rchased it= if ,e '1st have ,ar, they '1st 'ana"e it.ECFID -his 'ale esprit de corps see's to have f1eled, at a later point, the earl:s radical 'iscond1ct. 3fter he ,as installed as co''ander of the En"lish forces in +reland, repeated conflicts

,ith Eli&a!eth a!o1t financin" and strate"y arose. -he +rish ca'pai"n ,as a fiasco of diso!edient self? deter'ination and 'onarchical disapproval.CF%D Esse* ,ent so far as to for"e a sy'!olic alliance ,ith 'en of ,ar a"ainst the <1een= !1t this !ond ,as, si"nificantly eno1"h, ,ith the ene'y. 3fter a partic1larly harsh disa"ree'ent ,ith Eli&a!eth, Esse* sy'!olically ali"ned hi'self ,ith the re!el -yrone !y ne"otiatin" a tr1ce ,ith hi' in direct violation of the <1een:s orders. >e fo1nd in the +rish adversaries a co'pellin" i'a"e of his o,n i'p1lses= he ,rote pointedly to Eli&a!eth that Ethe people in "eneral have a!le !odies !y nat1re, and "otten !y c1sto' ready 1se of ar's. . . . +n their pride they val1e no 'an !1t the'selves . . .= in their re!ellion they have no other end !1t to shake off the yoke of o!edience to yo1r 'a6esty.ECF9D -his alar'in" report o!vio1sly f1nctions as a self?description, 1ncoverin" the co1rtier:s ,ill to po,er= the +rish, like Esse*, Eval1e no 'an !1t the'selves,E and seek to shake off their o!edience to a ,o'an. 5hen Esse* ret1rned to En"land 1n!idden, Eli&a!eth ,as all too a,are of his trespass 1pon her po,er: EBy ;od:s son + a' no L1een= that man is a!ove 'e=B5ho "ave hi' co''and to co'e here so soonJECI$D >er f1ry see's as !o1nd to the iss1e of se*1ality as hierarchy: no 'an ,as a!ove her, nor ,o1ld ever !e. +t ,as not only in international ,ar "a'es that Esse* for'ed alliances ,ith 'en as antidotes for servit1de to a ,o'an. >e responded to the stor'y faction fi"hts of the late 159$s !y repeatedly retreatin" to Ehis !edE at ho'e, acco'panied !y his !and of disaffected ,arriors and soldiers .de Maisse, 7ournal , G90. -h1s, 2evere1* e*tended a ho'osocial sphere of 'ale r1le fro' the p1!lic and active to the private, passive life. B1t even ,hen he see'ed to !e servin" his 'onarch, Esse* 'ana"ed >ector:s chivalric trick of 1nderc1ttin" and defyin" ,hat he alle"edly defended. ;est1res of apparent ho'a"e to Eli&a!eth ,ere in fact often trans"ressions a"ainst her co''and'ents.CI1D +n 15%9, Esse* 1ndertook a voya"e ,ith Sir (rancis 2rake to Port1"al to escape perceived restraints at co1rt. 4etters he left !ehind inf1riated the <1een !y assertin" ) 55 ) that he E,o1ld ret1rn alive at no one:s !iddin"E .2!, , %II0. @n arrival in 4is!on, the earl ass1'ed a cere'onio1s de'eanor in the e*a""erated -ro6an style= he !oldly challen"ed any of the soldiers in the Spanish "arrison to !reak a lance in the na'e of their 'istresses and his <1een.CI/D -,o years later, in the 'idst of the sie"e of 8o1en, Esse* ,rote to the Mar<1is of Oillars, assertin" Ethat + a' !etter than yo1, and that 'y Mistress is fairer than yo1rs.ECI#D Predicta!ly, his cond1ct a"ain offended Eli&a!eth, ,hose fairness he ,as s1pposedly advertisin"= !1t the conte'porary (rench chronicler ,as 'ost i'pressed !y Ethe kni"ht?errantry of En"lish'enE .2!, , %II0. 9ni"ht?errantry, s1!versive chivalry, ,as an end1rin" 'asc1line appliance of self?pro'otion= it so'eti'es even literally ,rote narcissis' into its 1ser:s 'an1al. +n (rancis Bacon:s tilt device for Esse* in 1595, the earl played Erophil1s, love:s lover= the "oddess of self?love, Phila1tia, atte'pted to s,ay hi' fro' 4ove .Eli&a!eth0 to narcissistic self?ind1l"ence. -he !ad 6oke of the tilt is that Esse*:s ela!orate conceit and fla'!oyant appearance sho1ted his narcissis' lo1der than it co1ld possi!ly proclai' his service. B1t the tilt speeches and so'e of Bacon:s acco'panyin" 'ar"inalia s1""est that the provenance of the perfor'ance ,as anti?Eli&a!eth senti'ent, narcissistic and ho'osocial. (or t,o years prior to the tilt, Esse* had so1"ht the position of solicitor "eneral for Bacon, his protN"N and secretary. -he fervent atte'pt ,as an act of deep friendship and also a !id for political levera"e= the earl ,anted to install his 'an in a lofty perch. B1t shortly !efore the 3ccession 2ay cere'onies, Eli&a!eth finally re6ected the s1it, and !oth friends ,ere cr1shed. Esse*:s tilt device, s1pposedly all a!o1t the virt1es of self?sacrifice, is tin"ed ,ith !itterness. +n one of the speeches, Phila1tia says that she has !een told Ethe ti'e 'akes for yo1E= in the 'ar"in !eside these ,ords Bacon ,rote in Esse*:s private copy: E-hat yo1r lordship kno,eth, and + in part, in re"ard of the L1een:s 1nkind dealin",

,hich 'ay pers1ade yo1 to self?love.ECIGD -he perfor'ance is so thoro1"hly narcissistic, so a""ressively self?"lorifyin" that Eli&a!eth felt no co'p1lsion to s1ffer all of it: E-he L1een said, that if she had tho1"ht there had !ene so 'och said of her, she ,o1ld not have !ene there that ni"ht= and soe ,ent to !ed.ECI5D @n this evidence !oth 8oy Stron" and 8ichard McCoy s1ppose that the tilt failed spectac1larly, !1t that notion ass1'es the <1een ,as s1pposed to like it. @n the contrary: the tilt an"rily repaid her for her E1nkind dealin".E Esse* and Bacon p1t their private !ond to the service of an oppositional narcissis', ,ith Esse* at the center of his "a1dy procla'ation of ho'a"e. -he depart1re of Eli&a!eth ) 5F ) fro' her o,n 3ccession 2ay party 'erely achieved in fact ,hat had already !een perfor'ed in chivalric disco1rse. B1t this ,arped chivalry dislocates 'ore than the 'onarch= it displaces the earlier, old?historicist, reflective identification of Esse* ,ith 3chilles.CIFD (or there is no o!vio1s sense in ,hich the ;reek partakes of the c1lt1re of chivalry as the earl so relentlessly did. @nce ,e lose the certit1de of the Esse*?3chilles identification in Shakespeare:s play, '1stn:t the historical readin" !e a!andoned or severely <1alifiedJ Aot really. Several years a"o, 7a'es E. Sava"e s1""ested that >ector evokes the earl of Esse* 'ore consistently and convincin"ly than does 3chilles. Sava"e ar"1ed that the -ro6an >ector !ears a fa'e for "entleness and co1rtly cond1ct that all1des to the reno,ned kni"htly side of 2evere1*.CIID +t is >ector ,ho has, in -roil1s:s ,ords, a Evice of 'ercy,E and >ector to ,ho' 3eneas refers ,hen he anno1nces that Ethe "lory of o1r -roy doth this day lie @n his fair ,orth and sin"le chivalryE .G.G.1G5MGF0. 3nd it is >ector, not 3chilles, ,ho s1ffers Esse*:s fate: death at the hands of a rival "ro1p. -he Cecil contin"ent had lon" a'plified thro1"h inn1endo Esse*:s a'!itions and desire for self?r1le.CI%D 3pprised in +reland of the Cecil faction:s !ar!ed insin1ations, the earl felt like a 'an e*posed to a 'ortal assa1lt: + a' ar'ed on the !reast, !1t not on the !ack. . . . + a' ,o1nded in the !ack, not sli"htly, !1t to the heart. . . . + lay open to the 'alice and the practice of 'ine ene'ies in En"land, ,ho first proc1red a clo1d of dis"race to overshado, 'e, and no, in the dark "ive 'e ,o1nd 1pon ,o1nd.CI9D >is prophetic ,ords fantastically shado, >ector:s 1nar'ed de'ise at the Myr'idons: hands in Troilus and Cressida : Esse* and the -ro6an !oth 'eet their ends as failed heroes a"ainst strate"ic conspiracy, the victi's of a "an" killin". 3ltho1"h Sava"e 1nderesti'ates >ector:s capacity for antiherois', as does >ector hi'self, s1!stantial parallels do reco''end an Esse* inscription in >ector. 5e cannot easily p1rchase this identification ,itho1t e*chan"in" ;eor"e Chap'an:s for it= !1t in disavo,in" the 3chillean, faction?leadin" Esse* to o!tain the -ro6an, chivalric version, the reader 'erely sacrifices one prescriptive referentiality for another. 8o!ert 2evere1*:s contradictory responses to his o,n heroic stat1re disco1ra"e a readin" that no'inates a sin"le candidate as his theatrical representative. >e personifies 7ean >o,ard:s apt co''ent a!o1t history: Enot o!6ective, transparent, 1nified, or easily kno,a!le and conse<1ently . . . e*tre'ely ) 5I ) pro!le'atic as a concept for "ro1ndin" the 'eanin" of a literary te*t.EC%$D +t is therefore appropriate that neither 3chilles nor >ector is a 'onochro'e !lock of separa!le si"nification. +n the t,o ,arriors: reflective, ho'osocial, and e'1lo1s relationship, the historical coordinates of Shakespeare:s te*t 'ay

!e recovered. -o e*cavate the co'ple* 1nity of the Esse* inscription, let 1s look at the crisis point of >ector:s co1rtly EcharacterEBhis heartless sla1"hter of the speechless ;reek soldier. +n five lines near the end of the play, the entire chivalric pre'ise ,ith ,hich >ector has !een identified collapses: Enter one in 8sumptuous9 armor . >EC-@8 : Stand, stand, tho1 ;reek= tho1 art a "oodly 'ark. AoJ ,ilt tho1 notJ + like thy ar'o1r ,ell: +:ll fr1sh it and 1nlock the rivets all B1t +:ll !e 'aster of it. 5ilt tho1 not, !east, a!ideJ

E"it +reek . 5hy then, fly on= +:ll h1nt thee for thy hide. .5.F./IM #10 -he 8enaissance a1dience '1st have had a ,eird, hall1cinatory sense of dN6T v1 at this 'o'ent. 3 !ea1tif1lly attired anony'o1s kni"ht enters the field of !attle= '1te, he enco1nters a chivalric opponent. -his scene 1ncannily rese'!les one partic1lar to1rna'ent and 3ccession 2ay conceit. -he fi"1re of the Unkno,n 9ni"ht, ,ho entered the lists anony'o1sly, ,as an inte"ral part of the tilts fro' 'edieval ti'es.C%1D +n Eli&a!eth:s to1rna'ents, Esse* hi'self likely appeared dis"1ised as the 'elancholy Unkno,n in 1F$$, ,hich 'i"ht have represented a last?ditch effort to ret1rn to royal favor. C%/D 3ppearance in the lists as an Unkno,n 9ni"ht, speechless and "or"eo1sly clad, !etokened a special stat1s. Aot 61st anyone co1ld !e the Unkno,n. -he role si"nified a co1rtier:s distinctive position at a "iven tilt: he ,o1ld enter in e*<1isite dis"1ise to plead a specific "rievance or to anno1nce e*traordinary chivalric service to the <1een. B1t >ector kills hi'. -he inconnu h1nted do,n and !1tchered represents a once "lorio1s chivalry, no, enc1'!ered and 'ade v1lnera!le !y its o,n da&&lin" i'a"e. -he play:s cli'actic co''entary on chivalry re'e'!ers the fate of Aarciss1s and fi"1res a sy'!olic s1icide. >ector, central chivalric force in -roy, kills the 'ost reco"ni&a!le Eli&a!ethan i'a"e of chivalric privile"e, red1cin" it to a !east for ) 5% ) sla1"hter. +n so doin", he destroys the co1rtly ideal as it al'ost e*isted in the play. >e di'inishes it to a coveted e*terior, conta'inatin" thro1"h his "reed its life spirit. 3nd in fact, on closer inspection, >ector discovers that the ideal has !eco'e entirely flesh, a corr1pted thin". Beneath the ar'or he finds a E'ost p1trefied core, so fair ,itho1t,E ,hose E"oodly ar'or th1s hath cost thy lifeE .5.%.1M/0. -he "ainin" of the ar'or, ho,ever, costs >ector his life as ,ell. (or he disar's, satisfied ,ith the kill, and "ives 3chilles an opport1nity to '1rder hi' 'ost 1nchivalro1sly. >ector:s appeal to fair play .E+ a' 1nar':d: fore"o this vanta"e, ;reekE0 reso1nds hollo,ly, for in vicio1sly seekin" and o!tainin" the 'erely e*ternal, he s1icidally destroyed the i'a"e of ,hat he ,asBan i'a"e that served, ho,ever deceptively, to protect hi'. 3chilles is effective and !r1tal force in rhy'in" co'ple'ent to >ector:s o,n, a!sent the ideolo"ical trappin"s. >is Myr'idons, speechless 1nchivalric Unkno,ns all, e*act the necessary death of the rival, ad61nct self.

3 ,ell?doc1'ented theatrical c1sto' e*tends the interpretive !orders of this scene. +n a conte'porary prod1ction of Troilus and Cressida the actor playin" the Unkno,n 9ni"ht 'i"ht have ,orn ar'or that once !elon"ed to a 'e'!er of the no!ility. Eli&a!ethan actin" co'panies c1sto'arily p1rchased entire ,ardro!es fro' the estates of no!le'en ,ho ,ore s1ch finery on for'al occasionsBs1ch as the 3ccession 2ay tilts.C%#D +f >ector did '1rder an Unkno,n clad in a <1een:s 'an:s ar'or, the a1dience ,o1ld have ,itnessed an 1n'istaka!le ta!lea1 of the death of Eli&a!ethan chivalry. B1t in the last years of the rei"n this death ,as visi!le eno1"h, even ,itho1t the Shakespearean scene. +n the conversation !et,een decadent -ro6an and En"lish kni"hthood, in the s1icidal enco1nter ,ith the Unkno,n, the Epervasive c1lt1ral presenceE of Esse* is a"ain palpa!le.C%GD 3s the central actor on the !1cklin" sta"e of late Eli&a!ethan chivalry, and as the fractio1s no!le ,ho repeatedly sa!ota"ed his o,n stat1re as heroic c1lt1ral representative, Esse* dictates a necessary co'plication of literary inscriptions. 3 si'ple s1!stit1tion of vehicles for the Esse* tenor is inade<1ate practice !eca1se the earl:s career at and a,ay fro' co1rt ,as al,ays 'arked !y the narro, oscillations of service and self? a""randi&e'ent. +t is th1s not only possi!le !1t necessar# to see the confi"1ration of >ector?Esse* in si'1ltaneo1s, !oth and relation to that of 3chilles?Esse*. -he i'a"e of 8o!ert 2evere1*, that is, !if1rcates in the t,o central adversaries of Troilus and Cressida . ) 59 )

V
-he characterolo"ical division of Esse*:s i'a"e responds to a clearly perceived d1ality in 2evere1* hi'self. >e lived t,o interani'ated !1t anta"onistic lives, lo"ical contradictions of po,er. -he dark, s1lkin" co1rt player and ho'osocial ,arrior ,as also periodically the <1een:s lovin" favorite, servicea!le and d1tif1lly adept= !1t s1ch contradictions ,ere increasin"ly diffic1lt to 'ana"e. -he earl:s aptit1de for chivalry, itself a conflict1al 'ode, !ro1"ht hi' into the !ri"ht circle of fa'e, thrillin"ly closeB!1t al,ays s1!6ectBto the fe'ale po,er he so1"ht to control. Esse*, a prod1ct of the co1rt relations ,hich he so disco'fited, reified the fiss1res in Eli&a!ethan policy and ideolo"y. >is representational filiation into 3chilles and >ector si'ilarly anato'i&es the endless divisiveness, the proliferatin" internecine violence, arisin" fro' social and ideolo"ical discord. -he late -1dor overreliance on factionalis' instit1tionali&ed an e'1lo1s chaos that chivalry .!eca1se of its o,n de!ilitations0 co1ld 1lti'ately neither 'ask nor control.C%5D -he pec1liarly Eli&a!ethan dislocation defined !y Troilus and Cressida is that "ap !et,een En"land:s 'artial, chivalric "lory, of ,hich Esse* ,as the final, desperately fla,ed representative, and the darker realities of the political present, circa 1F$$, to ,hich he contri!1ted in no s'all 'eas1re and ,hich finally over,hel'ed hi'. -hro1"h and aro1nd the 2evere1* cr1*, Troilus and Cressida dra'ati&es a ,orld riven !y its o,n i'placa!le conflicts: Ethose ,o1nds heal ill that 'en do "ive the'selvesE .#.#.//%0. 3nd they are 'en:s ,o1nds. Unlike En"lish ,ars fo1"ht 1nder the ae"is and for the "lory of the <1een .a"ainst the Spanish 3r'ada, for e*a'ple0, Shakespeare:s -ro6an 5arBlike the inter'ina!le +rish "1errilla conflictBpro"ressively loses the ideolo"ical, erotic foc1s it once had and th1s its protective 'antle of Eca1se.E -his -roy finally discards the inspirational fiction of a central fe'ale fi"1re, an Eli&a!eth, a >elen, or a Cressida. -he latter t,o caricat1ral antitypes of the <1een are portrayed as deeply fla,ed and ,holly contin"ent 1pon e*ternal .strictly 'ale0 val1ation and control. +f this portrait sketches a co1rtier ,ish, it also e*presses an orientational shift in fin de siUcle politics. 71st as the -ro6an 'en of chivalry are disinclined to protect or preserve Cressida, Eli&a!eth:s !est 'enBEsse* and CecilB,ere in the late 159$s already 'akin" secret overt1res to the 'ale 'onarch in Scotland. -he <1een ,as vanishin". Male !onds ,ere for'in" that covertly circ1'vented the fe'ale 'onarch at the end of her rei"n.C%FD

-he overco'in" of fe'inine presence, ,ill, and infl1ence is a ) F$ ) pro'inent 'ove'ent of the last act of Troilus and Cressida , and it is played on !oth sides. Cressida is a!andoned !y -roil1s, ,ho never once voices a desire to re"ain her= instead, he ,ants 2io'edes to Epay the life tho1 o,:st 'e for 'y horseE .5.F.I0.C%ID >er strate"y of delayed "ratification fails 'isera!ly ,ith !r1tish 2io'edes, the ne, antichivalric co1rtier.C%%D Poly*ena, the a!sent fe'inine principle .the ,o'an as cipher0, cannot !lock 3chilles fro' !attle once Patrocl1s dies. -he ;reek hero pl1n"es !ack into the fray and cancels the last vesti"e of fe'ale infl1ence in -roy, th1s artic1latin" Esse*:s deepest desires in the +rish ca'pai"n: to !e en"a"ed in ,arfare ,itho1t !ein" s1!6ect to the do'inion of a ,o'an. +nstead, every ,o'an in the play is herself s1!6ectedBto the ,hi's, l1sts, ne"li"ence, or f1ry of co1rtiers. -he retrieval of Menela1s:s <1een, the alle"ed "oal of the ,ar, enra"es virt1ally every ;reek ,ho tro1!les to think a!o1t it. >elen, red1ced !y -roil1s to a Ethe'e of hono1r and reno,n, 3 sp1r to valiant and 'a"nani'o1s deedsE ./././$$M/$10, disappears fro' the play entirely in the third act. She e'er"es only as a reference after that, and a hated one: EAa'e her not no,, sir,E Menela1s ,arns >ector, Eshe:s a deadly the'eE .G.5.1%$0. -he play re"isters the a!sence of fe'ale po,er, 'ediatin" !et,een the fact and the fantasy of a profo1nd, on"oin" di'in1tion of Eli&a!eth:s potency= !1t Troilus and Cressida al,ays !la'es the 'ale aristocracy for the ,orld:s disasters. Co1rtiers: narcissis' !eco'es endless, shared self?i''olation: EAo space of earth shall s1nder o1r t,o hates,E -roil1s spits .5.1$./I0. -he factionali&ed ;reeks encode a criti<1e of Eli&a!eth:s failed political 'anip1lations, !1t they 'ore directly evoke the paraly&in" self? interest of the Esse* and Cecil "ro1ps. -he -ro6ans 'anifest the self?deceptive vo"1e of revivified kni"hthood in the <1een:s rei"n, !1t the ,o'an, the s1pposed o!6ect of their destr1ctive e*ercises, cannot !e fa1lted for the attention .s1ch as it is0. -he te*t:s insistence on the deter'inin" force of ho'osocial relations dis'antles the potentially s1!versive contraption of its o,n historical referentiality. B1t Troilus and Cressida al,ays 1ndoes its s1!versions. +ts e*i"1o1s relation to contestation ste's fro' the thoro1"h red1ndancy of that act in a political landscape lackin" a clear a1thority= there is nothin", or not eno1"h, to s1!vert. +f the play defor's and dis'antles the 'yth of the -ro6an 5ar in the process of e'1latin" its o,n historicity, it also i'plies that defor'ation is the only possi!le constr1ction of a reality !et,een history and fiction, one in ,hich the failed present is overtaken !y a darklin" f1t1re= in ,hich 'eanin" is thoro1"hly en"1lfed !y the endless procession of dissolvin" historical 'o'ents: ) F1 ) -i'e hath, 'y lord, a ,allet at his !ack, 5herein he p1ts al's for o!livion, 3 "reat?si&ed 'onster of in"ratit1des. .#.#.1G5MGI0 -his "ri' readin" of h1'an si"nificance is ena!led !y the ,idespread ne1trali&ation of ideolo"y in -roy and En"land. Both ,orlds lie paraly&ed in a chas' !et,een ideolo"ies, ,itho1t effective sy'!olic or"ani&ations of political val1e.C%9D +f ideolo"y has a percept1al, even he1ristic f1nction, it !esto,s !1t also re<1ires a focal point, a ,ay of assi'ilatin" .possi!ly 'ystifyin" or s1!s1'in"0 the relevant data of c1lt1ral 1pheaval and social disorientation.C9$D Aot only is s1ch a point of foc1s a!sent

fro' the -ro6an 5ar, !1t it ,as also rapidly de'ateriali&in" in the last years of L1een Eli&a!eth:s rei"n. -he fall of +lion and the scatterin" of the ;recian lords occ1r so'eti'e !eyond Pandar1s:s infectio1s epilo"1e= those events are not far off, !1t neither are they sta"ed. Troilus and Cressida holds the concl1sion of this tale in a!eyance !eca1se a s1!stit1te version of a1thorityBthe only hope a"ainst the epide'ic of disinte"rationB,as yet to arrive. 5hen it did, in 1F$#, the ,orst o1t!reak of the !1!onic pla"1e in forty years ca'e ,ith it. ) F/ )

T)$, .$r* an* Plag+e in the Sec$n* /+art$ Ha let

@n the day of 7a'es St1art:s 1nh1rried descent fro' Scotland to clai' his kin"shipB3pril 5, 1F$#B 4ondon:s Co1rt of 3lder'en ,as !1sy. -he 'a"istrates ordered poor relief, 'ore ,atches, and a va"a!ond ro1nd?1p for St. ;eor"e:s Parish, an i'poverished, 1nl1cky nei"h!orhood in So1th,ark.C1D -hese orders had little to do ,ith 7a'es:s i''inent arrival. -hey ,ere instead the first official response to ne,s of the !1!onic pla"1e, ,hich ,as reported in the s1!1r!s on March #. -he ail'ent tri""ered the clicks and ,hirs of civic r1le and the intr1sive vi"ilance that si"nals "overn'ental an*iety. B1t there ,as "ood reason for the nervo1sness: the 'ost recent 'a6or o1t!reak, in 159#, had killed a!o1t 1# percent of the city:s inha!itants.C/D 5arnin" si"ns of the disease coincided ro1"hly ,ith r1'ors and 'achinations of the Scottish s1ccession. Pla"1e ,as spied in the ,ell?traveled corridors of co''erce, ,ar, and diplo'acy: 1599 in Port1"al, 1F$1 in Spain, 1F$/ in the 4o, Co1ntries. +n the s1''er of 1F$/, the Privy Co1ncil prohi!ited !oth i'ports and i''i"ration fro' 3'sterda', ,here the epide'ic ,as in f1ll, a,f1l !loo'. Septe'!er of that year sa, the port of Kar'o1th s1ffer ei"hty pla"1e deaths in one ,eek, after ,hich do'estic trade ,ith the to,n ,as s1spended for over a 'onth. 3nd slo,ly, d1rin" the ,inter tha,, sickness !e"an to take hold in the poor pockets and ed"es of 4ondon. +t e'er"ed in c1rio1s conte'poraneity ,ith the chan"e of r1lers. -he ne, kin" th1s 'et a for'ida!le o!stacle to his kin"ship. 21rin" ) F# ) the ,eek of May 5, 1F$#, pla"1e killed eleven in 4ondon and the o1tlyin" ,ards. 3pprised of the dan"er, 7a'es skirted the city, takin" a royal !ar"e 1nder 4ondon Brid"e to visit the -o,er on May 11= he then pro'ptly departed for ;reen,ich. By May /F, the ,eekly pla"1e total had reached thirty?t,o. 3fter the !ills of 'ortality ,ere reported, 7a'es ordered everyone ,ho ,as not already at co1rt to leave 4ondon !efore the end of the ter' .71ne F0 and not to ret1rn 1ntil the coronation. 3s late as 71ne /%, ,hen the force of the o1t!reak ,as indisp1ta!le, 21dley Carleton ,rote that altho1"h Ethe Sickness doth spread very '1ch, and it is feared it ,ill prove a "reat pla"1e . . . the Coronation holds at the appointed ti'e, ,hich shall !e perfor'ed ,ith '1ch sole'nity and all the old cere'onies o!served.EC#D 7a'es dearly ,anted the cere'onial ackno,led"'ent of his stat1s, !1t he ,as ca1"ht !et,een the need for p1!lic le"iti'ation and self?preservation. @n 71ly F the coronation ,as rel1ctantly postponed, Eo,in" to the "ro,th of Pla"1e and the fear that those co'in" to see o1r Coronation 'ay spread it in the co1ntry,E and th1s the kin" deferred Eall state and po'p acc1sto'ed !y o1r pro"enitors . . . CandD o1r sole'n entry and passa"e thro1"h o1r City of 4ondon for this ti'eE

.Aichols, %rogresses , 1:19%M990. Monarchical pro"ress and cere'ony ,ere literally !otched, disr1pted !y those p1rplish, s,ollen nodes and lesions called pla"1e !otches, ,hich 'arked the disease and its victi's. -hro1"ho1t the s1''er of 1F$#, the ,eekly 'ortality co1nt increased "eo'etricallyBfro' 'ore than #$ on 71ne / to /F# on 71ly I= and then, shockin"ly, to 1,#9F !y 71ly /%. Before the sickness ran its co1rse, Ethere died in 4ondon #%,/GG= of ,hich n1'!er there ,ere #$,5I% of the Pla"1e.ECGD -he epide'ic of 1F$#B,hich kept theaters closed for the !etter part of a year, prevented royal residence in 4ondon, and, stran"ely, !ro1"ht Shakespeare:s actin" co'pany 1nder the kin":s protection Bdid not of itself si"nify an 1ni'a"ina!le alteration.C5D 3s -ho'as 2ekker:s pa'phlet The 3onderfull :eare 1F$# de'onstrates, it ,as the concatenation of Eli&a!eth:s death, 7a'es:s see'in"ly rede'ptive accession, and the 1n1s1ally !ad o1t!reak that had s1ch a devastatin" i'pact on En"land that year. +n this chapter and the ne*t, + shall consider so'e of the literary i'plications of this historical se<1ence. -he Shakespeare play that fi"1res this history 'ost intenselyBthe history, that is, of 'onarchical death, s1ccession, and ,idespread diseaseBis Hamlet . B1t ,hich Hamlet J 3s recent te*t1al criticis' has e'phasi&ed, there are three 'a6or versions of this play: the first <1arto .L1, 1F$#0, the second <1arto .L/, 1F$G0, and the first folio .(, 1F/#0. -e*t1al st1dies ) FG ) have also stressed that the co'positional dates and the relative a1thority of these te*tsBtheir essential relation to each otherBcannot !e deter'ined ,ith certainty.CFD -he practical effect of this con1ndr1' is to foreclose confidence a!o1t the historical sit1ation, and sit1atedness, of all the Hamlets .CID +ndeed, 'ost of the 'aterial in the play is i'pervio1s to precise datin". -his fact helps pave the ,ay for an ar"1'ent that, to so'e critics, ,ill s'ack of historical i'pla1si!ility: specifically, that the 1F$G <1arto .,hose co'position is "enerally tho1"ht to date fro' 1F$$M1F$10 has so'e relation to the three ,atershed events of 1F$#. -heoretically, L1, L/, or ( co1ld inscri!e the historical episodes in <1estion, !eca1se Eli&a!eth:s death, 7a'es:s accession, and the pla"1e:s arrival occ1rred 61st !efore the p1!lication of the first <1arto .the title pa"e says the play Ehath !een di1erse ti'es acted !y his >i"hnesse ser1ants,E ,hich dates the te*t after May 19, 1F$#, ,hen Shakespeare:s co'pany !eca'e the 9in":s Men0. Practically, ho,ever, it ,o1ld have taken a prodi"io1sly speedy re,rite for the events of 1F$# to have fo1nd their ,ay intelli"i!ly into L1. 3nd ,hile the (olio te*t co1ld easily incorporate these events, ,e cannot sta!ili&e an historical readin" fro' the (olio Hamlet , since that te*t co1ld have !een revised ,ell after the years 1F$#MG .the <1artos, o!vio1sly, co1ld not0. -h1s, if the events of 7a'es:s s1ccession year do have any trace or resonance in the play, the second <1arto te*t sho1ld provide the richest historical indicators.C%D Even if the second <1arto ,as ,ritten ,ell prior to 1F$#, the appearance of the te*t after that ,onderf1l year is an inde* .or perhaps an o!sc1re prolo"1e0 to a history of the play:s 'eanin"sB,hich rever!erate 1ncannily ,ith the events that !arely preceded L/:s p1!lication. L1 ,as printed ,hen the 'e'ory of Eli&a!eth ,as still fresh and the presence of a kin" ,as a novelty. L/ appeared after 7a'es had !een on the throne for less than a year= the pla"1e still ra"ed ferocio1sly in 4ondon and ,as in so'e sense interferin" ,ith his rei"n. 3t the very least, then, the t,o <1artos stand in radically different relationship to the cr1cial transitional events of the ti'e. +n considerin" the environ'ent in ,hich the te*ts appeared , + can 'ake 'odest clai's a!o1t the ,ays in ,hich they inscri!e their local conte*ts, and + can 'ake these clai's ,itho1t 1n,arranted spec1lation a!o1t the provenance of te'porally indeter'inate 1nderlyin" 'an1scripts. 3n historically factored readin" of the Hamlets of 1F$# and 1F$G can !e"in to rationali&e so'e of the strikin" differences !et,een the t,o dra'as.

-his chapter is a!o1t the sy'!olic and str1ct1ral operation of pla"1e in the second <1arto of Hamlet . C9D +n 1F$G, a resonant conte*t e*isted for ) F5 ) the te*t:s the'atic of dist1r!ed kin"ship and national disease, t,o topics that !eco'e intensified in the transit fro' L1 to L/. My readin" here ,ill serve as the first half of a lar"er ar"1'ent, ,hich + shall co'plete in the ne*t chapter, a!o1t the second <1arto:s intensely co'plicated topicality. (or no, let 'e say that the traces of epide'iolo"ical history that p1nct1ate the 1F$G Hamlet ,ork in concert ,ith an*ieties a!o1t s1ccession in the te*t, and + shall constr1ct 'y readin" aro1nd these t,o a*es. -o 'ake the point a!o1t topical intervention 'ore effective, + shall e*a'ine so'e of the E"oodE <1arto:s .ad'ittedly i''ense0 differences fro' L1, in hopes of sho,in" so'e ,ays in ,hich references to and dra'atic str1ct1res of conta"ion '1ltiply te*t1ally in the later ,orkBafter sickness had achieved local do'inance.C1$D (ro' this point on, 1nless other,ise noted, any reference to EHamlet E ,ill !e to the te*t of the second <1arto .1F$G0.C11D Shakespeare:s 'ost endlessly perple*in" dra'a fi"1rally reani'ates the force that pla"1ed the early 'o'ents of 7a'es:s rei"nBthat radically desta!ili&in", !r1tal fact of !odily and co"nitive dan"er. -o a re'arka!le de"ree, the play internali&es the epide'ic crisis as a crisis of form: disease offers a str1ct1ral te'plate that prod1ces 1nstr1ct1rin". +n sta"in" conta"ion, Hamlet s1""ests that a sin"le infl1ence, effectively trans'itted, can per'eate and radically disco'pose the conscio1sness of an entire c1lt1re. @ne corr1ptive force can r1in the ,orld.

I
2erek -raversi has noted that Ethe action of Hamlet is, in its inner lo"ic, the pro"ressive revelation of a state of disease.EC1/D -he point co1ld !e taken f1rther: Hamlet :s plot is a virt1al sche'atic of pla"1e. -he play:s sickly i'a"es are neither inert nor orna'ental= its lan"1a"e of !odily corr1ption 'etastasi&es. 5hat res1lts is a s1!li'inal the'atic of conta"ion: a pro"ressive dispersal of ,eakness, del1sion, passion, and violent physical deco'position a'on" a "ro,in" n1'!er of s1scepti!le !odies. Conta"ion in Hamlet is fi"1red pri'arily as poisonin", a so'atic and lin"1istic act ,hich is al,ays, sooner or later, deadly. -he 'etaphoric relationship of pla"1e and poison in the 8enaissance ste''ed fro' a conte'porary perception a!o1t their 'aterial connectedness: the !elief that one literally contained and dispersed the other, that the essential st1ff of infection ,as to*in. +ndeed, in pla"1e pa'phlets and other 'edical tracts the 'ost co''on synony' for EinfectionE ,as EpoisonE or Eveno'.EC1#D (or instance, Stephen Brad,ell, a Caroline physician, de? ) FF ) fines pla"1e as Ea Pop1lar (eavor vene'o1s and infectio1s, strikin" chiefly at the >eart.EC1GD Brad,ell provides an especially interestin" ta*ono'y of the poison resident in pestilence: -his P1trid Pla"1e, is . . . vene'o1s, ,hich is "ranted of all !oth Physitians and Philosophers. Ao, !y $enom or %o#son , ,e co''only 1nderstand so'e thin" that has in it so'e dan"ero1s s1!tle <1ality that is a!le to corr1pt the s1!stance of a livin" !ody to the destr1ction or ha&ard of the life thereof. -his ,orkin" is apparent in this Sicknesse , !y his secret and insensi!le insin1ation of hi'self into the $itall spirits , to ,hich as soone as hee is "otten, he she,es hi'selfe a 'ortall ene'y. . . . >is s1!tle entrance, his slye cr1eltie, his s,ift destroyin"= the 1nfaithf1lnesse of his Crisis , and the other %rognostick Signes = and

the vehe'encie, "rievo1snesse and ill !ehavio1r of his S#mptomes , all !ein" 'anifest proofes of his .enemous ;ualit# . .Brad,ell, %h#sick , F= italics in ori"inal0 5e sho1ld spend a 'o'ent ,ith this description, for its clai's and contradictions epito'i&e the c1lt1ral disco1rse a!o1t the pla"1e. -o Brad,ell, this disease is not 'erely fatal, !1t i''oral: it cond1cts s1rreptitio1s assa1lts on the ,holeso'e or innocent !ody, e'ployin" poison as its a"ent. -he ,riter:s tendency to alle"ori&e the physical da'a"e done !y pla"1e arises fro' a her'ene1tic i'p1lse as '1ch as a 'edical one. 2isc1ssin" the Eveno' or poisonE inherent in the disease offers a1thoritative dia"nostic sta!ilityB!oth physicians and philosophers a"ree on the ta*ono'yBand the everyday reader can also Eco''only 1nderstandE it. B1t for all his confidence in havin" associated pla"1e ,ith the s1!stance, Brad,ell cannot provide a respecta!ly precise technical definition of veno': he descri!es it, rather li'ply, as Eso'e thin" that has in it so'e dan"ero1s, s1!tle <1alityE that endan"ers or destroys life. 5hat is this thin"J -he physician:s certit1de e*pands and contracts thro1"ho1t the description. E-his ,orkin" is apparent,E he avers, recoverin" te'porarily, !1t in the ne*t phrase the disease "ets the !etter of hi'= it is Esecret and insensi!le,E and its sy'pto'atolo"y !affles hi': E-he 1nfaithf1lnesse of his Crisis, and the other Pro"nostick Si"nesE fr1strate the dia"nostician. Brad,ell:s loaded clinical attri!1tes for the pla"1e .s1!tle, sly, s,ift, 1nfaithf1l, vehe'ent, "rievo1s0 s1!stit1te 'oral f1ry for co'prehension. (inally the interpretive diffic1lty of the sicknessBthe Eill !ehavio1r of his S#mptomes EBs1rprisin"ly !eco'es the occasion for dia"nostic confidence a!o1t it, and a circle of her'ene1tic red1ndancy for's. -he pla"1e '1st !e the prod1ct of veno' !eca1se its el1siveness is veno'o1s. 5e kno, ,hat it is !eca1se ,e don:t kno, ,hat it is. ) FI ) -he f1nction of EpoisonE in pla"1e tracts is to control an*iety a!o1t the 1nkno,a!leBto e*plain pla"1e !y assi"nin" it a physical ca1se and th1s to deli'it that ,hich escapes 1nderstandin". B1t poison is an analo"y, a deferral, rather than an e*planation. Physical veno' does rese'!le pla"1e in the 'anner .if not the scope0 of its destr1ctiveness. B1t poison:s partic1lar relevance to Hamlet lies in the episte'olo"ical pro!le' it clai's and fails to e*plain. 5hen the ;host tells >a'let that Ethy Oncle stole 5ith i1yce of c1rsed >e!ona in a viall, 3nd in the porches of 'y eares did po1re -he leapro1s distil'entE .2#0, it pretends to solve a cri'e the so1rces, 'otives, and ra'ifications of ,hich have not !e"1n to !e rooted o1t. (atal, 1ndetecta!le, finally 1ncontrolla!le, to*in in the play f1nctions as it did in pla"1e tracts: an all?enco'passin" e*planation that cannot acco1nt for '1ch. Even tho1"h the ;host depicts 9in" >a'let:s de'ise in alle"orical ter's as the si'ple 1pshot of poisono1s Evil:s infectio1s, treachero1s invasion and destr1ction of ;ood, this e*planation .like Brad,ell:s0 leaves copio1s "aps. Cla1di1s:s poison 'ay !e the ori"inal vial of disorder, the revealed, ph#sical ca1se of 9in" >a'let:s death= !1t ,hat 'atters in the play, ,hat ani'ates and infects it, is poison:s psychic resid1e: that ,hich is !orne fro' the ;host to yo1n" >a'let. -he historical transfor'ation of the kin" into the ;host prod1ces a cr1cial chan"e in the idea of poison: to*in alters fro' a physical to a co"nitive fact, a chan"e that is 'arked !y the ;host:s asto1ndin" transfor'ation fro' victi' to trans'itter of destr1ction. 3nd so the specter 'ateriali&es as the dra'a:s pri'e fi"1rative poisonerBan a"ent provocate1r ,ho, as several critics have noted, po1rs another veno', the vir1lent narrative of his death, into >a'let:s ears.C15D -his narrative enveno'in" proliferates and proves conta"io1s. (or once havin" a!sor!ed this rhetorical to*in, the son disse'inates it in vario1s for's thro1"ho1t the 2anish co1rt, ,here it enters all ears. -his pla"1e constit1tes >a'let:s characteristic !1siness at Elsinore, his normal 'ode of relationship.C1FD -he veno' >a'let in"ests, the i'a"inative poison, has a ti'e?release <1ality: it is let o1t, little !y little, ,henever >a'let speaks to the <1arantined pop1lation at Elsinore. >is o,n pla"1y speech

!eco'es the dra'a:s plot pistonBnot 'erely a l1!ricant !1t the vital 'ovin" part, ani'atin" the des1ltory se<1ence of events. (or if '1rder E,ill speak 5ith 'ost 'irac1lo1s or"anE .;10, so ,ill >a'let= after the intervie, ,ith the ;host, he seeks to disr1pt the co1rt thro1"h notions, not potions. 8e'arka!ly, the literal and fi"1rative poisons have the sa'e effect: Every character to ,ho' >a'let speaks ,ith veno', ,ith !itter? ) F% ) ness and an"er, is doo'ed to die. -he catalo"1e is strikin": Poloni1s, @phelia, 4aertes, Cla1di1s, ;ertr1de, 8osencrant& and ;1ildensternBall feel the stin" of the central carrier:s ver!al !ar!s. 5e cannot e*cl1de >a'let hi'self fro' this list, as his self?laceratin" lan"1a"e incites the dan"er that cons1'es hi'= he is a1toinfected at the last. Perhaps 'ost re'arka!le, the onl# characters ,ho die in the play are the ones >a'let has ver!ally assa1lted. +n his essay E@f the Po,er of the +'a"ination,E Michel de Montai"ne prepares the theatrical scene played o1t in 2en'ark: B1t all this 'ay !e attri!1ted to the narro, sea' !et,een the so1l and !ody, thro1"h ,hich the e*perience of the one is co''1nicated to the other. So'eti'es, ho,ever, one:s i'a"ination acts not only a"ainst one:s o,n !ody, !1t a"ainst so'eone else:s. 3nd 61st as a !ody passes on its sickness to its nei"h!or, as is seen in the pla"1e, . . . like,ise the i'a"ination, ,hen vehe'ently stirred, la1nches darts that can in61re an e*ternal o!6ect.C1ID 3s ,ith the pla"1e, clear ca1sal evidence is el1sive, !1t considera!le circ1'stantial cl1es point to the fatal vir1lence of >a'let:s i'a"ination as reified in his lan"1a"e= his ,ords endan"er the !ody as '1ch as they i'peril the 'ind. >is disco1rse, and the kno,led"e that fires it, have an uncann# po,er to deran"e and destroy. +n his 'a"nificent ,ork on the nat1re of conta"ion .15GF0, ;irola'o (racastoro .(racastor0 takes care to distin"1ish the poisono1s fro' the conta"io1s.C1%D >e !ases his conta"ion theory on si'ilit1de, the idea that Ethe infection is precisely si'ilar in !oth the carrier and the receiver of conta"ion= ,e say that conta"ion has occ1rred ,hen a certain si'ilar taint has affected the' !othE .(racastor, Contagion , #0. B1t he flatly denies that poisons can prod1ce likeness: Epoisons cannot, strictly speakin", ca1se p1trefaction or en"ender in a second individ1al a principle and "er' of e*actly the sa'e sort as ,as in the ori"inal individ1al. -he proof of this is that persons ,ho have !een poisoned are not conta"io1s to othersE .G90= th1s, E,hen persons die of drinkin" poison, ,e say perhaps that they ,ere infected, !1t not that they s1ffered conta"ionE .#0. (racastor cate"ori&es poisons as pri'arily 'aterial or spirit1al, dependin" on ,hich parts of the person they afflict, and his description of the spirit1al type har'oni&es ,ith the openin" crises of Hamlet : E-hose CpoisonsD that operate !y spirit1al i'a"es can destroy !y . . . prod1cin" an intolera!le sadness. B1t they can "enerate nothin" si'ilar to the'selvesE .G90. Beca1se (racastor:s theory pivots on the idea of si'ilit1de, it lends ) F9 ) itself to a rhetorical and psycholo"ical as ,ell as a p1rely 'edical readin" of conta"ion. >is disc1ssion ri"s a 1sef1l theoretical fra'e,ork for the application of conta"ion theory to Hamlet . -he play does not, of co1rse, ha''er o1t a str1ct1re !1ilt solely fro' the treatise:s ter's and propositions= !1t it does en"a"e the essential 'etaphor of (racastor:s ,ork. (or in Hamlet , si'ilit1de is the fertile, poisono1s "ro1nd of plot and character= the i'p1lse for likeness en"enders ra'pant si'ilarity, parallelis', repetition, and do1!lin". Shakespeare e'ploys the (racastorian idea 'ainly !y distri!1tin" the physical fact of infectio1s likeness to the 'oral, affective, and i'a"inative spheres. -he sy'!olic ra'ifications

of !iolo"ical conta"ion theory receive a co'pellin" "loss fro' 8enN ;irard, ,ho enlar"es .,ith anthropolo"ical intent0 the 'icroscopic feat1res of (racastor:s ori"inal o!servations= here is ;irard:s characteristic state'ent on the literary f1nction of pla"1e i'a"ery and the'e: E-he pla"1e is 1niversally presented as a process of 1ndifferentiation, a destr1ction of specificities.EC19D -his readin" of the disease can !e 'apped !ack into (racastor:s 1nderstandin" that conta"ion prod1ces deadly likeness. -he destr1ctive si'ilarity that !efalls !odies in epide'ics afflicts 'inds and 'otives in 2en'ark. Cla1di1s o!tained his !rother:s place, ,ife, and privile"e thro1"h e'1lo1s fratricide, and so !e"an the cycle of i'itation and the prod1ction of likenessBread Econta"ionEBthat ensnares his nephe,. -he ;host in t1rn i'itates Cla1di1s !y tryin" to en"ineer a '1rder= he calls for filial loyalty, an enforced si'ilarity that ,ill prod1ce a like?'inded reven"er and replicate re"icide.C/$D >a'let !eco'es, in several ,ays, a si'ilit1de of !oth fathers. -he rhetorical strate"y e'ployed yet disavo,ed in the reven"e overt1re to >a'let also has (racastorian overtones: the spirit prod1ces s#mpath# .E3las poore ;hostE C2/D0. 3ltho1"h the ;host e*pressly denies this as its "oal .EPitty 'e not, !1t lend thy serio1s hearin" -o ,hat + shall vnfoldE C2/vD0, its tale cannot !1t !e a pathos 'achine, concoctin" and refinin" the 'yth of the father:s victi'a"e. Sy'pathy, the e'otional correlative to conta"ion, 'anip1lates identification on !ehalf of a s1fferer to reprod1ce and propa"ateBperhaps alleviateB s1fferin". (racastor:s "reat treatise 2e Contagione !e"ins ,ith a lon" e*c1rs1s called 2e S#mpathia , in ,hich he o1tlines the sy'pathy or nat1ral attraction necessary to prod1ce an effective conta"ion !et,een o!6ects in the ,orld. >e asserts thro1"ho1t that !1!onic pla"1e is a vast patholo"y of sy'pathy, a hei"htened relationship !et,een disparate, conver"in" entitiesBidentity r1n ,ild .(racastor, ***iv0. Hamlet portrays a poison that, pace (racastor, does ) I$ ) indeed en"ender conta"ions of si'ilarity, in 'aterial and 'etaphoric ,ays. -his veno' has 'erc1rial, varia!le for' and f1nction. +t is an el1sive, 1nsta!le s1!stance, ,ith one e*cl1sive channel of entry, one aven1e of force: the ear. -he play:s to*in is lan"1a"e. -he historical force of pla"1e, so 'etaphorically s1""estive, can !eco'e translated into te*t1al or dra'atic str1ct1re. So'e evocative differences in the <1artos i'ply that the later te*t internali&es so'ethin" of its patholo"ical environ'ent. >a'let rails ,ildly at @phelia follo,in" the E-o !e or not to !eE solilo<1y in pestilential ter'sBE+le "i1e thee this pla"1e for thy do,rieEBand this line occ1rs in !oth early te*ts. B1t in the 1F$G <1arto, his poisono1s lan"1a"e "enerates a rhetorical and psychic si'ilarity. @phelia:s co''entary s1""ests that she catches the very disorder that she hears in the prince: E@ ,hat a no!le 'ind is heere orethro,neQ -he Co1rtiers, so1ldiers, schollers, eye, ton"1e, s,ord . . . <1ite <1ite do,neE .;#0. >er earlier reference to herself as possessin" a Eno!le 'indeE .;/v0, and the 1nintelli"i!le i'plied se<1ence ECo1rtiers . . . eye, so1ldiers . . . ton"1e, schollers . . . s,ordE s1""est that @phelia has !een da'a"ed, instantaneo1sly, !y >a'let:s ferocio1s rant. >er reaction in the first <1arto is alto"ether 'ore controlled or, as it ,ere, less infected: E;reat ;od of hea1en, ,hat a <1icke chan"e is thisJ -he Co1rtier, Scholler, So1ldier, all in hi', 3ll dasht and splinterd thence, @ ,oe is 'eE .E/0. +n L/, ,e can sense a contracted dist1r!ance.C/1D 3 'ore fantastic e*a'ple of the depth and scope of ver!ally ca1"ht si'ilarity occ1rs in 4aertes: s1!6ection !y Cla1di1s near the end of the play. Plottin" >a'let:s death !y d1el, the kin" s1""ests that 4aertes co1ld easily Echoose 3 s,ord vn!ated, and in a pace of practice 8e<1ite hi' for yo1r (atherE .M10. 4aertes assents, and his response is s1rprisin": + ,ill doo:t,

3nd for p1rpose, +le annoynt 'y s,ord. + !o1"ht an vnction of a Mo1nti!anck So 'ortall, that !1t dippe a knife in it, 5here it dra,es !lood, no Cataplas'e so rare . . . . . . can sa1e the thin" fro' death -hat is !1t scratcht ,ithall. .M10 5hat 'akes this addition to the plan so interestin" is that Cla1di1s did not think of it first. 4aertes devises the poisoned s,ord trick, ,hich ) I1 ) depends on the notion of an 1n!ated point !1t is 'ore clever= ,hen the kin" then proposes the ha'fisted e*pedient of the poisoned chalice as a fail?safe 'ane1ver, ,e can see that so'ethin" has "one a,ry ,ith the notion of character. -o !rin" 4aertes to this pass, Cla1di1s has had to poison hi' slo,ly a"ainst >a'let, 1sin" crafty insin1ations that epito'i&e the play:s 'ove'ent of ver!al corr1ption. Ao 'ental "iant, 4aertes has descended into the Chary!dis of a s1perior intelli"ence= !1t he has e'er"ed ,ith so'ethin" of that intelli"ence. >e see's to have ca1"ht the very idea of poison fro' the pri'al poisoner, the kin". +n the first <1arto the ,hole sche'eBd1el, sharp s,ord, and poison tip Bis Cla1di1s:s idea, and 4aertes follo,s st1pidly alon": E<ing . Aay !1t 4eartes, 'arke the plot + ha1e layde. . . . 0aer . -:is e*cellent, @ ,o1ld the ti'e ,ere co'eQE .>#M>#v0. B1t in the second <1arto, after the onset of pla"1e, character and interiority prove 1nsta!le, and s1!terf1"e is a co''1nica!le attri!1te as it !eco'es possi!le to catch the ha!it of disse'!lin"Ban ail'ent of so1l, of self.C//D -his 'o'ent epito'i&es a radical, inevita!le invasion of history into Hamlet : pestilence infiltrates theater as a characterolo"ical device of co''1nicated si'ilarity. Shakespeare hi"hli"hts the pla"1y nat1re of this contraction !y the 1n1s1al desi"nation for the 1nction 4aertes ,ill da1! on his s,ord: E+le t1tch 'y point 5ith this conta"ion, that if + "all hi' sli"htly, it 'ay !e deathE .M10. 3s (alstaff notes in another conte*t, E+t is certain that either ,ise !earin" or i"norant carria"e is ca1"ht, as 'en take diseases, one of another= therefore let 'en take heed of their co'pany.EC/#D Hamlet :s conta"ion of identities !e"ins ,ith the ver!al corr1ption first i'posed !y the ;host. 3nd the pla"1e of this ,ord poison is dispersed de'entia and se'antic insta!ility: tro1!le in 'ind.

II
-he ;host:s tale to >a'let provides the seedBthe seminarum , or the "er'Bof an i'a"inative disease that has "ri'ly literal conse<1ences.C/GD -he story enfolds horrors and to*ic contradictions, and it "enerates in >a'let a deep?seated paranoia a!o1t se*1ality, a!o1t the !ody:s fra"ility, and a!o1t the possi!ility of !asic 'oral distinctions= the narrative proves deeply, perhaps entirely infl1ential. 4aertes prepares the a1dience for the ;host:s appearance and effect on >a'letBas ,ell as for >a'let:s later effect on @pheliaB,hen, in lines ,ith no first?<1arto antecedent, he ad61res his sister, E+n the 'orn and li<1id de, of yo1th Conta"io1s !last'ents are 'ost i''inentE .C#v0.C/5D 4aertes si'ply ) I/ ) 'eans that the innocent are s1scepti!le to the corr1ptions of the ,orld, to se*1al assa1lt, yet his ,arnin" presently ass1'es a dra'at1r"ic reality he co1ld not have drea'ed: the ;host:s i''inent ,ords are conta"io1s !last'ents that threaten >a'let:s innocence. -his threat is confi"1red se*1ally

and psychically, for the seed of the ;host:s tale i'pre"nates the son:s i'a"ination. 5hen the ;host earlier appeared to >oratio, it occ1pied a te'poral space analo"o1s to a !arren se*1al oneBin Ethe dead ,ast and 'iddle of the ni"htE .C/0Band it ,as '1te. B1t the a1ral assa1lt on the prince helps the spirit achieve co'pensatory potency and recover a 'eas1re of po,er lost in the c1ckolded kin":s slack, 1nconfessed de'ise.C/FD (i"1ratively i'potent 1ntil it speaks, 9in" >a'let:s i'a"e e'!odies the '1ltivalent force of the ,ord EspiritEBa vital po,er, a 'ysterio1s transcendent !reath, an a!scondin" de'on, a se'inal s1!stance. -he father revivifies hi'self !y poisonin" the heir. -he ;host:s narrative rese'!les a perverse incarnation= it is a rape .Eso a' + !o1nd to hear,E >a'let says0 or sei&1re of !ody and 'ind that also recollects the 3nn1nciation, insofar as Mary:s fertili&ation ,ith Christ ,as in so'e early patristic traditions acco'plished a1rally.C/ID 3nd to set the ti'e ri"ht, to redee' it ,hen 'en least think he ,ill, >a'let, like Mary an 1ns1spectin" receptacle, '1st carry the father:s desire to ter' Beven if he feels Evnpre"nant of 'y ca1seE .(Gv0. 5hether confi"1red as disease, rape, or so'ethin" 'ore spirit1al, spectral lan"1a"e has a physical i'pact on hi'= pre'at1rely !1rdened, profo1ndly a"ed !y the dreadf1l ,ords, >a'let:s !ody inherits the ;host:s psycholo"ical tor'ent: Eo fie, hold, hold 'y hart, 3nd yo1 'y sinno,es, "ro,e not instant old, B1t !eare 'e s,iftly vpE .2#v0. -his 'ost r1'inative of dra'as repeatedly devolves into foc1s on physicalityBthe !ody:s pri'acy over politics or ideolo"y= its 'a"netic resonances ,ith other !odies= its s1pre'e conto1rs of need.C/%D -he ;host:s narrative provides "risly clinical details of 9in" >a'let:s '1rder and descri!es not 'erely a death !1t a patholo"y. -he spirit is the end?prod1ct of Cla1di1s:s Eleapro1s distil'entE .2#0= it pict1res itself as havin" ca1"ht a decanted disease. 3fter the poison ,as po1red in 9in" >a'let:s ear, Ea 'ost instant tetter !arckt a!o1t Most 4a&erlike ,ith vile and lothso'e cr1st 3ll 'y s'ooth !odyE .2#0. -he sy'!olic transfor'ation entailed in 9in" >a'let:s 1nsavory end as a selfdescri!ed 4a&ar or leper '1st e*plode >a'let:s preconceptions a!o1t his father= at the least, those ideas cannot s1rvive the acco1nt ,holly intact.C/9D (or, even 'ore than pla"1e or syphilis, leprosy si"nified an a!idin" moral condition. -he sickness ,as the Edisease of the so1lE= not ) I# ) a p1!lic or "eneral ail'ent, the affliction ,as a private 'arkin", ;od:s personali&ed 61d"'ent 1pon the individ1al:s state of "race.C#$D +n spite of itself, then, the ;host !etrays the poisonin" as 9in" >a'let:s o,n i'a"inative and spirit1al corr1ption= the disfi"1ration encases heavenly 61d"'ent. 5hat is 'ore, lepers .like pla"1e victi's0 s1ffered e*tre'e social <1arantine in hy"ienic e*ile, s1ch that the transition fro' kin" to leper ,o1ld represent the 'ost profo1nd do,n,ard 'o!ility .altho1"h e*a'ples of lepro1s kin"s ,ere not 1nco''on in !i!lical and 'edieval icono"raphy0.C#1D Corporeal evidence to the contrary, ho,ever, the ;host instead plays several lofty roles in its recitationBthe 6ealo1s and an"ry ;od, the virt1o1s victi', the terri!le seeker of ven"eanceBnone of the' h1'!le or self? !la'in". +n short, the acco1nt of the kin":s no!le !la'elessness strains !elief= the loathso'e cr1st over the elder >a'let:s post'orte' i'a"e e*presses an internal disease 'anifested, as ,ell as an e*ternal conta"ion a!sor!ed. -he dead kin":s 'alady inspires a the'atic pla"1e partly !eca1se of the dia"nostically conver"ent character of diseases in the 8enaissance. 4eprosy and pla"1e ,ere sy'pto'atically and etiolo"ically si'ilar, !oth entailin" topical disfi"1ration and 'oral conde'nation.C#/D 5hat is 'ore i'portant, leprosy, like !1!onic pla"1e, ,as kno,n and feared as a hideo1sly efficient conta"ion. -he ;host:s acco1nt, eidetically 'arkin" the father as lepro1s, seeds the very idea of 9in" >a'let as dan"ero1s, a fi"1re not to !e ,orshiped !1t sh1nned like the pla"1e.C##D +n spite of this te*t:s o!sessions ,ith the !ody, pestilence in Hamlet is episte'olo"ical. @n one level, the ;host:s disease is "ossip, or infor'ation: it is the !ad ne,s yo1 "et ,hen yo1 "ro, 1p and discover

nasty thin"s a!o1t yo1r relatives. B1t on a deeper level, the pla"1e is kno ledge : not necessarily a field of e'pirical tr1ths, !1t rather, those disartic1lated perceptions, s1spicions, and an*ieties ,hich press1re the pheno'enolo"y of the self so as to sec1re, s1!vert, or 'arvelo1sly direct it. Beca1se this kno,led"e is plainly .!1t co'ple*ly0 intolera!le, it can 'ake 'adBespecially in rea"ent and reco'!inant for's ,ith already present do1!ts and v1lnera!ilities. -he ;host:s revelations p1sh >a'let to perceive a depravity in the ,orld that s1rpasses even his 'ost dis'al pres1ppositions. -he prince:s ,orst s1spicions a!o1t Cla1di1s .E@ 'y propheticke so1leQ 'y OncleJE0 have !een 'ore than confir'ed and his fears a!o1t his 'other intensified. B1t a distortion that >a'let can at first !arely detect conta'inates the other,orldly si"nals he receives: c1rrents of e*plosive an"er, physical rev1lsion, and psychic violence cascade fro' the voice of the !eloved father, the sickenin" "host?kin". 3nd ) IG ) it is not only the content !1t the style of the speech that '1st infect >a'let:s already shaky co"nitive and e'otional condition. 3t the point of its 'ost f1rio1s den1nciation of Cla1di1s, the ;host !e"ins to hiss like the snake in 2en'ark:s 1n,eeded "arden: E+ that incest 1o1s, that ad1lterate !east , 5ith ,itchcraft of his ,its , ,ith trayterous "ifts , @ ,icked ,it, and "iftes that ha1e the po,er So to sed1ce E .2#0. +f the a'!i"1o1s prono'inal referent here is not itself a sort of disclos1reBE+ that . . . !eastEBthe tone of the speech is s1fficiently 1"ly to thro, >a'let off the track of father ,orship.C#GD 3lon" ,ith his other radical revisions, >a'let '1st !e"in to confront incipient do1!ts a!o1t the so1rce of the 'essa"eBevidently a tainted so1rce, f1ll of dark d1!iety and ra"e. -he prince:s Ekno,led"e,E then, fails as relia!le, disinterested fact= it is potent !1t 'or!idly scra'!led. 5hen he seeks to pass it on, it carries only the clarity of h1nch or, at !est, desire. -he play as a ,hole co'es to revolve aro1nd and rese'!le the static in >a'let:s 'ental field. Both >a'let and the a1dience '1st so'eho, translate into sense a kno,led"e that can never cohere, even on reflection , !eca1se it e'er"es fro' a corr1pt ori"in.C#5D -he ;host:s risi!le in61nction for disinterested reven"eBEB1t ho,so'e1er tho1 p1rs1es this act -ain:t not thy 'indeEBco'es too late, !eca1se it co'es after his o,n acco1nt: after, that is, >a'let has alread# !een tainted. +'p1re data rarely offer clear directions or yield f1lly intelli"i!le sol1tionsB"ar!a"e in, "ar!a"e o1t. -he father:s disinte"rative voice cripples >a'let:s capacity to deter'ine ,hat he kno,s as ,ell as an a1dience:s a!ility to constr1e ,hat can !e kno,n. S1rely the ;host possesses painf1l facts ,e can pity it for havin".C#FD B1t ,e cannot recover those facts precisely. Cele!rated as this feat1re of Hamlet is, it defra1ds plot and 'akes character 1nintelli"i!le. (or instance, in callin" Cla1di1s Ethat incest1o1s, that ad1lterate !eastE in the second <1arto .2#0, the specter s1!tly adds a char"e to L1:s Ehe, that incest1o1s ,retchE .CG0, a char"e that 1nfort1nately i'plicates ;ertr1deBtho1"h 1nclearlyBin the ori"inal cri'e. -he second <1arto version of the ;host:s speech is lar"ely si'ilar to that of the 1F$# te*t, !1t it contains so'e 1ni<1e tonal conf1sions that contri!1te to >a'let:s tro1!les. L/:s ;host oscillates !et,een ra"e at Cla1di1s, e"ocentris', and !la'e of ;ertr1de, so'eti'es e'phasi&in" the second and third feat1res at the e*pense of the first: E@ >a'let, ,hat a fallin" off ,as there (ro' 'e . . . . . . and to decline Oppon a ,retch ,hose nat1rall "ifts ,ere poore -o those of 'ine.E -he se*1al 6ealo1sy of these lines contin1es in the p1&&lin" in61nction, a!sent in L1, to Elet not the royall !ed of 2en'arke !e 3 ) I5 ) co1ch for l1*1ry and da'ned incestE .2#v0. >a'let has !een conscripted here to prevent Cla1di1s:s

contin1ed se*1al, not political rei"n= reven"e for the '1rder has all !1t dissolved as a 'otivatin" factor. 3s if to !l1r the 'essa"e f1rther, the ;host a'ends the first <1arto:s relatively !eni"n instr1ctions a!o1t ;ertr1deBE4ea1e her to hea1en, 3nd to the !1rthen that her conscience !earesE .L1, CGv0B,ith this erotically sadistic ,ish: Elea1e her to hea1en, 3nd to those thornes that in her !oso'e lod"e -o prick and stin" herE .2#v0. 3s ,e 'i"ht e*pect, the ;host:s acco1nt in the t,o te*ts prod1ces distinctly different reactions fro' >a'let. Since the spirit concentrated on Cla1di1s:s perfidy in L1, >a'let, left alone on sta"e, e*clai's in that te*t: Ea da'nd pernitio1s villaine, M1rdero1s, !a,dy, s'ilin" da'ned villaineE .CGv0. B1t in L/ the prince:s ani'1s takes t,o directions at once: @ 'ost pernicio1s ,o'an. @ villaine, villaine, s'ilin" da'ned villaine. .2#v0 +n the second <1arto, >a'let has !een conta'inated !y the ;host:s se* na1sea and its pec1liarly '1ted antife'inist ra"e at the <1een. 5e can say that the entire <1arto is so conta'inated, for in that te*t ;ertr1de:s c1lpa!ility in the ori"inal cri'e re'ains 1nresolved, as + shall disc1ss in the ne*t chapter. -his is not only an iss1e of te*t1al "ender politics= it is a <1estion of episte'olo"ical possi!ility. -he second <1arto lacks several interpretive a'enities ,hich L1 provides, s1ch as ;ertr1de:s direct denial of >a'let:s acc1sations in the earlier te*t: EB1t as + ha1e a so1le, + s,eare !y hea1en, + ne1er kne, of this 'ost horride '1rderE .;#0. 3nd L/ deletes s1ch 1sef1l 1nfoldin"s as the first <1arto:s private intervie, !et,een >oratio and the <1een, ,here >a'let:s friend reveals that Cla1di1s did in fact plan the prince:s '1rder .L1, >/v0. -he ;host:s story in L/ is part of that te*t:s pro6ect to o!sc1re the play:s prehistory, to !1ry a precio1s and enticin" cache of facts. Aotorio1sly, this is infor'ation that >a'let and the critics !oth desperately need.C#ID +ndeed, the !road effect of the ;host:s se'inal speech in the second <1arto is the trans'ission of a te*t1al, "lo!al disease of poisono1s do1!t and fact1al deficit. -he narro, effect of the speech is to "1arantee >a'let:s paralysis thro1"h contradictory, '1ddled si"nals: '1rder yo1r 1ncle, taint not yo1r 'ind, p1r"e the throne of l1st and incest, leave yo1r 'other to heaven !1t leave her !oso' to !e pricked and st1n"= re'e'!er 'e. ) IF ) Since kno,led"e in 2en'ark is pla"1y corr1ption and lan"1a"e the poisono1s vehicle of its trans'ission, it follo,s that >a'let:s ed1cation thro1"h "hostly 1tterance ,ill !e 'onstro1sly diffic1lt to assess. -o !e s1re, the lesson ,as a !ad one, f1ll of false starts, 'isdirection, o!sc1re lan"1a"e, and other perple*ity. +t is not s1rprisin", then, that >a'let:s initial response to the lect1re is shortsi"hted: he declares Eit is an honest ;hostE .2G0, contrary to all appearances.C#%D >e has repressed so'e of the specter:s 'ost "larin", 'ortifyin" disclos1res: that the !eloved kin":s so1l s1ffers 'i"htily in Es1lphr1s and tor'entin" fla'esE for the Efo1le cri'es done in 'y dayes of nat1reE= that the tale of its secret prison ho1se co1ld harro,, free&e, start, part, the !ody of the listener= that the kin" ,as Esent to 'y acco1nt 5ithall 'y i'perfections on 'y headE .2#0. 5hat are these fla'es, cri'es, p1nisha!le and 1na!solved i'perfectionsJ >a'let:s 6arrin", partial kno,led"e that the father ,as not all that either >a'let had s1pposed does not crystalli&e in an epiphany, !1t rather e'er"es in a strikin" and entirely appropriate theatrical proliferation of do1!t and d1ality. >a'let:s ne,ly desta!ili&ed episte'olo"y is the ca1"ht sense of shiftin" 'oral cate"oriesBthe dissolvin" difference !et,een >yperion and a satyr, !et,een l1'ino1s ;ood and to*ic Evil. -he first s1stained 'anifestation of this tro1!led kno,led"e co'es in the speech that >a'let re<1ests fro' the player, 3eneas:s tale to 2ido a!o1t -roy:s destr1ction. +n this splendid passa"e, Shakespeare

invests the aven"er Pyrrh1s ,ith several of >a'let:s i'a"ined roles in the reven"e dra'aBthe i'p1lsive ,arrior and the loyal aven"in" son he ,ishes to !e !1t also, pro'inently, the terrifyin" re"icide that he ri"htly fears he ,ill !eco'e if he f1lfills his reven"e o!li"ations. +n >a'let:s openin" pro'pt to the speech .Ethe r1""ed %irrhus , he ,hose sa!le 3r'esE C(#vD0, ho,ever, the aven"er:s appearance 'ainly represents >a'let:s ne,ly Ediso,nedE kno,led"e of his father1s fearso'e de!ilities.C#9D Pyrrh1s is scarcely h1'an= he has an 1nnat1ral skin encr1station, the cooked !lood of fa'ilies s'eared over hi' and hardenin" in the fla'in" city. >e has !een E!ak:d and e'pasted ,ith the parchin" streets . . . rosted in ,rath and fire, 3nd th1s ore?cised ,ith coa"1late "ore, 5ith eyes like Car!1nklesE .(#v0. -he "host of 9in" >a'let, itself s,athed in Es1lphro1s and tor'entin" fla'es,E and the lepro1s freak kin" that the ;host has descri!ed, E!arckt a!o1t . . . ,ith vile and lothso'e cr1st,E are conflated in the description of the terri!le !1rnin", encr1sted reven"er. 5e cannot kno, ,hy >a'let loves this story so ) II ) '1ch e*cept, as ,e ,o1ld s1ppose in this conte*t, as so'e for' of 'otivation to reven"e. B1t the -roy speech is co1nter'otivatin", and desperately 1nclear. +t s1''ons a hideo1s i'a"e in ,hich the perpetrator of retri!1tive violence is literally disfi"1red !y the re'ains of his victi's. -he fi"1re of Pyrrh1s is a '1rky hall1cination of conver"ence, a conta'inated set of references. +n re'e'!erin" this fi"1re, >a'let has s1!li'inally processed the ;host:s narrative of the kin":s death and condition in the afterlife as his father:s similarit# to a profane and vicio1s father?killer ,ho, like the ;host, is EhellishE: Ethe hellish %hirrhus @ld "randsire %riam seeks.E -he ;host has !een i'a"inatively transfor'ed fro' a victi' of violence into a ven"eance?seekin" !erserker. +n creatin" an i'a"e of 9in" >a'let as a de'onic horror, the ;host for's an i'a"e that, like pla"1e, destroys thro1"h si'ilit1de. (or !y !lastin" the i'a"e of the !eloved parent, !y replacin" the peerless father ,ith a fi"1re of intense 'oral and physical defor'ity, the ;host !oth corr1pts >a'let and i'possi!ly co'plicates his task. Spectral narrative has infected >a'let ,ith the shado, of a do1!t, one that slides !eneath the sta"e of 'ind and ,hispers: c1re the disease yo1 ,orshiped. Oer!al conta"ion is act1ally a spreadin" cogniti.e disorder that allo,s other conta"ions s1ch as evil, ins1rrection, and a'!i"1ity to proliferate erratically, to 'ake so'ethin" rotten o1t of ,hat ,as once, as @phelia calls >a'let, Ethe 'o1ld of for'eE .;#0. Episte'olo"ical pla"1e in the second <1arto Hamlet finally e*cresces in ,hat 'i"ht !e called a contamination of categor# . -here is in the state a "eneral seepa"e, a 'isce"enation of positive and ne"ative attri!1tes= the cate"orical indistin"1isha!ility of "ood and evil, a ;irardian 1ndifferentiation, is a threat to perception and psychic or"ani&ation that occ1rs at all levels. (or instance, ,e have seen that in his ra"e, the hellish Pyrrh1s seeks Pria' E,ith eyes like Car!1nklesE .(#v0Bthat is, ,ith !1rnin", !listerin" eyes. -his description, a!sent fro' L1, collates ,ith the Player:s acco1nt of ho, >ec1!a:s "rief ,o1ld affect the "ods: it E,o1ld ha1e 'ade 'ilch the !1rnin" eyes of hea1enE .(G0. Both hellish and heavenly occ1pants have eyes that !1rn, a pec1liar resonance that fi"1ratively e<1ates t,o ordinarily ,ell?separated cate"ories. S1stainin" this sa'e i'portant conf1sion, >a'let descri!es hi'self in the ne*t solilo<1y as Epro'pted to 'y re1en"e !y hea1en and hellE .;10. -his line, also 'issin" fro' the first <1arto, is as 1sef1l a key to the hero:s conf1sions as ,e are likely to find. 3nd in a ,orld ,here hell and heaven are indistin? ) I% ) "1isha!le, it sho1ld not s1rprise 1s that .a"ain in L/ alone0 Cla1di1s descri!es his love for ;ertr1de as E'y vert1e or 'y pla"1e, !e it eyther ,hichE .4#0.

+f the ;host en"enders deep cate"ory corr1ptions that threaten lines of kno,led"e and clarity, it also prod1ces a 'ore concrete theatrical dist1r!ance. 5hen @phelia !rin"s !ack her cred1lo1s report of the prince in his pro!a!le antic disposition, her description provides another disco'fitin" vista of si'ilit1de: >a'let looks Epale as his shirtE= he acts in panto'i'e, raisin" a si"h Epittio1s and profo1nd,E and "ives her a look Eso pittio1s in p1rport 3s if he had !een loosed o1t of hell -o speake of horrorsE .E/0. >e looks, in other ,ords, ;hostly.CG$D +f >a'let:s disposition is p1rely antic here .as he had ,arned it ,o1ld !e0, a clo,nish, controlled 'adness to fl1''o* the co1rt, ,hat can ,e 'ake of his rese'!lance to the ;hostJ >e 'ay think he is !ein" antic, !1t >a'let cannot deflect a sin"le dist1r!ance that he feels= he !oth lives and confers every one. @phelia:s report re"isters >a'let:s too? acc1rate i'itation of Epittio1sE disorder= he fails to control ,hat he rese'!les, as the conta"ion of si'ilarity overtakes hi'. >a'let:s s1!li'inal ackno,led"'ent of the 'ilitant spirit:s vast deprivation of so1l, and its possi!le representation of his father:s intense internal defor'ity, has no positive o1tco'e. Si"nificantly, ,hen >a'let does 'ana"e directly to confront his father:s de!ase'entBthat is, ,hen he can clearly state the !leakest i'plications of the ;host:s storyBhis o,n steepest characterolo"ical decline !e"ins. +t is as if the ra, kno,led"e, finally processed, !eco'es piercin"ly conta'inatin". + refer to the 'o'ent ,hen >a'let chances on Cla1di1s at prayer, and 1ses the ;host:s infor'ation to rationali&e postponin" reven"e: 3 tooke 'y father "rossly f1ll of !read, 5ithall his cri'es !raod Csic D !lo,ne, as fl1sh as May, 3nd ho, his a1dit stands ,ho kno,es sa1e hea1en, B1t in o1r circ1'stance and co1rse of tho1"ht, -is hea1y ,ith hi': and a' + then re1end"ed -o take hi' in the p1r"in" of his so1le, 5hen he is fit and seasond for his passa"e: Ao. Op?s,ord, and kno,e tho1 a 'ore horrid hent. .71v0 >a'let ackno,led"es the 1ncertain stat1s of his father:s so1l, 'ay!e even ,ith a s1!li'inal reco"nition .in the i'precise prono'inal referents0 of the victi':s si'ilarity to the '1rderer.CG1D 3ss1'in" that Ehis ) I9 ) cri'esE and Ehis a1ditE are 9in" >a'let:s, ,e can perceive the son acceptin" the appetitive, sinf1l, h1'an reality of the 'an that ,as his father. B1t this ne,ly confronted kno,led"e, ,hich ,o1ld ordinarily !e an i'portant adaptive sta"e in the 'o1rnin" process, has a s1rprisin"ly ill effect. 3s a direct conse<1ence of this 1nderstandin", >a'let no, prepares to perfor' an act far ,orse than anythin" Cla1di1s has doneB,orse even than anythin" the ;host has re<1ested. >a'let no, sets a!o1t the task of so1l?da'nin". 2eter'ined to catchBto killBthe kin" a'idst Eso'e act -hat has no relish of sal1ation in:t . . . that his so1le 'ay !e as da'nd and !lack 3s hell ,hereto it "oes,E >a'let precipito1sly enters the real' of the stock reven"er, the hero conta'inated and di'inished !y desires 'ore a,f1l than those that ani'ated the ori"inal cri'e. Critics ,ho ar"1e that the prince si'ply tries here to postpone ,hat he finds rep1"nant '1st i"nore >a'let:s 1nderscored rese'!lance, d1rin" Cla1di1s:s prayer, to the villaino1s Pyrrh1s at the '1rder of Pria': 61st as the prince hesitates ,ith his s,ord aloft, so for a 'o'ent does Pyrrh1s, ,hose ,eapon, Edeclinin" on the 'ilkie head @f re1erent Pria', see':d i:th ayre to stickE .(#v0Ba stat1ary rese'!lance partic1lar to L/. Ao lon"er the "ood

Christian son !earin" the lo"os of a ne, dispensation, >a'let has te'porarily p1t on the 'ask of classical aven"er ,hose sense of 61stice at once transcends and de"rades h1'an prero"ative. >e no, e'!races the 'oral vacancy of the reven"e code, not 'erely darin" da'nation !1t ind1l"in" infection. +f ,e translate (racastorian pla"1e theory to 'etaphorical ter's, the ;host i'poses conta"ion:s si'ilit1de, an e<1ivalation of carrier and receiver. -he spirit forces a reprod1ction, a self?d1plication already e*tant no'inally !et,een >a'lets.CG/D +t '1st recreate the desires and ener"ies of the kin", so it orders the son to vent1re into an area of e*pertiseBthe sin"le co'!at, the str1""le ,ith the ene'yB ,hich ,as pec1liarly the elder >a'let:s o,n. -his pro6ect fails. B1t the in61nction prod1ces an ancillary effect in the desi"nated aven"er: in (racastor:s ter's, an 1pheaval Eprecisely si'ilarE to the ;host:s, a ro1"h deco'position of internal order and sta!ility. >a'let, that is, inherits the father:s 'oral and psychic infla''ations. -he plot parodies christolo"ical doctrine here, t,istin" the iss1e of homoiousion : +s the son of like s1!stance to the fatherJ Ao, that the paternal fi"1re has !eco'e an 1nholy ;host, ,hat is the stat1s of the son:s relation to itJ Even if >a'let o,ns a 'eas1re of inte"rity, a piece of dissi'ilarity, it is his father:s a,f1l !1siness that he "oes a!o1tBand that he speaks a!o1t. ) %$ )

III
-he !1!onic pla"1e al,ays activated fears and 'etaphors of co''1nica!ility. Even ,hen -ho'as 4od"e descri!es the 'oral and tactile etiolo"y of the disease, he fra'es the sickness in lin"1istic ter's: E(or very properly is he rep1ted infectio1s, that hath in hi'selfe an e1il, 'ali"nant, vene'o1s, or vitio1s disposition, ,hich 'ay !e i'parted and !esto,ed on an other !y to1ch, prod1cin" the sa'e and as da1n"ero1s effect in hi' to ,ho' it is co''1nicated, as in hi' that first co''1nicateth and spreddeth the infection.ECG#D -he specter of ver!al perilBthe dan"er in conversation, in respiration, in the at'osphere that carries s'ells, so1nds, ,ordsBfre<1ently hovers on the 'ar"ins of 8enaissance pla"1e tracts and, ,e 'ay ass1'e, in the conscio1sness of !oth the so1nd and the sick in epide'ics. -he 'ost co''only ascri!ed 'aterial ca1se of the disease ,as the at'osphere, and a h1"e an*iety attends this ca1se. Pla"1es ,ere tho1"ht to arise fro' corr1pt air= the 1ncivic stench that rose fro' piles of decayin" !odies did little to alleviate the ,orry.CGGD +n e'phasi&in" the poisono1s and versatile action of conta"ion, Stephen Brad,ell points o1t ho, diffic1lt it ,as to avoid the disease: ES1ch sicke !odies infect the o1t,ard 3ire, and that 3ire a"ain infects other Bodies. (or there is a Seminaire Tincture . . . that . . . 'i*eth it selfe ,ith the 3ire, and piercin" the pores of the ,od# , entreth ,ith the sa'e -ire E .%h#sick , FMI= italics in ori"inal0. -he pop1lar etiolo"y finds its ,ay into Shakespeare:s ,ork in >a'let:s eval1ation of 2en'ark:s air?<1ality inde*: the corr1pted ,orld !eco'es, in his i'a"ination, Ea fo1l and pestilent con"re"ation of vapo1rsEBcode for a pla"1e ,orld. Si'ilar at'ospheric descriptions rec1r in the canon, so'eti'es even in co'ic conte*ts= for instance, @rsino recalls that ,hen he first sa, @livia, EMetho1"ht she p1r":d the air of pestilenceE .1.1.190. >a'let:s <1ery a!o1t the ;host:s provenance and !a""a"e .EBrin" ,ith thee ayres fro' hea1en, or !lasts fro' hellE0 is therefore environ'ental as '1ch as eschatolo"ical: he voices a specific concern that the spirit represents a fa'iliar physical threat. -he dan"er of the air has a dia"nostic appeal like that of poison: it see's to offer a fir' ca1se for the 1nkno,a!le ail'ent. B1t the pla"1e pa'phleteers ,ho located the disease Ein the airE did not of co1rse locate it at all: they 'erely e*pressed its 'ysterio1s 1!i<1ity, ,hich is the real point of the at'ospheric etiolo"y. Pla"1e envelops, !1t it also penetrates. 3s air, especially as !reath, it confi"1res an o1tside ,hich cannot !e kept o1t= Brad,ell e'phasi&es this point ,ith his lan"1a"e of intr1?

) %1 ) sion .Epiercin" the pores of the ,od# , entreth ,ith the sa'e -ire E0.CG5D Many 'eas1res ,ere taken to sec1re p1rity a"ainst the dan"er. -he infected ,ere, ,hen indoors, to !e s1rro1nded !y a s,eetened, perf1'y ha&e, and visitors ,ere to !reathe thro1"h po'anders: E4et hi' hold in his 'o1th a peece of Mastic, Cina'on, Vedoarie, or Citron pill, or a Clove.E @!vio1sly this arran"e'ent 'ade co''1nicatin" ,ith the patient <1ite diffic1lt, and other s1""estions 'ade it harder still: E4et hi' desire his sicke friend to speake ,ith his face t1rned fro' hi'.ECGFD Most ,riters e*plicitly ,arned the 1ninfected not to speak ,ith the ill, and here ,e detect one of the pri'ary social disr1ptions of the disease. +n a pestilent c1lt1re, all conversation carries risk= inti'ate spaces of enco1nter hold the "reater dan"ers. Epide'ics interr1pted social interco1rse in prohi!itive ,aysBdeath first a'on" these= the dist1r!ance of speech, another. >ere is 4od"e on the v1lnera!ility of those ,ho lived ,ith the afflicted: -hey that d,ell contin1ally ,ith those that are infected ,ith the pla"1e, are in "reat dan"er to recei1e the sa'e infection . . . !y reason that they . . . recei1e their !reaths, and s'ell their corr1ptions, and s1cke in the infected ayre of the infected ho1ses ,herein they converse= ,hich is a thin" very dan"ero1s.CGID 4od"e:s tract concl1des ,ith antisocial preca1tions for the healthy: E5e o1"ht to flie fro' the con1ersation of those that are infectedE .4#0. B1t the close or personal enco1nter ,as not the only so1rce of ,orry. 3ll interco1rse, p1!lic or private, spirit1al or sec1lar, 'eant dan"er= no 1tterance ,as safe. Since the pla"1e floated a!o1t on vapors, it co1ld !e carried on any raft of ,ords. C1rses 1ttered !y 9in" 4ear .EAo, all the pla"1es that in the pend1lo1s air >an" fated o:er 'en:s fa1lts li"ht on thy da1"htersQE C#.G.FIMF%D0 and -i'on of 3thens .,ho ,ishes Ea planetary pla"1e, ,hen 7ove 5ill o:er so'e hi"h?vic:d City han" his poison +n the sick airE CG.#.1$9M11D0 conflate the aery pestilence ,ith the 'etalin"1istic possi!ility of prod1cin" pla"1es thro1"h speech. So'e ,riters i'a"ined the inevita!ility of infection as a res1lt of any ver!al .s1spirative0 act. +n E-he -ri1'ph of 2eath,E 7ohn 2avies pict1res a pastor ,ho i'perils hi'self ,ith his o,n ser'ons: Eoft ,hilst he !reathes o1t these !itter ,ords, >e, dra,in" !reath, dra,s in 'ore !itter !ane: (or no, the air, no air !1t death affords.ECG%D Pla"1e p1trefied the air necessary for !oth !iolo"ical and co''1nal, co''1nicative e*istence. 3t the sa'e ti'e, the pestilence, like 'ost national crises, i"nited a desperate disco1rse: re'edies and prayers, ) %/ ) <1arantine and !1rial r1les, !leak and inspirational anecdotes, !ills of 'ortality, la'entations p1!lic and private. Pla"1e fostered conditions of stressf1l contrarietyB'akin" co''1nication necessary, 'akin" it terrifyin". Even the 1r"e to converse, to en"a"e ,ith others, !eco'es a killin" 1r"e in pla"1e ti'e= several ,riters noted ,ith dis'ay the perverse pleas1re so'e persons took in scatterin" their infections.CG9D Epide'ics de'oni&e the social i'p1lse and so dis'antle a c1lt1re:s 'ost !asic operation: the a!ility to for' a ,hole ,itho1t dissolvin" or destroyin" the parts. -he connections and dis61nctions created !y pla"1y speech are especially co'pellin" sy'!olicallyBthat is, 1sef1l to the literary i'a"inationB!eca1se in 'any respects, pla"1e is fla less co''1nica!ility. Conta"ion does not i'pede interco1rse in any si'ple ,ay= indeed, it perfects it, like a lan"1a"e that has !eco'e too horri!ly efficient. -here is a lin"1isticity to conta"io1s disease. Pla"1e 'i'ics disco1rse in several respects: in its socia!ility, its 'i'etic prod1ctions, and its str1ct1ral properties. (irst, the sickness depends on an

interloc1tor, and like dialo"ic lan"1a"e, it constr1cts and occ1pies interstices !et,een sender and receiver: pla"1e esta!lishes societies, parodic tho1"h they are. Second, "er's create si'ilar attri!1tes a'on" a ,ide ran"e of s1fferers= they for' or co'pel a sin"le identity, and in this respect they 'i'ic the infectio1s actions of ,ords, ,hichBto f1nction intelli"i!lyB'1st clear the social terrain of !o1ndaries !et,een persons. Shared speech and shared sy'pto's create landscapes of likeness. (inally, pestilence, like lan"1a"e, has an intrinsic architect1re, a synta*. +t prono1nces sentence on the !ody, 'akin" it a vessel of se<1entially si"nifyin" 'arks .spots, fever, s,ellin", !1!oes and death tokens, de'entia, death0 that evoke a deep str1ct1re, an 1nderlyin" for' or principle.C5$D (or virt1ally all 8enaissance co''entators, the deep str1ct1re of conta"ion is sin= so'e shape of depravity .indeter'inate tho1"h that 'ay !e0 1nderlies every !1!onic pla"1e o1t!reak. -he ail'ent artic1lates death and a"ony fro' the 'aterials of h1'an t1rpit1de. +nfectio1s ail'ents and effective disco1rses !oth dissolve the protective 'e'!rane that keeps selves separa!le. 3 dense parado* lies at the heart of the disco1rse disease 61nct1re: that ,hich ena!les and sec1res safety can also pose an insidio1s threat. -he potential co'fort of social interaction inevita!ly entails a risk of conta'ination. By for'in" and definin" relations, EordinaryE conversational lan"1a"e si'1ltaneo1sly s'1d"es clear, protective !o1ndaries. .5e do not need to consider here those e*tre'e ver!al instances, s1ch as ) %# ) the confession and the acc1sation, ,hich fore"ro1nd personal v1lnera!ility and dan"er.0 4on" !efore it can !e an efficient vehicle of desire, disco1rse 'arks desire:s port, a pri'al si"npost for the place and need of connection. B1t too often, so'eti'es i'percepti!ly, diction !eco'es dictation, and ver!al "est1res of inti'acy shift into efface'ent, into do'ineerin" acts of disc1rsive narcissis'. Speech e*poses or !inds a speaker to others in the "iddy pleas1re of 'akin" oneself kno,n, !1t in dyadic relations, a dise<1ili!ri1' of this pleas1re prod1ces a less rosy res1lt: the a!sorption or o!viation of the other:s voice. 3nd if the ,ill to disco1rse proves stron", pers1asive, infective, and if that disco1rse is .as all h1'an lan"1a"e '1st !e0 fla,ed !y the ordinary defor'ations of ,ant, ra"e, h1'ility, e'!arrass'entBin other ,ords, !y affectBthen the conta'inatory force of the lan"1a"e can prove vir1lent and even destr1ctive. -r1ly, the esta!lish'ent of a shared se'antic pre'ise, ,hat 'i"ht !e called the conta"ion of 'eanin", is inherent to all lan"1a"e= conta"ion is a !asic operational fact of co''1nication. B1t if lan"1a"e e*ceeds its normati.e infectio1s f1nction, it can !eco'e an instr1'ent of social deathBthe virt1al o!literation of the interloc1tor. Hamlet sta"es the trans"ression of lin"1istic nor's 'any ti'es over as it sho,s disc1rsive do'inations of s1!6ected listeners. 3t Elsinore, lan"1a"e trans'its a speaker:s psychic disr1ptions to alleviate his or her o,n 'ental press1re. -he pla"1y trans'ission of s1!6ectivity takes several for's in the play: o!sessive narrative .fro' the ;host0= le,d trope .>a'let to @phelia= then, once she has f1lly internali&ed a version of 'adness, @phelia to the co1rt0= an*io1s choral co''entary .>a'let to Cla1di1s in the +onzago scene0= or loveless fa'ilial i'perative .Poloni1s to @phelia, >a'let to ;ertr1de, Cla1di1s to 4aertesBs1!stit1te father to s1rro"ate sonBand the lo<1acio1s ;host a"ain0. +n each case, the ,ords flood the v1lnera!le interiority of the a1ditor ,ith the speaker:s percept1al or ethical deran"e'ents. Pestilential speech th1s differs fro' !iosocial conta"ion in its nat1re as a practice, its conditional prod1ction of h1'an .not necessarily conscio1s0 ,ill. 3t least one 8enaissance acco1nt of the pla"1e re"ards it e*plicitly as a species of dan"ero1s lan"1a"e, if not h1'an lan"1a"e. 21rin" the dreadf1l o1t!reak of 1F$#, 8o"er (enton ,rote - perfume against the !o#some %estilence , a ser'on that s1pplies an evocative ca1sal linka"e !et,een pestilence and the spoken ,ord:

-he ,ord ,hich co''only is 1sed in Script1re for the pestilence is deri1ed fro' a ver!e that si"nifieth to speake, as so'e thinke, !eca1se, ,here it is, ) %G ) e1ery one speaketh of it, en<1ireth after it, ho, it encreaseth, ,hat re'edies there !e for it . . . ,hat !e the sy'pto'es, P <1alities of it: ,herefore since it is a thin" so ,ell kno,ne, as every one is a!le to disco1rse of it= + shall need speak the lesse. @nely this '1ch in a ,ord: since ,e ha1e so lon" hardened o1r harts a"ainst the voice of ;od, speakin" vnto rs= it see'eth no, that hee ,ill indeede speake ,ith vs, in a 71d"e'ent so <1ick, that vnless so'e speedie atone'ent !e 'ade ,ith all e*pedition= hee is !1t a ,orde and a !lo,: that since ,e ,o1ld not heare hi', ,e shall no, feel hi', for the ,ord ,hich Moses here vseth .properly translated Pla"1e0 si"nifieth S'itin": and s1ch a s'itin" as is fearef1ll and terri!le for i'penitent sinners to thinke vpon.C51D -he clai' that script1ral pla"1e declines ety'olo"ically fro' a ,ord that 'eans Eto speakE is, so far as + kno,, 1ni<1e, and (enton see's 1ncertain a!o1t it too .Eas so'e thinkE0.C5/D -he association of pla"1e ,ith eschatolo"ical p1nish'ent he then cites is 'ore traditional. B1t other divines testified to the sickness:s a1ditory i'pact. >enoch Clapha', for instance, "ives anecdotal evidence of those pla"1e?stricken patients ,ho Efelt and heard the noise of a !lo,= and so'e of the' have 1pon s1ch a !lo, fo1nd the plain print of a !l1e hand left !ehind 1pon the flesh.EC5#D (or these ch1rch'en, pla"1e is a co''1ni<1N fro' ;od, a1rally or so'atically received, re<1irin" attention in e*chan"e for rede'ption: Esince ,e ,o1ld not heare >i', ,e shall no, feel hi'.E -he epide'ic is the last chance to hear a 'essa"e that the pop1lace has ,illf1lly failed to heed .E,e have so lon" hardened o1r hearts a"ainst the voice of ;odE0. (enton identifies one pheno'enolo"ical cr1* of epide'ics in the lan"1a"e?kno,led"e?disease cl1ster: the pestilence infiltrates and disr1pts !oth co'prehension and speech, and so sec1lar lan"1a"e a!o1t pestilence is discourse in the a!sence of understanding . -hese ,ere, as >a'let hi'self re'inds 1s, nearly synony'o1s ter's in the 8enaissance: ES1re he that 'ade vs ,ith s1ch lar"e disco1rse 4ookin" !efore and after, "a1e vs not -hat capa!ilitie and "od?like reason -o l1st in vs vnvsdE .9#v0. B1t to the preacher, there is an i''ense chas' !et,een speakin" and kno,in" ,here the pla"1e is concerned= altho1"h he says Esince it is a thin" so ,ell kno,ne . . . + shall need speak the lesse,E his sarcas' on this point is palpa!le: pla"1e is of co1rse not at all ,ell Ekno,nE in the sense of E1nderstood.E -he point of the d1!io1s Epla"1e e<1als speechE ety'olo"y is that the sickness, a s1!6ect of collo<1y, cannot !e rationali&ed thro1"h lan"1a"e. ;od speaks pla"1e 1sin" a "ra''ar of physical disinte"ration, a "ra''ar that sinf1l h1'anity can never 1nderstand. Epide'ics tra''el the rational parts. ) %5 ) 4ike any nat1ral disaster, pla"1e ,as indeed c1sto'arily interpreted as a divine 'essa"e: an inde* to the endless te*t of 'eanin"s that ,e cannot read= a ,arnin" of incandescent a"onies that pro'ise no recovery and s1rpass all description.C5GD 5hat distin"1ishes epide'ic sickness fro' other catastrophes, ho,ever, is that it intensifies fears not only a!o1t the rationality of the 1niverseBthe kno,a!ility of divine desi"nB!1t, 'ore concretely, a!o1t disco1rse and its risks. -he !1!onic pla"1e al,ays activated terrors of co''1nica!ility, and this an*iety prod1ced a serio1s cultural threat. (or ,here pestilence rei"ns, conversation is feared as a disease vector, and fear of co''1nicative e*istence is paranoia a!o1t society.C55D +f (enton s1""ests that divine lan"1a"e prod1ces pla"1es on earth .Ehee

,ill indeede speake ,ith vsE0, he is doin" no 'ore than replicatin" an int1ition a!o1t the destr1ctive potential of human disco1rse. 3nd h1'an lan"1a"e a'idst c1lt1ral 1pheavals can 'i'ic s1ch disorder, at once descri!in" and scatterin" discord.C5FD +n pestilential environ'ents, disease infiltrates and occ1pies disco1rse as one of its fatal 'atrices. Hamlet inscri!es this process as the si"nal event of the play: the ;host penetrates and ventrilo<1i&es the hero, speakin" its deadly desires first to and then .i'perfectly0 thro1"h hi'. -o an e*tent diffic1lt to "a1"e, >a'let is a channel or cond1ctor for the fractio1s ,ords of the dead, for death, to enter the ,orld. -he ;host, a 'ere ver!al constr1ct and pro6ection deprived of 'aterial pra*is as s1ch, spe,s poll1ted lan"1a"e ,hich >a'let a!sor!s, deploys, and redistri!1tes as his pri'ary tool for reven"e. -he prince keenly feels this disco1rse:s violence, this sei&1re that the lan"1a"e?;host has 'ade, !1t he ,illf1lly 'isreco"ni&es it as the oppressions of others : lan"1a"e: he fiercely de'ands of the transparent ;1ildenstern, E5hy looke yo1 no, ho, vn,oorthy a thin" yo1 'ake of 'e, yo1 ,o1ld play vpon 'ee . . . and there is '1ch '1si<1e e*cellent voyce in this little or"an, yet cannot yo1 'ake it speakE .>G0. -o control the speech of others, then, !eco'es >a'let:s dearest pro6ect and !est chance at s1ccess, as ,ith the +onzago playlet: Speake the speech + pray yo1 as + prono1n:d Csic D it to yo1, trippin"ly on the ton"1e. . . . Be not too ta'e neither, !1t let yo1r o,ne discretion !e yo1r t1tor. .;#vM;G0 3nd he asks ;ertr1de not Eto ro1ell all this 'atter o1t -hat + essentially a' not in 'adnesse, B1t 'ad in craft,E to ,hich she responds ,ith dire tr1th, Eif ,ords !e 'ade of !reath 3nd !reath of life, + ha1e no life to !reath 5hat tho1 hast sayd to 'eE .7Gv0. -he i'p1lse to ) %F ) control other speakers, to speak thro1"h the', repeats the treat'ent he has received fro' the ;host= >a'let !ehaves as he has !een practiced on, an a!1sed child repeatin" a!1se. .-his rec1rsiveness is a nor'ative sociolo"ical for' of conta"ion.0 Even "ranted his directorial i'p1lses, ho,ever, >a'let finds it diffic1lt to control the lan"1a"e ,herein he is self ?constit1ted. >is lo"orrhea neither e*presses nor coordinates any sta!ilityBpsycholo"ical, se'antic, or political. Elsinore see's to hi' at first a ,orld of transparent types: the "ood father, the !ad stepfather, the faithless school!oy ch1's, the !etrayin" s,eetheart, the fat1o1s co1nselor, the dit&y co1rtier. B1t the transparencies "ro, opa<1e, and >a'let fashions an arcade of ver!al c1rtains and distractions ,hich occl1de his o,n access to clarity. Una!le to perceive clearly, he cond1cts his !1siness at co1rt in a dan"ero1s lin"1istic ,hirl,ind= his speech de'olishes ,here it to1ches do,n. Michel (o1ca1lt once !e"an a lect1re !y e*pressin" his desire to Ehave slipped s1rreptitio1sly into this disco1rse . . . + sho1ld have preferred to !eco'e a,are that a na'eless voice ,as already speakin" lon" !efore 'e, so that + sho1ld only have needed to 6oin in.EC5ID >is ,ish Eto !e on the other side of disco1rse fro' the o1tset, ,itho1t havin" to consider ,hat 'i"ht !e stran"e, fri"htenin", and perhaps 'aleficent a!o1t itE .510, !etrays a tho1"htf1l lo"opho!ia, an an*iety not dissi'ilar fro' ,hat >a'let feels and prod1ces: . . . an*iety a!o1t ,hat disco1rse is in its 'aterial reality as a thin" prono1nced or ,ritten= an*iety a!o1t this transitory e*istence ,hich ad'ittedly is destined to !e effaced, !1t accordin" to a ti'e?scale ,hich is not o1rs= an*iety at feelin" !eneath this activity .despite its "reyness and ordinariness0 po,ers and dan"ers that are hard to i'a"ine= an*iety at s1spectin" the str1""les, victories, in61ries, do'inations and enslave'ents, thro1"h so 'any ,ords even tho1"h lon" 1sa"e has ,orn a,ay their ro1"hness. 5hat, then, is so perilo1s in the fact that people speak, and that their disco1rse proliferates

to infinityJ 5here is the dan"er in thatJ .E@rder of 2isco1rse,E 5/0 -hese <1estions !ear si"nificantly on Hamlet and Shakespearean lan"1a"e in "eneral. (or (o1ca1lt, as for Shakespeare, po,er relations .destined to concl1de ,ith that terri!le se<1ence, Ein61ries, do'inations and enslave'entsE0 are factored al'ost entirely thro1"h ,ords. >is tra"ic solilo<1y s1""ests that E,hat disco1rse is in its 'aterial realityE is so'ethin" alto"ether alien, if not hostile, to Ethis transitory e*istence,E lar"ely !eca1se the Ee*istence ,hich ad'ittedly is destined to !e effacedE see's inco''ens1rate ,ith a life 'ade 1p of so 'any, s1ch ) %I ) lon"?lived ,ords. 5hat fri"htens (o1ca1lt a!o1t disco1rse, a!o1t its po,ers and dan"ers, 'ay !e the fatal vision it 1lti'ately s1''ons and his o,n a!sol1te, nearly 1nconscio1s a!sorption into that vision= lan"1a"e is a poststr1ct1ralist 'e'ento 'ori. -o Eslip s1rreptitio1slyE into disco1rse, as (o1ca1lt ,ished, ,o1ld !e to attain a coveted invisi!ility fro' lan"1a"e, an 1ndetecta!le 1se of !1t not s1!6ection to it, an invisi!ility ,hich a'o1nts to i''ortality. +ndivid1al h1'an life, fra"ile and inconsidera!le, is stran"ely o1t of scale ,ith and c1rio1sly irrelevant to the field of ver!ia"e ,hich ena!les and s1rvives it. (o1ca1lt:s 1nderstandin" of disco1rse as Ea violence that ,e do to thin"s, or in any case a practice that ,e i'pose on the'E .E@rder of 2isco1rse,E FI0, conver"es ,ith lan"1a"e:s !road f1nction in Hamlet as a peril to the .disc1rsively for'ed0 selves at its 'ercy. 5hat is the dan"er in the fact that people speakJ +t is the ento'olo"ist:s dan"er: pinnin", classifyin", paraly&in" a reality that is al,ays 'ore fra"ile and co'plicated than the instr1'ents of eval1ation. +t is the actor:s dan"er: the threat that spoken, scripted ,ords o!viate a s1!6ectivity that al,ays recedes as a result of the ,ords, alien and 1no,ned. 3nd finally it is the s1!6ect:s dan"er, the ,orry that in61ries, do'inations, and enslave'ents li'n the entire hori&on of the ver!al s1r'ise.C5%D Perhaps, then, (o1ca1lt an*io1sly i'a"ines that lan"1a"e .,hich, lo"ically, has no a"ency, no e*istence 1nfor'ed !y a h1'an intelli"ence0 carries a drea' of its o,n perfection: to f1nction sea'lessly across the difference of persons and e*ist finally irrespective of the'. -his is the disco1rse of pla"1e. +t prod1ces the paranoid i'pression of the 1ser !eco'in" the 1sedByet ,ho has not felt this, felt !racketed and vapori&ed !y the ,ords that choose 1sJ -h1s conceived, lan"1a"e e*ploits h1'an interco1rse and for' 'erely as vehic1lar ciphers to convey its o,n infectio1s potency. (o1ca1lt finally feared the ni"ht'are of a disco1rse ,hose 1tility effaces its covert po,er and dan"er. >a'let s1!scri!es to an o!literative disco1rse ,hose .'ar"inal0 1tility is its dan"er.

IV
S1ccess for >a'let !alances on the ,o!!ly hope that lan"1a"e can service episte'olo"yBspecifically, that he can, co1nterint1itively, learn !y speakin". B1t !y the ti'e he is ready to ad'inister the theatrical test of Cla1di1s:s "1ilt thro1"h the doctored +onzago perfor'ance, the investi"ative instr1'ent of his lan"1a"e has !eco'e "rossly 'iscali!rated !y earlier accidents and trials. 3 her'ene1tic 1ncertainty principle ) %% ) e'er"es: the o!servation or e*planation of an o!6ect chan"es that o!6ect. +ts position alters as it is !ein" e*plained= or the li"ht cast varies the o1tlines, the shape, the apparent s1!stance of the thin". -h1s the pres1'ed evidence and the kno,led"e that clai's a1thority fro' that evidence "et dislod"ed.

+nterpretation al,ays chan"es the 1nderstood para'eters and contents, the percept1al reality of a te*t= certainly a soiled or 'isali"ned 'eas1rin" device ,ill 'ore radically alter notions a!o1t that ,hich is 1nder st1dy and 'ay even alter the o!6ect itself.C59D +n Hamlet , the o!6ect 1nder st1dy does chan"e. >a'let cannot read .o!serve, en"a"e, attack, interpret: infect0 Cla1di1s and Poloni1s, @phelia and ;ertr1de, 8osencrant& and ;1ildenstern, ,itho1t ,reakin" ontolo"ical havoc on the'B,itho1t trans'ittin" destr1ctive conta"ion.CF$D >a'let tries to deploy lan"1a"e as a periscope, a s1rveillance instr1'ent that keeps hi' hidden, !1t the investi"ative act itself, and partic1larly the dist1r!ances he has inherited fro' the ;host:s o,n disco1rse, confo1nd his !est atte'pts, !oth revealin" and !etrayin" hi'. >is lan"1a"e typically proves perversely ineffect1al, an e*ploratory scalpel that operates a"ainst his self?interest= it alienates the prince fro' the co1rt he has disordered, inc1rrin" <1arantine, e*p1lsion, and atte'pted e*ec1tion. >is ,ords al,ays have a profo1nd density and orac1lar char"e= they "est1re cleverly, like the ,itches: a'!i"1ities in )acbeth , to recondite kno,led"e and inside infor'ation. B1t his lan"1a"e also !etrays a relentless inco'petence, a fail1re to achieve its o,n ends or sec1re its desired 'eanin"s. >a'let:s ,ords ro1tinely tro1!le 1nderstandin". 3l,ays a!o1t to 'ean something , they 1s1ally trail off into insol1!le a'!i"1ity= like the apparently rando' 'alice of epide'ics, >a'let:s speech ai's at '1ltiple tar"ets, diver"es noticea!ly fro' its apparent intention, and characteristically de'olishes cate"ory distinctions as it 1nder'ines its o,n ill1sion of p1rpose at every t1rn. S1!tly and all 1nkno,in"ly, >a'let in lan"1a"e !eco'es a disease even as he tries to !eco'e its c1re. (or instance, after the player delivers the >ec1!a speech, >a'let decides that theater itself can !e 1sed as a dia"nostic 'eas1re: (or '1rther, tho1"h it have no ton"1e ,ill speake 5ith 'ost 'irac1lo1s or"an: +le have these Players Play so'ethin" like the '1rther of 'y father Before 'ine Uncle, +le o!serve his lookes, +le tent hi' to the <1icke, if a doe !lench + kno, 'y co1rse. .;10 ) %9 ) -he apparent 'eanin" of the prince:s plan is 1nder'ined !y a kind of septice'ia of a'!i"1ity. By sayin" he ,ill tent his 1ncle to the <1ick, >a'let 'eans he ,ill !oth attend to or ,atch hi' caref1lly, and that he ,ill !eco'e or e'ploy a Etent,E a 'edical instr1'ent that pro!ed and cleaned a ,o1nd. B1t a tent ,as also 1sed to Ekeep open or distend a ,o1nd, sore, or nat1ral orificeE .*E2 s!#, def. /0: 'etaphorically, that is, to prolon" or e*acer!ate it. +n an a"e i"norant of antiseptics, s1ch a device ,o1ld act1ally foster infection. +nterestin"ly, the *E2 "ives the follo,in" alternate spellin"s for EtentE in the si*teenth and seventeenth cent1ries: Eteynte, taint, taynt.E -ho'as Aashe e*ploited the i'plicit connection: 2e!t and deadly sinne, ,ho is not s1!iect toJ ,ith any notorio1s cri'e + ne1er kne, hi' tainted= .P yet taintin" is no infa'o1s s1r"erie for hi' that hath !een in so 'any hote skir'ishes0.CF1D E-entE for EtaintE ,as an operative 8enaissance p1n. >a'let:s first act as a doctor or dia"nostician, then, stron"ly s1""ests an act of conta'ination: the pro!e of Cla1di1s, the potentially prophylactic e*a'ination, ,ill si'1ltaneo1sly taint hi' to the <1ick. So ,hen the prince says .in lines a!sent fro' L10, E+f a doe !lench + kno, 'y co1rse,E he see's already i'a"inatively to have killed the kin": if

Cla1di1s responds properly he:ll !e as "ood as dead, a EcorseE >a'let kno,s, a corpse his taintin" has infected. (or >a'let, the desire to kno, and the ,ish to kill are not sharply differentiated. -he eerie p1n also s1""ests that the intended victi' ,ill !e >a'let, tooBE+ kno, m# co1rseEBand th1s his self? kno,led"e do1!les here as the kno,led"e of his 'ortality. .+n fact, all of >a'let:s kno,led"e henceforth see's to depend on the o1tco'e of the +onzago playlet.0 3 final a'!i"1ity of the speech 1ndoes any possi!ility that the prince can re'ain detached fro' the disease he st1dies. >avin" decided that the play is his !est e'pirical tool, the thin" E,herein +:ll catch the conscience of the 9in",E >a'let 1nkno,in"ly !eco'es as "ood as his ,ord: to catch the kin":s conscience 'eans not only to ensnare it !1t to contract it. >a'let catches and prolon"s an ail'ent re'arka!ly like the disease he seeks to p1r"e= he !oth !esto,s and contracts "hastly co"nitive illness. >is disco1rse a'plifies his noetic crisis. +t propa"ates conta"io1s si'ilit1des that !ind self and other, that 1nder'ine cate"ory distinctions !et,een s1spicion and proof. >is lan"1a"e th1s seeds collective ne1roses and discord, !1t it cannot 'ake relia!le differentiations or dra, reasona!le concl1sions. ) 9$ ) -he prince thinks that the !est ,ay to root o1t an infection is to spread it lin"1istically. 3 'o'ent at the +onzago scene ,ill help sho, 61st ho, co'plicated this ass1'ption is, ho, deeply lan"1a"e is i'plicated in the str1ct1re of pla"1e, and 'ost i'portant, ho, conta"ion str1ct1res the !ody of >a'let:s disco1rse. 5hen Cla1di1s has !e"1n to "ro, 1nco'forta!le ,ith the play,ithin?the?play and challen"es the prince a!o1t the plot, >a'let sei&es his chance to tent his 1ncle. >e does so !y yokin" the the'es of poison and a1dition: 9+A; >a1e yo1 heard the ar"1'entJ is there no offence in:tJ : >3M Ao, no, they do !1t iest, poyson in iest, no offence i:th ,orld. : .>/v 0 >a'let:s response see's pec1liar on several co1nts: there has !een no discerni!le 6est fro' the players, and like,ise no literal poisonin" has yet occ1rred or !een 'entioned in the playlet. 5e sho1ld read >a'let:s ans,er instead as another tri' p1n that co''ents refle*ively on the action of to*ic lan"1a"e in 2en'ark. >a'let t,ice i'plies in his ans,er to the kin" that there is no threat or offense on sta"e: first, !eca1se the players are only 6okin"= and second, !eca1se to Epoyson in iestE is, here, to Epoison in"est.E +n one respect, the players are the ones ,ho a!sor! the prop of the sta"e poison, confinin" the offense to their sta"e and leavin" Eno offence i:th ,orld.E B1t there are no 1nserio1s 6okes in 2en'ark: the in"estion p1n i'plies that e*pressin" and cons1'in" are the sa'e act. 4o"ically, the ,ordplay has no point. -he players sho1ld not in"est ,hat they speak= only the a1dience sho1ldBespecially Cla1di1s, concerned as he is ,ith ,hat there is to hear, ,ith ho, to*in operates a1rally. Ket the p1n has a s1!li'inal lo"ic: speakers are constantly corr1pted ,ith their o,n lan"1a"e. -hey are s1scepti!le to the veno' of their o,n oratory= at so'e point, no poisoner re'ains safe fro' his corr1ption, an a*io' Hamlet takes as a story "1ide. Beca1se a ,ord spoken '1st first !e har!ored and no1rished in the ,o'! of the i'a"ination, heard first internally !y the speaker, a constant !idirectional dan"er

acco'panies the speech act, even, pres1'a!ly, the solilo<1y. >a'let:s fondest drea' is that he can re'ain 1nto1ched !y the depravity he has heard and spoken a!o1t his 1ncle= !1t as soon as he artic1lates a position, dia"noses an ail'ent, it !eco'es his o,n, his tainted 'ental property. Beca1se ,ord?poison constit1tes the play:s the'e and str1ct1re, it ) 91 ) co'pels a 'etadra'atic consideration of ,hat is heard or in"ested in a perfor'ance, as opposed to ,hat is 'erely seen. 5hile the sta"e '1rderer po1rs his veno' into the ear of the sleepin" kin", he 'etalin"1istically addresses his !re,, ,hich is akin to descri!in" one:s o,n ,ords as one speaks the': 4UC : . . . -ho1 'i*t1re ranck, of 'idni"ht ,eedes collected, OOith Hecats !an thrice !lasted, thrice in1ected, -hy nat1rall 'a"icke, and dire property, @n ,holso'e life vs1rps i''ediatly.

>3M : 3 poysons hi' i:th ;arden for his estate. . . .># 0 3n e*<1isite a'!i"1ity attends Ein1ected,E a ,ord a1to'atically chan"ed !y all 'odern editors to L1:s .and (:s0 EinfectedEBa chan"e ,hich severs the se'antic li"at1re !et,een a hostile lin"1istic act .the thrice?!lasted invective of >ecat:s E!anE0 and the corr1ption or infection inherent in that act .already i'plied !y the ,ord E!lastedE= recall 4aertes: ,arnin", Econta"io1s !last'ents are 'ost i''inentE0. 3lso operative at the phonetic 'ar"ins is EinflectedE: c1rsed .invected0 alterations of 'eanin", 1n,holeso'e .infected0 1s1rpations of life, take lin"1istic for' in poison, inflected in several to*ic c1rses. 3s if to 1nderscore the critical f1nction of the spoken thin", ,hen the sta"e '1rderer 41cian1s po1rs veno' into the ear of the sleepin" Player 9in", Cla1di1s fails to respond i''ediately, even as he had notorio1sly failed to respond d1rin" the precedin" d1'!sho, ,hich reenacts the historical cri'e. +t 'i"ht !e 'ore acc1rate, ho,ever, to say that Cla1di1s is not permitted to respond to 41cian1s:s perfidy Bnot, at least, 1ntil >a'let peppers hi' ,ith a co''ent on the scene: >3M: 3 poysons hi' i:th ;arden for his estate, his na'es +onzago , the story is e*tant, and ,ritten in very choice +talian, yo1 shall see anon ho, the '1rtherer "ets the lo1e of +onzagoes ,ife. -he 9in" rises. .>#0 -he scene co1ld !e sta"ed 'any ,ays, of co1rse, !1t the te*t see's to indicate that it takes >a'let:s p1shy "loss to "et a rise o1t of Cla1di1s. -he kin", that is, responds to >a'let:s narrative rather than his dra'at1r"y= he is affected not !y ,hat he seesBa 1s1rper po1rin" poison into the ear of a sleepin"

@P>:

kin"B!1t !y ,hat he hears: a co''entary a!o1t ) 9/ ) that action. -h1s, Cla1di1s:s earlier nonresponse to the d1'!sho, 'akes perfect sense. Kes, the kin" sa, the prefatory 'i'e, !1t he co1ld not respond to ,hat he co1ld not hear.CF/D >is s1!se<1ent vi"oro1s reaction to >a'let:s ea"er narrative sec1res a si'ple point: for kno,led"e to have po,er, for infor'ation to take hold, it '1st enter through the ear . +n a theatrical ,orld ,here lan"1a"e holds he"e'onic force, the d1'!sho, can !y definition have no effect. >a'let:s "adfly pesterin" of the kin" d1rin" the players: speeches th1s helps ce'ent a point that co1ld not have !een neatly, definitively 'ade ithout the prefatory 'i'e. >o,ever, once Cla1di1s does react to the narrativi&ed '1rder, ,e cannot !e s1re ,hich a1ral facts have re"istered 'ost potently= ,e cannot at this 'o'ent kno, ,hat, e*actly, !others hi'.CF#DThe )urder of +onzago co1ld have had ratiocinative val1e, !1t >a'let dashes that possi!ility !y 'akin" open threats a"ainst Cla1di1s thro1"ho1tB!y speakin". (or in identifyin" ;on&a"o:s '1rderer as Eone 0ucianus , Aephe, to the 9in"E .>&v0, rather than, as 2en'ark:s history ,o1ld have it, !rother to the kin", the play?,ithin?the? play !eco'es a '1rder threat, !roadcast clearly fro' nephe, to 1ncle. 3nd in !ein" so a""ressively confrontational a!o1t the pri'al event, >a'let entices a reaction not to the 'ise?en?scUne !1t rather to his o,n narrative a!o1t it. >e speaks da""ers to Cla1di1s ,hile the players play, the poison po1rs. +n a 'irrored repetition and reversal of plot history, >a'let a1rally poisons Cla1di1sBinfects hi'Bin these central scenes. 3s Ai"el 3le*ander notes, one vital aspect of The )urder of +onzago is that its presentation Econvinces Cla1di1s that he is diseased. >e dia"noses this disease as >a'let and atte'pts to c1re hi'self !y sendin" the Prince to e*ec1tion in En"land.ECFGD -he thin" to catch the kin":s conscience !eco'es instead a tele"raphed ho'icide ,arnin" .as ,ell as an oedipal pro'ise of replace'ent: Eyo1 shall see anon ho, the '1rtherer "ets the lo1e of +onzagoes ,ifeE0. The )urder of +onzago is a s1refire !et to terrify >a'let:s adversary, !1t not necessarily to reveal hi'. Ket neither >a'let nor the dra'a openly ackno,led"es this pro!le'. 41cian1s propo1nds an a'!i"1ity ,hich escapes the prince:s rhetorical control= the fi"1re self? deactivates as an instr1'ent of discovery. + do not think it has !een "enerally noticed that the na'e E41cian1sE has an e*e'plary rhetorical ancestry. +n P1ttenha':s -rte of English %oesie , the ;reek rhetorician and satirist 41cian is invoked in connection ,ith the fi"1re of radical ver!al do1!t: amphibolog# , or ,hat ) 9# ) P1ttenha' calls .,ith apt resonance for Hamlet 0 the Evicio1s speachE: 5hen ,e speake or ,rite do1!tf1lly and that the sence 'ay !e taken t,o ,ayes, s1ch a'!i"1o1s ter's they call -mphibologia , ,e call it the a'!i"1o1s or fi"1re of sence incertaine. . . . C-Dhese do1!tf1ll speaches ,ere 1sed '1ch in the old ti'es !y . . . false Prophets . . . to a!1se the s1perstitio1s people, and to enco'!er their !1sie !raynes ,ith vaine hope or vaine feare. 0ucianus the 'erry ;reeke reciteth a "reat n1'!er of the', de1ised !y a coosenin" co'panion one 3le*ander, to "et hi'selfe the na'e and rep1tation of the ;od -Esculapius , and in effect all o1r old Brittish and Sa*on prophesies !e of the sa'e sort, that t1rne the' on ,hich side ye ,ill, the 'atter of the' 'ay !e verified.CF5D P1ttenha':s synta* prevents 1s fro' kno,in" ,hether 41cian1s 'erely reco1nted so'eone else:s

deceptive a'!i"1ities or act1ally profited fro' fra1d1lent self?representations constr1cted on his !ehalf= and th1s the e*a'ple perfectly e'!odies its s1!6ect. -he a'!i"1o1s ,ord ErecitethE and the 1nclear referent Ehi'selfeE !oth create an a'phi!olo"y that anticipates >a'let:s intense !inary deploy'ent of E41cian1sEBa fi"1re ,ho 'ay represent either >a'let or Cla1di1s, Et1rne the' on ,hich side ye ,ill.E Shakespeare 'ay not have kno,n P1ttenha':s !rief e*c1rs1s on rhetorical d1plicity, !1t its intricate anticipation of Hamlet :s the'atic o!sessions is s1""estive. P1ttenha':s 41cian1s .or 3le*ander0 1sed the devio1s, o1tra"eo1s fa!rications to deceive people into thinkin" he ,as a "od. B1t not 61st any "od: 3esc1lapi1s is the 8o'an "od of 'edicine and healin". 71st as ver!al a'!ide*terity ,as e*ploited a'phi!olo"ically to achieve a false identity as a healerBand P1ttenha' is s1""estively silent on ho, this e*ploitation ,as 'ana"edBso >a'let 1ses 41cian1s, a fi"1re of theatrical d1ality and Esence incertaine,E Eto enco'!erE Cla1di1s E,ith vaine hope or vaine feareE: specifically, to tent hi' to the <1ick. 3ltho1"h the sta"e poisoner perfectly represents the division and conver"ence of >a'let and Cla1di1s, th1s servin" a s#mbolic f1nction, the fi"1re also 1ndoes its dramaturgic f1nction !y cripplin" the evidentiary val1e of the +onzago playlet. (or all his clever plottin", ,ritin", directin", >a'let has st1pidly tipped his hand: Cla1di1s no, kno,s the har' his nephe, 'eans hi' .that '1ch has !een co''1nicated 1ne<1ivocally0, and i''ediately after stor'in" o1t of the perfor'ance, the kin" seals a letter orderin" >a'let:s death: E+ like hi' not, nor stands it safe ,ith vs -o let his 'adnes ran"e, therefore prepare yo1 + yo1r co'? ) 9G ) 'ission ,ill forth?,ith dispatch, 3nd he to England shall alon" ,ith yo1E .>Gv0. 5itho1t f1lly "raspin" the a'!i"1ities that conta'inate his res1lts, >a'let has nonetheless !eco'e intensely a,are of his o,n infectio1s potential. 2irectly after the playlet, ;1ildenstern infor's >a'let that the kin" is E'er1ilo1s diste'pred . . . ,ith chollerE .>#v0, and >a'let no, disavo,s the physician:s role that he said he ,o1ld ass1'e ,hen tentin" Cla1di1s to the <1ick: EKo1r ,isedo'e sho1ld she,e it selfe 'ore richer to si"nifie this to the 2octor, for, for 'ee to p1t hi' to his p1r"ation, ,o1ld perhaps pl1n"e hi' into 'ore choller.E -he p1n on EcollarE is less i'portant than the co''inatory s1rface sense. 3!ro"atin" the doctor:s role ,ith this threat, >a'let see's finally to have discarded the e<1ivocation that s1''oned 41cian1s. B1t even if the prince has s1ccessf1lly tented .opened, pro!ed, and ,orsened0 the ,o1nd of Cla1di1s:s fe!rile conscience, infective do1!t sho1ld re'ain: a1dience do1!t. 5e confront a conta'inatin" 'enace to rationality here. 3 'o'ent of profo1nd 1nintelli"i!ility is treated !y the play as if it made sense = a passa"e that o1"ht to plant do1!t in the 'inds of everyone .speaker, interloc1tor, a1dience0 slides into an apparent resol1tion that act1ally contains the "er's of f1rther dissol1tion.CFFD 2espite Cla1di1s:s "1ilt, it is theatrically illo"ical at this point to credit >a'let:s apparent tri1'ph at havin" fo1nd hi' o1t= >a'let o1"ht not to !e tri1'phin" at all, only layin" "ro1nd for f1rther in<1iry. (or the kin":s response to the playlet is far fro' a l1cid confession, especially "iven >a'let:s threatenin" contri!1tion to that response. -o the redactor director of +onzago , the play has had its desired effect= not so to >oratio, ho,ever, ,hose less san"1ine interpretation of the event re'ains shro1ded in his 1s1al laconic, nonco''ittal idio': >3M @ "ood >oratio, lie take the ;hosts ,ord for a tho1sand : po1nd. 2id:st percei1eJ

>@8 Oery ,ell 'y 4ord. : >3M Opon the talke of the poysonin". : >@8 + did very ,ell note hi'. : 0

.>#

3"ain, talk of the poisonin", rather than its spectacle, 'ost concerns >a'let. B1t it is the prince1s to*ic talk of the poisonin", not 41cian1s:s, that has 'ade the iss1e of confir'ationBthe infor'ational val1e of Ethe ;hosts ,ordEB'oot. 3nd >oratio:s response clarifies the pro!? ) 95 ) le': ,hat >a'let takes to !e concentrated tr1th has !een dil1ted in the 'atri* of the e*peri'ent. -he friend:s 'ini'alist interco1rse here hardly constit1tes a rin"in" endorse'ent. 3sked if this perfor'ance piece ,o1ld not earn >a'let a fello,ship in Ea cry of players,E >oratio responds ,ith chin?strokin" ca1tion: E>alf a share.E >alf shares and partial evidence are all the play allo,s. 3n ill1'inatin" contrast to >oratio:s re6oinder occ1rs in the first <1arto, ,here the friend plays the ea"er infor'ant and vol1nteers this intelli"ence after the sho,: E-he kin" is 'oo1ed 'y 4ordE .L1, (Gv0. -he certit1de of the first <1arto evaporates ti'e and a"ain into the airy, poisono1s a'!i"1ity of the second. 81les of evidence and concl1sion dissolve in L/, ,ith a conse<1ent peril to rationality. +onzago is s1pposed to !e a cr1cial test of Cla1di1s:s "1ilt, a test to !e "raded !y >oratio:s response. B1t then the play a!andons the response as insi"nificant: >a'let hears ,hat he ,ishes to hear, and i"nores his friend:s halfhearted replies. -he te*t constantly arran"es s1ch sit1ations: dra'atic aven1es that hold o1t the pro'ise of proof, kno,led"e, or orientation, !1t prove to !e 'erely dead?end corridors lackin" le"i!le 'arkin"s. -he clo" in ver!al lo"ic that corr1pts the +onzago perfor'ance and its after'ath characteri&es Hamlet :s 'eanin"s, ,hich pivot on irrational concl1sions, conf1sed assertions, and fa1lty ,ord choices. -he tainted 'i*edness of ,hat >a'let accepts .on the s1rface, at least0 as 1ne<1ivocal data corr1pts ,hat he accepts .on the s1rface0 to !e his kno,led"e. -he reason for his ready acceptance of poor infor'ation is clear eno1"h. +n response to ;1ildenstern:s a""rieved re<1ests for "reater conversational clarity after the +onzago playlet, >a'let confesses ,hat ,e 'ay already have "athered: >3M : 8@S : >3M : Sir + cannot. 5hat 'y 4ord. Make yo1 a ,holso'e ans,er, 'y ,its diseasd. .>#v 0

>e is not only a diseased ,it hi'self !1t the ca1se of diseases in others. -he after'ath of the +onzago perfor'ance sho,s >a'let at his nervo1s ,orst: lin"1istically dist1r!ed, spoilin" for a fi"ht, 'ar"inally incoherent. +n a "iddy spin the prince recklessly 1ses others for rhetorical tar"et practice, so'eti'es p1rposef1lly, 'ore often "rat1ito1sly= he disre"ards the o!vio1s dan"er to hi'self and !eco'es an e*ceptionally 'o!ile and potent vector of disr1ption, !roadcastin" his strain of sickness aro1nd the co1rt. ) 9F ) (ro' this point in the play, >a'let:s role as the spreader of co"nitive illness crystalli&es. +n a fa'o1s e*chan"e, the prince 'anip1lates Poloni1s infectio1sly: P@4 : My 4ord, the L1eene ,o1ld speake ,ith yo1, P presently. 2o yo1 see yonder clo,d that:s al'ost in shape of a Ca'elJ By th:'asse and tis, like a Ca'ell indeed. Mee thinks it is like a 5e&ell. +t is !ackt like a 5e&ell. @r like a 5hale. Oery like a 5hale. -hen + ,ill co'e to 'y 'other !y and !y. .>GM>Gv0

>3M :

P@4 : >3M : P@4 : >3M : P@4 : >3M :

>a'let enforces o!edience to his 1nsta!le, fictive vision in e*chan"e for a concession to visit ;ertr1de. B1t so'ethin" 'ore sinister is happenin" as ,ell. -his apparently trivial po,er "a'e enacts on a s'all scale >a'let:s characteristic havoc: to !reak do,n the resistance of other s1!6ectivities 1ntil they a!sor! his scattered perceptions and preocc1pations. +t is a ,onderf1l feat1re of this e*ercise in i'posed likeness that it depends on the perception of similitude .Eit is like . . . +t is !ackt like . . . Oery like . . .E0. -his is conta"ion, the infective levelin" of another conscio1sness. +f it see's 1n1s1al to descri!e this scene in ter's of pla"1e, ,e sho1ld consider that the o!literation of individ1ality is the first social conse<1ence of any epide'ic, in ,hich a vast n1'!er of persons contract the identical ail'ent. +t ,ill not !e lon" !efore @phelia, too, !e"ins to act and speak as >a'let did: 'ad, !1t not in craft. 5e sho1ld also consider that the intervie, ,ith Poloni1s, altho1"h present in !oth <1artos, is follo,ed in L/ alone !y a passa"e that hi"hli"hts >a'let:s ;host?like, pestilential affinities: E-is no, the very ,itchin" ti'e of ni"ht, 5hen Ch1rchyards ya,ne, and hell it selfe !reakes o1t Conta"ion to

the ,orldE .>Gv0. +n the process of catchin" the kin":s conscience and the kin":s sickness, >a'let !eco'es, in ;. 5ilson 9ni"ht:s ,ords, an Eele'ent of evilE ,hose poison ca1ses the other characters to fall Elike victi's of an infectio1s disease.ECFID +n over,hel'in" and dissolvin" identities thro1"h ver!ally i'posed conta"ion, >a'let !reaks a pla"1e to the ,orld that speaks doo' for the state. -he i'plications of this po,er are 'ost 'eanin"f1l politically in the relationship of the so?called 'i"hty opposites, >a'let and Cla1di1s. -heir "ro,in" si'ilarityBthe pla"1e that encircles the'Bis ) 9I ) first f1lly visi!le after the +onzago playlet. (ollo,in" the perfor'ance, the kin", as a res1lt of >a'let:s ,ords, has !een in ;1ildenstern:s phrase E'er1ilo1s diste'predE= 8osencrant& then hi"hli"hts the '1t1ality of infection !y askin" >a'let: E;ood 'y 4ord, ,hat is yo1r ca1se of diste'per . . .JE .>G0. 8osencrant& fails to reali&e that >a'let:s sickness is not 1ni<1e property, not the prince:s o,n, partic1lar self= it is rather an appropriated force, a 'otile, co''1nica!le set of pert1r!ations and co'p1lsions. -hese are over,hel'in"ly pers1asive. Even !efore the +onzago se<1ence, Cla1di1s has felt the press1re of >a'let:s infectio1sness. 5e can o!serve in ,hat has !een tho1"ht to !e a te*t1al error so'e co'pellin" evidence of the ran"e of >a'let:s infl1ence. 3fter eavesdroppin" on the prince, ,ho has !een e*coriatin" @phelia, Cla1di1s deter'ines that >a'let sho1ld "o to En"land for 2en'ark:s ne"lected tri!1te= Poloni1s ill?fatedly asks for one last chance to discover >a'let:s real pro!le'. -he second <1arto te*t records a variant so perfect that it see's a sha'e to e'end it, ,orse still to i"nore it. -he kin" responds to Poloni1s:s re<1est ,ith a line not present in L1: +t shall !e so, Madnes in "reat ones '1st not vn'atcht "oe. .;#v0 Most people think that E1n'atchtE sho1ld read E1n,atchtE= !1t !eca1se one of >a'let:s keenest talents is coercion, forcin" others to act and think the ,ay he does, ,hat the kin" says here see's proper. -he typesetter of L/ has .perhaps accidentally0 re"istered >a'let:s infl1ential a!ility= ,ith letter?perfect aptness, the te*t s1""ests that Cla1di1s ,ill intentionally, as >a'let hi'self clai's to have done, take on 'adness. +nterestin"ly eno1"h, and ,hether ,e read E1n,atchtE or E1n'atcht,E the kin" had =ust deter'ined, 'o'ents !efore, that >a'let is in fact not 'ad. +n the odd '1ltiple ne"ations this play so often e'ploys, Cla1di1s asked, E4oveJ >is affections do not that ,ay tend, Aor ,hat he spake, tho1"h it lackt for'e a little, 5as not like 'adnesE .;#v0. Perhaps in the kin":s <1ick self? contradiction, his assertion that >a'let:s sanity is 'adness after all, ,e can see that Cla1di1s has indeed !e"1n to 'atch >a'let:s l1nacy, to internali&e it. 3nyone ,ho o!serves the play in perfor'ance ,ill certainly !e str1ck !y the intuiti.e intelli"ence of L/:s readin": >a'let drives everyone cra&y. -he only possi!le response to his illness is conta"io1sly to adopt it, to not let it "o 1n'atched. ) 9% )

V
3n epide'ic is a vast, do'inatin" an*iety 'achine. Beca1se of its enor'o1s scale and the rando'ness ,ith ,hich it spread death, !1!onic pla"1e differed f1nda'entally fro' even the 'ost disfi"1rin" and a"oni&in" illnesses s1ch as syphilis and leprosy, ,hich ,ere "enerally re"arded as 1nfort1nate !1t

individ1al afflictions. 5ith its "i"antic de'o"raphic i'pact, pla"1e literally t1rned ail'ents of the self into ail'ents of the state. S1ch a transfor'ation nicely descri!es the arc of Hamlet :s plot: the rava"ed individ1al !ears a dist1r!ance fro' ,hich the political sphere cannot re'ain shielded and fro' ,hich it ,ill not soon recover. -he pla"1e so radically disr1pts the individ1al s1!6ect, so 'any individ1al s1!6ects, that the entire c1lt1re co'es to "rief. 5e sho1ld not !e a'a&ed to find that the notion of epide'ic sickness, once ad'itted into the kin"do' of the te*t, !ehaves like the pla"1e itself, escapin" positional confines, 'ovin" centrif1"ally across difference a'on" characters, 'eanin" centripetally to,ard a core of i'pacted indeter'inacy. -he pla"1e:s e*tensive presence in the te*t cannot !e decoded in any for'1laic ,ay, and this diffic1lty has i'plications for a political readin". +n the sy'!olic conver"ence of >a'let and Cla1di1s, the play co'ple*ly reprod1ces the historical encroach'ent, circa 1F$#, of the pla"1e 1pon 'onarchy. B1t the posited alle"orical identifications are contradictory and co1nter to topical e*pectation, revealin" the tro1!le that Shakespearean theater has ,ith its conte'porary "est1res. Certainly Cla1di1s, the fo1ndin" poisoner, '1st !e read as the pestilent 1s1rper, ,ho introd1ces to*icity into the real' and displaces the 'an ,ho co1ld !e the ri"htf1l heir. B1t his is also a nota!ly orderly s1ccession, a tidy statecraft, no 'atter ho, it ,as 'ane1vered. -he deep disorders of the nation arise 'ore fro' >a'let:s .and the ;host:s0 fr1strations than fro' Cla1di1s:s 1s1rpation. +t is the prince:s actions that provide occasion for ,hat historically ,as the pla"1e:s !1siness: ,reakin" 'onarchdislod"in" havoc and spreadin" Es1perfl1o1s deathE thro1"h the land. -o the e*tent that pestilence confi"1red !oth tyranny and ins1rrection, it is >a'let ,ho e'!odies the dra'a:s pri'ary pla"1y force. 5e o1"ht not to re"ard Cla1di1s:s original "1ilt as 'ore severe than >a'let:s originar# Bthat is, "enerativeBcri'inality. +ndeed, Cla1di1s:s r1le ,o1ld likely have !een ad'ira!ly coherent if left to its co1rse. +t is tr1e that there ,o1ld not have !een '1ch of a play if >a'let had failed to oppose the s1spected 1s1rper. B1t the prince:s re'edies, his political actions, e*acer!ate the national illness.CF%D ) 99 ) Cla1di1s:s o,n all1sions to sickness, partic1larly to >a'let as his sickness, '1ltiply after the prince "ives disease free play !y openin" the Pandora:s !o* of theatrical indeter'inacy ,ith +onzago . -he kin" ad'its, ,hile e<1atin" the prince ,ith infir'ity, that his o,n episte'olo"ical lack ca1sed Poloni1s:s death: E5e ,o1ld not vnderstand ,hat ,as 'ost fit, B1t like the o,ner of a lo1ie disease -o keepe it fro' div1l"in", let it feede E1en on the pith of life: ,here is he "oneJE .910. -he ans,er sho1ld !y this point !e o!vio1s: >a'let has !een a!sor!ed like a vir1s into the very !ody of the 'onarch= he:s !e"1n to t1rn Cla1di1s into a ;host .Ethe 9in" is not ,ith the !ody,E >a'let re'inds ;1ildenstern0, !e"1n to efface hi': E-he 9in" is a thin" . . . @f nothin".E Certainly, the 'onarch feels his 'ortal !ody invaded= Cla1di1s says >a'let ra"es Elike the >ecti<1e in 'y !lood.E B1t the sickness is not easily p1r"ed, and Cla1di1s reali&es that a c1re ,ill co'e hard: E-his s1ddaine sendin" hi' a,ay '1st see'e 2eli!erate pa1seC=D diseases desperat "ro,ne, By desperat applyance are relie1:d @r not at allE .9/0. >a'let:s de facto role as a vector or carrier of infection 1nder"oes a 'arvelo1s transfor'ation: the hero .as in 8o"er (enton:s idea of the divine ,ord0 becomes infection, taintin" the already tainted ,orld, f1rther corr1ptin" the 'onarchy. +t is only thro1"h l1ck, thro1"h special providence, that this disease is diverted fro' En"land= the ship!orne infection .a co''on ca1se of pla"1e dispersal0 finds its ,ay !ack to 2en'ark. So'e interte*t1al evidence s1pports this vie, of >a'let:s diseased and kin"like disr1ptiveness. +t has !een sho,n that a pro!a!le so1rce for several of the play:s political concerns is Philippe d1 Plessis? Mornay:s $indiciae Contra T#rannos .15I90, a >1"1enot 'editation on the responsi!ilities of the citi&en to resist 'onarchical tyranny. -his te*t lays so'e of the "ro1nd,ork for Shakespeare:s

representation of 2en'ark thro1"h its 1n1s1al i'a"ery of the tyrant:s physical corr1ption of the !ody politic. >o,ever, if d1 Plessis?Mornay:s descriptions of tyranny have infl1enced Shakespeare:s portrayals in Hamlet , they have done so in s1rprisin", inverted ,ays. 21 Plessis?Mornay asserts: E-yranny is like a ra"in" fever. 3t the !e"innin" it is easy to c1re !1t diffic1lt to detect= after,ards, it is easy to reco"ni&e !1t very diffic1lt to c1re.ECF9D B1t it is >a'let ,ho enacts this fever, Era"in" like the >ecti<1eE in Cla1di1s:s !lood. Shakespeare offers a reversal of the e*pected roles of tyrant and tyranni&ed, ,here the 'an c1sto'arily re"arded as despoticBthe 1s1rper, the re"icideBfeels instead harried and har'ed. Cla1di1s:s other co''ent a!o1t diseases that '1st !e relieved !y des? ) 1$$ ) perate appliance 'ay also have its prec1rsor in d1 Plessis?Mornay: >a'let has clearly !eco'e a diffic1lt "er' to c1re. -r1e, the kin" has co''itted Ea !rothers '1rther,E ,hich has Ethe pri'all eldest c1rse vppontE .710= yet in clear and co'pellin" ter'sBand not 61st to Cla1di1sBthe prince is the nation:s conta'ination, the i'!alancin" vir1s. @nce ,e re"ard >a'let as the infectin" a"ent in the 2anish political !ody, it ,ill not see' odd that in d1 Plessis?Mornay:s ter's, >a'let, not Cla1di1s, !est fits the definition of the tyrant: B1t if a prince persistently s1!verts the co''on,ealth, if he !ra&enly perverts the la,, if he sho,s that pled"es, covenants, 61stice, and reli"ion 'ean nothin" to hi' . . . he is properly a tyrant. 3nd !y this na'e . . . he is !randed an ene'y of ;od and 'an. . $indiciae Contra T#rannos , 19$0 3ltho1"h Cla1di1s perverted the la,, >a'let s1!verts the co''on,ealth in !oth a 'ore ,idespread and a 'ore spectac1lar fashion. -he prince:s steep 'oral descent reveals 61st ho, little Ecovenants, 61stice, and reli"ionE 'ean to hi'. >is ,illf1l da'nin" of 8osencrant& and ;1ildenstern co'pletes his earlier pleas1re at the tho1"ht of ensnarin" the kin" in so'e act that ,o1ld foreclose hisBCla1di1s:s, that isBsalvation. -he '1ltiple conta'inations introd1ced d1rin" +onzago dissolve any ill1sion that >a'let 'erely 1ncovers the sickness that he in fact so 'aniacally prod1ces.CI$D Shakespeare:s affinity for !alance and co'ple'entarity "enerates a hero ,ho !eco'es 'orally co'para!le, thro1"h his o,n infectio1sness, to the villain of the piece= altho1"h patently victi'i&ed, >a'let develops into a !ra&en s1!verter of reli"io1s principle and h1'an place.CI1D -he prince:s trans"ressions are often 1nderscored !y sp1rio1s self?61stifications, the 'ost conspic1o1s of ,hich co'es after his callo1s !1tcherin" of Poloni1s: he pio1sly intones, E>ea1en hath pleasd it so -o p1nish 'e ,ith this, and this ,ith 'e, -hat + '1st !e their sco1r"e and 'inisterE .7GM7Gv0. -his !ack?constr1ction is a so1lless apolo"y for his o,n 'isdirected .!1t not 1nintended0 violence. >o,ever, a sco1r"e al,ays resists intelli"i!ility as a 'inister, and vice versa. +n the 8enaissance, !1!onic pla"1e ,as 1niversally descri!ed as 61st s1ch a divine sco1r"e a"ainst h1'an sinf1lness. Ket these descriptions, ,hich la!ored desperately for rede'ptive 'eanin", co1ld not rationali&e the epide'ic.CI/D -he s1pposed divine provenance of the disease ins1fficiently e*plains the r1thless r1in of the !la'eless, the ne1tral, and the repro!ate. >a'let, for all his lin"1istic sco1r"in", cannot convincin"ly posit ) 1$1 ) 'oral ca1ses for his actions. >e has no interest in 'inisterin" to those he ,ill p1nish or in leadin" the' to repentance= the closest he co'es is ,hen he resolves to speak da""ers to his 'other, a resol1tion

,hich res1lts in one accidental '1rder, a second "hostly visitationBand no co''it'ent ,hatsoever fro' ;ertr1de to keep a,ay fro' Cla1di1s:s !ed. 4ike the !1!onic pla"1e, >a'let !eco'es a tyrant ,hose destr1ctive efficacy overtakes his ethical rationale. >e clai's divine sanction for his cr1elest acts: descri!in" ho, he has delivered 8osencrant& and ;1ildenstern to their 1nshriven deaths, he says, E5hy e1en in that ,as hea1en ordinantE .A1v0. Co'pared to the prince, Cla1di1s sho1ld earn o1r respect: he never clai's to act in anyone:s interest !1t his o,n. >a'let:s affliction of Cla1di1s effects a pla"1y conver"ence of kin" and adversary on the level of "ra''atical as ,ell as theatrical referent.CI#D @ne fa'iliar e*a'ple co'es in a solilo<1y 'issin" fro' L1, E>o, all occasions doe infor'e a"ainst 'e. . . .E >a'let here <1estions his o,n apparently flaccid response to po,erf1l sti'1li: E>o, stand + then -hat ha1e a father kild, a 'other staindE .9#v0. >a'let see's to confess, in "ra''atically a'!i"1o1s ter's, the precise cri'es Cla1di1s has co''itted. -he ,ords as they stand in the second <1arto do !ear so'e fi"1rative tr1th: >a'let '1st have i'a"inatively killed off his father .i.e., at least co'e to re"ard hi' as dead0 in order to 1ndertake the necessary reality of reven"e= and he '1st 'entally stain his 'other to s1lly his intended victi', Cla1di1s, and to s1stain his o,n resolve. B1t the lines are chiefly si"nificant !eca1se they !espeak the play:s no, f1lly artic1lated conver"ence of the hero and the villain. -hat conver"ence !e"an in >a'let:s conscio1sness ,ell !efore this 'o'entBperhaps as early as his re<1est fro' the player for a speech a!o1t Pyrrh1s: @ne speech in:t + chiefely lo1ed, t:,as -eneas talke to 2ido, P there a!o1t of it especially ,hen he speakes of %riams sla1"hter, if it li1e in yo1r 'e'ory !e"in at this line, let 'e see, let 'e see, the r1""ed %irhus like -h:ircanian !east, tis not so, it !e"innes ,ith %irrhus , the r1""ed %irrhus , he ,hose sa!le 3r'es. . . .(#M(#v0 5hat is >a'let correctin" fro' his false start to the tale 3eneas tells, and ,hat does he 'isre'e'!erJ So'eho, E-h:ircanian !eastE slips into >a'let:s conscio1sness as a 'odifier for EPirrh1s,E and he reali&es he has "otten so'ethin" ,ron"B!1t not entirely ,ron". +n the -eneid , 2ido acc1ses 3eneas of treachero1sly a!andonin" her= si"nificantly, she 1ses the lan"1a"e >a'let 'isapplied to Pyrrh1s: E-raitor, no "oddess ) 1$/ ) ,as ever yo1r 'other . . . Ao, yo1r parent ,as Mo1nt Ca1cas1s . . . and ti"ers of >yrcania n1rsed yo1.ECIGD 3 con"eries of s1!terranean press1res alters >a'let:s 'e'ory of the passa"e, and these press1res fi"1re his 1nspoken, tro1!led identification ,ith the -ro6an hero and ,ith herois' in "eneral. CI5D (or 2ido:s ori"inal reproof !1!!les to the s1rface of >a'let:s le*ical 'e'ory. +t 'ay recall to hi', first, the already intense co"ni&ance of ;ertr1de:s nondivinity .especially in co'parison to the E>yperionE kin"0: Eno "oddess ,as ever yo1r 'other.E -his a,areness e'er"es a"ain ,ell into the player:s speech ,hen >a'let i'patiently asks the actor to Esay on, co'e to >ec1!a,E as if re<1estin" a proper, corrective 'odel of spo1sal 'o1rnin".CIFD +n 'akin" the error, >a'let 'ay also !e recordin" his s1!conscio1s preparation to perfor' 3eneas:s si"nat1re infidelityBthe re6ection of a lovin" ,o'an .2ido @phelia0 for the sake of a heroic d1ty to ,hich the ,hole cos'os has see'in"ly conscripted hi'. (inally, and 'ost i'portant, >a'let:s co'parison of Pyrrh1s to Eth:ircanian !eastE s1!tly restates one of the dra'a:s !asic ass1'ptions: in a prota"onist:s least attractive or rational 'o'ents, he 'ay !e indistin"1isha!le fro' a villain. Beca1se not Pyrrh1s !1t 3eneas is .all1sively speakin"0 the ori"inal >yrcanian !east, >a'let:s conspic1o1s 'isre'e'!erin" act1ally re'e'!ers a classical precedent for

conf1sin" the heroic and the cri'inal, the ne, la, and the o1tla,. >is identifications are delicate "yroscopes p1lled !y the contradictions of the reven"e plot. 21rin" +onzago , >a'let co'es to 1nderstand, ho,ever ironically, his increasin" si'ilarity to Cla1di1s: E-is a kna1ish peece of ,orke, !1t ,hat of thatJ yo1r Maiestie, and ,ee that ha1e free so1les, it to1ches vs not . . . -his is one 0ucianus , nephe, to the 9in"E .>/v0. 4ater, as he prepares to accept the s,ordfi"ht challen"e, the prince reasserts his royal si'ilit1de: E+ a' constant to 'y p1rposes, they follo,e the 9in"s pleas1re, if his fitnes speakes, 'ine is readyE .A#0. +n so1l, in pleas1re and fitness, >a'let can e<1ate hi'self to his 1ncle= !1t the specifically political ironies of the e<1ation escape hi'. >e finds hi'self in the fa'iliar e'1lo1s !ind of Troilus and Cressida : to destroy the rival al,ays involves !eco'in" the rival, ass1'in" the other:s place and identity. (or >a'let, si'ilit1de i'plies replace'ent. >1rled to,ard a likeness he '1st de'olishBthe analo"y of kin"shipB the prince '1st sooner or later confront the responsi!ility of 'onarchy, a responsi!ility that ,o1ld certainly fall 1pon hi' sho1ld he s1rvive and !e a!le to 61stify his reven"e a"enda .,hich ,o1ld likely !eco'e s1spect in the event of his s1rvival0. >a'let:s p1sh to,ard reven"e 'ay ,ell o!sc1re other desires= ) 1$# ) try as it 'i"ht, the play cannot easily separate the s1!stance of a'!ition fro' the farra"o of 'otives for retri!1tion. -he dra'a "oes o1t of its ,ay to avoid addressin" this latent entan"le'ent: for the heir apparent to '1rder the kin" si"nifies a s1ccession. 2oes >a'let co'e to rese'!le Cla1di1s in order to destroy and replace hi'J @r '1st he destroy the kin" as a conse;uence of this rese'!lance, !eca1se the sta"e ,orld is no lon"er !i" eno1"h for !oth of the'J -he death of Cla1di1s, ,e are 'eant to think, loo's as the telos of all >a'let:s actions, !1t a key 1nspoken event inevita!ly a,aits the kin":s death: the ascension of the ne"t kin". Most readers tend not to re"ard the prince as interested in politics per se. B1t >a'let:s darker p1rpose 'ay !e 1nkno,n to hi', !orin" and fa'iliar as it has !een thro1"h historyBa 'otivational clichN. >a'let:s reven"e 'arks the final sta"e of an ins1rrection: his 6o! is to dislod"e the po,er he i'itates. Cla1di1s, for one, is al,ays vi"ilant a!o1t >a'let:s "ro,in" encroach'ent on his prero"ative. +n the 'idst of his self?a!solvin" conversation ,ith 4aertes, the kin" receives the letter anno1ncin" >a'let:s ret1rn to 2en'arkBCla1di1s:s first ne,s that >a'let is alive: E>i"h and 'i"hty, yo1 shall kno, + a' set naked on yo1r kin"do'C=D to 'orro, shall + !e""e lea1e to see yo1r kin"ly eyes, ,hen + shal first askin" yo1 pardon, there?vnto reco1nt the occasion of 'y s1ddaine ret1rneE .4#v0. -he note see's to disavo, political a'!ition= its 'ock?o!se<1io1sness 1nderscores the apparent differences in rank !et,een the 'an ,ithin po,er and the one ,itho1t. Cla1di1s sharply reads thro1"h the phony for'alities to dissect >a'let:s intentions: 9+A; : . . . if he !e no, ret1rned 3s the 9in" at his voya"e, and that he 'eanes Ao 'ore to vndertake it, + ,ill ,orke hi' -o an e*ployt, no, ripe in 'y de1ise, Onder the ,hich he shall not choose !1t fall. .4#v0

Aeither the letter to the kin" nor Cla1di1s:s response appears in the first <1arto. -he (olio readin" is the

choice of al'ost all 'odern editors, and it alters this passa"e considera!ly ,ith a sin"le ,ord= !1t the readin" is red1ndant and evac1ates the considera!le political i'plications of the speech: Eif he !e no, ret1rned 3s checkin" at his voya"e.E >arold 7enkins in the 3rden edition "losses Echeckin"E as Eshyin", stoppin" s1ddenly in 'id?co1rse.E -he (olio readin" oddly erases Cla1di1s:s s1spicions a!o1t >a'let:s ret1rn, and it re'oves the identification !et,een ) 1$G ) the t,o characters ,hich Cla1di1s in L/ "oes o1t of his ,ay to notice. +t is in the second <1arto of 1F$G, the te*t ad6acent to and replete ,ith an*iety a!o1t disease and the s1ccession, that the "rapplin" over political place !eco'es clearest. Cla1di1s says that if >a'let 'eans to "ive 1p the kin"ly role, then the prince ,ill !e v1lnera!le and '1st fall .die, descend in stat1s0. +n other ,ords, >a'let:s heralded ret1rn s'acks of royal pres1'ptionsBand s1""ests to Cla1di1s the fri"htenin" possi!ility, 1n'iti"ated .or even e*acer!ated0 !y >a'let:s rhetoric of o!eisance, that the prince pro!a!ly 'eans to clai' his royal ri"hts. -here is "ood reason for Cla1di1s to i'a"ine so= since >a'let is alive, he has o!vio1sly defeated and likely discovered the plot a"ainst hi'. >is ret1rn represents the 'ost fra1"ht conver"ence yet !et,een the adversaries: a conver"ence not in so1l or character, !1t in political position. >o,ever, Cla1di1s says, if >a'let does not prosec1te his o,n kin"ship, if he 'eans ,hat he says in the letter and ,ill not 1ndertake the 'onarchy, then he can !e victi'i&ed. Cla1di1s proves prescient, and >a'let does not 1ndertake to clai' the 'onarchy he approaches. +n the co1rse of his eccentric ins1rrection, of his stran"e !oldness 'i*ed ,ith stoic, pre?s,ordfi"ht passivity, >a'let a!dicates the heroic: he deposes hi'self, not fro' the possi!ility of s1ccessf1l and "lorio1s private reven"e .already a heavily pro!le'ati&ed notion in the 8enaissance0, !1t fro' the 'onarchy that ,o1ld likely !efall hi' p1rs1ant to the act. >a'let:s a!dication of herois' occ1rs in a "rad1al and ro1nda!o1t ,ay thro1"h the dra'a: he ed"es aro1nd, pesters, ,eakens, and finally kills the kin", !1t he also caref1lly forestalls his o,n access to po,er. >e o:err1les kin"ship to a peace, to his o,n peace, !1t onl# once his e*cl1sion fro' it proves irreversi!le. +t cannot !e coincidence that >a'let:s sin"le atte'pt at re"icide co'es after he learns he has !een poisoned and has Enot halfe an ho1res lifeE left in hi'. >a'let:s i''inent doo' opens a decoro1s sliver of s1!version in ,hich the lon"?a,aited reven"e can occ1r, !eca1se the i''ense political conse<1ences of the cri'e a"ainst the state can !e evaded: his reven"e, like the ;host:s, is virt1ally posth1'o1s. Even so, as the prince !reathes his last, he feels it necessary to ask >oratio to Ereport 'e and 'y ca1se ari"ht -o the vnsatisfied.ECIID -he !elatedness of the re"icide, its very?last?'in1te character, sho1ld not !e read as a fail1re of >a'let:s ,ill. 8ather, it '1st !e seen as his ,ill, an in"rained ideolo"ical sy'pathy ,ith and o!edience to historical conditions. Ao 'atter ho, villaino1s the kin" or sy'pathetic the aven"er, a sta"ed re"icide al,ays had a certain electricity a!o1t it. -he second ) 1$5 ) <1arto of Hamlet , conte'poraneo1s ,ith a deadly epide'ic ,hich rava"ed the s1ccession process, ,o1ld have !een s1perchar"ed in this re"ard. Elsinore:s poisono1s conta"ion 1pends kin"ship and reani'ates the i'a"e of a re"i'e pestered !y disease. -he s1rprise, of co1rse, is that the disease is the hero. +n L/, a profo1nd nervo1sness a!o1t the a!sence of 'onarchy co'petes ,ith a parallel ,orry a!o1t an a!scess in 'onarchy= these tensile an*ieties press1re >a'let:s every act, his every deli!eration. 5ell?fo1nded fears a!o1t an 1n"overned nation fra'e the te*t= E4on" li1e the 9in"E is the play:s .ironic0 third line. 3nd at the end, even after Cla1di1s:s villainy has !een revealed and 4aertes cries Ethe 9in", the 9in"s to !la'eE .@10, the play cannot <1ite loose its "rip on the idea of a sta!le

re"i'e. (or >a'let:s 1nthinkin" assa1lt on the r1ler ca1ses the ,hole co1rt to cry o1t in horrified voice, f1ll ,ith the 'e'ory of a "ap in kin"ship: E-reason, treason.ECI%D ) 1$F )

Three, S+ccessi$n0 Re&enge0 an* 1ist$r'2 The P$litical Ha let

I
Opon -h1rseday it ,as treason to cry ;od sa1e kin" la'es kin" of En"land, and vpon (riday hye treason not to cry so. +n the 'ornin" no voice heard !1t '1r'1res and la'entation, at noone nothin" !1t sho1tes of "ladnes P tri1'ph . . . Behold, that 'iracle?,orker, ,ho in one 'in1te t1rnd o1r "enerall 'o1rnin" to a "enerall 'irth, does no, a"aine in a 'o'ent alter that "ladnes to shrikes P la'entation. -ho'as 2ekker, -he 5onderf1ll Keare 1F$# S1ccession stories are a!o1t treason and the aversion of treason= the definition of the ,ord rides on the a"enda of the victors.C1D +n -ho'as 2ekker:s acco1nt of the la'entation, 6oy, then s1stained pla"1y 'isery attendant 1pon 7a'es:s accession, the ar!itrariness of the desi"nation EtreasonE anticipates a 'ore severe, less intelli"i!le caprice.C/D 2ekker s1""ests that so'ethin" has "one painf1lly, even s1pernally ,ron" ,ith the process of dynastic se<1enceBas if treason ,ere itself !ein" cond1cted o1tside the sphere of h1'an infl1ence, ,reakin" its dist1r!ances 1ncontrolla!ly, a!sent of point or p1rpose. By 'id?May 1F$#, it ,as evident that 7a'es:s "lorio1s entry into the city had !eco'e an evasive 'ane1ver, a co,ed, sk1lkin" dash fro' his no, dan"ero1s s1!6ects and fro' his princely role. (or the presence of ) 1$I ) !1!onic pla"1e forced the ne, 'onarch to dod"e his o,n ad'irers. -he cro,ds of "apers, "ada!o1ts, and ,aterflies had already proven tro1!leso'e eno1"h even !efore the disease ,as at its hei"ht. 5illia' McEl,ee ,rites that !y the ti'e 7a'es and his ento1ra"e had reached the northern city of Kork, t,o strains of preference seekers, the Enorth?!o1nd En"lish place h1nters, and the i'poverished Scots h1rryin" so1th for fear of 'issin" the pickin"s, had s,ollen the train to a disorderly ra!!le of over a tho1sand ,hich "ave the 9in" no peace and placed an intolera!le !1rden on hosts.EC#D @n May I, in the fields at the o1tskirts of 4ondon, the 'o! !eca'e Eso "reedy . . . to !ehold the co1ntenance of the 9in", that ,ith '1ch 1nr1liness they in61red and h1rt one another, so'e even ha&arded to the da1n"er of death.ECGD B1t ,ith the epide'ic in risin" tide, the !esie"in" ad'irers presented a still "reater threat to one another and to the 'onarch. +n pla"1e ti'e, service and ho'a"e looked like treason or ins1rrection: the press1re of the cro,ds, their thron"in" love, i'pin"ed too heavily on the royal !ody. Pla"1es are har!in"ers and poro1s containers of disaster= the chaos that acco'panied 7a'es to the

throne a1"1red ill for the rei"n. -he sickness perfected anarchy, civic and national, !eca1se ,hen an epide'ic hit, the central a1thority fi"1res ,ere the first to s1rrender their physical place. -heir a!sence facilitated the spread of the disease !eca1se la,s desi"ned to restrain it co1ld not !e enforced. Pla"1e th1s confi"1red a treason a!etted !y the r1lin" politicians= the pro!le' of fatal conta"ion, in other ,ords, ,as ine*trica!le fro' the pro!le' of r1le. 5ith the epide'ic in f1ll s,in", a Privy Co1ncil clerk, 5illia' 5aad, ,rote to 8o!ert Cecil a!o1t the fail1re of local "overnance: Aot,ithstandin" the @rders set do,n, there co'e 4ondoners fro' infected places into cotta"es in all the villa"es a!o1t 4ondon, and . . . pres1'e no 'an or officer ,ill lay hands on the', !eca1se it is kno,n the sickness is in their ho1ses. . . . -he a!sence of the 3lder'en fro' the City, and the 71stices in the shire . . . hath !red li!erty, and scope, in their la'enta!le cases and disorders.C5D -he disease ca1sed a po,er o1ta"e and a displaced po,er s1r"e= as the ,ealthy and infl1ential fled the heavily infected areas, the disenfranchised and tainted !eca'e fearedB!eca1se, for once, the conse<1ences of disre"ardin" the' co1ld !e disastro1s. +n 1F$G, for instance, ,ith the pla"1e still ra"in", the 'ayor of Kork i'plored his fello, officials to re'ain in to,n: E-he infection doth so "reatly increase in this city that 1nless ,e the 'a"istrates have "reat care and do take pains in the reliev? ) 1$% ) in" of the', the poorer sort ,ill not !e r1led.ECFD So'e of the 'ori!1nd pop1lace rioted, actively seekin" to spread their diseases. -here ,ere stories of the sick endeavorin" to infect the so1nd !y thr1stin" the'selves into their co'pany and !y dispersin" linen and other personal !elon"in"s on the streets of the city.CID -he "eneral disorder, in 'any respects, ,as co'para!le to ins1rrection.C%D Aot only a threat to po,er, ho,ever, the epide'ic !ehaved 'etaphorically as po,er:s s1rro"ate, its ne"ative i'a"e. +n the 8enaissance, and partic1larly at the inception of 7a'es:s re"i'e, pla"1e ,as an ersat& soverei"n, an antithetical a1thority= it th1s see'ed a 'onarchical ins1r"ence. -he disease 'etaphori&ed a s1!versive strain ithin po er itself . +'pervio1s and "lo!ally destr1ctive, the sickness took on rhetorical r1le, perhaps as a res1lt of its re'oval of kin"s and "overnors.C9D 5hen it occ1pied a "iven place, it ,as said to Erei"nE there= spreadin" fro' to,n to to,n, it ,as co''only descri!ed as !ein" on pro"ress.C1$D (ro' the h1'an r1ler:s point of vie,, the only effective re'edy for the sickness ,as to escape it, to keep in constant 'otion. >o,ever, fli"ht co'po1nded the pro!le' of r1le. 3!andon'ent of place openly e*posed the i'potence of the kin" to 'aintain centrality, to "overn. 3nd in 7a'es:s case, the pla"1e ve*in"ly acco'panied the co1rt. -hro1"ho1t the s1''er of 1F$#, the 7aco!ean ento1ra"e carried conta"ion ,ith the': fro' 4ondon to @atlands, 8ich'ond to 5oodstock, ,here t,o 'e'!ers of L1een 3nne:s ho1sehold died of the disease.C11D @n Septe'!er 1I, at the hei"ht of the 'ortality, -ho'as Cre,e ,rote to the Co1ntess of Shre,s!1ry, E-he L1een re'oves hence today, the 9in" 1pon -1esday, to,ards 5inchester, ,here ,ill !e a standin" Co1rt, 1nless the sickness drive the' thence, ,hich hitherto hath follo,ed the'.E 3 letter on the sa'e day fro' -ho'as Ed'onds to the earl of Shre,s!1ry confir's the co1rt:s pessi'is' a!o1t the possi!ility of health: E5e are no, re'ovin" shortly to 5inchester, ,here ,e shall stay till ,e have also infected that place, as ,e have done all others ,here ,e have co'e.EC1/D S1re eno1"h, 5inchester ,as conta'inated 61st t,o ,eeks after the co1rt:s arrival there= tireless ,ith their lives at stake, they then escaped to 5ilton .5ilson, %lague , 1$I0. -he co1rt:s self?conscio1sness a!o1t its o,n taint is co'pellin". Even 'ore si"nificant is the nation:s perception of the ne, re"i'e:s v1lnera!ility. S1ddenly, 7a'es ,as on an antipro"ress, a royal e"ress.

(orced to flee, the ne, r1ler appeared e'!arrassin"ly ordinary and 'ortal. -he !ody ,as too '1ch ,ith the kin", his 'ortality in open vie,, !1t the kin" ,as not ,ith the political !ody, his peopleBand this separation, ) 1$9 ) necessary for s1rvival, did e*tensive da'a"e to 7a'es:s i'a"e as a kin". 4ookin" !ack fro' the perspective of the revivified pla"1e in 1F$9, 7ohn 2avies of >ereford recalls the ina1"1ration of the 7aco!ean re"i'e: -he 9in" hi'self .@ ,retched -i'es the ,hileQ0 (ro' place to place, to save hi'self did fly, 5hich fro' hi'self hi'self did seek t:e*ile, 5ho .as a'a&:d0 kne, not ,here safe to lie. +t:s hard ,ith S1!6ects ,hen the Soverei"n >ath no place free fro' pla"1es, his head to hide= 3nd hardly can ,e say the 9in" doth rei"n, -hat no ,here, for 61st fear, can ,ell a!ide.C1#D E>ardly can ,e say the 9in" doth rei"nE: altho1"h the kin":s fear is E61st,E the a!6ect spectacle of the fleein", self?e*iled 'onarch ,as de!ilitatin". 5hile it is 'ean?spirited in the e*tre'e to !la'e hi' for ,antin" to save his life, even 7a'es had to ad'it that his fli"ht ,as politically 1ndesira!le. +n a procla'ation iss1ed fro' >a'pton Co1rt on 71ly /9, the kin" 1nder'ined the desired de'eanor of 'astery !y confessin" the scandal of his o,n disappearance: E-he Coronation !ein" happily over,E the procla'ation notes, Econsiderin" the evils the co1ntry s1ffers fro' the a!sence of its nat1ral leaders . . . the 9in" here!y co''ands all persons not detained at Co1rt to depart at once.EC1GD 31di!ly relieved at the co'pletion of his 'ai'ed rites, 7a'es evac1ated the kin"do' and, for a ti'e, his o,n kin"ship. -he epide'ic dashed the ideolo"ical faWade of 'onarchy:s li'itless a!ility to confer order and peace 1pon the kin"do', or to protect the !odies of the corporate ,hole. +n the presence of pla"1e, the h1'an soverei"n did not rei"n. 5hat sho1ld have !een a 6oyo1s cele!ration of the 7aco!ean s1ccession t1rned instead into c1lt1ral tra"edy, a cala'ity of spectac1lar sorro, and terror. -his alteration ,as the 'ore painf1l in that it !oth 'i'icked and threatened a disaster ,hich En"land had 61st narro,ly escaped: political chaos. 3ltho1"h 7a'es:s inheritance ,as in the ,orks for several years prior to Eli&a!eth:s death, and altho1"h 'ost co1rt insiders and 'any o1tsiders kne, of the likely candidate, nothin" ,as certain, and indeed, all co''ent a!o1t the <1estion ,as severely interdicted.C15D So ,hen the <1een finally proclai'ed 7a'es fro' her death!ed in March, the pro!le', in the ,ords of one historian, E,as settled !efore any other candidate had ti'e to raise a dist1r!ance, and, to the astonish'ent and relief of those ,ho had !een stockpilin" ar's a"ainst the <1een:s death, the s1ccession crisis passed off in co'plete peace.EC1FD B1t !y visitin" conf1sion on a co1ntry that had 61st evaded it, !y trans? ) 11$ ) fi"1rin" the "lorio1s into the 'isera!le, pla"1e thoro1"hly 1ndid the preternat1ral pleas1re of the s1ccession.C1ID 2isease reani'ated a national an*iety that had 61st !een !1ried ,ith the <1eenBthe fear of havin" no 'onarch. Pla"1e effected a s1rprise interre"n1', replacin" the r1ler ,ith nothin". 3s it happened, the pestilence contin1ed to ra"e thro1"ho1t the ,inter, and 7a'es had to ,ait nearly a year for his p1!lic coronation pa"eant. Bet,een the death of Eli&a!eth .March /G0 and the St1art coronation

.71ly /50Bin the enforced a!sence of visi!ly le"iti'ate 'onarchyBthe !1!onic pla"1e took hold of the nation.C1%D 3 ne, re"i'e, fr1strated, endan"ered, and forestalled= the kin" pestered fro' place to place !y an ine*ora!le, 1s1rper?tyrant of a disease= the i'peded s1ccession ca1sin" the a!dication of royal privile"e i''ediately 1pon ass1'ption of that privile"e= the nation a"hast at its o,n sava"e 'isfort1ne, at the i'potence of the royal officeBinto this or!it of i'a"es + ,o1ld like to pro6ect the ne*t phase of Hamlet :s historical inscriptions and operations of 'eanin". -he topic of the 7aco!ean s1ccession, as 'any critics have noted, is inti'ate ,ith the s1!6ect of Hamlet in history, especially as the story of the hero to1ches so tantali&in"ly closely at so 'any points on the story of 9in" 7a'es:s life. Before + rehearse so'e of these ,ell?doc1'ented connections, ho,ever, + ,o1ld like to e*plore the te*t1al indicators of >a'let:s !elated kin"ship. Until no, + have stressed the play:s intert,inin" of prince and villain?kin" as a pri'ary effect of dra'atic conta"ion= >a'let:s "rad1al ass1'ption of tyranny re"isters his eccentric approach to the throne. -his conver"ence 'akes an ethical point !y intensifyin" the contradictions of >a'let:s taskBthat is, !y sketchin" his appro*i'ation and confi"1ration of that ,hich he '1st killB!1t it 'akes a political point as ,ell: it seeds the notion of >a'let as a kin", !locked fro' the place ,hich ,as his d1e. +n 1F$#, pla"1e spilled 7a'es fro' po,er. Barred fro' his o,n s1ccession !y nothin", !y death, 7a'es lived the e*tended e*cl1sion fro' place that 2en'ark:s prince only rarely protests in the second <1arto. Hamlet artistically renders o!stacles not only to reven"e !1t also to r1le. -hese !arriers 'ay arise fro' ,ithinBas li'itations of the s1scepti!le, hesitant 'ind or v1lnera!le !ody. More often, they occ1r fro' ,itho1t: fro' the 'assive ideolo"ical !1l,ark a"ainst re"icide= the chokin" an*ieties of co1rt intri"1e and fa'ily press1re= the i''ense ,ei"ht of the past. +nterpretively dist1r!in" possi!ilities are e'!edded deep ,ithin the history of national health that is inscri!ed in the second <1arto of Hamlet . -he "reat "eneral treason of the !1!onic pla"1e of 1F$# is that it ) 111 ) see'ed to !e En"land:s !odily reaction a"ainst the presence of a ne, kin". +n the ,ake of Eli&a!eth:s death, the sickness serio1sly i'paired the presti"e or the charis'a of the Scots 'onarch.C19D 5hatever the event1al ra'ifications, the closer 7a'es "ot to 4ondon, to the seat of po,er and to his o,n visi!ility as a po,er, the 'ore disorder accr1ed, and the closer he dre, to infection.C/$D 2isease in Hamlet !ears ironic historical linea'ents. (or the play !itterly i'a"ines an accession ta!lea1 in ,hich deadly treason takes over a1thority:s placeBat least 1ntil the tr1e prince, the proper heir, can !rin" 1n'iti"ated disaster to the state.

II
-he ;host of 9in" >a'let tells the heir apparent 'any thin"s in their first intervie,, !1t the political stat1s of the yo1th "oes conspic1o1sly 1n'entioned= !oth royal >a'lets see' concerned a!o1t thin"s other than the le"alities of the s1ccession. -he ;host never protests yo1n" >a'let:s loss of position, only his o,n. Aor does >a'let hi'self, for 'ost of the play, la'ent his pree'ption fro' r1le. +n spite of his disenfranchise'ent, ho,ever, other characters defer to hi' as !ein" at or near the top of the political hierarchy. Ket he represses or deflects this position, and the o!eisance d1e to it, as in this partin" e*chan"e ,ith the "1ards on ,atch:

344 : >3M :

@1r d1tie to yo1r honor. Ko1r lo1es, as 'ine to yo1, fare,ell. .C#0

+n val1in" love over d1ty, reciprocity over rank, >a'let here denies his social place and tries to esta!lish a priority of affective a1thenticity over e*ternal for' and service, a priority ,hich ,ill 1lti'ately ena!le the antihierarchical act of re"icide.C/1D 3s '1ch as he denies his stat1re, ho,ever, it re'ains o!vio1s to other characters. 4aertes, for one, see's <1ite convinced early in the play that >a'let is the f1t1re kin", and he e'ploys that notion, alon"side its allied !ro'ide of the !ody politic, to disco1ra"e @phelia fro' a ro'ance ,ith the prince: 43E8 : >is "reatness ,ayd, his ,ill is not his o,ne. . . . . . for on his choice depends -he salty and health of this ,hole state, 3nd therefore '1st his choice !e circ1'scri!d

) 11/ ) Onto the voyce and yeeldin" of that !ody 5hereof he is the head. .C#O0 4aertes speaks as if the prince is already !1rdened ,ith royal choices, as if a ne, 9in" >a'let has !een proclai'ed and is considerin" a ,ife.C//D @phelia takes 1p a si'ilar refrain ,hen she calls >a'let E-h:e*pectation and 8ose of the faire stateE .;#0. +t co1ld !e that Poloni1s:s children keenly feel their o,n political 'ar"inality and so e*a""erate >a'let:s pro*i'ity to the throne. B1t these lines see' prolo"1e to so'e pro'ise that the play 'akes a!o1t >a'let:s aptness and destiny for kin"ship, a pro'ise that (ortin!ras event1ally apolo"i&es for in >a'let:s a!sent presence: Ehe ,as likely, had he !eene p1t on, -o ha1e proo1ed 'ost royallE .@/0. -he e*tre'e indirection ,ith ,hich the play !roaches the hero:s privation fro' r1le lets 1s kno, that so'ethin" ,eird has happened to the proced1re, not 61st the o1tco'e, of the s1ccession.C/#D >a'let:s political station is one of the play:s le"ion 'ysteries. 3ltho1"h the kin" proclai's hi' Ethe 'ost i'ediate to o1r throneE and then invites hi' to E!e as o1r selfe in 2en'arkeE .C10, there o1"ht to !e so'e <1estionBespecially in the first scenes of the playB,hy the a!le?!odied, scholarly yo1th is not alread# kin". Ket no one 1tters a peep of protest a"ainst Cla1di1s. Beca1se "enerations of critics have re'inded 1s of 2en'ark:s elective 'onarchy, >a'let:s e*cl1sion fro' the throne has !een nor'ali&ed over ti'e. B1t then it sho1ld see' 61st as odd that the only son has failed to ,in election as it does that he has failed to inherit.C/GD 3s a EfactE of 2anish c1lt1re, the elective 'onarchical process "oes 1n'entioned, 1ne*plicated, and ,holly 1n<1estioned 1ntil the last scene of the play. +s the iss1e of s1ccession in 2en'ark really clear, or si'ply 1nprotestedJ >as Cla1di1s !een 1nani'o1sly elected, and !y ,ho'J By Ethe people,E or !y a co'plicito1s !ody of co1nselors and eldersJ By 'ystifyin" the proced1re thro1"h ,hich Cla1di1s ca'e to po,er, the dra'a "ives '1ltiple i'pressions a!o1t

'echanis's of state: they 'alf1nction ,hile no one notices or cares= they are inherently corr1pti!le= they are 'ysterio1s, and not to !e <1estioned or tr1sted. -he dra'a plays a "a'e of royal !ait and s,itch ,ith the e*pected 'ale inheritor and the a1dience, thro,in" a cloak over the s1ccession process. +n late Eli&a!ethan En"land, the i'a"e of a clearly le"iti'ate heir ,ho is stealthily denied his place ,o1ld !e partic1larly appallin". 5e need to kno, ,hat the play resol1tely ref1ses or is 1na!le to tell: ) 11# ) the infl1ence, if any, of the royal 'arria"e 1pon the nation:s choice= the political infl1ence, that is, of the <1een. B1t !eca1se ,e cannot deter'ine ,hether Cla1di1s:s 'arria"e to ;ertr1de preceded or follo,ed his election, the s1ccession 'ystery re'ains intact. -he kin" hi'self see's to s1""est that the 'arria"e, shady at !est in the li"ht of his !rother:s f1neral, follo,ed his ascension to the throne: E-ho1"h . . . it vs !efitted . . . o1r ,hole 9in"do'e, -o !e contracted in one !ro,e of ,oe . . . Ket . . . ,e . . . thinke on hi' -o"ether ,ith re'e'!rance of o1r sel1es. . . . -herefore . . . o1r L1eene -h:i'perial ioyntresse to this ,arlike state >a1e ,e . . . -aken to ,ifeE .B#v0. 2espite Cla1di1s:s soverei"n and proprietary 'anner, his epithet Eth:i'perial ioyntressE for ;ertr1de i'plies an e<1ivalence in their control of the kin"do' and s1""ests at least the possi!ility that the kin":s ri"hts "o hand in hand ,ith the <1een:s "races, her political ind1l"ence. >e is pro!a!ly not 61st !ein" co1rtly to his ne, !ride= 'ore pro!a!ly, the phrase represents a pren1ptial a"ree'ent, a le"al consens1s. B1t even if E-herefore . . . >a1e ,e . . . taken to ,ifeE i'plies a te'poral se<1ence and th1s the kin":s 1nli'ited prero"atives, a deli!erately el1sive acco1nt of po,er e'er"es here= even Cla1di1s:s official version of ca1se and effect i'plies that ;ertr1de has !een EtakenE as an act of ho'a"e and re'e'!rance .of Eo1rselves,E no less0, and for no other reason. -he royal rhetoric constantly evades .!1t nervo1sly all1des to0 the kin":s contin"ent relationship to his o,n kin"ship: his dependence on hi"h?level co'plicity .EKo1r !etter ,isdo'es, ,hich ha1e freely "one 5ith this affaire alon"E CB#O0= his e*trapoliticalBthat is, se*1alB'otivations= and his consolidation of po,er thro1"h le"iti'i&in" 'arria"e. Cla1di1s:s indeter'inately fi"1red access to r1le 'i"ht then have derived pri'arily fro' the fraternal relationship of inheritance or fro' the 'arital one of coercive force. (or reasons that ,ill !eco'e clear, + prefer the latter e*planation. >a'let:s !irthri"ht .,hich ad'ittedly 'ay !e no 'ore of a Eri"htE than that of the child of a United States president to inherit the office0 'ay then have !een effectively !locked !y his 'other:s Eo:erhasty 'arria"e,E ,hich has secured the position to ,hich Cla1di1s 'ay or 'ay not have ,on election. + do not ,ish to land too heavily on this shaky interpretive plank. B1t the play s1stains the possi!ility that ,hereas >a'let:s no!ility descends patrilineally, it is i'peded 'atrilineallyBthat is, 'atri'onially. E+ say ,e ,ill ha1e no 'o 'arria"e, those that are 'arried alreadie, all !1t one shall li1eE .;#0, >a'let !ello,s in a fit of 1nfei"ned diste'per. >is ra"e a"ainst 'arria"e 'ay artic1late a specifically political fr1stration that contains !oth psycholo"ical and his? ) 11G ) torical in"redients. +f he has !een !locked or disco1ra"ed fro' kin"ship !y his 'other:s ,edlock, >a'let:s sit1ation e*actly reverses that of 9in" 7a'es, ,hose 'other, Mary L1een of Scots, provided hi' ,ith the clai' to Scotland:s and event1ally En"land:s throne= additionally, Mary:s !ad 'arital choices act1ally hastened the Scottish prince:s inheritance, as + disc1ss !elo,. +f >a'let:s e*asperation at 'arria"e is political, it re'ains the prince:s only serio1s "rievance that he does not e*po1nd 1pon at len"thBthat the te*t does not ,ish to speak o1t lo1d. >a'let:s specifically 'arital, se*1al hostility

to,ard the 'other ,ho has not helped hi' sec1re a 'onarchy shields a 'ore i''ediate historical anta"onis': 7a'es:s fr1stration ,ith his political 'other, Eli&a!eth, for her prolon"ed deferral of his En"lish kin"ship. -he first <1arto of Hamlet allo,s its prota"onist to e*press political desire= ,hen ponderin" the ran"e of the Player:s ver!al potential, for e*a'ple, >a'let asks: E5hat ,o1ld he do an if he hadde 'y losseJ >is father '1rdred, and a Cro,ne !ereft hi'JE .(+0. -he second <1arto, ho,ever, postpones overt si"ns of >a'let:s aspirations 61st as caref1lly as it evades the political i'plications and intricacies of Cla1di1s:s election. Evidence of >a'let:s interest in kin"ship per se is spotty, and scarcely appears at all 1ntil the 'iddle of the dra'a. +n a rare 'o'ent of 1n"1arded self?revelation s1scepti!le of political interpretation, he does 'ention to @phelia that he is Every pro1de, re1en"ef1ll, a'!itio1s, ,ith 'ore offences at 'y !eck, then + ha1e tho1"hts to p1t the' in,E and then he affir's and retreats fro' the confession: E,ee are arrant kna1es, !elee1e none of vsE .;#0. B1t after The )urder of +onzago , >a'let responds to 8osencrant&:s <1estion a!o1t the ca1se of his Ediste'perE !y sayin": ESir, + lacke ad1a1nce'entE .>G0. Perhaps he thinks he is !ein" calc1latin"Bthe response sho1ld look to the a1dience .and to >a'let hi'self0 like a lieB!1t let 1s ass1'e for a 'o'ent that he has let so'ethin" slip, that his heart:s desire and 'ind:s detach'ents can !e traced to this 'issin" co''odity Eadvance'ent.E 3fter >a'let e*presses his Elacke,E 8osencrant& helpf1lly replies that the prince sho1ld not ,orry a!o1t his hierarchical position, E,hen yo1 ha1e the voyce of the 9in" hi'selfe for yo1r s1ccession in 2en'arkeE .>G0. -his reply dovetails ,ith 4aertes: certainty a!o1t >a'let:s royal f1t1re, !1t it also enhances the i'pression of the'atic conta"ion: >a'let has the kin":s voice as a pro'ise, as a possession. Ooice is the te*t:s sy'!olic vial of pla"1e. 3 sinister and lovely polyse'y, this do1!le sense of voice res1rfaces at the end of the play ,hen >a'let a'!ivalently endorses a 'ore s1ccessf1l aven"er than he has !een: E+ doe prophecie ) 115 ) th:ellection li"hts @n 'ortinbrasse , he has 'y dyin" voyce, So tell hi'E .@+O0. +n >a'let:s last 'o'ents, the transfer of vocality and po,er "oes !eyond a vote of confidence: it is a c1rse, a "1arantee of life ca1"ht in the vise of office and the fatal press1re of royal responsi!ility. 3t the point of death, >a'let, finally f1lly invested ,ith a kin":s voice, has for 61st a 'o'ent co'pletely taken over the kin":s identity and position, in precisely the sa'e sense of his earlier self?recri'ination, Eho, stand + then -hat ha1e a father kild, a 'other staindE= the dyin" voice he "ives to (ortin!ras fi"1res an ironic !e<1est, a "ift of death. +n a potentate:s proclai'ed or 61ridical ,ill lies coiled fact: E+ sentenceE or E+ decreeE si"nifies a perfor'ative lin"1istic act. 21rin" the play:s last 'o'ents, plot !eco'es pla"1y 7aco!ean history: transitional 'onarchy ,aits 1pon !1t also see'in"ly !e<1eaths 'ortality. >a'let:s political apotheosis co'es ,hen his lan"1a"e attains, thro1"h the prero"ative of choosin" a s1ccessor, 'onarchical tones= !1t his royal prero"ative is only and entirely coe*tensive ,ith deathBthe end of the >a'let fa'ily line, if not the ,hole c1lt1re. Since 'onarchical identity and de'olition are interdependent in the play, it 'akes "ood sense that >a'let first openly confesses his political interests ,hen tellin" >oratio a!o1t his r1ination of 8osencrant& and ;1ildenstern. >a'let has 'ana"ed to trope .to t1rn ver!ally0 Cla1di1s:s sche'e !y killin" the 'essen"ers, effectively erasin" and re,ritin" the kin":s intentions. >is e*propriation of Cla1di1s:s plot cr1cially involves an i'printin" of kingl# identity: E+ had 'y fathers si"net in 'y p1rse 5hich ,as the 'odill of that 2anish seale, (olded the ,rit vp in the for'e of th:other, S1!cri!e Csic D it, "a1:t th:i'pression, plac:d it safely, -he chan"lin" ne1er kno,neE .A+O?A/0.C/5D >a'let:s e*pert for"ery and co'ple*, '1rdero1s enfoldin"s .reversin" the play:s openin" co''and, EStand and vnfolde yo1r selfeE0 do hi' re"al, not yeo'an service: he 'oves fro' rese'!lin" Cla1di1s

to overtakin" hi'= he ass1'es the kin":s 'onarch?f1nction, a '1rderer:s !1siness. +f identity is the vanishin" point of rese'!lance, >a'let !e"ins to vanish into identity ,ith kin"ship once he f1lly s1rro"ates !oth Cla1di1s and 9in" >a'let. -he for"ed and folded letter res1rrects the ho'icidal force of the father, ,ho is re'e'!ered in the si"net= !1t that force is deployed !y fra1dBthat is, as Cla1di1s ,o1ld ,ield it. >a'let:s royal acts re1nite the deadly, s1ndered !rothers of 2en'ark. 5hat "1lls 1s into denial a!o1t >a'let:s darker deeds, his '1rders and plots, is that they so entirely are the acts of a kin", and ,e have !een hood,inked into !elievin" the prince:s denials a!o1t his a'!ition. B1t ) 11F ) his practices are precisely those of a r1thless 'onarch, of one ,ho ,ill l1stily devo1r ene'ies to no1rish hi'self ,ith po,er, and spit o1t the !ones ,ith no re'orse. -his reali&ation takes >oratio a!ack: >@83 : >3M : So +u#ldenstern and Rosencrans "oe too:t. -hey are not neere 'y conscience, their defeat 2ooes !y their o,ne insinn1ation "ro,e, -is dan"ero1s ,hen the !aser nat1re co'es Bet,eene the passe and fell incenced points @f 'i"hty opposits. 5hy ,hat a 9in" is thisQ .A/0 +ndeedB!1t ,hich kin"J >oratio:s c1sto'ary tacit1rnity applies e<1ally to Cla1di1s, en"ineer of the first letter plot, and to >a'let, its second en"ineer: E5hy ,hat a 9in" yo1 areQE >a'let:s identity ,ith royalty, his pla"1y sa'eness ,ith villainy, e*poses his i'plication in specifically political desire. B1t he soon "rasps one co'plication i'pedin" this desire: tactical political s1ccess in 2en'ark follo,s on the heels of erotic s1ccess, and erotics are every !it as pro!le'atic for >a'let as politics= the t,o are al,ays interlaced. (or instance, he perceives Cla1di1s:s achieve'ent as a coherent 'osaic of se* and statecraft, as he s1""ests to >oratio: >3M : 2ooes it not thinke thee stand 'e no, vpponJ >e that hath kild 'y 9in", and ,hor:d 'y 'other, Pop:t in !et,eene th:election and 'y hopes, -hro,ne o1t his 3n"le for 'y proper life, 3nd ,ith s1ch c1sna"e, is:t not perfect conscienceJ .A/ 0 -hese lines contain the play:s .and >a'let:s0 first specific co'plaints a!o1t a s1ccession process ,hich s1ddenly see's ,holly s1spect. Cla1di1s:s tri1'ph no, looks less electoral than erectional, as >a'let

>@83 :

assi"ns his o,n 'onarchical e*cl1sion to his 1ncle:s phallic deftness. +n 61*taposition ,ith E,hor:d 'y 'other,E >a'let descri!es the entrance of Cla1di1s into 'onarchy as a specifically se*1al !reach, a poppin" in, re'iniscent of Paris:s costly intervention in Menela1s:s love life: E(or th1s popped Paris in his hardi'ent 3nd parted th1s yo1 and yo1r ar"1'entE .Troilus and Cressida , G.5./IM/%0. Cla1di1s:s poppin" in, like Paris:s, fi"1res c1ckoldry, !1t >a'let .not his father0 is the c1ckold here= in the lines E,hor:d 'y 'other, Pop:t in !et,eene th:election ) 11I ) and 'y hopes,E >a'let !la'es the kin" for se<1entially i'pedin" access to t o oedipal pri&es: the 'other:s se*1ality and the father:s a1thority. 3s a description of Cla1di1s:s 'isdeeds, the phrase Epop:t inE '1ddies the referent of >a'let:s desire, e<1atin" the 'aternal ,ith the political space: each is erotically char"ed, se*1ally receptive, attaina!le. 3"ain, the <1estion of the s1ccession re'ains 1nclear, the act1al order of events still 1nresolved, !1t it is at last apparent at least to >a'let that Cla1di1s:s ad1lt heterose*1ality has sec1red the electionBthe s1ccessionBat >a'let:s .1ncons1''ated0 e*pense. +t is possi!le that he 1nderstood this 'echanis' earlier in the play. Si"nificantly, in the politically potent sphere of his 'other:s !edroo', >a'let records his first protest a!o1t the s1ccession process ,hen he calls Cla1di1s Ea c1t?p1rse of the E'pire and the r1le, -hat fro' a shelfe the precio1s 2iade' stole 3nd p1t it in his pocketE .7#O0. >avin" already !een !locked !y the Poloni1s fa'ily on the se*1al path, the prince looks for a different erotics of advance'ent. -he Cla1di1s 'odel s1""ests that heterose*1ality cons1''ates political tri1'ph, !1t it still takes an act of ho'oerotic violence to clear the ,ay for that victory= and th1s the !odies of 8osencrant& and ;1ildenstern !eco'e cr1cial props in >a'let:s rehearsal for the a1tocrat:s part. 4ike Cla1di1s, ,ho destroyed his !rother !y po1rin" a dan"ero1s 61ice into his 1n"1arded orifice, >a'let e'1lates the craft of kin"ship ,ith a se*1ally coded assa1lt of his t,o for'er friends: >3M : Op fro' 'y Ca!in, My sea?"o,ne scarft a!o1t 'e in the darke ;ropt + to find o1t the', had 'y desire, (in"ard their packet, and in fine ,ith?dre, -o 'ine o,ne roo'e a"aine. .A10 >is condition of !ein" EvpE .erect0, his "ropin" to find the', the f1lfill'ent of his desire, his fin"erin" of their packet .letters, !1t also slan" for "enitalia0, and his satisfied ,ithdra,al all s1""est ho'oerotic dalliance, interco1rse, or in this case rape, stealthily 'o1nted.C/FD Syntactically, he has his desire before he fin"ers their packets, after he:s "roped the'Bthe lines hint that the e*chan"e of letters is not the prince:s pri'ary desire. >a'let 61stifies his ho'oerotic destr1ction of 8osencrant& and ;1ildenstern !y assertin" that Etheir defeat 2ooes !y their o,ne insinn1ation "ro,eE .A/0= to 1npack this co''ent, ,e 'ay look to -ho'as ) 11% ) 5ilson:s early description of rhetorical Einsin1ationE: Ea pri1ie t,inin", or close creepin" in, to ,in fa1or ,ith '1ch circ1'stance.EC/ID -he co1rt spies are typically allied in >a'let:s 'ind ,ith privy

t,inin", a p1rely "enital se*1ality, as ,e see ,hen he first "reets the': >3M : -hen yo1 live a!o1t her ,ast, or in the 'iddle of her fa1ors.

;UK4 (aith her pri1ates ,e. : >3M : +n the secret parts of (ort1ne, oh 'ost tr1e, she is a str1'pet. .(+O 0

8osencrant& and ;1ildenstern:s !asely se*1al nat1re 'etaphori&es their !asely political nat1re, and teases o1t >a'let:s thinly dis"1ised f1ry ,ith the'. 71st after +onzago , ,hen the t,o co'panions have !een sent to discover the ca1se of his Ediste'per,E >a'let acc1ses the' of tryin" to 'anip1late hi', to play on hi' like a pipe. >e e*presses a paranoia that appropriately 'i*es erotics and politics, a fear of !ein" !lo,n on, into, or a,ay= he doesn:t ,ant to !e fin"ered or handled as a 'ere instr1'ent. >e is so a"itated that his 'etaphors !e"in to "o off key: Eyo1 ,o1ld pl1cke o1t the hart of 'y 'istery. . . and there is '1ch '1si<1e e*cellent voyce in this little or"an.E -hen, collectin" hi'self: Ecall 'ee ,hat instr1'ent yo1 ,il, tho1"h yo1 fret 'e not, yo1 cannot play vpon 'eE .>G0.C/%D Pl1ckin" o1t the heart of his 'ystery and frettin" hi' are 'ore apposite fi"1res for strin"ed instr1'ents, ,hich Shakespeare co1ld have f1rnished theatrically, ,ere he so inclined. B1t instead he chooses the phallic pipe, another kind of little or"an, as the sta"e vehicle: E,il yo1 play vpon this pipeJE EMy lord + cannot.E -he pipe, like the 'en and their s1rveillance 'ission, confi"1res a se*1al threat. Aot ,ishin" to !e penetrated or pl1cked at, >a'let ,ill instead prove intr1sive, protr1din", and he takes his o,n di"ital, se*1ally char"ed reven"e on the'. +n a line the second <1arto lacks, >a'let restates to >oratio his 61stification for killin" the kin":s instr1'ents: E5hy 'an, they did 'ake love to this e'ploy'ent.E -he folio line helps clarify the prince:s ra"e: he detests their servicin" of the state at least as '1ch as their disloyalty to hi'= he is repelled !y their 'etony'ic character as entirely se*1al political !ein"s. B1t his rev1lsion, + !elieve, is conta'inated !y fear of discovery, an an"er at their relentless e*pos1re of his political needs, 1nkno,n as he ,o1ld like those to re'ain. -he folio a"ain is 'ore e*plicit than the second <1arto can !e on this point, and f1lly ill1strates >a'let:s resent'ent of the co1rt spies. +n another passa"e a!sent fro' L/, >a'let and the 'en en"a"e in dark !anter a!o1t 2en'ark: E-o 'e ) 119 ) it is a prison,E >a'let says in the folio. E5hy,E 8osencrant& replies, Ethen yo1r a'!ition 'akes it one.E >a'let ha1"htily deflects the acc1sation .E@ ;od + co1ld !e !o1nded in a n1tshell and co1nt 'yself a kin" of infinite spaceE0, !1t the topic of >a'let:s cra'ped kin"ship and 1nf1lfilled, shado,y a'!ition .as ;1ildenstern ,arns, E-he very s1!stance of the a'!itio1s is !1t the shado, of a drea'E0 infiltrates and poll1tes the prince:s lofty disc1rsive space. 3ltho1"h he re"ards the s1!6ect as !eneath hi', as indeed he re"ards 'ost desires as e'anatin" fro' !eneath, >a'let in the folio lets slip a fi*ation on kin"ship in the act of denyin" it. L/ 'ana"es to ca'o1fla"e the fi*ation so'e,hat, !1t not co'pletely. @n learnin" fro' 8osencrant& and ;1ildenstern that the players are a!o1t to arrive, >a'let:s first

,ords are: E>e that playes the 9in" shal !e ,elco'eE .(/0. 2espite .or !eca1se of0 the intr1sions of the t,o f1nctionaries, >a'let defers, for as lon" as he can, his o,n involve'ent in the ne*1s of political and se*1al desire. >e defends a"ainst a ,orld in ,hich se*1ality operates e*tensively ,ithin, on !ehalf of, as a s1!stit1te for, political stren"th. @ne i'portant si"n of >a'let:s deferral co'es in his early, al'ost defiant 1se of the ,ord EelectionE specifically to help artic1late his distance fro' intri"1e and infl1ence: the ,ord en1nciates a p1re love, 1ntainted !y politics. 5e kno, that the royal election, ,hatever for' it took, did not "o >a'let:s ,ay. So it 'ay !e in part a for' of psycholo"ical co'pensation that ca1ses the prince, in tones of caref1lly e'asc1lated passion, to speak love to >oratio, and to tell hi' that the 'ost i'portant election is affective. >3M : Aay, doe not thinke + flatter, (or ,hat ad1ance'ent 'ay + hope fro' thee . . .J Ao, let the candied ton"1e licke a!s1rd po'pe, 3nd crooke the pre"nant hind"es of the knee 5here thrift 'ay follo, fa1nin"= doost tho1 heare, Since 'y deare so1le ,as 'istris of her choice, 3nd co1ld of 'en distin"1ish her election, S:hath seald thee for herselfe. .;GO 0

By descri!in" his so1l:s fac1lty of rational choice in fe'inine ter's, >a'let dissolves a 'asc1linist 8enaissance distinction !et,een anima .fe'., principle of life0 and animus .'asc., principle of intellection and rationality0. 3s ,e sa, in Troilus and Cressida , self?fe'ini&ation has 'any f1nctions for the 'ale Shakespearean speaker= !1t here, self? ) 1/$ ) deni"ration is not a'on" the'. +nstead, >a'let presents his 'istressso1l as fe'ale !1t not as ,eak or v1lnera!le, a pled"e to >oratio in an act of ho'osocial free ,ill.C/9D -his e*pression of love co'plicates "ender identity for t,o p1rposes: it allo,s >a'let to deny se*1ality, and it notari&es his rep1diation of a'!ition. 3 fe'inine identityBadorned ,ith rational, free ,ill !1t 1npoll1ted !y se*1al E,illEBrelieves >a'let fro' the !1rdens of a 'ale, co1rt?constr1cted s1!6ectivity in ,hich intense se*1al and social a'!ition are nor'ative. >e contrasts his love for >oratio ,ith the !eloved:s ina!ility to provide Eadvance'ent,E !1t that ina!ility is the very so1rce of >a'let:s love: political en"a"e'ent is precisely ,hat >a'let is avoidin" !y pli"htin" troth to his friend. -he ,ord EelectionE here, even in the conte*t of a disc1ssion of >a'let:s so1l, carries the har'onics of state 'ore than reli"io1s doctrine. >e contrasts the so1l:s elevated 'arria"e seal ,ith the cr1de se*1al synecdoche of the candied ton"1e lickin" po'p, the pre"nant knee of the flattererBthe slaverin"ly a'!itio1s and !odily opport1nistic. 3t this point in the play, prior to the +onzago scene, >a'let can still freely r1sh into >oratio:s chaste and depolitici&ed affections: E"i1e 'e that 'an -hat is not passions sla1e, and + ,ill ,eare hi' +n 'y harts core, + in 'y hart of hart 3s + do thee.E >oratio is e*plicitly not Ea pype for (ort1nes fin"er -o so1nd ,hat stop she please.E -o !e phallically se*1al is to !e v1lnera!le= >a'let professes a "ratef1l, fe'ini&ed chastity to his friend, for >oratio offers release fro' the po,er?soaked ,orld, the ,orld ,here EelectionE once and al,ays represents a s1ccession 'anip1lated in !ed. B1t >a'let:s attit1des chan"e in the conte*t of +onzago , ,ith his increased pro*i'ity to 'onarchy. Presently, the !r1tality of his intervie, ,ith @phelia .E2oe yo1 thinke + 'eant co1ntry 'attersJ . . . -hat:s a fayre tho1"ht to lye

!et,eene 'aydes le"sE C>+D0 and the p1trid invective he after,ard h1rls at his 'other .EAay !1t to li1e in the rank s,eat of an ensea'ed !ed . . .E0 1nderline his s1llied descent fro' 'atters of the so1l to those of the "roinB,here he and the play locate vortices of political force. -error of the erotic acco'panies and also encodes a fear of the political and, as s1ch, con61res s1ccession an*ietyB>a'let:s and the play:s. L1een Eli&a!eth:s chastity c1lt, despite its ideolo"ical dissonances at the end of her rei"n, provided one kind of co'fort, the little !oy:s safety of not havin" to i'a"ine his 'other .or "rand'other0 as a se*1al !ein". B1t the fact of chastity also proved dist1r!in" in that it 'eant the lack of an heir, ,hich no ideolo"ical or icono"raphical 'anip1lation co1ld 'ake "ood. >a'let never en6oys psychic ease a!o1t either his <1een ) 1/1 ) 'other:s se*1ality or s1ccession politics in 2en'ark= ;ertr1de:s erotic life not only fails to prod1ce an 1ne<1ivocal s1ccession !1t actively '1cks thin"s 1p. -he play is in this ,ay a ,orst?case historical scenario, a tra"ic psychosis of the political 1nconscio1s in ,hich an*ieties a!o1t se* and politics constantly chafe one another. 5hat if there ere a ri"htf1l s1ccessor and he co1ld not, so to speak, "et inJ >a'let co'es to e'!race this i'a"inative despair. 71st after his declaration of love to >oratio, the kin" and his train enter, and Cla1di1s asks the prince ho, he fares. 3pparently p1nnin" on the 'eanin" of EfaresE as Eeats,E >a'let ans,ers: EE*cellent yfaith, @f the Ca'elions dish, + eate the ayre, Pro'iscra':d, yo1 cannot feede Capons soE .>G0. -he 'ore i'portant p1n, ho,ever, t1rns on statecraft, not "astrono'y. -he parano'asia of the politically disco1ra"ed reso1nds here: E+ eat the heirE 'eans that >a'let is forced to cons1'e his o,n a'!itions and s1rvive on only an airy pro'ise of !ein" the 'ost i''ediate to the throne. +t also 'eans that ,e ,ill have no 'ore >a'lets, insofar as his dict1' a"ainst ,edlock .E+ say ,e ,ill ha1e no 'o 'arria"eE0 is self?cons1'in", and the s1ccession ,ill not pass lineally thro1"h hi'. 3t this point, he sees hi'self sh1t o1t of, and co'plicito1s in, the predi"ested s1ccession. Ket the prince:s reven"e task ,o1ld, if effective, pres1'a!ly 'ake the 'onarchy availa!le to hi'B!1t >a'let and the second <1arto are e*ceedin"ly rel1ctant to consider this as a s1pportin" 'otive. >a'let as reven"er apparent ,o1ld co'pro'ise the p1rity .if any e*ists0 of the desire for ven"eance, !eca1se it ,o1ld openly ad'it political cravin". +n pointed contrast, 4aertes ret1rns fro' (rance to aven"e his father:s death and directly challen"es Cla1di1s !y leadin" a pop1lar 1prisin". 3s if to 1nderscore the process fro' ,hich >a'let has !een e*cl1ded, 4aertes: royal encroach'ent is fra'ed as an election, al!eit an 1nr1ly one: MESSEA;E8 . . . the ra!!le call hi' 4ord . . . : -he cry choose ,e, 0aertes shall !e 9in", Caps, hands, and ton"1es appla1:d it to the clo1ds, 0aertes shall !e 9in", 0aertes 9in". .41 0 -his e*traordinary report "losses >a'let:s disappoint'ents and political fail1res. +t sho,s that 2en'ark:s political for's are sta!le in all sit1ations, if even the ra!!le and their ro1sers insist on their o,n election of a favored candidate .Echoose ,e, 0aertes E0.C#$D +t is si"nificant that >a'let, tho1"h Elo1ed of the distracted '1ltit1de,E never 'arshals a revolt of this sortByet pres1'a!ly he co1ld, especially as his

) 1// ) ca1se is even 'ore reasona!le, 61st, ,ith 'ore e*tensive ra'ifications than 4aertes:. 5hy doesn1t the prince sta"e an overt ins1rrection to convert reven"e fro' the private to the p1!lic arenaJ -he play as a ,hole s1""ests, as perhaps a vesti"ial recollection of Esse*, that direct challen"es to po,er ,ill fail, ,hich Cla1di1s de'onstrates !y def1sin" 4aertes: pop1lar revolt ,itho1t !reakin" a s,eat. +n any case, open challen"e is for >a'let inconceiva!le, for it ,o1ld place hi' !efore the 'irror of his repressed desires. -hese desires are not necessarily so'ethin" he conscio1sly ,ants and cannot, !eca1se of e*ternal restrictions, o!tain= they are ,hat, !eca1se of these restrictions, he cannot stand to !elieve he 'ay ,ant. >e has lon" shied fro' political life, rel1ctantly re'ainin" at Elsinore after his father:s f1neral, never f1lly pressin" or protestin" for his royal ri"hts. >e en"a"es the co1rt only in o!li<1e, passive?a""ressive disr1ptions, not in o1tri"ht revolt= and he noticea!ly fails for 'ost of the play even to 'ention his considera!le political disappoint'ents, ,hich co1ld serve <1ite nicely as Ee*cyte'ents of 'y reason and 'y !loodE .9#v0Bthat is, as f1rther 'otivations to reven"e, if he ,anted the'. B1t >a'let:s death?infected co''it'ent to retri!1tive '1rder !eco'es increasin"ly diffic1lt to s<1are ,ith any civic i'p1lse or ,ill to office. -he 1nackno,led"ed plot to sec1re political placeBthe s1ccession plotBproves ini'ical to the 1r"ent desire to do E!itter !1sinessE and o!literate 'onarchy, conse<1ences and so1ls !e da'nedBthe reven"e plot. Parado*ically, of co1rse, >a'let:s reven"e is prere<1isite to his o,n s1ccession. B1t the ,ild i'p1lse and capacity for reven"e and the orderly ,ish and capa!ility to r1le conf1te one another. 4ike ne"ative and positive inte"ers, they define '1t1ally e*cl1sive "ro1nds. (1rther co'plicatin" this practical and ideolo"ical conflict is the paradra'atic level of disco1rseBthat is, the historical conte*t of the ,ork. -he play as a ,hole and >a'let in partic1lar skittishly en"a"e a co'plicated desire that they can neither f1lly confront nor co'forta!ly resolve: the desire, perhaps a"ain translated fro' the Esse* revolt, to contest and control 'onarchy, to 'aster the space ,here a1thority residesB!1t not to occ1py that space. +nstead, contestation and control lead >a'let to 'i'ic the historical effects of that anti'onarch, the !1!onic pla"1e: he ,ill prevent the ne, kin":s peace and pleas1re. >e is like 4ear:s (ool in this sense: a reverse clo,n. >is 1r"e to interr1pt a1thority:s revels is a defective oedipal i'p1lse. >e seeks 'ainly to sty'ie the rei"nin" force, not to sei&e it. >a'let:s conflict1al 1r"es to,ard and a,ay fro' kin"ship constit1te ) 1/# ) one of the play:s 'any insol1!le contradictions. -he te*t s1stains an i'pressively steady inconsistency in its attit1de to,ard >a'let:s possi!le s1ccession. -his ,afflin" 'ay have to do ,ith dra'atic necessity as '1ch as ideolo"ical or historical conflict: if Cla1di1s:s election ,ere portrayed as overtly ille"al, or >a'let:s desire for r1le sho,ed too stron", the prince ,o1ld have 'arkedly less reason not to co''it e*peditio1s reven"e. Still, after >a'let:s ret1rn fro' his perilo1s sea voya"e, after his "hastly fi"ht in @phelia:s "rave and e*citin" narrative to >oratio a!o1t the plots he has overco'e, the play see's ready to endorse the hitherto i'possi!le d1al ideal of >a'let:s readiness to take reven"e and to rei"n. B1t re'arka!ly, the te*t tr1'ps the s1ccession <1estion one final ti'e. >a'let:s EreadinessE !eco'es a synony' for the anticipation of death, not for the !elated a!ility to achieve reven"e and royalty all at once: Ethere is speciall pro1idence in the fall of a Sparro,e. . . if it !e not no,, yet it ,ell co'e, the readines is allE .A#O0. >o, did the reven"e and s1ccession <1estions "et divertedJ 4et 'e <1ote a"ain >a'let:s tally of Cla1di1s:s cri'es:

>3M 2ooes it not thinke thee stand 'e no, vpponJ : >e that hath kild 'y 9in", and ,hor:d 'y 'other, Pop:t in !et,eene th:election and 'y hopes, -hro,ne o1t his 3n"le for 'y proper life, 3nd ,ith s1ch c1sna"e, i:st not perfect conscienceJ .A/ 0 >a'let asks >oratio t,o <1estions that the te*t of the second <1arto only half?co'pletes. -he rhetorical i''ediacy of the <1eries o!sc1res the fact that they are !oth 'issin" the cr1cial referent, and that !oth are therefore "ra''atically incoherent. 2oes >oratio not think hat EstandCsD 'ee no, vpponEJ +s hat not perfect conscienceJ -he referent of !oth <1estionsBE-o <1it hi' ,ith this ar'EB is 'issin" in L/, and '1st .a"ain0 !e s1pplied !y the folio. >a'let asks >oratio: don:t yo1 think + a' 61stified, indeed, is it not perfect conscience, to re<1ite Cla1di1s for the har's he has doneBto kill hi'J -he folio does ,hat the <1arto cannot: it directly confronts the possi!ility of >a'let as a 61stified re"icide, a political reven"er. -he <1arto see's racked !y an*iety a!o1t the prospect of >a'let:s a'!ition and s1ccession. 4et 1s recall in this conte*t that L/ also fails to incl1de .,hether !eca1se of revision, ne"li"ence, or censorship0 the passa"e a!o1t the child actors and the 5ars of the -heaters. +n ,ishin" to kno, ho, the Elittle eyasesE thrive, >a'let in the folio asks incred1lo1sly ,hether the children ,ill ) 1/G ) not, once they have "ro,n into Eco''on players,E have already !een 'ade !y their ,riters to Ee*clai' a"ainst their o,n s1ccession.E >a'let:s <1estion !etrays his identification ,ith their pli"ht. -heatrically occ1pyin" a contestatory space, the prince see's al,ays to have to e*clai' a"ainst the s1ccession ,hich is his d1e= he lives the irreconcila!le contradiction of reven"er and candidate, caro'in" !et,een childish i'p1lses and ad1lt responsi!ilities. >e is not 1nlike 9in" 7a'es in this, an heir pres1'ptive ,ho had, as !est he co1ld, to re'ain silent a!o1t .if not to e*clai' a"ainst0 his o,n s1ccession. L1estions of political inheritance or conse<1ence ca1se the second <1arto to s1ffer !o1ts of a'nesia or incoherence. + ,ant to insist on these dysf1nctions as si"nificant: they are te*t1al arro,s ai'ed at the historical !lank of failed or perple*edBdiseasedBs1ccession. 71st at the 'o'ent in L/ ,hen >a'let:s reven"e see's 'ost i''inent, 'ost replete ,ith reasons and e'otions, it is edited o1t, 1nstated and i'preciseBand at 61st that 'o'ent, as if to f1rther dis!1rden the play of its i'p1lses and 61stifications for kin" killin", @sric enters ,ith 4aertes: s,ordfi"ht challen"e. 3n e*ceedin"ly odd plot contortion then occ1rs: after finally speakin" his clear desire for kin"ship .Eth:election and 'y hopesE0, after hintin" that his conscience ,o1ld !e not only 1ntro1!led !1t satisfied !y takin" ar's a"ainst a sea of c1lt1ral i'peratives, >a'let s1ddenly for"ets, or allo,s hi'self to !e diverted fro', his o,n intense e'otions. >e a!dicates his ne,ly foc1sed desires at the prospect of the s,ord fi"ht ,ith 4aertes. 5hen >a'let see's ready to prosec1te his ri"ht to the throne !y takin" the lon"?pondered reven"e, the play introd1ces one 'ore distraction fro' the p1rposeBthe final, 'ortal distraction.C#1D -he second <1arto:s conspicuous avoidance of the s1ccession <1estion shado,s si'ilar, conte'porary historical indirections. (or 7a'es:s lon" inc1'!ency also had to navi"ate c1lt1ral reticenceBthe silence of interested co1rtiers, the Eli&a!ethan Parlia'ent:s s1ppression of de!ate on the <1estion .1F$/0. 3nd as the play closes to,ard death and a ne, re"i'e, its relationship to its c1lt1ral conte*ts

!eco'es at once 'ore inti'ate and 'ore t1r!1lent.

III
Unlike the histories in ,hich it partakes, Hamlet see's present to 1s in f1llB'ore than f1ll, in fact, for three ,hole and separate versions .L1, L/, (0 e*ist. B1t in toto these versions intolera!ly co'plicate the <1es? ) 1/5 ) tion of history:s f1nctional interpreta!ility in literary prod1ction. Hamlet :s variants are a visi!le if aphasic report of 1ntold other drafts, accidents, infl1ences, choices, replete ,ith 'eanin" across their ran"e of "aps, consistencies, and contradictions. 2espite the o!vio1s vol1!ility of the idea of Hamlet , the three diver"ent te*t1al 'anifestations of the play i'pair clai's to co'pleteness that any one of the' 'i"ht ordinarily 'ake. Each te*t is fra"'entary !y reason of the others: presence: none can !e the a1thoritative Hamlet . -o try to deter'ine historical operations in a collated version of the play presents an ins1pera!le challen"e !eca1se of the "rossly indeter'inate chronolo"y that s1ch a version introd1ces= o1r only chance at 'akin" s1ch deter'inations rests in analy&in" one of the variantsBin this case, the second <1artoB,hose historical indicators are clearly 'arked and, at ti'es, 61st as clearly erased. -he te*t1al con1ndr1' of Hamlet prod1ces all sorts of 'ethodolo"ical and interpretive pitfalls, !1t even 'ore ve*in" is the vi"oro1s, '1ltifor', and refractory presence of the past in the dra'a. By ,ay of introd1cin" another sta"e in 'y ar"1'ent a!o1t the possi!le operations of history in Shakespearean te*ts, + !e"in ,ith this caveat: not only is ,hat ,e call Hamlet an 1nsta!le o!6ect of in<1iry in itself, !1t its reservoir of historical referentiality overflo,s, floodin" se'antic contain'ent. +n an atte'pt to deli'it so'e of the si"nifyin" possi!ilities of history:s operation in the te*t, + ret1rn to the distant past: specifically, to one possi!le prehistory of the Hamlets . >o,ever, this prehistory is itself rippled ,ith conf1sion, secrets, propa"anda, and scandal. + cannot then 1se it as an interpretive te'plate so '1ch as a co'panion e*a'pleBa 'arvelo1s analo"1e and potential so1rce of the dra'atic te*ts ,hich + think it helped for'. + shall inter6ect historio"raphy here to help <1alify L/ Hamlet :s strained attit1des to,ard c1lt1ral s1persessionBto offer an acco1nt of that te*t:s nervo1sness a!o1t its o,n s1ccession plot. + ,ish no, to rehearse the tale of 7a'es:s first ascent to the throne, the throne of Scotland, circa 15FF. -he events of this period esta!lish, on one level, the fo1ndation for that !rief 'o'ent of genera mista , the "lorio1s and tra"ic arrival at kin"ship s1ffered !y 7a'es and the En"lish nation in the sprin" of 1F$#. @n another, o!vio1sly related level, the tale prepares Hamlet :s 'ost !asic theatrical interests Bits plot for'ation and its character set. -o feed early 7aco!ean history into the 'achinery of a Hamlet readin" 'i"ht see' a risky enterprise. Even local analyses, + ,o1ld s1""est, can s1ffer fro' ten1o1s connectedness: historical analo"1es to literat1re ) 1/F ) too often see' at !est s1""estive, at ,orst deceptive or i''aterial= 'ost often, resonant !1t coincidental. So an interpretation of a ,ork "ro1nded on a conte*t so'e fo1r decades distant and a national !order re'oved dan"les si'1ltaneo1sly on t,o frayed ropes: if one sho1ld snap, the other ,ill !e likelier to detach !eca1se of the added do,n,ard force. Aonetheless, Hamlet itself the'ati&es the infectio1s infl1ence of '1ch earlier events= + can th1s ali"n 'y central interpretive "est1re here ,ith

the te*t:s o,n pre'ises. 71st as the si"nificance of a present 'o'ent in an individ1al:s life can arc !ack to an event or idea several decades prior to that 'o'entBs1ch as a psycholo"ical tra1'a that leaves a per'anent resid1e in s1!se<1ent affect and relationsBso too can ,e find the si"nificant antecedents of a c1lt1re:s present practices and an*ieties in its o,n preadolescence or even nativity. 3 te*t:s 'ost pressin" concerns, too, can !e traced !ack to a ti'e that it .or its a1thor, or its c1lt1re0 can hardly recall. -he notion of a "hostly, virt1ally 1nre'e'!ered past that 6ostles the present ti'e takes center sta"e in Hamlet :s .and >a'let:s0 constr1ctions of 'eanin". -he topic of political s1ccession like,ise carries ,ithin it theoretical and 'ethodolo"ical appropriateness a!o1t the 'aterial relevance of the past to the present. >o, do ,e decide ,here the history of a c1rrent 'o'ent 'eanin"f1lly !e"insJ Since clai's to the throne typically e*tend !ack 'any "enerations, le"iti'acy itself is often an interpretive fiction in ,hich significant ancestry is deter'ined fro' political e*pediency= 'onarchs, like 'eanin"s, are 'ade and not !orn. -he principle of 'onarchical selection can see' nearly as ar!itrary, and certainly as fra1"ht, as that of interpretive choice a'on" a field of contendin" and contradictory data. >ere + shall reread 7a'es:s first perilo1s transit into po,er, a horrifyin" 'ove'ent into s1ccession that reappears as one "ro1p of essential conte*ts for 2en'ark:s political scene. -he tale in !rief: Mary L1een of Scots 'arried her co1sin, the yo1n" >enry St1art, 4ord 2arnley, in 71ly 15F5. 2escri!ed !y the historian 7. E. Aeale as arro"ant, ine!riated, vicio1s and despica!le, 2arnley in ti'e ,as re"arded even less hi"hly than that !y Mary.C#/D 3ltho1"h she soon !eca'e pre"nant, the <1een <1ickly "re, estran"ed fro' her dissol1te h1s!and, and she Ea!sol1tely ref1sed to "rant hi' the Cro,n Matri'onial ,hich ,o1ld have 'ade hi' 9in" of Scotland for his lifeti'e as ,ell as hersE= indeed, the 1n!orn child 'eant, for 2arnley, per'anent e*cl1sion fro' s1ccession Eto !oth the cro,ns he covetedE .McEl,ee, 3isest 'ool , /$0. 2arnley so1"ht to rectify this sit1ation ,ith the aid of lords ,ho had ) 1/I ) lon" opposed Mary. >e helped hatch a plot to kill the <1een:s (rench secretary, 2avid 8i&&io, ,ith ,ho' she had alle"edly !eco'e inti'ate= the '1rder ,as to !e perfor'ed at dinner in the presence of the <1een, then si* 'onths pre"nant. -he plot:s pri'ary ai' ,as to force a 'iscarria"e, !1t so'e of the re!el lords, incl1din" 2arnley, pro!a!ly 'eant to dispatch the <1een as ,ell in the ens1in" conf1sion. 3ltho1"h the 1nfort1nate 8i&&io ,as !1tchered, Mary and her 1n!orn child 'ana"ed to escape the !loody fray, escorted thro1"h the havoc !y the earl of >1ntly and 7a'es >ep!1rn, fo1rth earl of Both,ell. .-he prince ,as !orn in relative peace and safety three 'onths later, on 71ne 19, 15FF.0 7a'es:s father co1ld not even re'ain tr1e to his co?conspirators in the 8i&&io plot= he atte'pted to !etray the' to Mary after she s1rvived the episode, !1t they co1ntered !y revealin" his ,ritten co'plicity in the '1rder, after ,hich point she co1ld not, 1nderstanda!ly eno1"h, for"ive hi', ,hether !eca1se of his ini<1ity or his st1pidity. (ollo,in" recovery fro' child!irth and the co1p atte'pt, Mary reconsolidated her po,er and s1perficially reconciled ,ith her h1s!and. B1t she soon t1rned her affections to,ard her savior, Both,ellBan a'!itio1s, !old no!le ,ho desired that cro,n 'atri'onial ,hich el1ded 2arnley. Both,ell kne, that 2arnley represented a contin1in" dan"er and o!stacle, and had to !e re'oved= the earl did not hesitate lon", and Mary apparently did not disdain to help hi'. (or several 'onths after 7a'es:s !irth, forei"n reports circ1lated of 2arnley:s rene,ed plots= the 'ost alar'in" involved kidnappin" the infant prince and 1sin" hi' as a !ar"ainin" chip for privile"e and favor. Mean,hile, Both,ell and possi!ly Mary advanced plots of their o,n. -he <1een !ro1"ht 2arnleyBno, !adly disfi"1red and rec1peratin" fro' a !o1t of s'allpo*Bto a ho1se in Edin!1r"h,

the !ase'ent of ,hich had !een packed ,ith !arrels of "1npo,der in anticipation of the royal h1s!and:s stay there. Mary visited hi' on the evenin" of (e!r1ary 9, 15FI, and left aro1nd 'idni"ht. -,o ho1rs later, the ho1se e*ploded. >enry St1art, 4ord 2arnley, E,as fo1nd naked in the "arden, 1n'arked !y po,derE .McEl,ee, 3isest 'ool , /F0= there ,as spec1lation that he had !een stran"led after the e*plosion failed to finish hi' off, !1t no one kno,s e*actly ho, he died or even the f1ll e*tent of Mary:s co'plicity in his death. Both,ell ca'e 1nder i''ediate s1spicion for the cri'e. -he <1een:s s1!se<1ent actions did not allay the nation:s do1!ts a!o1t her role in the incident: after a scandalo1sly short 'o1rnin" period, and in the teeth of her in?la,s: cries for reven"e a"ainst the ,idely s1spected Both,ell, she 'arried the earl on May 1/. 2avid >ar? ) 1/% ) ris 5illson notes that thro1"h this alliance EMary not only a!andoned 7a'es !1t placed his life in dire peril. Both,ell so1"ht at once to "ain possession of the Prince, and Mary ,as ready to yieldE .<ing 7ames , 1%0. -he Protestant no!ility, Etho1"h they had all !een i'plicated 'ore or less in Both,ell:s !and a"ainst 2arnley . . . had the !ra&en effrontery to 'arch o1t 1nder a !anner depictin" his naked !ody cryin" for reven"eE .McEl,ee, 3isest 'ool , /90. -heir concern ,as as '1ch to preserve 7a'es as to p1nish the 1s1rpin" lord= the child, they feared, ,o1ld !e 6eopardi&ed !y his stepfather:s desire for the cro,n and fear of inevita!le reven"e. 5orse ca'e to ,orst, and facin" nearly 1nani'o1s opposition, Mary ,as forced to s1rrender to the Scottish lords. She ,as l1cky .'ay!e not the !est ,ord for it0 to s1rvive= Edin!1r"h 'o!s !listered her ,ith invective, callin" her ,hore and ad1lteress. By the end of 71ly, she ,as 'ade to a!dicate the throne to the infant 7a'es, and a protectorate ,as installed. 5ithin a year of the assassination 2arnley:s parents, the earl and co1ntess of 4enno*, co''issioned a 'e'orial paintin" ,hich presents a co'pellin"ly slanted version of the death of 7a'es:s father. 2arnley appears as a 'artyr .1n'arked !y s'allpo*0 in the ,ork, ,hich depicts a'on" other thin"s a pla<1e that reads: E+f they, ,ho are already old, ,o1ld !e deprived of this life !efore the 'a6ority of their descendent, the 9in" of Scots, he 'ay have a 'e'orial fro' the' in order that he sh1t not o1t of his 'e'ory the recent atrocio1s '1rder of the 9in" his father, 1ntil ;od sho1ld aven"e it thro1"h hi'.EC##D -he 2arnley episode, fro' one perspective, is this: a tale a!o1t the '1rder of the pocky, disfi"1red father !y the stepfatherBa tale ine*trica!ly !o1nd ,ith the <1een 'other:s dis"race, c1l'inatin" in the son:s conscription to reven"e. -his history so thoro1"hly anticipates Hamlet :s central storyline that ,e 'ay !e s1re that the play eyes, even stares strai"ht at, 7a'es. B1t the an"le of vision, as al,ays, is so'e,hat !ent. >enry St1art:s death and the clarion call to re'e'!er and aven"e it occ1rred in 7a'es:s infancy, ,hen the events co1ld not have i'printed the'selves directly on the prince:s conscio1sness. >a'let, !y contrast, arrives at sentience in the play virt1ally as a result of 'o1rnin" his father and ponderin" the in61nction to aven"e hi'. -he dead kin" is, for the first fe, acts of the play, ever present to >a'let:s 'ind .EMy father, 'e thinkes + see 'y father,E he says even !efore the ;host appears to hi'0, clai'in" an i''ediacy that 2arnley co1ld not have had for the infant 7a'es. >a'let:s self? conscio1sness, and ,hat + have called his kno,led"e, see' declined al'ost entirely fro' infor'ation a!o1t his na'esake:s disfi"1ration and de'ise, L1een ;ertr1de:s Ead1ltery,E and ) 1/9 ) Cla1di1s:s a'!itio1s l1st, all of ,hich 'ake .as >a'let thinks0 a ,reck of the nation. 2espite these alterations, Hamlet 1ncannily re'e'!ers the fa'ily violence and scandal that p1nct1ated 7a'es:s infant accession.C#GD By res1rrectin" ni"ht'arish events fro' the ne, kin":s early life, the

dra'a dra,s heavily on the 'aterial presence of history and on the <1estion of 'e'orial press1re 1pon the present. 71st as the 4enno* fa'ily 'ade s1re to esta!lish Ea 'e'orial . . . in order that C7a'esD sh1t not o1t of his 'e'ory the recent atrocio1s '1rder of the 9in" his father,E so the ;host repeatedly e*presses its concern that >a'let recall ,hat he has heard= !1t >a'let, like 7a'es, cannot <1ite re'e'!er. -he pro!le' is that 'e'ory, like history, proves infinitely corr1pti!le fro' ,ithin or ,itho1tBs1!6ect to narrative conta'ination, ideolo"ical ,hite,ash, psycholo"ical evasion, ,ish f1lfill'ent, and any n1'!er of other interpretive and percept1al defor'ations. +ndeed, the 2arnley paintin" sho,s 61st this tendency thro1"h its si'ple act of callin" 7a'es:s father E9in"E .Ethe 9in" his fatherE0, ,hich he patently ,as not. 2arnley, son of >enry O++:s "randda1"hter Mar"aret 2o1"las, act1ally had a le"iti'ate if o!li<1e clai' to the En"lish cro,n, !1t he ,as called E9in" >enryE d1rin" his lifeti'e only as an honorific title= his po,er in Scotland depended on Mary, and never ,as he a cro,ned or proclai'ed 'onarch.C#5D -he 2arnley 'e'orial also, 'ore 'anip1latively, depicts >enry St1art:s 'artyrdo' ,hile .of co1rse0 e*cisin" all of his considera!le d1plicity and "reed. Poll1tions of 'e'ory ,ith respect to eventsBfictional choices, fact1al e*cl1sionsBnicely analo"i&e the relationship of the literary to the historical. 3rt reasse'!les c1lt1ral tra1'a and historical cr1*= the very an*iety of the 'o'ent press1res, interr1pts, and distends the representation. 7a'es:s 1nre'e'!ered past provides, then, a constit1tive history for the play= central events of the 'onarch:s life are reani'ated as fo1ndational plot ele'ents in Shakespeare:s 2en'ark. 3t or near the point of 7a'es:s f1ll political 'at1rationBhis ascent to En"land:s throneBHamlet appears, and ind1ces a dra'at1r"ic re!irth of his infant tra1'a. -he play th1s participates bifocall# in history. +t 'er"es t,o sta"es of the kin":s life story, each of ,hich is occ1pied, in a radically different ,ay, ,ith i''ense s1ccession an*iety: the past horror of 2arnley:s '1rder and Mary:s dis"race= and the conte'porary crisis of 7a'es:s !locked ascent to the throne. 5hat f1rther co'plicates the play:s inscriprive processes is that the present s1ccession crisis, circa 1F$#, can !y no 'eans !e re"arded as a 'onad, a 1nity= it too separates into t,o ) 1#$ ) sta"es, !efore and after Eli&a!eth:s death. -he <1een:s s1stained prevention of 7a'es:s kin"ship .thro1"h lon"evity and her 1nyieldin" ref1sal to na'e a s1ccessor0 and the epide'ic disease that scotched 7a'es:s happy entry into kin"ship are !oth, + !elieve, inscri!ed in Hamlet . Both disease and fe'ale po,er are reconfi"1red as !arriers to .>a'let:s, 7a'es:s0 s1ccession in the second <1arto of 1F$G.C#FD >a'let:s intense political and se*1al an"st a!o1t ;ertr1de, as ,ell as the theatrical efflorescence of conta"ion i'a"ery, all1de to s1ccession histories. 7a'es:s see'in"ly inter'ina!le displace'ent fro' En"land:s throne th1s finds a correlate in the dra'a:s o!sessions ,ith history:s ret1rns: the te*t deploys a prior story a!o1t the ne, kin":s infant accession at the historical moment of his 'at1re, fr1strated, and lon"?delayed ass1'ption of r1le. 5hat point does s1ch a divided inscription 'akeJ +t 'ay have an 1nconscio1s ideolo"ical f1nction, alleviatin" a certain press1re fro' the 'onarchyBand fro' the patriarchy. 7a'es cannot, the play s1""ests at a slant, !e held acco1nta!le for his o,n s1ccession ,oes. 2espite the e*traordinary coincidence of the arrival of a ne, re"i'e ,ith a !r1tal onsla1"ht of pla"1e, the ne, kin" cannot reasona!ly !e char"ed ,ith !rin"in" on the epide'ic any 'ore than he, as a ne,ly cro,ned toddler, co1ld have !een !la'ed for the co''otion of Scottish politics in 15FI. -he str1ct1ral presence of conta"ion in the play s1""ests that individ1al an"1ish is conti"1o1s ,ith national pain in the life of royalty: ail'ents cease to !eco'e individ1al property, and parado*ically lose their da'nin", their particular taint. Hamlet e'phasi&es that one 'an:s infections can co'e to corr1pt national health. 5hile + have !la'ed >a'let for this corr1ption, in that he disperses a '1tated for' of ,hat he a!sor!s

fro' the father, there is another sense in ,hich he is thro,n into a history ,hose conditions are 'ost profo1ndly not of his o,n choosin". >e is infected 1na,ares, and altho1"h he a'plifies and e*acer!ates the illness, he cannot !e held f1lly acco1nta!le for it. -he play, that is, tries on one level to li!erate the royal s1!6ect fro' the !1rden of personal responsi!ility in history. Hamlet :s recollection of the n1clear fa'ily ni"ht'are that 1shered 7a'es into pre'at1re kin"ship .and Mary into captivity0 s1""ests the considera!le e*tent to ,hich the 'onarch is a s1!6ect, i'periled !y 1ncontrolla!le, e*ternal forces. -he partic1lar s1!61"atin" forces take considera!ly different for' in the theater than in history. Aote, for e*a'ple, that 7a'es:s !iolo"ical father plotted heino1sly a"ainst his 'other .and pro!a!ly a"ainst the infant kin" hi'self0 to sei&e royal po,er. B1t Shakespeare:s plot inscri!es history to redee'Bat least on the s1rfaceBthe 'ale ancestor. ) 1#1 ) (re<1ently, especially in the second <1arto, this rede'ption occ1rs at the e*pense of the <1een= and, of co1rse, it operates ,holly in opposition to the 1s1rpin" stepfather. +n one readin" of the play:s e'ploy'ent of its conte*ts, then, Hamlet is a screen 'e'ory, a fantasy prod1ced on !ehalf of the ne, 'onarch to occl1de !oth an intolera!le present social reality and an e<1ally stressf1l personal history. C#IDHamlet s1!'er"es pla"1e into interpersonal str1ct1re, and it translates St1art de!a1chery .2arnley:s ,ickedness0 into fatherly 'artyrdo'. -he play s1''ons so as to transfor' and partly inter an historical tra1'a of ,hat a'o1nts to child a!1se: not a se*1al e*ploitation !1t a political one. -1r!1lent early events effectively foreclosed 7a'es:s a"ency in his o,n political fort1nes ,hile placin" on hi' a d1al !1rden he co1ld not, in his infancy, have 1nderstood: kin"ship and reven"e. Hamlet also, on the ideolo"ical plane, sets 1p a c1lt1ral screen on !ehalf of a repro!ate !1t legitimate patriarchy. -he te*t 'akes ins1!stantial or "hostly the father:s historical c1lpa!ilityB2arnley:s despica!le characterB and displaces it onto the illicit 'ale, the stepfather, no, ,ritten as a 61stifia!ly reviled !rother and patriarchal interloper. B1t Hamlet is far fro' !ein" an apolo"y for a s1llied history .7a'es:s0 or a co'pro'ised ideolo"ical str1ct1re .patriarchy0. +ndeed, the dra'a al'ost o!sessively replays the depredations of fathers 1pon fa'ilies= the hero:s active hostility to,ard the father constantly 'akes itself felt: in the Pyrrh1s tale, in >a'let:s !ehavior to,ard Poloni1s, in his daft ra"e at Cla1di1s. @n one level, the play e*c1lpates dissol1te fatherhood and reverses historical, parental c1lpa!ility: the villainy of the .le"iti'ate0 father is o!sc1red and 1r"ently transferred onto the ,icked stepfather= and the !la'e attached to the 'other in history is never, in the second <1arto, relin<1ished. B1t the te*t also refuses to prettifyBindeed, + !elieve it hi"hli"htsBthe father:s 'onstrosity. +t also in t1rn pro!le'ati&es the stepfather:s s1pposed rascality. 3lon" these lines, ,e sho1ld recall that the 4ord 2arnley?Mary St1art 'arria"e ,as a 1nion of co1sins, !oth "randchildren of >enry O++= if this is not incest1o1s, it is at least hi"hly endo"a'o1s. -he 7aco!ean line ,as fo1nded on pree*istent fa'ily ties. >ere l1rks a s1! rosa Shakespearean irony of reversed identification: Cla1di1s:s s1pposedly terri!le act of Eincest1o1sE ad1ltery recalls the original 'arria"e !et,een 7a'es:s father and the <1een and 'ay represent a kind of "enetic, inscriptive 'e'ory in ,hich the alle"ed villain 'oves instinctively to,ard historical le"iti'acy. 5hen Cla1di1s refers to his nephe, as E'y Cosin Hamlet , and 'y sonneE .BGv0, he speaks ,hat are properly 2arnley:s ,ords, not ) 1#/ ) Both,ell:s. Hamlet ,orks as a valve to release the press1res of dis"racef1l, e'!arrassin" historical

realityB7a'es:s ver'ino1s, 1nkin"ly father and reckless 'otherB!1t the valve clo"s ,ith the co'ple*ities of that reality. -he conta'inations of conte*t cannot !e p1r"ed. 3 te*t ill1'inates its historical correlates 'ost ,hen it diver"es fro' and only inter'ittently overlaps ,ith the', revealin" difference rather than sa'eness= perfect parallels can 'eas1re only a level se'antic space !et,een lines that never to1ch. +ntersections, tho1"h, prod1ce positions and orientations. 3nother co'pellin" !1t scre,y parallel in the 7a'es?>a'let ne*1s is a reversal of po,er and "ender cond1cted in the 'ove'ent fro' history to theater. +f ,e accept that 9in" 7a'es occ1pied a s1!6ect position closely !1t pro!le'atically replicated !y >a'let:s, and that the kin" inherited a !1ried history in his infancy that >a'let '1st conscio1sly live thro1"h, ,e cannot fail to note that the location of 'onarchical po,er shifts dra'atically fro' historical past to theatrical present. +n the years prior to 9in" 7a'es:s !irth, L1een Mary e'!odied the reco"ni&ed, dynastic po,er of Scotland. Ket in Shakespeare:s 2en'ark, >a'let the Elder is every inch the kin"Band ;ertr1de see's not to have '1ch to do ,ith any of the practicalities of r1le. -he play does hint, as + have proposed, that Cla1di1s o,es his cro,n to his speedy 'arria"e to ;ertr1de. -h1s se*1ally, and only th1s, co1ld he have Epop:t inE !et,een the election and >a'let:s hopes= so the second kin":s privile"e 'ay derive fro' a ,o'an, even as 2arnley:s did, and 61st as 7a'es:s 'onarchical privile"e flo,ed fro' Eli&a!eth:s alle"ed death!ed procla'ation. B1t the <1een in L/ Hamlet re'ains passive and po,erless. ;ertr1de does not f1nction politically '1ch like either Mary or, to !e s1re, Eli&a!eth, her possi!le historical antecedents. +nstead, her rese'!lance to Mary is erotic, not political. -his inscriptive alteration affects the play:s other representations of the past. (or in the ,ake of Shakespeare:s eras1re of historical fe'ale po,er and prero"ative, in the portrayal of a <1een ,ho is the o!livio1s pri&e of violent 'ale contention rather than the en"ineer of or participant in it, the play allo,s for the possi!ility of considera!le 'oral differences !et,een the 'en ,ho vie for herB!et,een the prior .s1pposedly e*alted0 h1s!and and the s1!se<1ent .alle"edly de!ased0 c1tp1rse of the real'. B1t Mary:s active hostility to 2arnley, and her s1!se<1ent lea"1e ,ith Both,ell, point to an i''ense rift in the royal 'arria"e and re'ind 1s of 2arnley:s 1ndeserved stat1s as 'artyr. -he historical record s1""ests that >enry St1art ,as a victi' not only of the 1s1rpin" villain !1t 'ore centrally of his o,n plots and 1nsteady alliances. Ket in repeatedly re? ) 1## ) callin" the silent scandal of the <1een:s re'arria"e to a '1rdererBthat is, a scandal a!o1t ,hich only the son speaks and a"ainst ,hich the 'other is po,erless to defend herselfBHamlet eli'inates all trace of fe'ale choice . >istorically, this choice of h1s!ands ,as in Mary:s case fo1nded on the h1"e characterolo"ical deficiencies of 7a'es:s !iolo"ical father. -he play s1ppresses the 'other:s potency and ,ill so that it 'ay salva"e the father:s virt1e. Even tho1"h the ,orst feat1res of 4ord 2arnley are res1scitated theatrically in Cla1di1s, the stepfather, not in the i'a"e of the !iolo"ical father ,here they !elon"= even tho1"h the play th1s historically de'oni&es Both,ell thro1"h analo"y as a dr1nken lecher ,ho '1rders a ri"hteo1s and le"iti'ate kin"= even if Both,ell ,as so'ethin" of a 'ilitary hero and apparently cared far 'ore for Mary than 2arnley didBdespite all of these translated character for'ations, neither the play nor >a'let can f1lly prevent the seepa"e of contrary, s1ppressed si"nals fro' the past. 3s the f1rio1s, 1"ly, and profo1ndly 1nclear recitation of the ;host s1""ests, the victi'i&ed father cannot play the 'artyr or even the no!le father role ,itho1t "reat strain. 3nd ,hile the ;host, like the second <1arto te*t as a ,hole, actively participates in the 'yth of the <1een:s c1lpa!le passivity, this fiction cannot convincin"ly a1thori&e all of >a'let:s antife'inis'. -hat is, Shakespeare:s evac1ation of fe'ale a"ency does not entirely t1rn !ack the onsla1"ht of historical indicators= >a'let hi'self '1st repeatedly !lock o1t the stron"

possi!ility that ;ertr1de, too, has 'ade a choice , one ,hich threatens to da'a"e the pristine stat1s of his s1ddenly anony'o1s father. E5hat i1d"e'ent,E he asks his 'other rhetorically ,hile co'parin" pict1res of 9in" >a'let and Cla1di1s, E5o1ld step fro' this to thisJE .7#0. ;1ilt slides: the <1een '1st have inertl# ena!led the stepfather:s ini<1ity and a""ression, '1st not have 1sed Ei1d"e'ent.E >a'let at this 'o'ent can only 'iso"ynistically interpret the possi!ility of his 'other:s choice as the prod1ct of passive fe'ale del1sion, not l1st or Elo1e, for at yo1r a"e -he heyday in the !lood is ta'eE .7#0. Ket the referential a'!i"1ity of Ethis to thisE 1nderlines precisely the levelin" of difference !et,een father and stepfather that the prince cannot stand to ad'it 'ay 61stify his 'other:s !ehavior. +f there is not a "reat distance !et,een EthisE and EthisEBnot even so "reat as !et,een EthisE and EthatEBthe possi!ility arises that ;ertr1de:s re'arria"e and her fail1re to 'o1rn >a'let:s father are not perverse !1t rather rational . -he f1rther, all !1t 1nspeaka!le possi!ility is that the ,ron" EthisE 'ay act1ally !e prefera!le. +ndeed, for the 4enno* clan, the !1lky e'!arrass'ent of Mary:s choice ) 1#G ) a'o1nts to an eras1re of 2arnley and necessitates the 'e'orial paintin", in ,hich the <1een is, 1ns1rprisin"ly, not represented. B1t Hamlet conta'inates, even as it reconfi"1res, the historical and fictional father:s 'e'orial: the s1ppressed history of 7a'es:s vile sire has a defiant presence in the play. @n one level, the <1een:s lack of volition 'ay !e seen to e*c1se retroactively so'e of Mary:s darker deeds. Ulti'ately, ho,ever, the off?kilter parallel !et,een 2arnley and the elder >a'let s1!'er"es the historical trace of L1een Mary:s 'onarchical stren"th and pleas1re, and instead catap1lts into 'e'orial pro'inence only the se*1al scandal of her inade<1ate 'o1rnin" and spri"htly re'arria"e. >a'let, after s,earin" to re'e'!er the ;host:s co''and'ent, e*clai's, E@ 'ost pernicio1s ,o'an,E a "ood "a1"e of ho, perceived passivity e*c1ses ,o'en fro' 'ale 61d"'ent. -he play:s evocation of 7a'es:s history vapori&es the i'a"e of Mary L1een of Scots as a potent soverei"n and instead only a1"'ents her fa'e as the ad1lteress of the real', ,hose o1tra"eo1s !ehavior see'ed constantly to hinder her son:s access to po,er. B1t Mary is t,ice scape"oated thenBfor her foolish, o:erhasty 'arria"e to Both,ell accidentally enabled 7a'es:s ascent in that it led to her pre'at1re a!dication. -he 'other:s infidelity and do,nfall ,ere, as it happened, preconditions of 7a'es:s s1ccession. +n the theater, it is not 1ntil ;ertr1de falls that >a'let can !e kin"= not 1ntil the <1een:s 1nla'ented de'ise does the dyin" prince prono1nce (ortin!ras. -he te*t:s process of sy'!olic or displaced Mary?!ashin" !eco'es clearest d1rin" >a'let:s ,ild acc1sations a"ainst ;ertr1de in the closet scene. >e ad'its that his !1tcherin" of Poloni1s is Ea !loody deede, al'ost as !ad, "ood 'other 3s kill a 9in", and 'arry ,ith his !rotherE .7/v0. -he <1een leaves the "ross, !aseless char"e intact, 1ndenied in L/: E3s kill a 9in"E is her st1nned reply, save for her follo,in" 1nco'prehendin" <1estions: E5hat ha1e + done, that tho1 dar:st ,a""e thy ton"1e +n noise so r1de a"ainst 'eJE and E3y 'e, ,hat actJE -he play stays ca"ey a!o1t the e*tent of ;ertr1de:s co'plicity in the '1rder, as >a'let levels nearly e*actly the sa'e char"es a"ainst his 'other as those ,hich ended Mary:s rei"n in 15FI. -he difference is that in Hamlet , a,areness of the 'other:s infa'y is entirely cocooned in the prince:s 'ind, never to !e dislod"ed nor revealed to anyone other than ;ertr1de and the a1dienceB,hile the kin"do' re'ains 1na,are of any hint of ,ron"doin". Mary L1een of Scots ,as 6ettisoned !y the no!ility, friend and foe, !1t ;ertr1de never fields any oppro!ri1' fro' anyone other than her son .and very indirectly, @phelia: E>o, sho1ld + ) 1#5 )

yo1r tr1e love kno, . . .JE0. So L/ etches an inta"lio of Mary ,ith ;ertr1de:s feat1res: in one respect the not?to?!e?dishonored 'other of the kin", ,ith the evasive evidence a!o1t her "1ilt providin" partial e*oneration= in another respect the fo1ntainhead of years of anti?Eli&a!eth plots and violence, the Catholic ,hore of Ba!ylon .E@ 'ost pernicio1s ,o'anE0. -he historical c1rrents are e*ceedin"ly ro1"h and hard to navi"ate here. 3s a 7aco!ean .post? Eli&a!ethan0 te*t, the second <1arto discredits L1een Mary as a r1ler thro1"h analo"y ,ith ;ertr1de, red1cin" fe'ale po,er solely to se*1ality, pointedly se"re"atin" the son:s no!ility fro' the 'other:s taint. Ket 'iti"atin" this position is the fact that the <1een:s taint resides 'ainly in the son:s 'ind and in her a'!i"1o1s role in preventin" his access to kin"ship. +t is tr1e that Mary:s Catholic and forei"n stat1s helped pro!le'ati&e 7a'es:s clai' to the En"lish throne. B1t she ,as also specifically ena!lin" in a ,ay that the play does not per'it ;ertr1de to !e. 5hat is 'ore, Mary, like 2arnley, ,as the 1nre'e'!ered past: 7a'es "re, 1p, in effect, ,itho1t her= and ,hile she ,as nationally de'oni&ed, she 'ay have !een personally al'ost ne"li"i!le.C#%D 7a'es:s first and second kin"ships ,ere achieved only thro1"h the fact of fe'ale absence and r1in: thro1"h Mary:s scandal and a!dication, thro1"h Eli&a!eth:s death. -he dra'a:s ne1rotically oscillatin" treat'ent of fe'ale inte"rity !e?speaks its strained relationship to the politics of its conte*ts.C#9D -he <1een, like the stepfather, is on !alance a ne"ative fi"1re. B1t ;ertr1de, an inscriptive co'ple* of Marian and Eli&a!ethan attri!1tes, a!sor!s resid1al antife'inist ener"ies that ought to have dissipated !y the ti'e of Hamlet . @n the one hand, the testi'ony of none other than the de'oni&ed stepfather, 7a'es >ep!1rn, e*c1lpates Mary. -he '1rdero1s earl of Both,ell .,hose 'arria"e ,ith the <1een ,as ann1lled in 15I$0 fled Scotland in 7a'es:s infancy, and he died a!road ,hen the kin" ,as 61st t,elve years old. B1t he s1pposedly 'ade a f1ll death!ed confession that e*onerated the <1een of Scots for any "1ilt in the 2arnley '1rder plot. E-hereafter there ,as no 'ore ven"eance to e*act, and for the rest of his life 7a'es re'ained convinced that his 'other had not !een involved in the initial '1rder.ECG$D Ket Hamlet confo1nds or i"nores this testi'ony, and ref1ses to endorse the idea of the <1een:s innocence 1ntil the very end. -his ref1sal 'akes Shakespeare:s s1ccession tra"edy va"1ely acc1satory, !1t 1nco'forta!ly eno1"h, the acc1sation applies to 'ore than one <1een. +n 1F$1, a theatrical procla'ation a"ainst a <1een:s inte"rity ,o1ld so1nd ra1co1sly seditio1s= in 1F$#, in the post?Eli&a!e? ) 1#F ) than play that + posit, it co1ld see' e"planator# of 7a'es:s el1sive political fort1nes. Hamlet :s variations fro' the historical record protect patriarchy, St1art fa'ily history, and 'ale le"iti'acy fro' the possi!ility of ar!itrary fe'ale choice and po,er. -hey also offer, 'ore "enerally, a ,ay to 1nderstand 'ytho"raphic processesBthe i'a"inary patch,ork or the inte"1'ent over the real. 3t !est, literat1re positions itself asy'ptotically near the a*es of history: it approaches those a*es e*tre'ely closely at so'e points, !1t it al,ays keeps an act1al and theoretical distance. Hamlet and its prehistory:s conf1sin" parallels, accretions, crossin"s, and separations te'pt a !lanket state'ent of the historicist:s creed: the play reprod1ces in 'oral and sy'!olic a'!i"1ities and evasions several analo"o1s historical co'ple*ities. -he '1ltiply artic1lated conver"ence !et,een >a'let, Cla1di1s, and the ;host co'plicate the neat cate"ories of hero and villain that all historical and psycholo"ical 'ytholo"i&in" tries to constr1ct. -he conse<1ences of s1ch selective constr1ctions can e'er"e in rhetorical strain. 3s st1!!ornly as >a'let clin"s to the desire to differentiate his 'other:s s1pposedly 'ali"nant ne, h1s!and fro' her 1npara"oned old, his o,n disordered lan"1a"e !etrays the i'practica!ility of the task:

,hat de1ill ,ast -hat th1s hath cos1nd yo1 at hod'an !lind= Eyes ,itho1t feelin", feelin" ,itho1t si"ht, Eares ,itho1t hands, or eyes, s'ellin" sance all, @r !1t a sickly part of one tr1e sence Co1ld not so 'ope: o sha'e ,here is thy !l1shJ .7#0 Eyes ,itho1t feelin"J Ears ,itho1t hands or eyesQ >e so1nds like Aick Botto' here, e'er"in" fro' a disco'!o!1lated drea' of his o,n potency and virt1e= his disco1rse flies o1t of its fra'e of reason, inadvertently co'ic in its catalo"1e of ;ertr1de:s 'isperceptions ,hile r1thlessly e*posin" his o,n. B1t thro1"h >a'let:s operose atte'pts at differentiatin" father fro' stepfather, the play inspires a look !ack at the rivalry !et,een 2arnley and Both,ell. Since Mary risked so '1ch, so rashly for Both,ell, ,e o1"ht not to s1ppose that the earl ,as 1n'istaka!ly inferior in char's or virt1es to the le"iti'ate, the initial h1s!and. -he odio1s 2arnley ,as no sainted "race, no Efor'e indeede, 5here e1ery ;od did see'e to set his seale -o "i1e the ,orld ass1rance of a 'anE .7/v0. 2arnley defies representation as >yperion, as the ) 1#I ) ;host does= si'ilarly, the 1n<1estiona!ly cri'inal Both,ell had his heroic attri!1tes. -he central historical press1re hereBthe father:s ini<1ity, the stepfather:s inte"rityBis 1p to >a'let to 'is1nderstand. 5ith his st1!!orn ref1sal to process the copio1s evidence in the ;host:s narrative a!o1t his father:s e*tensive fla,s, >a'let yields to and cond1cts a passionate 'isreadin" of history. 3nd in this 'isprision, he also loses a chance to read his o,n predica'ent as .like 7a'es:s0 so'ethin" of a fort1nate fall, politically speakin". -he te'porary tri1'ph of the alle"ed villain creates a viad1ct of po,er for the tr1e heir. B1t >a'let is so rel1ctant to clai' royal privile"e that he see's al'ost an i'a"inative reconstr1ction of the infant 7a'es, v1lnera!le and innocentBE+ a' set naked on yo1r kin"do'EB,ho o!livio1sly s1ffered ,hat >a'let '1st conscio1sly end1re and 'end. +n other respects, >a'let ,ishes to reside for as lon" as he can !et,een the positions of revolt and r1leBto live in political adolescence. >e 'isinterprets this li'inal post1re as rel1ctance to co''it violence, ,hich ,e kno, is not his pro!le'= critics 'istake the delay for hi"h 'oral o!6ection or co,ardice= !1t his ina!ility to act 'ay have 'ore pressin" historical than psycholo"ical so1rces. 7a'es St1art, ,hile a,aitin" Eli&a!eth:s death and throne, had to do,nplay his o,n ea"erness for the En"lish kin"ship and re'ain silent a!o1t, or at least inactive concernin", the s1ccession .altho1"h he co1ld not, as ,e shall see, f1lly 'ana"e to do so0= >a'let can take a 'ore a""ressive tack a"ainst a 'onarchy he never feels is ,ithin ran"e of his possessin", !1t his position is si'ilar to 7a'es:s in 1F$#. >e is ad6acent to royal prero"ative and o!str1cted fro' it= as he dra,s ever closer to kin"ship, he see's to !roadcast a poisono1s threat, nearin" death in the process and leavin" !odies in his ,ake. Hamlet can !e read as a f1"1e on 7a'es:s t,o s1ccessions, on t,o disparate historical 'o'ents. -he chaotic prehistory of 7a'es:s infant kin"ship co'prises the !1rden of the tra"ic 2anish plot: a tale a!o1t the i'possi!ility of escape fro' the father:s historical ni"ht'are of '1rder, ad1ltery, and reven"e, a ni"ht'are f1rther co'po1nded !y prolon"ed s1!6ection to, or ina!ility to e'er"e fro', a fi*ed perception of the 'other:s sha'e. -he second 'o'ent, confi"1red nonspecifically across the entire e*panse of the 1F$G <1arto te*t, is 7a'es:s second accession: the !otched pro"ress of the kin":s arrival in En"land in the sprin" of 1F$#. -his second story 'ay provide the i'a"istic substructure of Hamlet :s plot, !1t it is a str1ct1re that 1ndoes plot. -he lan"1a"e and action of conta"ion so infect the

play that narrative coherence contin1ally !reaks do,n. +n the relation of the t,o 7aco!ean s1ccessions lies the ) 1#% ) connection !et,een >a'let:s story and that of En"land:s ne, kin". (or like >a'let, 7a'es:s first entry into royal prero"ative ,as an entry into a fa'ilial disaster and a reven"e oath= his second accession ,as a 'ove'ent into the threat of deadly conta'inationBthe 'oral 'orass of Elsinore:s co1rt, the poisono1s at'osphere of pla"1y En"land. >a'let, in his ro#al identity, contracts corr1ption: the conta'inations of 'e'ory and desire, ed1ced !y the "host of the past= the i''ersion in a poll1tion he '1st try to cleanse. (or !oth 2anish prince and Scottish kin", 'ortal v1lnera!ility co'es into !ein" at the 'o'ent of 'onarchical responsi!ility. Shakespeare:s te*t1al ori"a'iBthe creation of clefts, folds, ne, fi"1res and depths fro' a flat 'aterial historyBreconstr1cts an intricate i'a"e of 7aco!ean s1ccession tro1!le. 7a'es:s prechildhood ind1ction into 'onarchical press1re takes ne, for' in the shock of >a'let:s 1n,illed conscription to aven"e a '1rder he kno,s too little a!o1t= and the 2anish prince:s 'any s1!se<1ent i'pedi'ents to r1le inscri!e 7a'es:s several !arriers to En"lish kin"ship, ,hich c1l'inated in the pla"1e:s i'passa!le presence. -he o1t!reak of 1F$# displaced an a1thority that did not have a chance to arrive. 3ll the sa'e, >a'let, 1nlike 7a'es, is not 'erely deflected or disco1ra"ed fro' kin"ship= he actively avoids for the lon"est ti'e his o,n interest in it. >e only assa1lts and 'o'entarily ass1'es 'onarchy once he is dyin"Bindeed, once he is sped .E+ a' dead, >oratioE0. -h1s ,e 'ay s1ppose either that he has not desired kin"ship or that it is all he has desired, all alon".

IV
+n the Shakespearean theatrical conscio1sness, pla"1e and the s1ccession are intert,ined thro1"h the operational dysf1nctions of co'pro'ised, transitional a1thority. Shakespeare:s early 7aco!ean op1s displays diseased po,er that fre<1ently !ehaves like the pla"1e. -his po,er is Mac!eth, !esto,in" death 'adly and tryin" to '1rder the f1t1re= it is 21ke Oincentio, sparin" people 1nacco1nta!ly, irrespective of their 'orality or capacity for virt1e= it is -i'on, retreatin" ar!itrarily to cast poisono1s c1rses on 3thens fro' o1tside the city ,alls, ,here pla"1es c1sto'arily !e"an= it is Coriolan1s, an an"er ra"in" 1na!ated, ,itho1t 'ercy. By these e*a'ples + 'ean to s1""est that the s1!li'inal and str1ct1ral presence of pla"1e in Hamlet is scarcely ano'alo1s in Shakespeare:s te*t. ) 1#9 ) 4et 1s take the less o!vio1s case of Oincentio. -he often o!served parallels !et,een 7a'es:s character and rei"n, and those of the 21ke in )easure for )easure , sho1ld incl1de !oth r1lers: response to the presence of disease in their real's. +n Oienna, conta"ion takes venereal and 'etaphoric for' as a se*1al license ,hose only p1tative c1re is a proliferatin" le"al repression. 3n"elo, the s1!stit1te r1ler, is en"a"ed to 'end this disorder. B1t he al'ost i''ediately e*poses hi'self as infected ,ith ,hat he has !een installed to c1reBdesireBand his election !y Oincentio co'es <1ickly to see' increasin"ly ar!itrary, even cr1el, possi!ly deli!erately incri'inatin". -he 21ke:s reasons for choosin" 3n"elo are 1nconvincin"ly or, alternatively, too l1shly 'otivated. 2oes he ,ish to de'olish or test the 'an:s virt1e, to "et so'eone else to perfor' his political dirty ,ork, to c1re the corr1ption his o,n leniency has allo,ed, to play p1ppet'aster, or si'ply to dress 1p like a 'onk and take confessionJ +n Oincentio:s contradictory, '1ltiple 'otives to a!dicate ,e can discover an historical intervention that

shapes, co'pels the plot. -he play .circa 1F$G0 e*tends fro' the circ1'stance of pla"1e, ,hich has as deep a fo1ndational presence in Oienna as it does in 2en'ark, or in En"land. -he 21ke, for instance, is paranoid a!o1t cro,ds= 9in" 7a'es:s o,n tense entry into the 'o!!ed and infected o1tskirts of 4ondon in 1F$# 'i"ht rationali&e this feat1re of theatrical personality. More si"nificant, Oincentio:s conscio1s a!andon'ent of his r1lin" position fi"1res Shakespeare:s reso1rcef1l transfor'ation of 7aco!ean necessity into royal prero"ative. -he a!sol1te need to a!andon place in the presence of that terri!le pla"1e ,hich still rei"ned ,hen )easure for )easure ,as ,ritten !eco'es the sta"e a!sol1tist:s intentional .if conf1sed0 prod1ction of his o,n provisional, 'anip1lative a!dication. B1t the epide'ic irony !leeds thro1"h: -he 21ke:s fantastical plottin", and the ar!itrary 61stice he i'poses on his sick state, 1lti'ately s1""est that physical infections have political so1rces and are inc1ra!le either !y tainted r1lers or !y the a!andon'ent of r1le. )easure for )easure pict1res the infections of po,er, the conta"ions of ,hich operate across potentates and re"i'es. -he disease and 7a'es ,ere not in any rational ,ay e<1ata!le, !1t they 'ay have !een s1!li'inally con"r1ent ,hen the epide'ic hit so <1ickly after L1een Eli&a!eth:s death and the Scottish s1ccession. +n fact, the St1art rei"n not only !e"an !1t also ended .in 1F/50 ,ith especially "ri' o1t!reaks of the sickness. Aot s1rprisin"ly, so'e En"lish'en acc1sed 7a'es of !rin"in" do,n pla"1e fro' the north.CG1D ) 1G$ ) My !rief hypothesis a!o1t the pla"1y plot ori"ins of )easure for )easure is 'eant to s1""est the analo"y of epide'ic disease to history: it acts on Shakespearean te*ts as it acts on the c1lt1re at lar"e. +t repeatedly infiltrates, occ1pies, str1ct1res, and desta!ili&es 'eanin"s. +n this respect, pla"1e, like history, fi"1res 1npredicta!ly !1t finally irresisti!ly= ,e kno, it is there, !1t ,e cannot al,ays tell in ,hat for', ,hat phase, or ,hat si"nification. @ther i'portant historical conte*ts for Hamlet ,ill de'onstrate this thesis f1rther. -he si'ple point is that 'any En"lish and Scottish histories are arrayed in theatrical 2en'ark= the 'ore diffic1lt notion is that Hamlet a!sor!s these histories incontinently, to indiscri'inate, often shiftin" and incoherent ends. Past or local conte*ts appear in the play like clo1d for'ations: no, a ca'el, no, very like a ,hale, no, 'erely the ceilin" at Elsinore, the li'it of the i'a"inative hori&on. >istory e*ceeds the te*t:s 1se or or"ani&ation of it, e*tendin" !eyond paraphrase Bor co"ency. + shall concl1de 'y treat'ent of the play ,ith f1rther e*plorations of this idea. B1t first + ,o1ld like to darken .intensify, and o!sc1re0 f1rther traces of the past in the second <1arto.CG/D +t is ti'e once a"ain for that stran"e "host 2evere1*, the earl of Esse*, to p1t in an appearance= any talk a!o1t the 7aco!ean s1ccession in En"land and its relationship to Hamlet o1"ht to incl1de a 'ention of his 'achinations. Esse* took active part not only in 7a'es:s pro6ect !1t also in ele'ents of >a'let:s personality: in the 'adness, vacillation, and 'elancholy, in the s1!versive ener"y and c1lt1ral representativeness of the 2anish prince. Si'ilarities of character and !ehavior a!o1nd= at least one parallel !et,een the fictional and historical fi"1res thro,s >a'let:s political interests into relief. 7ohn >arin"ton, L1een Eli&a!eth:s Esa1cy "odson,E perceived that Esse*, a for'er !enefactor, s1ffered fro' severely fr1strated desire: +t restethe ,ythe 'e in opynion, that a'!ition th,arted in its career, dothe speedilie lead on to 'adness= herein + a' stren"thened !y ,hat + learne in 'y 4ord of Esse*, ,ho shyftethe fro' sorro,e and repenta1nce to ra"e and re!ellion so s1ddenlie, as ,ell provethe hi' devoide of "oode reason or ri"ht 'ynde. . . . >is speeches of the L1eene !eco'ethe no 'an ,ho hathe mens sana in corpore sano .CG#D >a'let:s speeches of the <1een are none too rational either, and >arin"ton:s tho1"hts a!o1t Esse* ill1'inate >a'let: they !olster the possi!ility that >a'let:s 1nrestrained f1ry at ;ertr1de, and '1ch of his other

) 1G1 ) 'adness !esides, is e*plicitly th,arted a'!ition. 3l'ost anythin" is easier than ackno,led"in" political ne1roses and e*cl1sions. 4ike 7a'es, Esse* s1ffered the s1stained e'!arrass'ent of political fr1stration= 1nlike 7a'es, the earl reacted inte'perately. -hat !oth Esse* and 7a'es 'ay contri!1te to the fi"1re of >a'let ,as first s1""ested !y 4illian 5instanley: 3t the period ,hen Hamlet ,as ,ritten Ccirca 1F$$, accordin" to 5instanleyD, the t,o "reat s1!6ects of 1niversal interest ,ere the <1estion of the Scottish s1ccession and the fate of the Esse* conspirators= 'oreover, these t,o s1!6ects ,ere so inti'ately connected that they for'ed !1t one in the pop1lar 'ind and, therefore, in treatin" the' as one, Shakespeare ,o1ld si'ply !e ,orkin" to a 1nity already e*istin" in the 'inds of his a1dience. -he fate of Esse* and the fate of 7a'es have !een !lent in one destiny.CGGD + a' not san"1ine a!o1t en"a"in" in a critical practice that finds a sin"le historical fi"1re, even one so potent as Esse*, in ,ork after ,ork of conte'porary fictionBin Troilus and Cressida , in Henr# $ , in Hamlet . Still, as a cynos1re of national interest, Esse* co1ld reasona!ly !e s1pposed to e*ert an a!idin" press1re on the theatrical i'a"ination. 5instanley:s ar"1'ent is s'artly post?old?historicist, ,hich is to say, it 'oves !eyond the reflective hypothesis: she says, to her endless credit, E+t ,o1ld !e, + think, 1nfair to say that >a'let is the portrait of anyoneE .1IF0. B1t she does say, ,ith so'e ,arrant and only a sli"htly disappointin" !reach of decor1', that E>a'let is 'ainly 7a'es +, !1t there are certainly lar"e ele'ents in his character and story taken fro' Esse*E .1I#0. -his idea has a certain l1ster !eca1se of its !1ilt?in ali!i for the character:s incoherence: >a'let can !e for"iven for not 'akin" sense !eca1se of his '1ltiple ori"ins in different historical s1!6ectivities. B1t if this ali!i see's a fli'sy 61stification for inscriptive readin", the 'ethod has other advanta"es= it does, for instance, follo, representational lo"ic. Beca1se ,e kno, that 2evere1* ,orked sed1lo1sly to sec1re the Scottish s1ccession, ,hich co1ld have !ro1"ht hi' and his faction, had he s1rvived, to the "reatest pro'inence in the ne, re"i'e, the characterolo"ical alliance ,ith 7a'es see's pla1si!le. 7a'es and Esse* ,ere intert,ined on the sta"e of history !efore they f1sed, ho,ever co'ple*ly, in the literary for' of >a'let. 3nd 7a'es:s pardonin" of the Esse* conspirators in his first official act as ne, kin" also see's s1""estive, a kind of de!t pay'ent to the 'an he later called his 'artyr.CG5D B1t historically and fi"1rally too, there are s1!stantive divisions as ) 1G/ ) ,ell as conver"ences !et,een 2evere1*, 7a'es, and >a'let. +n the s1''er of 1599, 4ord Mo1nt6oy, of Esse*:s faction, felt it necessary to reass1re 7a'es that the earl ,as not a ri.al for the s1ccession to the En"lish throne !1t ,as rather tryin" to s1pport and pro'ote the Scottish clai'.CGFD 7a'es, like 'any "overn'ent officials in En"land and a!road, !eca'e s1spicio1s of Esse*:s soarin" a'!ition, his !1sy self?a""randi&e'entBand th1s even of his advocacy. 5hen the earl ,as killed, 7a'es "rieved for hi', and he held a lon", !r1tal "r1d"e a"ainst Sir 5alter 8ale"h for his opposition to 2evere1*= !1t in li"ht of 8o!ert Cecil:s silky political ste,ardship after the Esse* affair, 7a'es reali&ed that he had ori"inally 'ade a poor choice of En"lish allies. >a'let does in certain ,ays contain and co'!ine the t,o historical fi"1res of Esse* and 7a'es= the 'ost interestin", perhaps, is his contradictory .specifically Eli&a!ethan0 position as !oth heir apparent .or pretender0 and active threat to the 'onarchy. +n the second <1arto, >a'let deflects his overt desire for political place, !1t he never

vol1ntarily re'oves hi'self fro' the nei"h!orhood of r1le. -he conflictin" activities of the 2anish prince vis?T?vis the throne 'ay reprod1ce t,o historical vectors of desire for kin"ship, each in alternatin" 1nity and conflict. Esse*, for all his dili"ence on 7a'es:s !ehalf, ,o1ld not have !een averse to reco"nition as 'ost potent, as kin"'aker= at his trial for treason, ho,ever, he proclai'ed, not ,holly !elieva!ly, E(or the cro,n, + never affected itE .McMana,ay, EEli&a!eth, Esse*, and 7a'es,E //F0. 3nd ,hile 7a'es never hid his ,ish for the En"lish cro,n, he had to tiptoe aro1nd this desire very caref1lly, lest a s1!versive noise alar' his co1sin Eli&a!eth, as it had already alar'ed other En"lish'en ,ho heard invasion r1'ors fro' the north. +n 1599, 7a'es anno1nced to the Scottish parlia'ent that he E,as not certain ho, soon he sho1ld have to 1se ar'sE to "ain the En"lish cro,n= E!1t ,henever it sho1ld !e, he kne, his ri"ht and ,o1ld vent1re cro,n and all for it.ECGID >e ,o1ld have dared da'nation, !1t .1nlike Esse*0 he fort1nately did not. +n Prince >a'let, t,o 'in"led and historically i'plicated relationships to 'onarchy are played o1tBrepeated, and e*ha1sted. Event1ally revealed or constr1cted as an ene'y to the state, Esse* lived !1t co1ld not o1tlive the conse<1ences of a s1stained co'petition ,ith royalty. >e !eca'e an ins1r"ent, as !oth Eli&a!eth and 7a'es feared: a threat to po,er fro' ,ithin, like >a'let, like Cla1di1s !efore hi'Blike pla"1e. >a'let perfor's so'e of Esse*:s a'!itions and disr1ptions, and in the trans fi"1red for' of the prince, the earl is o!li<1ely ) 1G# ) "ranted .perhaps as another de!t pay'ent0 a ,ished?for prero"ative he never <1ite attained: the chance to prono1nce and there!y apparently control the s1ccession. Esse*:s i'a"e penetrates several representations in the play= as ,ith Troilus and Cressida , so'e of the Hamlet doors 1nlock ,ith the Esse* skeleton key. B1t Esse* is historically constrained to the Eli&a!ethan era, and so he has li'ited 1sef1lness in a 7aco!ean readin" of Hamlet . 4et 1s ret1rn to the play:s involve'ent in the for' and fate of 7a'es:s early s1ccession str1""les and its '1tations of 7aco!ean history. 3fter Poloni1s:s '1rder, Cla1di1s sends >a'let off to die. -he voya"e to En"land is s1pposed to c1l'inate in the prince:s e*ec1tion, !1t instead he 'ana"es, thro1"h fort1ne and fortit1de, to escape, as he ,rites to >oratio: Ere ,ee ,ere t,o daies old at Sea, a Pyrat of very ,arlike appoint'ent "a1e vs chaseC=D findin" o1rsel1es too slo, of salle, ,ee p1t on a co'pelled valo1r, and in the "rapple + !oorded the'C=D on the instant they "ot cleere of o1r shyp, so + alone !eca'e theyr prisonerC=D they ha1e dealt ,ith 'e like thie1es of 'ercie, !1t they kne, ,hat they did, + a' to doe a t1rne for the'. .4/v0. >a'let:s !oardin" the pirate shipBthe cr1cial interr1ption in the 6o1rneyB!rin"s hi' !ack to 2en'ark ,ith far "reater celerity than a s'ooth voya"e to En"land ,o1ld have allo,ed. 71st as i'portant, the events of the voya"e !rin" hi' a 'o'entary salvation, to ,hich his ironic Christ references point .thieves of 'ercy ,ho do kno, ,hat they do0. 3lon" ,ith its pec1liarity as a plot device, the intervention of the pirate ship perfor's a ,eird, 'arvelo1s displace'ent of historical fi"1ration. (or in his e*iled and 'ar"inali&ed phase, >a'let !riefly ceases to rese'!le 7a'es, or even Esse* for that 'atter. +nstead, he takes on the trappin"s of a different, an antithetical fi"1reBthat of the s1pposed villain of the historical piece. 8oland M. (rye !riefly chronicles the escape of 2arnley:s '1rderer: Both,ell first fled fro' the 'ainland to the o1ter islands, p1rs1ed !y the Confederate 4ords, ,ho' he escaped !y sailin" to Scandinavia as the leader of a "ro1p of pirates. (or several years he appears to have prospered . . . !1t in 71ne, 15I#, he ,as i'prisoned !y the

kin" of 2en'ark for cri'es real and rep1ted. +n solitary confine'ent . . . he declined into insanity and died on 3pril G, 15I%. Efforts to !rin" hi' !ack to 61stice in Scotland had all failed.CG%D ) 1GG ) P1rs1ed !y the Scottish a1thorities for the '1rder of >enry St1art, Both,ell e'!raced cri'inality, p1t on a co'pelled valor as a pirate, sailed to Scandinavia and ,as event1ally i'prisoned and died a 'ad'an in . . . 2en'ark. -his 'iniat1re history shi''ers ,ith entice'ents for a readin" of Hamlet . 5hat the theatrical pirate episode .delivered fro' a distance, !y letter0 !e"ins to s1""est is the e*traordinary capacio1sness of the play as a vessel for historical inscription. (or the prince:s te'porary piracy, not to 'ention the threat of his 'adness and i'prison'ent, a!sor!s and transfi"1res yet another nod1le of the pastBnot 7a'es:s history, e*actly, !1t the history that el1ded hi': that of Both,ell, the '1rderin" stepfather. Certain restrictions .reversals, transfor'ations0 apply. (or >a'let, i'prison'ent and the threat of death co'e in the process of lea.ing 2en'ark= 'ore i'portant, >a'let:s pirate phase, 1nlike Both,ell:s, is a s1ccess, act1ally ena!lin" his safe and defiant ret1rn to the shores of his ho'eland. +n 'arkin" the pirate episode as a positive point in >a'let:s !io"raphy, Shakespeare rero1tes historical 'eanin"= he analo"ically rec1perates the St1art fail1re of Both,ell:s escape as a necessar#, lifesa.ing stage in >a'let:s trip to,ard kin"ship. 3!sorption into and salvation !y piracy allo, >a'let to appropriate the last sta"e of Both,ell:s career, an apparently 1na!ashed se<1ence of cri'inality co'in" to no "ood end. +ronic, then, that the pirate episode 'ana"es >a'let:s sy'!olic re!irth, a prel1de to his arrivin" on the shore Enaked.E Aote,orthy too is that the episode si"nals political re!irth= fro' havin" lain E,orse than the '1tines in the !il!oE .A10, he anno1nces his presence to Cla1di1s, ,ho .as ,e have seen0 takes it as a si"n of >a'let:s pro!a!le royal leanin"s: E+f he !e no, ret1rned 3s the 9in" at his voya"e. . . .E >a'let here!y incorporates and tri1'phs over a tra1'atic sta"e of 7a'es:s history= as a conse<1ence of his identification ,ith 7a'es and his s1!se<1ent i'itation of Both,ell:s escape, one fr1stratin" episode in the St1art royal narrative is contained, revised, and p1t to rede'ptive 1se. >istorically, 7a'es co1ld not co''it reven"e a"ainst Both,ell even had he ,anted to !eca1se of 2en'ark:s ref1sal to e*tradite .and !eca1se, as noted, Both,ell died ,hen 7a'es ,as t,elve0. -h1s at one 61nct1re of the te*t, Prince >a'let can !e constr1ed as a fantasy 7aco!ean constr1ction: he passes thro1"h Both,ell:s el1sive villainy as if it ,ere a chrysalis. -his history is not, ho,ever, entirely rede'ptive= indeed, ,e co1ld interpret >a'let:s ha!itation of the Both,ell piracy as effectively conta'inatin". 3fter all, the episode 'arks the aven"er:s ) 1G5 ) 'ost precipito1s 'oral decline in the dra'a, for he adorns his escape fro' Cla1di1s:s plot ,ith the "rat1ito1s e*ec1tion and atte'pted da'nation of his for'er friends: he alters the co''ission so that 8osencrant& and ;1ildenstern ,ill !e killed Enot shrivin" ti'e allo,ed,E their so1ls forfeit to his an"er. -he ena!lin" pastBthe Both,ell le"acyBalso, inevita!ly, !eco'es corr1ptin"= the ;host of 'etahistory ha1nts every present occasion. 2espite his characterolo"ical defor'ations, >a'let co'pletes a deficiency in 7a'es:s !io"raphy, or at least knits 1p a frayed, 1nfinished end in the fa!ric of re"icide and reven"e that ,rapped the kin":s yo1n" life. -his readin" "ives historical ,arrant to a literary process: >a'let '1st f1lly a!sor! ,ickedness to correct the depredations of the stepfather= he '1st !eco'e like Both,ell to sec1re a proper s1ccessionBone sanctioned !y royal prono1nce'ent and le"iti'i&ed !y the self?revelation of depraved, cri'inal 'onarchy.

>avin" capitali&ed on l1ck and ,it, >a'let s1rvives the 1s1rper:s plot a"ainst hi'. Beca1se Cla1di1s:s sche'e is overco'e thro1"h a chance event ,hich >a'let t1rns to 'astery, ,e 'ay !e invited to read the e*ile portion of the plot as a si"n that inherited history is act1ally con<1era!le and can lead to a ne, self and a ne, story. Ao!ody chooses his or her o,n pastB,e selectively s1''on and rephrase o1r histories so that ,e 'ay contin1e livin" 1nappalledB!1t the <1estion in all endeavor is ho, !est to deal ,ith one:s inherited options. -o 'ake part of the Both,ell plot .the e*ile, escape, and forei"n capt1re of the '1rderer0 a sta"e in >a'let:s o,n s1ccessf1l ret1rn and te'porary tri1'ph against the '1rderer is !riefly to s1stain hope that ti'e can !e re6ointed, the past re,ritten. >a'let:s voya"e into death ends in a !rief reprieve !y reason of chance, craft, co1ra"e .co'pelled and p1t on0, !r1tality, deceptivenessBand not in the least !y piracy. Carried !ack to 2en'ark on a EPyrat,E >a'let see's a 7a'es fi"1re 'irac1lo1sly !orne !y the shado, of Both,ell, 7a'es:s fa'ilial !o"ey'an. -he threatenin" 7aco!ean past 'er"es ,ith >a'let:s fictional present, receivin" representation as serendipity in the "loo'iest circ1'stance. B1t >a'let:s and 7a'es:s i'a"inary victory over history does not last. -he play r1ns the reel of ti'e !ack,ards: >a'let:s ret1rn to the co1rt 'arks the !e"innin" of the end, foretellin" not a !irth !1t a !ein"?!orne?into: death. >istory:s ni"ht'are can see' to dissolve into ne, !e"innin"s, !1t those look none too rosy. (or the ret1rn to 2en'ark can 'ean only re"icide, the last re'ainin" corridor thro1"h ,hich >a'let 'ay enter the 'onarchy. ) 1GF )

V
;UK4: >3M: ;ood 'y 4ord, vo1tsafe 'e a ,ord ,ith yo1. Sir a ,hole historie.

-here 'ay !e s1ch a thin" as a ,hole historyB!1t Hamlet ,ill neither vo1chsafe it nor increase a reader:s confidence in its possi!ility. +nstead, the play insistently arrays history in fra"'ents. @ne of the vital scraps of history that s1rely !elon"s in a readin" of the play involves the idea of reven"e as a political doctrine. -he historical conte*ts of Hamlet s1""est that ven"eance can !e 1nderstood as havin" a dynastic f1nction, not 61st a theatrical, affective, or sy'!olic one. 8even"e ,as act1ally p1t into play !y 7a'es and his 'en near the end of L1een Eli&a!eth:s rei"n as a strateg# , a 'ode of ac<1irin" the throne and sec1rin" the s1ccession. 7a'es McMana,ay has pointed to the fascinatin" 'echanis' !y ,hich the Scottish kin" in 1599 deployed a p1!lic reven"e oath to sec1re !oth his safety and his ri"hts to the En"lish cro,n. -his !ond a'on" the Scots no!ility restates and even <1otes an earlier, !etter?kno,n doc1'ent: L1een Eli&a!eth:s 15%G Bond of 3ssociation. -he ori"inal !ond ,as the -1dor privy co1ncil:s crafty response to the see'in"ly endless Catholic plots a"ainst L1een Eli&a!eth:s life, ,hich ,ere al'ost e*cl1sively ai'ed at replacin" her ,ith Mary St1art. -he doc1'ent enlisted its si"nersBpres1'a!ly the Protestant aristocracy, !1t perhaps also ordinary, o!edient citi&ens Bto pled"e Etheir lives, their fort1nes, and their sacred honors . . . to p1rs1e i'placa!ly anyone ,ho 'i"ht atte'pt to assassinate Eli&a!eth or re'otely !enefit !y s1ch an atte'ptE .McMana,ay, EEli&a!eth, Esse*, and 7a'es,E //$0. @ne o!vio1s, not re'ote !eneficiary of a s1ccessf1l atte'pt ,o1ld have !een 7a'es O+ of Scotland, conspic1o1sly ne*t in the royal line after Mary, !1t one ,ho, !y the ter's of the preca1tionary !ond, E,o1ld !e disa!led in his clai'E in the event of a s1ccessf1l

plot a"ainst L1een Eli&a!eth. B1t in 1599, McMana,ay sho,s, the Scots revived and reconfi"1red the Eli&a!ethan !ond, ,ith considera!le overlap in phrase and 'eanin" and ,ith a potent sense of irony, for the ,orthy t,in e*pedients of 7a'es:s !odily defense and ins1rance for his s1ccession. 7ohn Cha'!erlain heard of the deed and dryly descri!es it th1s: E-he Scottish no!ilitie find the'seves "reeved that theyre kin" is no 'ore respected, and have lately 'ade an association a'on" the'selves a"ainst all those that shall hinder his ri"ht and s1ccession.ECG9D -heir clever redaction transfor'ed a doc1'ent earlier 'eant to inhi!it the St1art clai' to En"land:s throne ) 1GI ) into a !old assertion of St1art royal prero"ative. -he headnote to the E"enerall !andE e*plains it s1ccinctly: E'ade !y the "ood s1!6ects of the kin"s Matie for the preser1ation of his hi"hnes person, P p1rs1it of his vndo1!ted ri"ht of the Cro,ne of En"land and +relandE .McMana,ay, EEli&a!eth, Esse*, and 7a'es,E //%0. -his si'ple sentence e*e'plifies the Bond:s lar"er p1rpose: its re'arka!le, really seis'ic shift fro' an oath to defend the kin" of one soverei"n nation into an oath to sec1re that kin":s ri"ht of s1ccession to the throne of another: ,e sole'nelye vo,e and pro'ise !efore the "reat "od . . . to serve, and h1'!lye o!ey o1r said so1erai"ne a"ainst . . . all sortes of persones . . . as shall atte'pte or vndertake !y deede, co1nsell, or conceal'ent, to any practise that 'ay in any respect tend to the har'e of his Maties 'ost 8oyall person. . . . 3nd !y ca1se al'i"htie "od . . . hath esta!lished the vndo1!ted ri"ht of the Cro,nes of En"land P +reland . . . ne*t to his dear sister Eli&a!eth no,e L1eene of En"land . . . ,e . . . sole'nly s,ear and protest . . . to 'aintaine P defend o1r soverai"ne in his vndo1!ted ri"ht and title to the cro,ne of En"land and +reland a"ainst all other pretenders ,hatsoever, !1t like ,ise shall . . . !esto,e o1r selves, o1r lives, children, . . . ,hat so,1er else in the pers1ite there of a"ainst ,hat soe1er person, that shall after the death of the L1eene of En"land, hinder i'p1"n or ,ith stand his Maties heires or s1ccessors, in the peacea!le "ettin" and enioyin", or possessin" of the said cro,nes of En"land and +reland. 3nd shall !y forcea!le 'eanes take the vtter'ost reven"e vpon the' . . . and ne1er desist till ,e ha1e esta!lished o1r dearest so1erai"ne . . . in the 8oyall 9in"do'e . . . ,itho1t pre61dice 3ll ,ayes to his Maties dearest sister L1eene Eli&a!eth, d1rin" all the dayes of hir life ty'e. .McMana,ay, EEli&a!eth, Esse*, and 7a'es,E //90 -he "reat care taken in this doc1'ent to e*cl1de the possi!ility of 7a'es:s ascendin" Eli&a!eth:s throne in her lifeti'e 'ay !e intended to def1se the conte'porary r1'ors a!o1t a Scottish invasion to sec1re that s1ccession. 8hetorically, ho,ever, the Bond:s pro'ise to a,ait the death of Eli&a!eth only 1nderscores the clenched?fist clai' 7a'es 'akes on her throne. B1t 'ost si"nificant for o1r p1rposes is the notion that 7aco!ean le"iti'acy co'es not fro' an 1ne<1ivocally esta!lished hereditary ri"ht, an ar"1'ent the !ond ne"lects to 'ake= rather, le"iti'acy ste's fro' its o,n forcef1l assertion and fro' the ,illin"ness, even the passionate dedication, to the e*tre'ities of reven"e sho1ld that ri"ht !e a!rid"ed. 7a'es:s co1ncil in 1599 reversed a history of his e*cl1sion and propelled his 'onarchy into yet another reven"e oathB!1t this ti'e it ,as an ad1lt oath of choice, not a child:s 1nkno,in" inheritance. -he !ond of 1599, 1nlike the one s,orn for hi' !y his "randparents a"ainst Both,ell, 'akes reven"e the si"n of 'onarchical privile"e,

) 1G% ) and esta!lishes reven"e as a possi!le fo1ndation 1pon ,hich s1ccession ,ill !e achieved. 3nd in its ,ay, of co1rse, the doc1'ent itself is a for' of reven"eBcondi"n retri!1tion, perhaps, a"ainst the person ,ho had kept 7a'es so lon" fro' the ape* of a1thority. +n >a'let:s case, reven"e and the s1ccession ,eirdly see' !oth interdependent and '1t1ally e*cl1sive. -he throne ,ill not !e availa!le 1ntil Cla1di1s is forci!ly re'oved fro' it= !1t any open act a"ainst the kin" ,o1ld !e treason. -h1s, to open a position in the 'onarchy re<1ires seditio1s violence that dis<1alifies >a'let fro' candidacy, if it does not kill hi' first. 3s it happens, the play "ives reven"e ideolo"ical sanction !y thr1stin" it 1pon >a'let in a conte*t and at a 'o'ent apparentl# not of his o,n choosin"B!1t this ill1sion of nonchoice, of chance or rando' opport1nity, is >a'let:s chosen vehicle thro1"ho1t his descendin" or!it to the throne.C5$D >is i'p1lsive act prod1ces a see'in"ly fort1ito1s, inc1lpa!le ven"eance. B1t !efore this point, the prince has !e"1n to link .in a poorly artic1lated ,ay0 the t,o iss1es of reven"e and election or s1ccession as co'ple'entary 'otivations: E2ooes it not thinke thee stand 'e no, vpponJ >e that hath kild 'y 9in" . . . Pop:t in !et,eene th:election and 'y hopes, . . . ist not perfect conscienceJE 7a'es:s Scottish !ond of 1599 feeds into this cr1cial t1rn in Hamlet :s plot: it en1nciates a 'ove fro' oppression !y the idea and doctrine of reven"e .Eli&a!eth:s 15%G Bond of 3ssociation0 to active e'po,er'ent thro1"h that selfsa'e idea and doctrine. 7a'es:s !ond, like Eli&a!eth:s !efore hi', ,as intended to disco1ra"e atte'pts at re"icide !y anno1ncin" the inevita!ility of retri!1tion= !1t at the sa'e ti'e, his open declaration of the ri"ht to s1ccession 'ay ,ell have had a da'penin" effect 1pon the <1een:s already li'p i'p1lse to no'inate a s1ccessor. >a'let, too, '1st ne"otiate a narro, ,alk,ay of disclos1re and conceal'ent, !1t as the +onzago scene sho,s, he is 1na!le to do so, revealin" in the a'!ivalent fi"1re of 41cian1s a desire for !oth '1rder and r1le. -he conflation of the 'orally discredited 'otive of personal, '1rdero1s ra"e ,ith the 'ore ideolo"ically 61stifia!le interests of political privile"e and fa'ilial oath retards >a'let:s e*peditio1s 'ove into kin"ship. So on the 'onarchy:s !ehalf the final s,ordfi"ht scene 'akes an astonishin" t1rn: >a'let co'pletes the lon"?intended reven"e, !1t for a different cri'e than the one that has f1eled the ener"y of the rest of the play. That ener"y is clearly dissipatin", headin" else,here. 5hen 4aertes: acc1sation of Cla1di1s 1ne<1ivocally e*poses the kin":s "1ilt, >a'let leaps into re"icidal action as a res1lt of the ri""ed s,ordfi"ht and his 'other:s deathBnot as a ,ay of o!tainin" either the kin"ship or ) 1G9 ) ven"eance for his father. >a'let !eco'es defender of e*o"a'y, ta1nter of his perverted 1ncle: E>eare tho1 incestio1s da'ned 2ane, 2rinke of this potion . . . (ollo, 'y 'otherE .@10. -he '1rder of Cla1di1s deflects any royalist an*ieties a!o1t a re"icide 1ndertaken onl# for the sake of a s1ccession, and so it accords nicely ,ith the threats and restraints of 7a'es:s 1599 !ond. -h1s >a'let, 1nlike Cla1di1s !efore hi', can kill a kin" ,itho1t for'ally or lastin"ly !eco'in" one. 3nd 7a'es can !eco'e a kin", as his !ond pro'ises, ,itho1t havin" killed one, ,hile nonetheless havin" 1sed the reven"e 'echanis' to ens1re his ri"ht. @ne other restriction on >a'let:s acts sho1ld dra, o1r attention o1t,ard fro' the play to the environin" history. ;ertr1de:s s,oon precedes and facilitates >a'let:s reali&ation of his reven"e. -heatrically, to esta!lish the s1ccession, ho,ever !rief and a!ortive, the death of the <1een '1st occ1r. -his death, 'ore than any other, ena!les the s1!se<1ent act of re"icide and cataly&es >a'let:s last p1sh to,ard ,hat li'ited po,er he can o!tain. +n the 'or!id ;ertr1de, i'a"es of Mary and Eli&a!eth as

predecessor monarchs a"ain conver"e: po,er is dra,n fro' a fe'ale so1rce. -he 7aco!ean >a'let de'onstrates that Epo,erE sho1ld not !e 'is1nderstood as Eoffice.E >a'let is no cro,ned kin", !1t he can na'e the ne*t one= conversely, d1rin" his pla"1y ascension to the throne, 7a'es had the na'e of kin" ,itho1t the f1ll co'ple'ent of privile"es. B1t the po,er co1ld not have !een "ranted hi' ,itho1t the death of <1eens. +t is safe to say that the 'ore recent death, Eli&a!eth:s, had !een lon" a,aited. +ndeed, the Scottish kin" had end1red a ve*ed relationship to his En"lish co1sin since at least the 'id?15%$sBfro' the ti'e that 7a'es:s 'other lived 1nder the threat of e*ec1tion for plots real and i'a"ined. Eli&a!eth carried o1t the e*ec1tion in 15%I ,ith her c1sto'ary 'i*t1re of rel1ctance and pla1si!le denia!ility. 71st as she had !een 1r"ed to eli'inate the threat Mary posed, 7a'es ,as press1red to respond to the o1tra"e of his 'other:s death= he ,as challen"ed, in fact, to take ven"eance on En"land for the '1rder of the Scots <1een.C51D 3fter Mary:s e*ec1tion, the possi!ility lin"ered that 7a'es 'i"ht ,ell carry a "r1d"e a"ainst Eli&a!eth, even to the point of for'in" a potentially disastro1s alliance ,ith Spain a"ainst En"land.C5/D -he fears never panned o1t, !1t Eli&a!eth and 7a'es 'aintained a delicately anta"onistic relationship thro1"ho1t the 159$s= she took the role of nettled instr1ctor and defender of all thin"s Protestant, ,hile her st1dent?co1sin had to re'ain va"1ely apolo"etic a!o1t his 'onarchical deficiencies and his tolerance of Catholics. Even ,hen, late in the cent1ry, 7a'es:s En"lish s1ccession !e"an to look 'ore and 'ore likely, he ca'e close to r1inin" ) 15$ ) his chances !y !ackin" the increasin"ly antia1thoritarian earl of Esse*. -his relationship flirted ,ith disaster ,hen 7a'es serio1sly considered Esse*:s plea to invade En"land to save the earl and the nation. S1ch an act ,o1ld have 'arked 7a'es as 'ore an ene'y of the state than its savior, one ,ho E,o1ld atte'pt to "ather fr1it !efore it is ripe.EC5#D Esse* ,anted 7a'es to stron"?ar' his ene'ies at co1rtBto take reven"e on the nation:s sli"htin" of the Scots kin" and .closer to the 'ark0 on the treachero1s Cecilian faction. -he 'ore ,e see of politically 'otivated acts of reven"e in history, the less intelli"i!ly reven"e f1nctions as a 'eas1ra!le <1antity, a rational o!6ect of in<1iry. @n one side, thro1"h the Scottish Bond of 3ssociation, the possi!ility of "ro1p ven"eance 'ay have helped a1thori&e and th1s sec1re a ne, kin" for En"land. B1t alternatively, any a""ressive 7aco!ean act of reven"e a"ainst En"land ,o1ld have de'olished ,hat pr1dent delay facilitated. 7a'es:s s1ccession ,as the fr1it, in a real sense, that he did not atte'pt to "ather !efore it ,as ripeBthe fr1it of not havin" aven"ed his 'other:s death ,hen he 'i"ht have, of not havin" 'ilitarily, at Esse*:s re<1est, 61'ped the "1n for love or honor. +n the literary space, retri!1tion a"ainst the kin" .,hich the play takes "reat pains to dis"1ise as reven"e0 clears a path for a ne, kin" as ,ellB!1t it is not the kin" ,e sho1ld !e pleased to have. -he cynical replace'ent fi"1re (ortin!ras, previo1sly an ene'y to 2en'ark, achieves the 'onarchy !y capitali&in" on >a'let:s !elated actions a"ainst Cla1di1s. .+t is this !elatedness that ens1res >a'let:s failure to ascend and possess the throne.0 Beca1se >a'let:s fla,ed, 1npre'editated ven"eance is taken virt1ally posth1'o1sly, it seals and sta'ps his last act as tra"ic. 8even"e is "ood, reven"e is not "ood= it !riefly "ratifies, and per'anently de'olishes. -he co'plications proliferate. 7a'es:s o,n reven"e doc1'ent, the second Bond of 3ssociation, s1""ests that the specter of retri!1tion can protect a 'onarch ,hose reven"e oath a'o1nts to a national vote of confidence= th1s can an odd sort of le"iti'acy !e co'pelled thro1"h a pro'ise of retaliatory violence. -he !ond never a'o1nted to '1ch, as far as + kno,, !1t it never had to, and so it did its ,ork: it s1fficiently proclai'ed s1pport for 7a'es as the only enforceable candidate for the En"lish cro,n. +t ,as a calc1lated threat. 3t the sa'e ti'e, 7a'es:s ri"ht to s1cceed to the throne depended,

conspic1o1sly if not entirely, on the Edyin" voiceE of the <1een, and not on reven"e at all. .Perhaps this ri"ht depended 'erely on the fiction of her approvin" vote= the s1ccession act1ally h1n" 1pon 8o!ert Cecil:s craft and efficacy. 5e cannot kno, ) 151 ) ,hat, if anythin", the <1een e*pressed ,hen she lay dyin"= !1t Cecil and historians after hi' dee'ed si"nificant the story of the e*plicit no'ination of 7a'es.0 +t is c1rio1s that >a'let, so co'ple*ly 7aco!ean all alon", achieves Elizabeth1s prero"ative in his final 'o'ents alive= the ri"hts of his 'onarchy !eco'e last rites, as he perfor's the na'in" of kin"ship in the presence of death. 3t once he see's fractionally 7a'eslike a"ain, caricat1rin" the kin":s 1F$# arrival into death?s1rro1nded r1le: the coroner is the cro,ner.C5GD M1ch of >a'let:s e*perience thro1"ho1t the play has involved !ein" sh1t o1t of kin"ship. >is entry into po,er 'i'ics 7a'es:s: it co'es too late, and it s'ells of 'ortality. -he lon"?postponed reven"e to ,hich !oth fi"1res ,ere consi"ned sho,s at the last as an atten1ated thin": it:s hard to kno,, ,ith all the !odies stre,n every,here, ,hat the f1ss ,as a!o1t. +n the first <1arto, p1!lished in 1F$#, >a'let never does esta!lish the s1ccession or voice the !est candidate. +ndeed, he has no inklin", prophecy, or preference concernin" (ortin!ras:s takeover. +n other ,ords, 1ntil 1F$#, he and Shakespeare re'ain 1ni'plicated in the politics of the arrivin" re"i'e. B1t in the second <1arto, >a'let helps le"iti'i&e a s1ccession that na'es the son of a for'er ene'y of state: sy'!olically, 7a'es hi'self, the invadin" son fro' the north, has !een elected. -he later te*t there!y offers an e*<1isitely co'plicated 7aco!ean fantasy: 7a'es, altho1"h havin" !een e*cl1ded for so lon", finally 'etaphorically esta!lishes himself in his o,n s1ccession after the <1een:s death and after havin" "1iltlessly rid hi'self of the ancestral o!li"ations of reven"e. >a'let na'in" (ortin!ras is a translated version of 7a'es na'in" 7a'es. -he historical identifications here 'ay see' to veer to,ard arith'etical parody, re<1irin" so'ethin" akin to a transitive la, of inscriptive relevance: E+f 7a'es e<1als >a'let and >a'let e<1als (ortin!ras, then 7a'es e<1als >a'let pl1s the s1' of characters 3 and B s1ch that . . .E 3ny reasona!le critical investi"ation ,o1ld seek to avoid s1ch parodic potential. Ket, as Troilus and Cressida s1""ests, Shakespearean representations of hi"h?level politics repeatedly deploy '1ltiple vessels for the portrayal of sin"le, i''ensely co'plicated historical s1!6ects, and these vessels are often, and 61stly so ,ithin the lo"ic of the plot, antithetical forces, or co'ple'entary versions of opposin" internalities. 7a'es, no less than Esse*, can !e fi"1red as a conflict1al entity ,hose divisions 1nify representationally in 1npredicta!le conver"encesBs1ch as in the odd respect >a'let and (ortin!ras accord one another. -h1s the literary te*t can a.oid parody, can reprod1ce the historical person ) 15/ ) not as a caricat1re !1t as an ethically co'ple*, ideolo"ically torn persona"e, at once 'ore and less attractive than he or she appears in either official or 1nder"ro1nd historical disco1rse. 3t the sa'e ti'e, ho,ever, this theatrical reconstit1tion of s1!6ectivity tends potentially to,ard the 1nco'forta!ly sche'atic= as arrayed in Troilus and Cressida , for instance, the sin"le s1!6ect Esse* splits neatly into t,o ti"ht, corollary personae, each of ,hich rather coldly 'etony'i&es one version of 2evere1*:s psychic discords. B1t + hope to have sho,n !y no, that Shakespeare:s inscriptive proced1re varies fro' play to play= it even varies s1!stantially ,ithin individ1al te*ts. -he i''ense ran"e of Hamlet :s 'a6or historical referentialitiesBthe second <1arto:s s1!li'inal enact'ent of epide'ic disease, its 'ore overt !1t not 'ore si'plistic delineation of 7aco!ean historyBdefies p1re sche'ati&ation. 3nd 61st as the play reenacts ,itho1t saniti&in" St1art fa'ily scandal and s1ccession taint, so does it offer

only partial settle'ents and f1rther conf1sions in the ideolo"y of reven"e. By evokin" 7a'es thro1"h the 'ar"inally s1ccessf1l, accidental aven"er >a'let and the politically opport1nistic, nonaven"in", !est?re'ainin"?candidate (ortin!ras, the play insol1!ly pro!le'ati&es the 'eanin" of the 7aco!ean s1ccession and the disco1rse of reven"e that helped, ho,ever indirectly, to sec1re it. 3s the history of Hamlet criticis' de'onstrates, reven"e cannot cohere as both a dra'atic and an historical fact. -he idea can !e rationali&ed as a cathartic theatrical principleBvillains sho1ld !e p1nished !y ,ron"ed aven"ers ,ho o1"ht to prevailB!1t that position stands a"ainst !oth a do'inant c1lt1ral senti'ent .the Christian prohi!ition that E;od ,ill repayE0 and the recent events of s1ccession politics. ;ood doctrine does not "enerally s1pport or prod1ce "ood theater. Conversely, reven"e 'ay !e a f1nctional part of the pra"'atic state intelli"ence .,e shall aven"e the death of o1r f1t1re soverei"n0, !1t s1ch a corporate plot falls fiat in the theater, ,hich tends to privile"e and anato'i&e individ1al a"on.C55D (ro' any an"le, ho,ever, the pro!le'atic topic is h1"e, overdeter'ined. 8even"e:s historical polyse'y is 'a"nified !y its literary co'plications. Ao sin"le political valence, no 'oral or reli"io1s ar"1'ent a!o1t ,hat EShakespeare:s a1dience ,o1ld have feltE .al,ays a desperate interpretive "a'!it0, can possi!ly 1nify the conflicted s1!6ect of reven"e in the play, 61st as no interpretation can satisfactorily and co'pletely respond to the politics of Hamlet :s and >a'let:s last act. (or instance, it does 1s no "ood to think that in so'e Calvinist political theory, citi&ens had the d1ty, the perfect conscience, to take ven"ef1l action a"ainst tyrants ,hen >a'let himself displays so ) 15# ) 'any feat1res of the tyrant. +s this to s1""est that >a'let o1"ht to co''it s1icideJ @n the other hand, ho,ever, co1ld the prince really s1ffer 'eekly thro1"ho1t the play, ,aitin" for fallin" sparro,s, ,hile Shakespeare:s co'pany sold no ticketsJ -he play is trapped in the interstices of political, 'oral, and theatrical i'peratives. -he a1dience is !locked, finally and fr1stratin"ly, fro' respondin" to the iss1e of ven"eance in an 1nconflicted ,ay. -he conditions 1nder ,hich the prince finally sec1res his tantali&in" o!6ects of desireBreven"e, the throneBare precisely conditions ,hich precl1de any conceiva!le "ratification in the event: >a'let hi'self is dyin" and can inherit nothin" e*cept the .s1perficially considera!le !1t act1ally s1perero"atory0 po,er to control the election, to na'e (ortin!ras. By the !e"innin" of the s,ordfi"ht, >a'let has, 1n!elieva!ly, for"otten a!o1t the reven"e plot of the play= !y the end, that plot has !eco'e e*traneo1s. 8even"e occ1rs as the res1lt of chance, in the 'idst of a sc1ffle. >a'let:s acts have lon" since !eco'e scattershot, finally 1nintelli"i!le in ter's of the traditional ven"eance story that has 'eant so '1ch to hi'. 9illin" the kin" !eco'es 'erely another 'ove'ent of s,ord and c1p in a fren&y of sta"e !1siness. 5hat is 'ore, once Cla1di1s:s cri'es have !een revealed .!1t not, si"nificantly eno1"h, !y >a'let0, the kin" does not have '1ch of a career left. So an a1dience is ro!!ed of even the perple*ed pleas1re of a dra'atic cli'a* to >a'let:s !loody and ven"ef1l pre'editations. -he other re,ard that has !een pro'ised, >a'let:s ass1'ption of a1thority, also vanishes. -he investit1re of (ortin!ras ,ith >a'let:s voice 'ay "ive the cherished ill1sion of 'onarchical po,er to the 'ori!1nd prince, !1t even in elected kin"ships, 'i"ht 'akes ri"ht, and the entry of Aor,ay:s prince into the no, defenseless, depop1lated 2anish co1rt 'akes it clear that the voice vote ,as a "rat1ity, a self?flatterin" drea' or at !est .as >a'let says0 a prophecy. 5hat >a'let:s political infl1ence really a'o1nts to is a derisive recyclin" of history that dis'antles all of the previo1s real?estate "ains of his father. So reven"e:s final irony is that the ;host:s fiat 1lti'ately sacrifices the entire kin"do' to the national ene'y. 3nd ,e '1st not for"et that yo1n" (ortin!ras:s o,n deflection fro' reven"e !y his s1pposedly i'potent 1ncle has essentially "1aranteed the restit1tion of his ancestral properties, his tene!ro1s ri"hts of 'e'ory to all of 2en'ark, ,itho1t his havin" to fire a shot

in an"er, only in tri1'phBthe play:s final so1nds. (ortin!ras:s deter'ination not to attack the state, not to actively aven"e his father:s defeat, has !ro1"ht hi' a far deeper, 'ore 1nconventional reven"e: the "ratification of the ,inner. >e has ) 15G ) "ained a '1ch 'ore e*tensive e'pire than the le" talionis co1ld have ens1red. So ,here can ,e stand in relation to the <1estion of ven"eanceJ 5e cannot orient o1rselves to it in any one ,ay, !eca1se it is s1ch a skittery si"nifier, a political, intellect1al, and 'oral ,ill?o:?the?,isp. 8even"e is o!vio1sly 61stified and "ratifyin" in rare cases, a cynical e*pedient in 'any, finally st1pid and self?defeatin" in 'ost= !1t it is 1tterly necessary to the dra'atic str1ct1re, ho,ever defor'ed and postponed, of this tra"edy. Oen"eance cannot !e theori&ed co'pletely and coherently as both a philosophical and a literary pheno'enon, especially ,hen that theory !o1nces off of historical reference. +n the last years of Eli&a!eth:s r1le, and in the !risk activity s1rro1ndin" the s1ccession of 7a'es, Ereven"eE ,as a presence .as it ,as in 7a'es:s rei"n0 of intense !1t finally indeter'inate i'portance.C5FD +n fore!earin" fro' aven"in" his 'other:s death, 7a'es ena!led his o,n s1ccession= !1t !y reconfi"1rin" the Bond of 3ssociation, he s1!scri!ed to a national pro'ise of ven"eance, th1s helpin" to clear a path to that s1ccession. -he play and its historical inscriptions or!it the reven"e <1estion erratically at !est, fl1ct1atin" ,eirdly ,ithin the 'ysterio1s apo"ee and peri"ee of choice and chance= in Hamlet , ven"eance finally sho,s as an a'!ivalent and, a"ain, indeter'inate accident. Beca1se retri!1tive violence, re"nant at the end of the play, passes fro' h1'an ,ill into happenstance, ,hich so'e call providence, it cannot !e 61d"ed as an intention. -h1s, Shakespeare can dra'atistically !oth !less and critici&e reven"e ,itho1t e'!racin" or !ein" held responsi!le for its !loodthirsty and "lo!ally destr1ctive doctrine. 4iterat1re 'ay record a fiss1re of a'!ivalence or conf1sion ,here a correlative incoherence e*ists in history, and to ask of Hamlet so'ethin" that -1dor?St1art c1lt1re cannot provideBa clear valence to reven"eBis to ask an 1nans,era!le <1estion. 5e sho1ld instead ask, in o1r final phase of analy&in" Hamlet :s historical conditions, ho, reven"e:s se'antic irreconcila!ility f1nctions in a play that see's to for"et the iss1e entirely !y the end. + !elieve that the <1estion of ven"eance is si'ply the 'ost reno,ned con1ndr1' in a te*t ,hose every aspect points in '1ltiple directions. 3 pocket of incoherence in itself, reven"e also spreads .like co'post on ,eeds0 a chaos of contradictory c1lt1ral si"nifiers. +t f1nctions as an irony 'achine. @ne of the 'ore pec1liar of reven"e:s prod1ced ironies is that, as + have s1""ested, (ortin!ras rese'!les in his nonaven"in", 1nprotested s1ccession no one so '1ch as 9in" 7a'es. -he si'ilarity prod1ces f1r? ) 155 ) ther fore!odin" a!o1t the nat1re of !oth the Scottish and the Aor,e"ian s1ccessions: the 'an ,ith so'e Eri"hts of 'e'oryE co'es to preside over a co1rt of the dead. +f !oth (ortin!ras and >a'let represent possi!ilities of 7aco!ean inscription, the play:s a'!ivalence a!o1t s1ccession shades into doo'sayin". -he 'ost positive pro"nosis the play allo,s for 2en'ark is that the state:s recovery fro' >a'let:s actions ,ill co'e at "reat cost. -hat cost is (ortin!ras, ,ho eerily evokes in his 'e'orial clai' to the throne an i'a"e of invasion?t1rned?le"iti'ate s1ccession= of pla"1e?!eco'e?c1re. 3s the play:s 'ost cynical flo1rish on the ,hole topic of s1ccession, the tri1'ph of (ortin!ras cannot help !1t ne"atively color 7a'es:s inheritance, thro,in" shado,s on the son of En"land:s ene'y. So'ethin"

"oes !adly ,ron" not only ,ith plot at the end of Hamlet , in that the entire reven"e the'e !eco'es a ,eak aftertho1"ht, !1t also ,ith the connections !et,een the te*t and its historical referents. @ne of these referents, the c1lt1ral 1pheaval prod1ced !y the pla"1e, achieves dra'at1r"ic, eidetic pro'inence at the 'o'ent of (ortin!ras:s "lory, as !odies lie scattered in a ta!lea1 of s1dden, ca1"ht catastrophe. B1t the pheno'enon of pest, like the pro!le'atic of reven"e, calls forth 'ore <1estions of identification and val1e than it ans,ers. -he co'ple* fi"1ration of pla"1e in Hamlet artic1lates the palsied plot of c1lt1ral conditions circa 1F$#, ,hen 7a'es:s lon"?a,aited s1ccession res1lted not in the serene occ1pancy of the throne !1t rather in his 'ortifyin" fli"ht fro' it. 7a'es co1ld not prevent the !1r"eonin" of fatal disease on his accession any 'ore than >a'let can finally prevent the entry of a stron"?ar'in" con<1eror. B1t >a'let does not 'erely prophesy (ortin!ras= he sanctions and virt1ally con61res hi', layin" ,aste to the state in a ,ay that even pla"1e co1ld not. >a'let and (ortin!ras to"ether sh1t do,n the ,hole 2anish dynastic line.C5ID -he pro!le' of inscription !eco'es pressin" at this point= ,e ,itness not only a s1ccession !1t a de'olition. 3nd 7a'es is the fi"1re in the carpet, the l1rkin", still 1nclear i'a"e of s1ccession and destr1ction.

VI
-his 6i"sa, of history and theater 'i"ht 1sef1lly !e reasse'!led in the fra'e of pla"1e. Epide'ic illness corr1pts and co'pro'ises not only the political !1t also the aesthetic process. Beca1se conta"ion !y definition erases !o1ndaries, it prod1ces '1ltiple likenesses= in the conte*t of the sickness, every threat to sta!ility !eco'es alar'in"ly si'ilar, a disease of the state. (ortin!ras and >a'let fall into a historical pool of ) 15F ) rese'!lance. -hey enter a si'ilarity ,ith the physical and psycholo"ical operations and effects of pestilence, 'i'in" its depredations 1pon c1lt1re. B1t ,hile it see's reasona!le eno1"h to s1ppose that one or t,o fictional persona"es represent or evoke, in part or in ,hole, an historical fi"1re, it '1st rin" false to ar"1e that a character or even a cast of characters can f1nction as si'1lacra for epide'ic diseaseBa transhistorical force. +nterpretive ethics sho1ld harness the i'p1lse to 'ap s1ch an intensely co'plicated, for'ida!le presence as the pla"1e onto dra'atic characters, no 'atter ho, co'ple* they are. (or ,hile >a'let:s lan"1a"e partakes of the 'arvelo1s, inf1sed ,ith the a'pera"e of a transcendental, '1rdero1s ener"y, he re'ains a fi"1re of a 'an, finally s1!6ect in his ,orld to the fra"ility of the flesh. 2espite the stron" hint that he lin"1istically s1rpasses his o,n physical li'itationsBthree ti'es he states his death as a fact .E+ a' dead Horatio . . . Horatio + a' dead . . . + die Horatio E C@+M@+OD0, yet each ti'e he s1rvives his o,n sentence and contin1es to speakBhe does e*pire at last. >is 'ortality casts do1!t on his a!ility to represent an essentially transcendent, historically 1n!o1nd disaster. 4ike,ise, his 'i"hty opposite Cla1di1s, ,hile certainly capa!le of ,ickedness, never passes '1ch !eyond the h1'an 'otivations Efor ,hich + did the '1rther= My Cro,ne, 'ine o,ne a'!ition, and 'y L1eeneE .7+0. (inally, (ortin!ras, kin" of the dead, lacks either >a'let:s pestilent inh1'anity or the disease:s harsh 'otivelessness= he is 'iddle 'ana"e'ent, not an o!vio1s !earer of s1pernat1ral destr1ction. -here is of co1rse a credi!le, inh1'an inscription of the disease in the play: the ;host. -he i'a"e of 9in" >a'let can !e re"arded as the fo1ndin" infestation= it he*es the lan"1a"e and health of the state. -he ;host certainly e'!le'ati&es pla"1e:s key attri!1tes: a dise'!odied, corr1ptive ener"y, the pivotal effect of ,hich is to set death in 'otion and to overthro, a kin". >a'let hi'self tells 1s that ,hen the ;host first appearsBin Ethe very ,itchin" ti'e of ni"htEBis also ,hen Ehell it selfe !reakes o1t

Conta"ion to this ,orldE .>Gv0. B1t the s1rest analo"y !et,een the ;host and the pla"1e lies in the fact that !oth are rec1rrent pheno'ena. -he idea of Eha1ntin"E no, 1sed 'ostly in reference to polter"eists and other spooks is !ased ety'olo"ically not so '1ch on occ1pation as on repetition, on ha!it1al action or location.C5%D 3nd Eto ha1ntE in one 8enaissance 1sa"e referred to E1nseen or i''aterial visitantsE including disease, s1ch ha1ntin"s !ein" especially Eca1ses of distraction or tro1!leE .*E2 , Eha1nt,E s.v. 5.a0. -his sense ) 15I ) of ha1ntin" links >a'let:s diseased distractions to pla"1e:s 1ni<1e character in the 8enaissance as a common s1pernat1ral event. 5hen 7a'es:s ento1ra"e ,as !ein" follo,ed !y .and, see'in"ly, endlessly prod1cin"0 the disease, -ho'as Ed'onds ,rote that Ethe Co1rt hath !een so contin1ally ha1nted ,ith the sickness . . . as ,e are forced to re'ove fro' place to place.EC59D (or all the catastrophic alteration si"nified !y pla"1es, they 'ore fri"htenin"ly 'eant recursion : the sa'e death ,as replayed on a national scale, the sa'e !ooks of c1res ,ere translated and reprinted, the sa'e la,s a"ainst va"rancy and va"a!onda"e ,ere res1rrected, and terri!ly fa'iliar de'o"raphics prevailed. -he pla"1e ,as an episodic crisis of the past no, present: a crisis of history:s ret1rn. 3 "host al a#s represents and 1shers in historical crises. -his ;host:s 'any .indirect0 victi's si"nify that a s1!'ission to the i'peratives of the past can de'olish entire c1lt1res as ,ell as individ1als. >o,ever, 9in" >a'let:s ha1ntin" is partic1lar, not "eneral: the spirit po1rs its ,orst poison directly into the son. -he 'yriad relationships of sickness to history are cond1cted thro1"h >a'let, not the ;host. By adoptin" the father:s infective 'ode and trans'ittin" the ancestor:s disease, >a'let sei&es ,hat the present ti'e has denied hi': he sei&es po,er, if only the ter'inal po,er to 1ndo the present. +ronically, ,hen he atte'pts to p1t his po,er into 1se at last, he calls forth as the s1ccessor to the throne a past na'e, the na'e of the father:s van<1ished ene'y. B1rdens of history convect in >a'let:s character, and he al,ays 'akes of these press1res so'ethin" conta"io1s and destr1ctive. -he effect of the ;host on >a'let is, in a like !1t tort1o1s ,ay, replayed thro1"h the sphere of inscription, in the effect of history on the te*t of the second <1arto. -e'poral !orders r1pt1re= the i'a"inative pla"1e that is the past overtakes the theatrical present, a!sor!s and disperses 7aco!ean history. -he defeated elder Both,ell is recalled in rede'ptive piracy= 2arnley dies a"ain and ret1rns ne,ly disfi"1red, seekin" ven"eance= Mary reappears as the tar"et of >a'let:s 'ost 'iso"ynistic i'a"inary acc1sations. 3nd ,ith this ree'er"ence of St1art history, present identifications "ro, stran"e. Cla1di1s is 1nacco1nta!ly like 7a'es, insofar as !oth are victi's of s1!versive diseases= (ortin!ras, opport1nistic infection that he is, also fi"1res the ne, kin"= and >a'let thro1"ho1t for's ho'olo"ies and displace'ents a'on" several -1dor and St1art persona"es and forces, incl1din" Esse* .in his advocacy of and dan"er to the s1ccession0, Eli&a!eth .thro1"h his dyin" voice0, and the '1ch?tro1!led 7a'es. @ne 'ore e*a'ple ,ill s1ffice to sketch the 1prooted, fra"'entary ) 15% ) historio"raphy of the play and s1""est the pla"1y destr1ction of cate"ories in ,hich Hamlet :s histories en"a"e. 3s a kind of coda to the Both,ell le"acy, another, identically na'ed ne'esis pestered 9in" 7a'es in his 'at1rity. Mary:s second h1s!and ,as 7a'es >ep!1rn, fo1rth earl of Both,ell= his nephe, ,as (rancis Ste,art?>ep!1rn, fifth earl of Both,ell, ,ho !eca'e one of 7a'es:s 'ost dan"ero1s ene'ies. 71st as (ortin!ras 61nior ret1rns at the end of Hamlet to visit .or perhaps redee'0 the sins of the fathers 1pon the nation of the son, so the second Both,ell ret1rned, ,ith the na'e of the past, to ha1nt 9in" 7a'es. -he co'ple* so1rce of the yo1n"er Both,ell:s hostility ,as a 'i*t1re of personal

a'!ition, reli"io1s o1tra"e at 7a'es:s conciliatory stance to,ard re!el Catholic lords, and fiscal f1ry at the kin":s appropriation, thro1"ho1t the early 159$s, of 'any of the no!ility:s lands and po,ers. -he short version of the story is that Both,ell fo1"ht !ack, inflictin" several o1tra"es 1pon the di"nity and person of 7a'es ,ith 'ini'al royal retri!1tion= finally, in 159#, he apprehended and detained 7a'es 1nder a !rief ho1se arrest. -he kin" 'ana"ed to escape, event1ally arrestin" the yo1n"er Both,ell in t1rn and finally ,orkin" the e*ile of his ene'yB!1t not !efore yo1n" Ste,art?>ep!1rn had driven a ,ed"e !et,een 7a'es and Eli&a!eth.CF$D -he <1een o!6ected to her co1sin:s contin1ed leniency to, and inaction concernin", the re!el lord= 7a'es for his part ,as f1rio1s that Eli&a!eth repeatedly ref1sed to apprehend his ener"etic yo1n" ene'y. 4ookin" to this co'plicated history, 4illian 5instanley has e*cavated another ,in" in the s1!terranean archive of Hamlet :s representational processes: 3n e*cellent dra'a can . . . !e 'ade !y co'!inin" in one the parts played !y the t,o Both,ells. -here is nothin" diffic1lt in s1ch a conception: the t,o !elon"ed to the sa'e fa'ily, they ,ere 1ncle and nephe,, they held the sa'e title. . . . CEDven 'odern Scottish historians have re'arked that the yo1n"er Both,ell see'ed like a reincarnation of the elder. -he device of p1ttin" the t,o in one is <1ite si'ple and o!vio1s . . .: the cri'es co''itted !y Cla1di1s are the cri'es of the elder Both,ell ,hich are far 'ore strikin" and dra'atic than the cri'es of the yo1n"er Both,ell= !1t the relation of >a'let to Cla1di1s is the relation of 7a'es to the yo1n"er Both,ell. 5hy notJCF1D >ere is ,hy not: !eca1se to !e so ad'ira!ly tidy a!o1t the cond1ct of history in this dra'a is ass1redly to !e ,ron"Baltho1"h 5instanley is not, + think, on the ,ron" track. >er favorite co'!ination? inscription for'1la opens 1p f1rther interpretive possi!ilities for, !1t also dis61nc? ) 159 ) tions !et,een, the te*t and the 7aco!ean story. 3dded !its of infor'ation serio1sly co'pro'ise her historical identificationsBs1ch as, for e*a'ple, 7a'es:s conviction that the yo1n"er Both,ell ,as da!!lin" in ,itchcraft. -he kin":s paranoia a!o1t the occ1lt ,as keen after he ret1rned fro' his ,eddin" trip to 2en'ark in 159$, ,here, as Christina 4arner notes, E5itch?h1ntin" ,as ende'ic. . . . C7a'esD is likely to have !een i'pressed !y the fact that the learned and i'portant in that co1ntry took the terrors and 'enace of ,itchcraft serio1sly.ECF/D -he intense interest he took in the s1!6ect ,as, as 4arner 'akes clear, an interest in treason= the t,o topics ,ere necessarily en'eshed in his 'ind. >e deter'ined to i'plicate the yo1n"er Both,ell in conspiratorial ,itchery as a ,ay to de'oni&e, e*orcise, and apprehend .sei&e, 1nderstand0 hi'. 5instanley does not disc1ss the possi!le ra'ifications of the yo1n"er Both,ell:s s1spected sorcery= once the <1estion of the paranor'al is !ro1"ht into the disc1ssion of Hamlet , historical identifications once a"ain !eco'e confo1ndin"ly sloppy. -r1e, Cla1di1s is referred to as Ethat incest1o1s, that ad1lterate !east, 5ith ,itchcraft of his ,itsE .2#0. So far, so "ood: the yo1n"er Both,ell 'i"ht th1s !e said to help constit1te the fi"1re of Cla1di1s. B1t it is >a'let ,ho speaks ,ith the ;host and ,ho anno1nces, after +onzago , that E-is no, the very ,itchin" ti'e of ni"ht.E +f there is converse ,ith the s1pernat1ral, if there is 'a"ical treason sta"ed !y the play, >a'let perfor's it. +t is not 'y intent to fa1lt 5instanley:s critical approach, !eca1se + a' o!vio1sly '1ch in its de!t= + only <1estion its si'plifications. -he pro!le' ,ith readin" historical inscription in Hamlet is that end points to identification are el1sive= as soon as the reader finds a sec1re historical p1rchase, 61st one 'ore fact or a differently perceived rese'!lance ca1ses a landslide of se'antic slippa"e. 5hat see's

e*traordinarily s1""estive !1t 1nresolva!le in the collo<1y !et,een the dra'a and its 7aco!ean? Both,ellian connections is the perple*in" chias' !et,een the 1ncle?nephe, relationship in historyB the -ea' Both,ell as 7aco!ean ne'esisBand the sa'e relation, also conver"in" on a 1nity, !et,een >a'let and Cla1di1s in the te*t. 5hat spiro"raph is traced hereJ 5e '1st a!andon the notion of sin"le or d1al historical correspondence in favor of a '1ltidi'ensional constellation of references: the t,o Both,ells vario1sly confo1nded 7a'es, ,ho has !een victi'i&ed like >a'let, ,ho seditio1sly ho1nds the kin", ,ho in t1rn is like the t,o Both,ells in !oth his villainy and fr1stratin" po,er to evade p1nish'ent. Uncle and nephe, of the past, the cri'inal, ,itchy, treasono1s .!1t not 1n<1estiona!ly ,icked0 Both,ells, and 1ncle nephe, of the te*t1al pre? ) 1F$ ) sent, Cla1di1s and >a'let, diver"e str1ct1rally, !1t at key points they are dist1r!in"ly si'ilar in the threat they pose to political order. +f the ,ritin"?in of the past in Hamlet has a "no'ic point, it is that theater can reconstit1te history ,itho1t red1cin" or caricat1rin" it. B1t can the te*t represent its conte*ts coherentlyJ Can it constr1ct, o1t of the ,idely si"nifyin" past, a 'o'ent of 'eanin" and resolveJ -he play displays, reani'ates, !1t does not cleanly anato'i&e or li'it historical ener"ies that tend to,ard the entropic= the ,ritin"?in yields a her'ene1tic openin" o1t. Contentio1s participants in c1lt1re, over ti'e, rese'!le one another= disorderin" infl1ences are analo"i&ed ,ith infection= notions of ca1se, 61stification, ideolo"ical difference slip a,ay. +n Hamlet , layers of si'ilit1de a'on" characters !reak do,n cate"orical !o1ndaries !et,een the', foistin" interpretive 1ncertainty not only 1pon an a1dience, !1t also 1pon the history "lancin"ly represented. Shakespeare:s alar'in" conver"ences of >a'let and Cla1di1s, >a'let and (ortin!ras, >a'let and any other prod1cers of discord call forth an 1n,elco'e conta"ion !et,een cate"ories that 'ost a1diences .and certainly the characters the'selves0 ,ish to keep separate: 1ncle father, ,inner loser, r1ler s1!6ect, hero villain, present past, str1ct1re chaos. Aeat layers of si"nificance !lend into one another, as ,hen the Both,ell earls receive theatrical life as an anta"onistic !1t conver"ent division .>a'let Cla1di1s0, not a 1nity, as 5instanley ,o1ld have it. 2eter'ination of historical codes or references in the play '1st !e provisional: >a'let only haltin"ly, inter'ittently represents the p1t?1pon and s1ccession?starved 9in" 7a'es= and it see's that every t,ist in the plot introd1ces another possi!ility for the aesthetic ret1rn of some aspect of the ne, kin":s past. (or instance, + have placed the intr1sion of yo1n" Both,ell into 7a'es:s life in the sa'e referential fra'e as the intr1sion of yo1n" (ortin!ras into 2en'ark. -he ret1rn of (ortin!ras fi"1res an historical rer1n of precisely the sort that (rancis Ste,art?>ep!1rn '1st have see'ed: the fri"hts of 'e'ory. Ket this inscription 61""les ,ith 1s. (or (ortin!ras as a type of Ko1n" Both,ell coe*ists ,ith (ortin!ras as 7a'es, the northern r1ler and potential invader feared !y so'e En"lish'en. +f ,e take the possi!le rever!erations of history serio1sly here, then the self !eco'es its de'onic other as 7a'es and yo1n" Both,ell f1nnel into the fi"1re of (ortin!ras. 3 fract1red 'ira"e of 7aco!ean i'a"es !e"ins to asse'!le. 71st like a drea' in ,hich the drea'er plays every role and s1ffers each character:s tri1'phs and handicaps, Hamlet s1t1res inti'ate scraps of 7a'es:s history into a patch,ork !ody of personal fi"1rations that are also topical, cultural fi"1rationsB!eca1se ) 1F1 ) ,hen the drea'er is the kin", his portents are national. +f the fi"1re of 7a'es lends so'e concept1al 1nity to the !afflin" historio"raphical i'!rications and discontin1ities in Hamlet , the play, as a displaced drea' of so'eone else:s an*ieties, still cannot deploy those inscriptions in an entirely

rational, 1nified 'anner. >istory !eco'es rando' 7aco!ean antholo"y in the te*t. Unlike the operative 'i'etic coherence of conte'porary conte*ts in Troilus and Cressida , 2en'ark:s referential fra"'ents are dysf1nctional as representations: their sheer '1ltiplicity, their d1!io1s "enealo"y, 'akes the' poorly 'atched pieces, yoked !y theatrical violence in a plot ,hose drea' lo"ic never <1ite "els. Hamlet esta!lishes the endless co'ple*ity of persons in history, and this esta!lish'ent depends on the play:s ref1sal, or rather ina!ility, to sche'ati&e persons and history, to isolate a "ro1p of histories and distin"1ish a'on" the'. +n this inco'petence lies a vast disor"ani&in" potential. St1ffed ,ith orts o1t of 6oint fro' the 7aco!ean past, the second <1arto of Hamlet a!sor!s i''ense c1lt1ral and historical incoherence ,itho1t co'pletely di"estin" it. -here are t,o ,ays to take the dra'a:s internali&ation and deco'position of its conte*ts. -he first is to assi"n f1ll aesthetic intentionality to the a1thor and the te*t: to say that Shakespeare has a conscio1s 'i'etic pro"ra' ,hich prod1ces the cracked histories + have traced. +f this pro"ra' is intentional, ho,ever, it is also a theatrical fail1re: it res1lts in h1"e disr1ptions in plot and psycholo"y that have lon" !othered critics of Hamlet . -hese critics have la!ored for cent1ries 1nder the despotis' of an ass1'ption that the play 'akes sense. @ne ,o1ld have to concl1de fro' the conte*t1al readin" that the te*t is dist1r!ed !y its o,n 'i'etic process, its inscriptional proced1re, a proced1re it cannot 'ana"e "iven the ran"e and variety of 'aterials enfolded in the stories of 7a'es, the s1ccession, and the !1!onic pla"1e. B1t another ,ay to read the presence of history in the te*t ,o1ld take the pla"1e as a 'odel, not 'erely an e*a'ple, of historical intervention. 9in" >a'let:s de'ise inevita!ly evokes 'e'ories of the 2arnley '1rder, and creates an apert1re for history to enter the te*t= fro' that point, EhistoryE cannot !e kept o1t, and its effects as ,ell as its !o1ndaries spread. +t !eco'es an infectio1s press1re on and a poll1tant in the interpretive and 'i'etic f1nction. >ere is the pro!le': once ,e see the fo1ndation of the plot as 'aterially derived fro' historical factBthe 2arnley '1rder, say, or 7a'es:s on"oin" pro!le's ,ith the Both,ellsBthe dra'a cannot easily !e read e*cept thro1"h the filter of that controllin" story= that story !eco'es the te*t:s to1chstone, its sta!le 'eanin". -his ) 1F/ ) her'ene1tic trap is the accidental !1t necessary conse<1ence of the ,ork:s havin" ad'itted an# clear and pivotal topicality into the theater. 3 piece of history that contri!1tes, for instance, a cr1cial plot t,ist, a pri'ary i'a"e cl1ster, or the likeness of a 'a6or character also dan"les a l1re for readersBa pro'ise of accessi!ility. More often than not, Shakespeare 'akes "ood on this pro'ise= only rarely do his histories lead no,here. >is plays are t#picall# choosy repositories of reference. B1t ,hen the social and c1lt1ral fields that s1rro1nd the te*t infiltrate it apparently at rando', the str1ct1res on ,hich literary for' traditionally depends can !reak do,n. 3ny art '1st deploy its c1lt1ral referentiality ,ith care if it hopes to arran"e the scatterin"s of the past and present= if, that is, it hopes to derive sense fro' te'porality. 3 te*t ,hich dra,s pro'isc1o1sly on or helplessly a!sor!s the contradictions and '1ltiplicities of history ,ill s1ffer her'ene1tic disr1ptions, nonprod1ctive polyse'y, dysf1nctional theatrics. +n Hamlet , history !eco'es an 1n,holeso'e infl1ence that the te*t can neither resist nor contain. Pla"1e, as a 'odel of the aesthetic process of historical intervention in Hamlet , replaces sociolo"ical or psycholo"ical sense ,ith conta"ion patterns that "est1re to,ard !1t fr1strate desi"n. -he disease:s '1ltiple 'anifestations and interventions rationali&e .if anythin" can0 the second <1arto:s radically discontin1o1s acts of referentiality, in ,hich several characters vario1sly confi"1re a sin"le historical fact, or one character a!sor!s os'otically !1t fractionally several historical feat1res, identities, or

relations. B1t even a fle*i!le theoretical 1nderstandin" of the te*t:s interplay ,ith disease has li'ited 1sef1lness. Pla"1e, after all, is not historically an effete str1ct1re or an aesthetic o!6ect= it is a th1""ish fact, an a"oni&in" assa1lt on the !ody. +ts tor<1e and s1dden dan"er e*ceed sta!ility= it cannot !e f1lly controlled or transfor'ed into so'ethin" the i'a"ination can stand and 1se. 5hen Shakespeare:s artistic tools are sharp, the sickness in 2en'ark appears to 'etaphori&e a dyna'ic, conta"io1s process of episte'olo"ical, 'oral, and social dissol1tion. B1t the play cannot s1stain a sin"le coherent i'a"e of the disease. 3 c1lt1re contains !1t is also descri!ed !y its illnesses= 61st so, the play is tainted !y the patholo"ical environ'ent it descri!es. + cannot say ,ith certainty that the second <1arto of 1F$G represents a postaccession and postpla"1e revision or therefore that the play definitively ackno,led"es the recent national horror. +ts precise dates of co'position, redaction, and perfor'ance ,ill re'ain el1sive. Ao 'atter. 5hat is clear is that Hamlet dra,s on the interre"n1' i'a"ination, one ) 1F# ) ,hich incl1ded the presence of sickness. -he play sta"es a threat to 'onarchy fro' an antithetical ener"y= it pict1res a cavern ,here force falls and tosses a!o1t. 4ike the second tetralo"y, Hamlet considers the transitional, contin"ent nat1re of 'onarchy and the corkscre, tra6ectories of an a'!ition that has !een !locked fro' its plotted ascent. -he te*t:s pri'ary s1!li'inal ener"yBthe fr1strated desire for political s1ccess, for s1ccessionBchar"es a place that has !een !lasted fro' ,ithin !y a 'ysterio1s corr1ption. -he presence of 7a'es:s past in the te*t o1"ht to dictate certain plots and or"ani&e certain theatrical e*periences, !1t it act1ally 1ndoes and disor"ani&es plot and e*perience: partly !eca1se it ,as a past that ,as never satisfactorily resolved .the '1rderer of the father escaped, the '1rderer:s nephe, ret1rned like a "host to pester 7a'es0= partly !eca1se the history itself ,as contradictory .the stepfather in 'any ,ays ,as at least 'orally co'para!le to the repro!ate father0= and partly !eca1se 7a'es ,as ha1nted !y tra"edy in his s1ccession. -he second <1arto, rattled !y its indiscri'inate a!sorption of the kin":s tro1!lin" and s1spended past, has 'ade itself v1lnera!ly s1!6ect to too man# histories. -he play co'po1nds history:s 1nreada!ility !y linkin" 7a'es and >a'let, the dra'atis personae and the conte*ts of the dra'a, in a 1nity of intellect1al 'is"ivin"= Hamlet i'itates the pla"1e:s style of cate"ory dist1r!ance !y i'plicitly en"a"in" dra'atic s1!6ectivity in acts of conta"ion so that everythin" 'eans everythin". +ts so'eti'es deli!erate, often sl1rred constr1al of the past res1lts in overdeter'inations that take their toll on the interpretive potential, the kno,a!ility, of the play.CF#D Ao chart of historical fi"1res, c1rrents, or <1adrants can sta!ili&e this ,ork. -he te*t f1rther !locks interpretive 'ane1vers !y depictin" not only national histories !1t also 'in1tely personal connections to the past, and not all of these are 7a'es:s connections. 3s everyone kno,s, the very na'e E>a'letE echoes that of Shakespeare:s son >a'net, ,ho ,as !1ried in 159F. -he !oy ,as, s1""estively eno1"h, a t,inBhis sister, 71dith, s1rvived. +n Shakespeare:s theatrical transfor'ation of tra"ic fa'ilial fact, the t,innin" pheno'enon !eco'es ni"ht'arish, 'e'oriali&in" a past that cannot !e !1ried: the son calls the father?;host !y his o,n na'e .E+le call thee Hamlet E C2+OD0 and so levels the differences !et,een the', !et,een then and no,, death and life. -he scene of the son callin" o1t to the dead father 'irrors the !io"raphical scene that the play act1ally perfor's: the livin" father Shakespeare callin" o1t to his dead son ,ho !ore the na'e the father !esto,s a"ain on ) 1FG )

a play, a tra"ical history of father and son. +n this conte*t the play !eco'es a personal 'o1rnin" rit1al, encodin" the a1thor:s o,n diffic1lty in processin" the terri!le kno,led"e of the past, the death of his child. @f co1rse, >a'let:s severe i'perfections co'plicate this to1chin" ele"iac ta!lea1. 3nd as ,ith the dra'a:s 'ore political histories, the co'plications proliferate, for the na'e has f1rther ra'ifications evoked !1t 1nresolved !y the te*t. 3 yo1n" ,o'an na'ed 9atherine >a'lett, one of Shakespeare:s childhood nei"h!ors, dro,ned in the 3von in 15I9. Aot only did she 'eet @phelia:s fate, !1t, like @phelia, she ,as the s1!6ect of a coroner:s in<1est.CFGD Shakespeare ,rites a play aro1nd a na'e !es'irched !y doo': E>a'letE is attached in history to t,o 'or!id destinies that conver"e, te'porally and se'antically o1t of sync, in the a1thor:s life. -he fate of @phelia, !eca1se it re'e'!ers 9atherine >a'lett:s de'ise, o!li<1ely recalls the na'e of the son= and altho1"h the fictional >a'let is conspic1o1sly a!sent fro' the scene of @phelia:s death, her f1neral !rin"s hi', poorly led, into the "rave. -hese t,innin"s typify the opa<1e and "ar!led referentiality in ,hich the play en"a"es at every t1rn. Hamlet co'prises, ,ith indeciphera!le co'ple*ity, !1ried histories: c1lt1ral and 'onarchical re'e'!rances f1sed ,ith those even 'ore el1sive and painf1l 'e'orial reconstr1ctions of the a1thor. -he play:s 'yriad c1lt1ral infl1ences have a nonlo"ical, 1nstr1ct1red relationship to one another. 3nd + have not even to1ched on the infl1* of Eideas of the ti'e,E pro'inent histories in their o,n ri"htB acco1nts of ,hat it ,as possi!le to think and th1s to 'ean or not to 'ean.CF5D -he fi"1re of >a'let and his interco1rse ,ith his !1rdens reify so'e central political and philosophical str1""les of the hi"h 8enaissance: conflicts of spirit1al piety vers1s ,orldly !1siness= tension !et,een i'provisational rashness and ca1tio1s rationality= sy'pathy to a politically oppositional Catholicis' vers1s loyalty to refor'ation str1ct1res and ideolo"ies .a conflict contained in the p1r"atorial ;host and in the predestinarian convictions of Cla1di1s and >a'let0. -he prince enacts all of these conflict1al relations and also !ears the i''ense representational !1rden of 7aco!ean history that + have la!ored to 1npack. B1t finally, >a'let:s fi"1ration as a repository of 8enaissance c1lt1re cannot sec1re h1'an stat1s. >e is a portrait of 1nification ,itho1t 1nity, of collocation ,itho1t coherence. 5hat can ,e 'ake at last of the play:s re,ritin" of 7a'es:s life, of >a'let:s polyvalent intake and dispersal of conte'porary and fo1ndational St1art conte*tsJ -he convol1tions of the inscriptive process s1""est that even particular histories are 1ncontrolla!le or chance ele'ents, ) 1F5 ) i'pervio1s to literary 'ana"e'entBthat history is an intellect1al !an<1et ,here!y Ea little 'ore than a little is !y '1ch too '1ch.E -he theatrical te*t ,ill al,ays, as L1ince says ,ith inadvertent !rilliance in - )idsummer !ight1s 2ream , co'e Eto disfi"1re, or to presentE a reality e*ternal to itself= it inevita!ly presents a disfi"1red appro*i'ation, an a'ended shado, of i'pin"in" shapes of the real. >o,ever, theater:s defor'ation and refor'ation of its historical 'aterial need not si"nify incapa!ility or fail1re. +t 'ay instead !etoken tri1'ph over the intracta!le ele'ents of ,orkaday life. +n theater, the alternatives of the past and the potentialities of the present can !e laid !eside one another, re'e'!ered and processed, for'in" ne, se'antic relations. -heater constr1es the possibilities of history, the nearly lived and !arely avoided. Certainly, Hamlet does not passively receive inchoate conte*ts. 3t its !est, the play 'arvelo1sly deploys c1lt1ral referentiality to intensify theatrical e*perience. 5hat + ,ish finally to s1""est, ho,ever, is that Hamlet cannot contain its histories as the'es or infl1ences. +f the play is a virt1al antholo"y of historical coordinates, it also necessarily !eco'es a repository of illo"ic, its conte*ts fr1stratin" for' and the instr1'entality of the past. + have !een disc1ssin" the relationship of s1ccession an*ieties to the concerns of the second <1arto, !1t it sho1ld !e noted at last that the idea of s1ccession is inte"ral to all literary plotBif !y Es1ccessionE

one 'eans a se<1ence of events that co'es to se'antic fr1ition. -he happy s1ccession sa"a is a 'odel story, really, a narrative perfection: one event follo,s ca1sally on another 1ntil tension resolves in the deno1e'ent of a ne, re"i'e, lo"ically cons1''atin" the old. 3 prior story is no, s1perseded, and ideally, order prevails= ,hatever treason occ1rred in the tale f1nctioned 'erely as the plot o!stacle, so satisfyin" and necessary to overco'e. +n Hamlet , ho,ever, failed s1ccession is narratively self? referential as ,ell as historically sit1ated: the story of fr1strated inheritance and ironic takeover sta"es its o,n 'etafiction of narrative incoherence. -he prince:s e*perience of prolon"ed political disappoint'ent, and the play:s o!str1cted catharsis and reven"e, are perfect e*a'ples of fictional anticli'a*= plot fails to provide c1'1lative 1nderstandin". Plot in 2en'ark conspic1o1sly and repeatedly trips, interr1pts itself, da,dles, and postpones to the point of tra"edy the achieve'ent of royalty: as everyone kno,s, Hamlet 'akes !elatedness and delay the very condition of its for'. -hese feat1res do resonate ,ith the history of 7a'es:s s1ccessions, the past and present historical conte*ts, !1t they str1ct1rally e*a""erate the character of those conte*ts. -he least pleasant fea? ) 1FF ) t1res of 7aco!ean s1ccession history, incl1din" the dist1r!in" ad6acency of 'onarchy and disease, !eco'e the 'ost pro'inent ele'ents in Hamlet :s antis1ccession plot. >istorically, the epide'ic only 'o'entarily ,recked the plot of s1ccession= pla"1e ,as !1t temporaril# ini'ical to the story of En"lish r1le that had !een 1ninterr1pted for forty?fo1r years.CFFD B1t theatrically, disease takes do'inion every,here= the political str1ct1re and the for' of the narrative are !oth shot thro1"h ,ith illness. 3nd treason in the plot is not 'erely a !rief interr1ption !efore the deno1e'ent, !1t rather the constant activity of the ri"htf1l heir, ,hose a""ressive self?cons1'ption ca1ses the story of s1ccession to 'ake less and less sense. Hamlet :s illo"icalities arise in part !eca1se the play and its ,ide, dark river of referents share a chaotic flo,= in the t1r!1lence, te*t is p1t profo1ndly into <1estion as a 'eanin"?!earin" o!6ect. +f the historically over!1rdened second <1arto fails to synthesi&e itself, or even to allo, the possi!ility of synthesis, at least it ackno,led"es the ,orld that for'ed it, the conte*ts that stress its present 'eanin"s. T elfth !ight , !y contrast, avoids s1ch ackno,led"'ents. ) 1FI )

F$+r, 3A T)ent' Years4 Rem$&e* Thing32 T!elfth "ight#s N$stalgia

T elfth !ight does not directly e*press or refer to its conte*ts, circa 1F$1, in anythin" like the ,ay Troilus and Cressida and Hamlet sta"e their o,n conte'poraneo1sness.C1D +nstead, the play co'ple*ly ins1lates the te*t fro' the c1rrent ti'e. +n keepin" the real at !ay ,hile restlessly callin" to and echoin" it, T elfth !ight perfor's on a lar"e scale ,hat its characters repeatedly enact: the s1stained del1sions of 'ediation= and the constr1ction of a reality ,hich fools rather than 'ends. -he central theatrical tar"et of s1ch activity is Malvolio. 3ny historical readin" of the te*t '1st treat this character caref1lly, for he is the fi"1re 'ost densely involved in the ,orkaday ,orld of stat1s, o!li"ation, and acco1nts.C/D >e has a special "ravitational force in the constellation of the self? concerned: he e'!odies a principle of !o1ndedness and ,ei"ht. B1t instead of offerin" solid te'poral

'arkers, @livia:s ste,ard 'akes and is 'ade an 1nsteady indicator of the history he apparently confi"1res. @n the ,ay into T elfth !ight :s inscriptions, let 1s !e"in ,ith Malvolio and his representational aptit1des. -hese are, + shall clai', constantly for'ed thro1"h the interventions of other characters. -he actions of Malvolio:s ene'ies help to dis"race hi', !1t the nat1re of that dis"race is historically coded. Malvolio:s EcharacterE is th1s constr1cted !y his co'petitors thro1"h a set of 'ediated te'poral and c1lt1ral references. +n Shakespeare:s +llyria, ,hat happens to Malvolio !oth prod1ces and challen"es the historicity of the te*t. ) 1F% ) 3rch!ishop 5hit"ift:s co1nter!last to the early P1ritan 'anifesto -n -dmonition to %arliament .15I/0 helped set the tone for 'any s1!se<1ent co''entaries on the ch1rch refor' 'ove'ent: -his na'e P1ritane is very aptely "i1en to these 'en, not !ica1se they !e p1re no 'ore than ,ere the >eretikes called Cathari , !1t !ica1se they think the' sel1es to !e mundioris ceteris , 'ore p1re than others, as Catheri did, and separate the' sel1es fro' all other Ch1rches and con"re"ations as spotted and defyled.C#D -his so1nds like a response not to so'e ne,fan"led irritant !1t to an entrenched threat. P1ritan self? e*altation, 5hit"ift !elieves, is 1nearned, 1nfo1nded in any 'oral s1periority or in real spirit1al or her'ene1tic 'erit. Most s1!se<1ent pop1lar .i.e., 3n"lican0 response to P1ritans involved 61st this 5hit"iftian assertion of the distance !et,een EprecisianE self?i'a"e and act1al ,orth. -ho'as Aashe levels dishonest ti'e?pleasers ,ith his clai' that it is Enot a'isseE that Ethey are co''only called P1ritans,E !1t only !eca1se Ethey take the'sel1es to !e p1re, ,hen they are filthy in ;ods si"ht.ECGD +n %ierce %enniless , Aashe f1rther s1!scri!es to the do'inant c1lt1ral stereotype of P1ritans as hypocrites: EOnder hypocrisie C+ co'prehendeD al Machiavilis'e, p1ritanis'e, P o1t,ard "loasin" ,ith a 'ans ene'ie.EC5D Shakespeare fills in this co''on o1tline ,ith his portrait of 3n"elo in )easure for )easure , the de'onic EpreciseE 'an ,hose sadistic virt1e hides severe 'oral defor'ities. 3nd in -ll1s 3ell That Ends 3ell , 4avatch opines that Etho1"h honesty !e no P1ritan, yet it ,ill do no h1rt= it ,ill ,ear the s1rplice of h1'ility over the !lack "o,n of a !i" heartE .1.#.9$M9#0. -his co'plicated reference "lances !ack at the vestiarian controversy ,hich !e"an the P1ritan 'ove'ent in En"land, and 'ocks conte'porary refor'ers: face? and neck?savin" hypocrisy in donnin" priestly ro!es ,hile ,earin" Ethe !lack ;eneva "o,n, the Calvinists: nat1ral "ar!, 1nder it.ECFD P1ritans 'ay have seen the s1rplice as popish, !1t so'e of the' apparently kne, ho, to cloak a controversy. So honesty co1ld !e no P1ritan, and no P1ritan honest, no 'atter ,hat he ,ore. -his hackneyed verdict of hypocrisy a"ainst the strict 'oralists 1nfairly red1ces a vast ran"e of persons, a fle*i!le theolo"y, and an a,eso'ely co'plicated sociopolitical 'ove'ent to a sin"le attri!1te.CID Satire, ,e kno,, need not !e fair. B1t neither is it co'pletely red1ctive: in ) 1F9 ) addition to the i'a"e of a hypocrite, the portrait of the P1ritan in the En"lish 8enaissance co''only pict1red a secretly a'!itio1s, pro1d, and, 'ost i'portant, covertly s1!versive refor'er.C%D 2ependin" on one:s inclination, it is possi!le to fit Shakespeare:s Malvolio into that fra'e as a deservin" co'ic tar"et, a t,o?faced, threatenin" social cli'!er ,ho "ets ,hat:s co'in" to hi'. @f the 'any critics ,ho have taken Malvolio to task for his 'oral fla,s, one of the harshest has !een Pa1l Sie"el, ,ho has called hi' a Eco'ic P1ritan a1to'atonE e'!odyin" Ber"sonian psychic ri"idity.

-he ste,ard, accordin" to Sie"el, deserves the a!1se he s1ffers at the hands of the 'isr1lin" revelers. C9D -h1s, Malvolio is Ethe P1ritan spoilsport in the 'idst of "aietyE ./1I0, a criticis' echoin" 7. 4. Si''ons:s identification of the character as Ean end1rin" representation of the antico'ic spirit.EC1$D 5hile it is safe to e<1ate EP1ritan spoilsportE and Eantico'ic spirit,E it is less certain that Malvolio o1"ht to !e associated 1ne<1ivocally ,ith P1ritanis'. (or the ori"inal char"e a"ainst hi' does not co'e fro' a disinterested o!server: it co'es fro' Maria, ,ho has a potent ani'1s a"ainst the annoyin" servant. +n ascri!in" P1ritanis' to Malvolio, Maria is not e*plainin" his spirit1al affiliation or practice. 2isco1rse a!o1t reli"ion occ1pies the play, !1t Maria:s co''ent a!o1t Malvolio, like other theolo"ical or script1ral reference in +llyria, tends to n1llify or drain the referent of spirit1al content. (or instance, (este lives E!y the ch1rch,E !1t ,hen pressed, he revises this state'ent to 'ean that he lives near the ch1rch, and not necessarily !y its precepts .#.1.#MI0= and his later i'personation of a c1rate is desi"ned to tor'ent, not enli"hten, th1s confir'in" the point.C11D More !roadly, the "eneral shape of the fa!le, ,here!y ship,reck leads to f1rther tri!1lation and finally re,ard, "ently parodies the Christian rede'ptive story ,ith the co'edy of "ender transfor'ation and social 'o!ility. So it sho1ld not see' pec1liar that the play:s treat'ent of Malvolio has a reli"io1s re"ister= !1t ,hat does r1n co1nter to e*pectation is that the de'oni&ed fi"1re is hi'self s1!6ected to de'ons. Maria, the E'ost e*cellent devil of ,it,E ,ill lead Sir -o!y E-o the "ates of -artarE ./.5./$F0 for the 6est a"ainst the ste,ard. Perhaps any sche'e ,hich res1lts in a d1ped 'an:s i'prison'ent in hideo1s darkness co1ld !e la!eled de'onic, !1t Shakespeare is e*plicit a!o1t Maria:s deviltry= askin" for infor'ation a!o1t Malvolio, -o!y i'plores her, EPossess 1s, possess 1s, tell 1s so'ethin" of hi'.E Maria:s response to the re<1est does possess her listeners, onsta"e and off, ,ith an idea that is hard to e*orcise: ) 1I$ ) M38+3: S+8 3A2: M38+3: Marry, sir, so'eti'es he is a kind of P1ritan. @, if + tho1"ht that, +:d !eat hi' like a do". . . .

-he devil a P1ritan that he is, or anythin" constantly !1t a ti'e?pleaser, an affectioned ass, that cons state ,itho1t !ook, and 1tters it !y "reat s,arths: the !est pers1aded of hi'self, so cra''ed .as he thinks0 ,ith e*cellencies, that it is his "ro1nds of faith that all that look on hi' love hi': and on that vice in hi' ,ill 'y reven"e find nota!le ca1se to ,ork. ./.# . 1G$M5#0

+n a ,ay, Maria pree'pts all s1!se<1ent co''entary on Malvolio:s P1ritanis' !y assertin" that he does not even have eno1"h inte"rity or constancy to !e Ea kind of P1ritan.E +nstead, she s1""estively offers, Ethe devil a P1ritan that he is, or anythin" constantly,E ,hich see's to deny the char"e .Ethe hell he isE0 even as it s1!li'inally affir's it. (or Ethe 2evil is a P1ritanE ,as a standard 3n"lican cant phrase.C1/D So the hint has !een dropped, like a note to a lon"in" lover, and critics have l1n"ed for it.

Maria:s ver!al artillery in this passa"e strikes Malvolio on several fronts, and the char"e of EP1ritanEB an all?p1rpose Eli&a!ethan ter' of a!1seBis only one of the 'ost potent. -he clai' ,ith 'ore e*tensive i'plications, at least for the Elove the'eE in the play, is that a"ainst Malvolio:s conceit. Called Ethe !est pers1aded of hi'self,E the acc1sation chi'es ,ith @livia:s earlier reproof, Eyo1 are sick of selflove, Malvolio, and taste ,ith a diste'pered appetite.E B1t if Maria thinks this char"e sets Malvolio apart fro' his fello,s, she is sorely 'istaken= the description rather sets hi' a place alon"side most of the other +llyrians and their h1n"ry, self?o!sessive personalities.C1#D 4et 1s try to read f1rther into Maria:s half?retracted hint. -he 'aidservant:s rel1ctance to call Malvolio a P1ritan o1tri"ht s1""ests that he !oth is and is not P1ritanical. -his a'!ivalence does not !other so'e of Malvolio:s 'ore dedicated opponents. (or instance, in reference to the epithet Eti'e?pleaser,E Sie"el co''ents: EMaria . . . is 'erely 'akin" the char"e that ,as 'ade a"ainst P1ritans "enerally: they are concerned ,ith their reli"ion only insofar as it serves their profitE .EMalvolio,E /1%0.C1GD -he critic see's 1ntro1!ledBhe freely ad'itsBthat the s1pposedly co''on acc1sation does not 6i!e ,ith Malvolio:s f1nction in the play: the servant, after all, never professes an# reli"ion, let alone one fro' ,hich profit or position follo,s. >e practices nothin" 'ore than a snooty 'anner, a pri' !1t essentially sec1lar co1rt style. B1t Maria:s e<1ivocation a!o1t her ene'y:s P1ritanis' sho1ld not !e erased, !eca1se it fi"1res cr1cially in her effort to cate"o? ) 1I1 ) ri&e and th1s to scape"oat hi'. Maria, in other ,ords, has a va"1e idea a!o1t ,hat Malvolio is, !1t a 'ore certain notion of ,hat she ,o1ld like to 'ake hi', and she sets a!o1t to do 61st thatBto transfor' hi'. >er efforts, and those of her co?conspirators, have !een !roadly s1ccessf1l. Sie"el de'onstrates this s1ccess thro1"h his definition of the a!1sive epithet Eni""ardly rascally sheep? !iterE ./.5.GM50 ,hich Sir -o!y levels at Malvolio. -o "loss the phrase as Sie"el doesBE'iserly, cheatin" P1ritanEBone '1st clai' that E'iserliness and cheatin" in !1siness C,ere traditionallyD associated ,ith P1ritans.E Sie"el ad'its that EMalvolio is not sho,n as either a 'iser or a cheatE= still, tho1"h, he contin1es, ESir -o!y, in speakin" of hi' as a P1ritan, 'akes 1se of the stock epithets for P1ritansE .EMalvolio,E /190C15D B,hich, ho,ever, do not <1ite apply. +f the ar"1'ent see's ins1fficient fro' the availa!le evidence, ho, can ,e acco1nt for the fairly ,idespread acceptance of the Malvolio?as?P1ritan vie,J +n partial ans,er to this <1estion, let 1s have another look at Sir -o!y:s derisive ter' for the ste,ard. 5hat is a sheep?!iterJ Perhaps it descri!es an a""ressive, lo,?post1red ani'al: ,olves !ite sheep .!1t s1rely -o!y does not identify hi'self as '1ttonJ0, and do"s can herd sheep !y nippin" at the' and follo,in" close !ehind. (ollo,in" !ehind, act1ally, 'ay !e the operative ins1lt here. (or Esheep?!iterE co1ld refer to the c1sto' of orally castratin" far' ani'alsC1FD Ba c1sto' ,hich ,o1ld reveal Malvolio not only as ,olfish .one ,ho !ites sheep0 !1t 'ore directly as se*1ally deviant, a person of a!6ect post1re and !estial or possi!ly ho'oerotic orality and inclination. C1ID -he *E2 .def. /!0 sheds so'e li"ht on Esheep?!iter,E altho1"h in a post?Shakespearean conte*t. -he s1pportin" <1otation for the definition Ea shifty, sneakin", or thievish fello,E co'es fro' Peter >eylin:s - 'ull Relation of T o 7ourne#s . . . Into the )ainland of 'rance .1F5F0, yet it all1des not to a thief !1t to an epicene: E+ ,as fain so'eti'es to p1t on a little i'p1dence, that + 'i"ht avoid the s1spicion of a "eldin" or a sheep?!iter.E +f the t,o ter's are synony'o1s, Esheep?!iterE ,o1ld !e 8enaissance pe6orative code for an 1n'asc1line 'ale. -he paranoia a!o1t perceived 'asc1linity that ,e see in >eylin:s <1otation can !e pro6ected !ack into -o!y:s ,ishes: the dr1nken sche'er asks (a!ian, E5o1ld:st tho1 not !e "lad to have the ni""ardly rascally sheep?!iter co'e !y so'e nota!le sha'eJE -he sha'in" of Malvolio, ho,ever, co1ld not involve the revelation of his parsi'ony= for a ste,ard, that is no sha'e at all. +nstead, it involves the e*pos1re of his se*1al desires. >ere the

ins1ltin" ter' !eco'es si"nificant. (or if Esheep?!iterE is i'a"inatively associa!le ,ith ) 1I/ ) E"eldin"E or an ins1fficiently i'p1dent .'asc1line0 'ale, as the >eylin <1otation s1""ests, -o!y:s epithet !etrays a ,ish to e'asc1late or fe'ini&e his rival. -he p1t?do,n co1ld then !e ali"ned ,ith his later co''ent that EMalvolio:s a Pe"?a?8a'seyE ./.#.IF0 or even ,ith 3ndre, 3"1echeek:s sp1tterin" ins1lt: E(ie on hi', 7e&e!elQE ./.5.G10. +ndeed, the Esheep?!iterE char"e discloses -o!y:s o,n fantasies of oral and se*1al violence, perhaps in retaliation for havin" !een 'etaphorically !itten: hidin" on the side of the sta"e, he later says to Malvolio, E3nd does not -o!y take yo1 a !lo, o: the lips thenJE ./.5.F%0. >o,ever ,e 1nderstand the pec1liar ins1lt, and there are several ,ays to do so, it see's as tho1"h clichNs of P1ritanis'B'iserliness, hypocrisy, and so onBhave little to do ,ith it. -his disc1rs1s on sheep?!itin" is 'eant to s1""est that the process of eval1atin" Malvolio has cr1cially to do ,ith the desires and a"endas of the characters ,ho practice on hi'. 8ather than e*pose the ste,ard:s essential P1ritanis' .if there is any s1ch thin"0, the lo,?co'ic fi"1res set a!o1t to constr1ct his character and then s1!6ect hi' to the conse<1ences of this constr1ction. -o !etter 1nderstand this operation and its radii to reli"io1s and historical disco1rse, ,e need to e*a'ine Maria:s letter, the central vehicle of 'ediation !et,een Malvolio, his sense of self, and the a1dience:s 1nderstandin". -he note fro' Maria paints Malvolio into a cornered idea of his place in several ,ays. -hese incl1de the strikin" i'itation of @livia:s hand,ritin"= Eher very phrasesE= and even 'ore convincin"ly, @livia:s ,a* letter seal, a central !ait in the identity trap at ,hich the ste,ard snaps: M34 By 'y life, this is 'y lady:s hand: these !e her very C:s, her : U:s, and her -:s, and th1s 'akes she her "reat P:s. +t is in conte'pt of <1estion her hand. . . . To the unkno n belo.ed, this, and m# good ishes. >er very phrasesQ By yo1r leave, ,a*. SoftQ and the i'press1re her 41crece, ,ith ,hich she 1ses to seal: :tis 'y ladyQ -o ,ho' sho1ld this !eJ ./.5.%IM 9F0 +n this dist1r!in" co'ic 'o'ent, @livia:s alle"ed !illet?do1* s1!stit1tes for @livia herself: Ethis is 'y lady:s handE !eco'es, a fe, lines later, E:tis 'y ladyQE B1t this s1!stit1tion can !e 'ade only once Malvolio !reaks the letter:s seal. -he 61*taposition of Ethe i'press1re her 41creceE and E:tis 'y ladyE s1""ests an identification !et,een the pres1'ed a1thor of the letter and the fa'o1s literary victi' of violation ) 1I# ) ,ith ,hose i'a"e, stran"ely, @livia seals her 'ail.C1%D -he i'plications of this identification, co"nate ,ith the play:s "eneral practice of serial 'eta'orphoses, are resident in Malvolio:s co1rtly tearin" of the fe'inine letterBEBy yo1r leave, ,a*EBa re'inder of the fate of 41crece. +ndeed, ,ith its all1rin" lac1nae and riddles, Maria:s letter presents a s1!li'inal invitation to a rape, dra,in" Malvolio f1rther into his invasive interpretation. @nce he !e"ins to reconstr1ct his lady fro' the evidence of her hand, the leerin" h1'or of his response to the "rapholo"y, to her c :s, u :s, and t :s, sec1res a point a!o1t the

'aterial presence of lan"1a"e in this play.C19D -he 'issive s1!stit1tes ,ord for !ody, lin"1istic for physical presence. -he (ool:s ,ish that his sister had no na'e, !eca1se Eto dally ,ith that ,ord 'i"ht 'ake 'y sister ,antonE .#.1.1%M190, can co'e tr1e in the theatrical ,orld, ,here lan"1a"e calls several kinds of EcharacterE into !ein". -he seal is a for"ery no less than the i'itated hand,ritin", a si"nat1re in the a!sence of the 'ost i'portant 'arker of identity: presence, the co1ntenance close 1p. @livia:s a!sence ens1res the note:s pers1asiveness, for the Efort1nate 1nhappyE is too e'!arrassed to 'ake a 'ore direct avo,al of love. -he doc1'ent sed1ces precisely !eca1se of its i'plied dis"1ise, and th1s the letter is a perfect 'ediator: a te*t ,itho1t an 1nderlyin", a1thentic voice. Maria, invisi!le !ehind the ,ords, i'personates the .s1pposedly concealed0 @livia, ,hose coy riddles are 'eant to see' a transparent dis"1ise. B1t the anony'o1s note deceives chiefly !eca1se it parado*ically sta!ili&es the a!sent a1thor:s identity as it s1rprisin"ly thro,s the reader1s into do1!t. -he so1rce, like the Ehand,E re'ains Ein conte'pt of <1estion,E !1t the recipient is Ethe 1nkno,n !eloved,E and Malvolio, ,ith "ro,in" e*cite'ent, ,onders to ,ho' the letter sho1ld !e addressed. By dislocatin" the identity of the reader, !y e*cerptin", deletin", and rearran"in" letters fro' his na'eB), *, -, I Bthe note opens a psycholo"ical space for the i'plantation of an identity in the reader, a process to ,hich Malvolio ea"erly s1!'its. 3s he reads the letter alo1d, a 'otif of secrecy and silence e'er"es that f1rther disesta!lishes the sec1re identity of the recipient: E7o.e kno s I lo.e> ? ,ut ho@ ? 0ips, do not mo.e, ? !o man must kno .E .3nd since the co''1ni<1N has its so1rce in fe'inine po,er, no 'an ill kno,.0 -he ,ords recall 41crece as the letter contin1es ,ith its invitin" <1atrains: EI ma# command here I adore> ? ,ut silence, like a 0ucrece knife, ? 3ith bloodless stroke m# heart doth gore> ? ).*.-.I. doth s a# m# life E ./.5.1$FM90. -he only lines Malvolio notices or ) 1IG ) 'entions in this verse are the first and fo1rth, th1s reenactin" the silence of the 41crece story. >e ,onders a!o1t EM.@.3.+.E and then spec1lates: E+ 'ay co''and ,here + adore.E 5hy, she 'ay co''and 'e: + serve her, she is 'y lady. 5hy, this is evident to any for'al capacity. -here is no o!str1ction in this. 3nd the end: ,hat sho1ld that alpha!etical position portendJ +f + co1ld 'ake that rese'!le so'ethin" in 'eQ .11FM//0 3n o!6ect lesson on the dan"ers of e*e"esis, this scene s1pposedly reveals the ,orst tendencies of the 'e"alo'aniacal reader ,ho tries to find his or her o,n i'a"e in every te*t. Ket this scene sho,s precisely ,hat a "ood reader Malvolio isB1ntil his enticed desire, the 'ediated 'essa"e, and the fract1red i'a"e of the self in lan"1a"e "et the !etter of hi': EM.@.3.+. -his si'1lation is not as the for'er: and yet, to cr1sh this a little, it ,o1ld !o, to 'e, for every one of these letters are in 'y na'eE ./.5.1#9MG10. -his !rilliant acco1nt of an a""ressive close?reader:s desire tropes in 'iniat1re on the play:s o,n enticin" ana"ra's, its 1nreada!le diddlin" ,ith the olivia?viola?'alvolio alpha!etical 'i*. B1t Malvolio cannot re'ain co'forta!le ,ith the le*ical inco'pleteness of EM.@.3.+.E= the "raphe'es '1st !e cr1shed and 'ade to !o, to his fr1strated, interpretive violence. >e is dra,n into thinkin" he is penetratin" and 'asterin" a te*t that has act1ally penetrated hi'. -he se*1al i'plications of the readin", and of Malvolio:s position as o!6ect rather than a"ent of the assa1ltBthe sheep, not the !iterB are played o1t !y Maria:s s1rveillance tea':

M34O : EMEBB1t then there is no consonancy in the se<1el= that s1ffers 1nder pro!ation: E3E sho1ld follo,, !1t E@E does. (3B+3A 3nd E@E shall end, + hope. : S+8 -@ : 3y, or +:ll c1d"el hi', and 'ake hi' cry E@EQ M34O : 3nd then E+E co'es !ehind. (3B+3A 3y, and yo1 had any eye !ehind yo1, yo1 'i"ht see 'ore : detraction at yo1r heels than fort1nes !efore yo1. ./.5.1#$M #%0 -he positional chan"e of E3E and E@,E the E+E that Eco'es !ehind,E and Sir -o!y:s an"ry desire to 'ake the ste,ard Ecry :@: Eall red1ce the 'issive:s alpha!etical dalliance to a se* 6oke. 5e can locate one 'eanin" of the inco'plete ana"ra' in the co''entary that the eavesdroppers 'ake a!o1t it. -hey t1rn the scene into the rape of Malvolio: he is lin"1istically sodo'i&ed here, ,ith an E@E ,here his E3E sho1ld !e, ) 1I5 ) and an eye + that Eco'es !ehindE the E3E at his end.C/$D -he ana"ra' of his na'e predicta!ly o!sesses hi', as does the possi!ility that @livia adores the person she r1les, not the officeBeven tho1"h the note says she 'ay co''and ,here, not ,ho' she adores. Malvolio, it is clear, o1"ht to have considered the lines he passes over= the silence that "ores recalls not only 41crece !1t Philo'el, t,o 'odels of the i'position of others: ,ill. -he ta!lea1 of Malvolio:s readin" is a scene of identity slippa"e: 41crece 'eta'orphoses fro' a fi"1re for or si"nat1re of the letter:s s1pposed a1thor .@livia0 to a fi"1re for or i'a"e of the reader, as Malvolio s1ffers a rapine sei&1re of his identity. -he silence !ehind the riddle and the defective ana"ra' of the ste,ard:s na'e reify "aps or openin"s for the i'plantation of another version of the self: the ,illin" reader !eco'es the container for an artificial, for'ed desire. Malvolio ,illin"ly participates in this constr1ction !eca1se he !elieves hi'self to have !een !lessed !y the fra1d1lent vessel, the e'pty te*t. Malvolio, then, 1nder"oes s1!stantial alteration !eca1se of the interpretations he is l1red into. >is identity !eco'es the prod1ct of inter'ediariesBthe letter, the o!servers, and their co''entariesBand so the ste,ard:s EpersonalityE or his EP1ritanis'E seeps thro1"h the filter of the 1nrelia!le narrators ,ho create hi'. @1r preconceptions a!o1t Malvolio are lar"ely Maria:s doin"= and Sir -o!y:s f1nny, an"ry e6ac1lations in response to the ste,ard:s fantasies .EBolts and shacklesQ . . . (ire and !ri'stoneQ . . . @ for a stone !o, to hit hi' in the eyeQE0 help intensify the anti?Malvolio effect. B1t the eavesdroppers to Malvolio:s readin" are, in fact, interpretive interlopers, alterin" ,hat 'i"ht other,ise !e seen as a hard,orkin" servant:s reasona!le reaction to the pro'ise of receivin", at lon" last, favor. -his trap has !een a lon" ti'e in the 'akin": EMaria once told 'e she did affect 'e, and + have heard herself co'e th1s nearE ./.5./#M/50. Ket, an a1dience:s s1spicions that Malvolio is a se*1ally repressed P1ritan type ,ho cannot harness the !ody:s ener"ies of 'isr1le .Belchin" and other e*plosive

cele!rations0 have, like his o,n ,ants, !een seeded !y so'eone else, the terri!ly clever Maria. 5e sho1ld not !la'e Malvolio for feelin" the ,ay the false letter seeks to 'ake hi' feel. 5e can only !la'e hi' for s1!'ittin" too readily to the s1spicio1s interpretive conditions that transfor' hi'. Malvolio, 'an of letters, has !een 'is?taken. -he letter:s seal and its invitin" <1atrains desta!ili&e the identity of Ethe 1nkno,n !eloved,E 'akin" Malvolio a v1lnera!le 41crece fi"1re. B1t this operation is 'erely an envoy to the letter:s darker p1rpose: to replace the ste,ard:s identity ,ith another one, a 'onstro1s 'Nlan"e of ) 1IF ) dis1nified feat1res co'prisin" conflictin" 'aterials. -his effect 'akes the EP1ritanE la!el partic1larly hard to 61stify. +t is tr1e that as Sie"el says, the letter ca1ses Malvolio to act Ean e*a""eration of the ,ay he has already !ehaved in sternly ad'onishin" Sir -o!y and speakin" so1rly to (esteE .//10, !1t that is its rhetorical, confidence?,o'an "eni1s. -o dra, in the Etro1t that '1st !e ca1"ht ,ith ticklin"E ./.5.//0, Maria dan"les this da&&lin" !ait: she endorses Malvolio:s ordinary !ehavior. EBe opposite ,ith a kins'an, s1rly ,ith servantsE ./.5.1G90, the note says trapically. -he letter cannot en6oin a co'plete t1rnaro1nd in his affect, for that ,o1ld derationali&e the attraction that @livia s1pposedly feels for her servant, ,ho is so "ood at ,hat he does. B1t neither can it si'ply order hi' to Ekeep 1p the "ood ,ork,E for then there ,o1ld !e no 'ark to distin"1ish Malvolio:s chan"e in stat1s= there ,o1ld !e no co'ic payoff. So Maria, in scriptive dis"1ise, p1shes Malvolio to !ehavioral e*tre'ities once he del1sionally and ecstatically !elieves that his lady loves hi'. -he letter finally and devastatin"ly 'akes Malvolio act opposite to the ,ay he 1s1ally !ehaves. -he ca1se of this chan"e is the pro'ise of reco"nition: @livia ,ill no, re,ard actions ,hich Malvolio ,o1ld ne.er perfor' 1nder ordinary circ1'stances. -he letter:s 'ost 'e'ora!le instr1ctions 1r"e Malvolio to alter his !ehavior in a specifically P1ritanical direction: they enco1ra"e Ea kind of P1ritanE oppositionality. (or instance, the note co1nsels, E%ut th#self into the trick of singularit# E ./.5.15$0. 3s Sie"el points o1t, the ,ord Esin"1larityE ,as fre<1ently and ne"atively applied to P1ritans E,ho ,ith their :ne,?fan"leness: and :innovations: ,ere already . . . rockin" the precario1sly settled order of the esta!lished ch1rch.EC/1D 3 classic e*a'ple postdatin" the play is 7onson:s archetypal Veal?of?the?4and B1sy, ,ho Eaffects the violence of sin"1larity in all he does.E B1t Malvolio has not yet affected this violence= he has !een separate, !1t not partic1larly sin"1lar.C//D >e '1st !e 'ade to !ehave 'ore sin"1larly. -o that end, the letter inspires its "1ll to act 'ore like an irritatin" sta"e P1ritan than he ever has !efore. B1t irritatin" to ,ho'J -o @livia, of co1rse. -he for"ery creates a for"ery: Malvolio ,ill !ehave P1ritanically, ,hich !ehavior, as Maria kno,s, @livia ,ill hate: E+ kno, 'y lady ,ill strike hi': if she do, he:ll s'ile, and take:t for a "reat favo1rE .#./.I9M%$0. 4et 1s look at the reno,ned fashion re<1est in the letter: ERemember ho commended th# #ello stockings, and ished to see thee e.er crossAgartered: I sa# remember E ./.5.15/M5G0. (1rness:s $ariorum cites 5. 3. 5ri"ht: E :yello, stockin"s: ,ere apparently a co''on article of ) 1II ) dress in the 1Fth cent1ry. . . . -hey had apparently "one o1t of fashion in Sir -ho'as @ver!1ry:s ti'e, for in his Characters he says of :3 Co1ntry ;entle'an,: :+f he "oes to Co1rt, it is in yello, stockin"s:= as if this ,ere a si"n of r1sticity.E -he point of this re<1est, then, is to 'ake Malvolio look like a r1!e, like one ,ho e'phatically does not !elon" at co1rt. 5hile @livia has no co1rt e*actlyBonly @rsino

doesBshe is a "reat lady, and her ho1se acts as the play:s center of social and c1lt1ral activity. Malvolio is 'ade to appear constricted, ill?fittin", especially for co1rtly 'ove'ent. 3s for the "arters, the sa'e point 'ay o!tain= another $ariorum note <1otes Barton >olyday Espeakin" of the ill?s1ccess of his play called Technogamia C1F1%D,E ,here the i'plication see's to !e that the play ,o1ld have done !etter if there had appeared Eso'e sharp cross?"artered 'an, 5ho' their lo1d la1"h 'i"ht nickna'e P1ritanE .$ariorum , 1IG0. -his <1otation s1""ests that crossed "arters are a cheap si"ht "a" denotin" a person ,ell o1t of step ,ith fashion. Malvolio is ordered to affect s1ch an appearance= he does not c1sto'arily dress this ,ay. B1t Sie"el ar"1es that the ste,ard '1st !e a P1ritan !eca1se the phrase Ere'e'!er ,ho co''ended thy yello, stockin"sE 'eans that ECMalvolioD ,ore the' previo1sly . . . C,hichD is !orne o1t !y his state'ent: :She did co''end 'y yello, stockin"s of late, she did praise 'y le" !ein" cross?"artered:E .///0. >is possession of the f1ssy "ar! is not the iss1e here= rather, ,e sho1ld consider his inclination to don it. 5e 'iss '1ch if ,e overlook Malvolio:s desperate atte'pt to !elieve ,hat he has 61st read: E+ do not no, fool 'yself, to let i'a"ination 6ade 'e= for every reason e*cites to this, that 'y lady loves 'e. She did co''end . . .E ./.5.1FGMFF0. >is lan"1a"e hints at s1!li'inal do1!t for ,hich he is rarely "iven credit: he says, in fact, that he does not no, fool hi'self to let his i'a"ination fool hi'. >is recollection of @livia:s praise is patently del1sional, and he sho,s that he has no predisposition to ,ear s1ch 1nco'forta!le st1ff: E+ co1ld !e sad: this does 'ake so'e o!str1ction in the !lood, this cross?"arterin"= !1t ,hat of thatJE .#.G.19M/10. C/#D -he <1otations fro' the $ariorum s1""est that Malvolio:s ne, clothes ,ere, at least !y 1F1%, reco"ni&a!ly those of the P1ritan, !1t the point of his cross?dressin" is lost 1nless ,e apprehend its "oal fro' Maria:s point of vie,: to alienate hi' fro' the po,erf1l 'istress of the ho1se, or to p1t hi' o1t of place at the sy'!olic co1rt. -his pro6ect !ears political and erotic inscriptions. @livia:s fe'ale servant seeks to o1st her hi"her?placed 'ale rival !y settin" hi' a"ainst the lady of the ) 1I% ) ho1se in a ,ay he cannot 1nderstand: Ehe ,ill co'e to her in yello, stockin"s, and :tis a color she a!hors, and cross?"artered, a fashion she detestsE ./.5.19GM9F0.C/GD

II
-he sartorial P1ritani&in" of Malvolio is part of a pro6ect to re'ove hi' fro' the favor of the 'ost po,erf1l ,o'an in +llyria, and this pro6ect has pointed historical overtones. 4eslie >otson offers a choice "loss on Maria:s hate co1t1re: E4ike @livia, L1een Eli&a!eth .,hose o,n personal colo1rs ,ere ,hite and !lack0 a!horred yello,. (or si* years yello, had !een the colo1r of dan"er in her Co1rtB !ein" fla1nted !y the faction of the 21ke of Aorfolk 1ntil his attainder and e*ec1tion in 15I/. 3nd the fla" of her arch?ene'y, Spain, ,as yello,.EC/5D -he connection !et,een @livia and Eli&a!eth has a certain a'o1nt of strain !1ilt in, !1t this is the strain of every representation of the <1een near the end of her rei"n. + shall ret1rn to the <1estion of the play:s inscriptive tre'ors, !1t there is an all1rin" connection !et,een @livia and Eli&a!eth in li"ht of Maria:s activity: the ,itty Epiece of Eve:s fleshE !affles Malvolio !y t1rnin" hi' into a yello,?clad, Catholic?tin"ed P1ritan. >e !eco'es a livin" standard?!earer of t,o poles of Eli&a!ethan reli"io1s s1!version. -he ideolo"ical constr1ction of Malvolio incorporates for"ed historical si"ns as characterolo"ical indices. 3fter her tri1'ph has !een achieved, the letter read and its partly veiled 'eanin"s co'pleted !y the desiro1s reader, Maria anno1nces its effects:

M38+3 : Kond "1ll Malvolio is t1rned heathen, a very rene"ado= for there is no Christian that 'eans to !e saved !y !elievin" ri"htly can ever !elieve s1ch i'possi!le passa"es of "rossness. >e:s in yello, stockin"sQ S+8 -@ : 3nd cross "arteredJ

M38+3 : Most villaino1sly= like a pedant that keeps a school i:th:ch1rch. + have do""ed hi' like his '1rderer. .#./.FFM IG0 -hat last line con61res alar'in" i'a"es of the horri!le 8ichard -opcliffe h1ntin" do,n 7es1its, p1rs1in" the' to their hidin" holes, and event1ally ho1ndin" the' to their state?sponsored deaths.C/FD +n fact, Malvolio !eco'es a !afflin" confl1ence of reli"io1s types in Maria:s "leef1l description. >e !ears literal colors and sy'!olic echoes of Catholicis' .and Catholic persec1tion0, !1t the desi"nation Erene"adoE is, provoca? ) 1I9 ) tively, the Spanish ,ord for a Edeserter of his faith.EC/ID Malvolio th1s alters descriptively fro' a non!eliever .EheathenE0, to a heretic fro' Catholicis' .Erene"adoE: a Protestant apostateJ0 to a virt1al idolater ,ho !elieves in Ei'possi!le passa"esE or corr1pt, apocryphal ,ritin"s. -his last acc1sation, ironic "iven its so1rce, attacks te*t1al "ro1nds of !elief and see's to look !ack at Eli&a!ethan controversies over P1ritan her'ene1tics. 4et 1s consider the i'plications of Malvolio:s 'is"1ided st1dy. Callin" hi' one ,ho does not !elieve Eri"htly,E Maria 'ocks the Ei'possi!le passa"es of "rossnessE of her o,n script1re that have led Malvolio to his present a!s1rdity. +'plicit in his reverential response to the letterB,hich is of co1rse pri'arily an erotic, not a spirit1al doc1'entB'ay !e, in fact, a criti<1e of P1ritan theolo"ical practice, a sla' a"ainst an overreliance on the received te*t. P1ritan readin" ,as .to 3n"licans0 overly precise and even de'onstra!ly false in its !ristlin" insistence on the a1thority of the ,ord. 3s 7. 4. Si''ons has ,ritten, E4ike a Precisian, Malvolio deter'ines to follo, the letter :point devise.: . . . B1t his e*e"esis e*e'plifies, in the sy'!olic action, a P1ritan:s approach to script1ral interpretation in the spirit of self?love, of Bad5illE .ESo1rce for Shakespeare:s Malvolio,E 1%/0. -o Maria, Malvolio is a deceived ,orshiper. By precisely follo,in" the letter of the letter, he can !e Eno Christian that 'eans to !e savedE !1t is instead one ,ho ,ill s1ffer a descent fro' ,hich only a paid fool can ."racelessly0 deliver hi'. +nterpretation factors salvation. 8ichard Bancroft i'p1ted to P1ritans the desire to Ei'pose a 'eanin" 1ppon Cthe Script1resD . . . not to deliver the tr1e sense of the', !1t to !rin" a sense of their o,ne: not a yeeldin" to the ,ordes, !1t a kind of co'p1lsion, inforce'ent, or violence offered: to 'ake that to see'e to !e contained in the' . . . ,hich they pres1'ed sho1ld !e 1nderstood !y the', !efore they read the'.EC/%D Malvolio does offer the letter so'e her'ene1tic violence, !1t it is as + have s1""ested a coerced, invited assa1lt Ba l1re to a preprocessed interpretation. -he d1al dra'a of the scene is th1s that it reminds 1s of the P1ritan interpretive ha!it of 'ind, one that does not take either the a1tono'y or the corr1ption of the

,ord .(este, Maria0 into acco1nt= !1t it 'eas1res at the sa'e ti'e <1ite a distance fro' the scene of act1al P1ritan readin" precisely !eca1se this te*t is fra1d1lent, an en"ineered trap. Maria:s ,ritin" is designed to deceive. +n fact, there is a lo"ical pro!le' ,ith the clai' critics 'ake a!o1t Malvolio:s 'isprision. -he scene is s1pposed to entertain 1s ,ith the ta!lea1 of a reader 'isreadin" in a ,ay that the ,riter controls, !1t ) 1%$ ) it cancels that s1pposed 'eanin" ,ith another ironical one: Malvolio is act1ally readin" correctl# , insofar as he responds e*actly as the so1rce of the script intended. -he interpretation is ri"ht= the te*t is ,ron". -h1s, the alle"orical take on Malvolio as the typically 'istaken P1ritan prod1ces this heresy: Script1re can !e false, and it can !e da'nin". +f dis"1ise thro,s identity and 'eanin" into do1!t, Maria:s for"ery i'plies that !i!lical te*t, too, is c1sto'arily in dis"1ise, interpretively 1nsta!leBthat it is stre,n in o1r path, and 'erry devils ch1ckle at 1s ,hile ,e interpret. Aot only can Script1re "a1"e one:s access to salvation, !1t it can act1ally !e desi"ned to entrap. Perhaps the point is si'ply that the ste,ard is led into self?entrap'ent, the ,ay P1ritans s1pposedly ,ere. B1t Malvolio:s reception of the 'essa"e is al'ost co'pletely respecta!le. >e does not r1sh to 61d"'ent .he does not instantly say, for instance, E+ a' the 'anQE as Oiola co'ically, if correctly, does0= he notices that Ethis si'1lation is not as the for'erEBor, in other ,ords, the representation of the si"nified EMalvolioE !y EM.@.3.+.E does not rese'!le hi' in the sa'e ,ay as previo1s si"ns in the 'essa"e did. +f Malvolio:s interpretation is 'eant to parody the fla,s of P1ritan readin", the parody has li'ited ran"e, !eca1se the reader:s response is sho,n to !e '1ch in t1ne ,ith the a1thor:s intent. 3lon" these lines, ,e 'i"ht consider that ,hen Maria asserts, E-here is no Christian that 'eans to !e saved !y !elievin" ri"htly can ever !elieve s1ch i'possi!le passa"es of "rossness,E the Ei'possi!le passa"esE could refer to the entire sta"e !1siness of Malvolio:s 'akeover. +f so, the <1estion of identification in the passa"e !eco'es, as often in Shakespeare, 1nclear. EAo Christian that 'eans to !e saved !y !elievin" ri"htlyE then ,o1ld point e<1ally to the d1pe and the d1per, the person la!orin" 1nder the ill1sion and the one !eholdin" the incredi!le event, Ean i'pro!a!le fiction,E as (a!ian says. Maria confesses her o,n i'plication in dis!elief or apostasy. Beca1se Malvolio is incapa!le of dis"1ise, he cannot i'a"ine that te*t deceives= he tr1sts in the letter, the ,ord. >e is, in fact, the polar opposite of the c1lt1rally de'oni&ed i'a"e of the P1ritan: he is a nonhypocrite, a person of pained li'itations and pinched a'!itions, !1t so ,itho1t "1ile or s1!versive potential that his every deviation fro' his fi*ed self sho,s like 'adness. >o,ever, despite her contri!1tion to his altered character, Maria still ,ants to !la'e Malvolio for his adoption of P1ritan attri!1tes. She see's, that is, increasin"ly certain a!o1t ,hat she has 'ade hi'. (or instance, !y sayin" that Malvolio appears Elike a pedant that keeps a ) 1%1 ) school i:th:ch1rch,E she depicts her rival as a partic1lar type of r1stic ideolo"1e ,ho spread reli"io1s ed1cation ,herever he co1ld. -his description of the translated servant is a!o1t as technical a ta*ono'y of P1ritanis' as the play per'its. @ne of the radical refor'ers: a!idin" pre'ises concerned the need for the intense and ,idespread instr1ction of each con"re"ation of ,orshipers. 7ohn 9no*, the Scottish Calvinist, asserts in his EBook of 2isciplineE that Eevery several ch1rchE '1st have a School'aster appointed, s1ch a one as is a!le, at least, to teach ;ra''ar and the 4atin ton"1e. . . . +f it !e 1pland, ,here the people convene to doctrine !1t once in the

,eek, then '1st either the 8eader or the Minister there appointed, take care over the children and yo1th of the parish, to instr1ct the' in their first r1di'ents, and especially in the Catechis' . . . . 3nd CsoD '1st discreet, learned, and "rave 'en !e appointed to visit all Schools for the trial of their e*ercise, profit, and contin1ance.C/9D -he idea, of co1rse, is that E,ithin laD fe, years,E the E,hole 8eal' .,e do1!t not0 . . . shall serve the self of tr1e preachersE .Porter, %uritanism in Tudor England , /$$0. -he pedants that keep school in the ch1rchBconcerned, as 9no* says, to teach st1dents Eto read perfectlyEB,ere reco"ni&a!ly P1ritan preachers. +n the refor'ers: pro"ra', school'asterly divines ,ere the cr1cial vehicles of doctrinal disse'ination. Maria clai's that her letter has sparked in Malvolio a reco"ni&a!le and potentially radical conversion: he has !een translated into a proselyti&in" P1ritan schoolteacher. +t does see', as ,e ,atch Malvolio process the discovered letter, that he overco'es his s1!li'inal do1!ts to respond as ,o1ld a Calvinist to an 1ne<1ivocal si"n of his o,n 61stification: E+ thank 'y stars, + a' happyE ./.5.1I$0= and later, E7ove, not +, is the doer of this, and he is to !e thankedE .#.G.%#0. >e e*hi!its the Calvinist:s characteristic self?a!6ection and sense of received, not achieved 'erit= in the ,ords of the Institutes , E5e '1st no, reco"ni&e that o1r salvation consists in ;od:s 'ercy alone, !1t not in any ,orth of o1rs, or in anythin" co'in" fro' 1s. 3ccordin"ly, on this 'ercy ,e '1st esta!lish and as it ,ere deeply fi* all o1r hope, payin" no re"ard to o1r ,orks nor seekin" any help fro' the'.EC#$D Malvolio !ehaves strikin"ly as if he ,ere the direct !eneficiary of "race descendin"Bas if he ,ere a co''itted P1ritan ,ho only no, kno,s hi'self to !e one of the very fe, elect. B1t as Maria:s description of hi' 'akes plain, the ste,ard !ears 'i*ed sectarian 'arks 'ore co'ple* than this= Malvolio:s conversion is not si'ply to refor' Protestantis'. Even his P1ritan?style "arters are crossed, ,hich 'ay ) 1%/ ) i'ply the kind of popish cr1cifi*ion ,orship that Calvinists partic1larly detested. >o, can ,e acco1nt for this referential 'i*ednessJ @ne ,ay is to recall that P1ritans, Catholics, and vario1s heretical sects ,ere readily if 1nfairly l1'ped in the sa'e oppositional ca'p !y 3n"licans. 3s the title pa"e of @liver @r'erod:s %uritanoApapismus .1F$50 asserts, E-he P1ritanes ha1e in s1ndry thin"s ioyned ,ith the Pharisies, 3postolickes, 3erians, . . . Catharists, Enth1siasts, 2onatists, +o1ianists, Bro,nists and Papists.EC#1D @r'erod:s thesis is that P1ritans have the sa'e effect on the official state ch1rch as does the official state ene'y. +n this dialo"ic te*t, his character the EProtestantE .i.e., an 3n"lican0 flin"s fi"htin" ,ords at the EP1ritanE: Ee1en . . . tho1"h ye !e at en'itie ,ith the papists= tho1"h yo1 i'p1"ne their 2octrine= . . . tho1"h ye call for their p1nish'ent= yet, in defacin" P depra1in" of this Ch1rch of En"land, yo1 f1lly ioyne ,ith the' a"ainst vsE .%uritanoApapismus , M#0. +n the dialo"1e itself, the Protestant insists he can sho, Ethat there ,as scarce any >eresie in1ented !y olde >eretickes, ,hich eyther the %apistes or the %uritanes ha1e not re1i1ed and rene,ed ,ith fresh and ne, colo1rsE .%uritanoApapismus , A/v0. P1ritans, to @r'erod, are not only heretics !1t are as !ad as Catholics in their idolatry: :Those that orshippe their o ne opinions, conceits and fancies, and #eelde not to the truth, though neuer so plainl# demonstrated, are idolaters1 .%uritanoApapismus , P/0. -hese da'nin" ,ords 'i"ht descri!e any n1'!er of characters in +llyria, !1t they see' especially apt for Malvolio the Erene"ado,E !askin" in the deceptive "lo, of Maria:s letter. >is o,n opinion does !eco'e a sort of ,orship, !1t it is a false idol ,hich he 'istakes for 61stification. @r'erod contin1es: -hat it is +dolatrie to ,orshippe a 'ans o,ne opinions, and not to yeelde to tr1th: + proo1e

it !y this speech of the 3postle: Ecouetousnes is idolatrie .CED (ro' ,hich sayin" of his, + disp1te th1s: +f the 3postle held those to !ee idolaters, that did set their hearts vpon their ritches, and ,ere so ,edded vnto the', as that no pers,asion co1ld !rin" the' fro' the lo1e of the': the conse<1ence is not to !e re!1ked that ,e inferre vpon it= that ,e 'ay as ,ell tear'e the' idolaters, that doe set their hearts vppon their opinions. . %uritanoApapismus , P/0 -here is irony in this apostolic de'olition of the P1ritans, ,hose central theolo"y ,as .at least s1pposed to !e0 Pa1line.C#/D Parallelin" the love of EopinionsE and ErichesE as for's of idolatry, @r'erod strafes the P1ritan heathen ,ho E orshippe their o ne opinions .E B1t, he points o1t, papists are no !etter, Efor Popery is .as a one tr1ely saith0 an botchA ) 1%# ) potch and miserable mingleAmangle of all Sathans forgeries and diuelish heresies E .%uritanoA papismus , 90. Malvolio !eco'es 61st s1ch an i'a"e of this hod"epod"e in co'plyin" ,ith Maria:s satanic for"eries. -his 3n"lican radicali&in" of !oth P1ritans and papists takes T elfth !ight into the referential area of reli"io1s controversy. Co'prisin" !1t dividin" the ho1se of @liviaBa ho1se fortified a"ainst a'oro1s assa1ltsBare the follo,ers of Maria .EMistress MaryE0 and, opposed to the', the solitary ste,ard, 'ade into a fa1* P1ritan and enco1ra"ed thro1"h Marian plots to 'o1nt an assa1lt of sorts on the r1lin" ,o'an. @livia, that is, has a "overnance pro!le', and it is far 'ore of a pro!le' than she kno,s= it !eco'es clear only ,hen a cost1'ed P1ritan Catholic assa1lts her in the "1ise of service, pretendin" to an i'a"ined favor. -his scenario reprod1ces, in an ironic and 'isshapen ,ay, Eli&a!ethan reli"io1s tensions. 3s 7. E. Aeale has ar"1ed, E-he 'en ,ho pressed 'ost relentlessly for the e*ec1tion of Mary L1een of Scots and 1r"ed r1thless le"islation a"ainst Catholics ,ere also earnest P1ritans. +n this c1rio1s ,orld of conflictin" ideolo"ies, L1een Eli&a!eth fo1nd herself . . . fi"htin" a trian"1lar d1el and s1fferin" fro' the shots of the other t,o d1ellists, Catholics and P1ritans.EC##D B1t Aeale also notesBit is the point of his essayBthat !oth opposition parties, and especially the oppressed P1ritans, ,ere s1rprisin"ly loyal to Eli&a!eth: E>er P1ritan fanatics had no 'ore o!stinate opponent: she, in t1rn, had no 'ore devoted ,orshippers. +t is the stran"est parado* of her rei"n and the s1pre'e tri!1te to her "reatnessE .1/G0. By 'oldin" Malvolio into Ea kind of P1ritan,E really a P1ritano?papis'1s, Maria pro6ects onto her despised fello, servant a co'ple* of Eli&a!ethan hostilities that effect1ally 'ar"inali&e one ,hose E"ro1nds of faithE are alien to ri"htthinkin", socially risin" 3n"licans. +t 'ay !e that Maria plants on fertile "ro1nd, for even prior to her scriptive transfor'ation of hi', Malvolio does !ear so'e s1!tle Calvinist shadin"s. >e disdains the rin", for instance, ,hich .he thinks0 @livia seeks to ret1rn to Cesario: ECo'e sir, yo1 peevishly thre, it to her: and her ,ill is, it sho1ld !e so ret1rned. +f it !e ,orth stoopin" for, there it lies, in yo1r eye: if not, !e it his that finds itE ././.1/M 150. P1ritans o!6ected to 3n"lican 'atri'onial rit1al and in partic1lar the sacra'ental overtones of the rin" cere'ony= altho1"h this is no 'arria"e scene, doctrinal o!6ections 'ay echo distantly here.C#GD B1t there are sharper o1tlines of Malvolio:s leanin"s to,ard refor' reli"ion, and these are etched on the !ack"ro1nd of the play:s stat1s o!sessions and Malvolio:s o,n e'ploy'ent. + have already 'entioned his Calvinist reaction to ) 1%G )

si"ns of his election, his sense that "ood fort1ne is p1rely the 'atter of divine "race. B1t to the e*tent that this fort1ne pri'arily 'eans his ascent in class stat1s, the re,ard see'in"ly confir's a co''on Calvinist s1spicion that all fort1ne, 'aterial and spirit1al, can !e ascri!ed to divine intervention. .+n this respect, the antipredestinarian a*io' 1Some are born great, some achie.e greatness, and some ha.e greatness thrust upon 1em1 is a thoro1"hly anti?Calvinist senti'ent, and the fact that Malvolio accepts it 'ay confir' Maria:s clai' that he cannot !e a constant P1ritan.0 -his is not to say that P1ritans ,ere 1nconflicted a!o1t 'aterial profit. +n the e*<1isitely d1ll diary of 8ichard 8o"ers, for e*a'ple, a constant nervo1sness a!o1t property intr1des, and he often thanks ;od for steadyin" his tho1"hts a!o1t the fiscal ,orld: ESince 'y last ,ritin" "od hath contin1ed his kindness to 'e, for + have had a co'forta!le and sensi!le feelin" of the conte'pt of the ,orlde. . . . + have not 'eanly tho1"ht of earthly peace or provision, nether of any increasin" of o1r co''odities, altho1"h "odes hand is not shortned to 1s that ,ay.EC#5D 8o"ers:s last cla1se 'i"ht e*plain ,hy he has not 'eanly tho1"ht of earthly provision: provided ,ith plenty, he has not had to ,orry a!o1t his !o1nty. B1t thro1"ho1t his diary, severe te'ptation does co'e pri'arily in 'aterialist "1ise: E+ sa, that the love of ,orldly thin"s cleaveth so neet to 'y hart that + '1st p1r"e it o1t stron"1lier than yet it hath !eenE .F50. 8eferrin" to so'e 1nspecified social advance'ent, 8o"ers ,rites, E+n deed + did not a litle reioice !efore in the late preferr'ent ,hich the lorde had !ro1"ht 1ppon 'e, and least + sho1lde have !een too ioyf1ll the lord did sho, 'e 'y ,eaknes that + 'i"ht still !e holden 1nder ,ith itE .FI0. -he parado* of Calvinist s1ccessBthe "odly person thrivin" in the sec1lar ,orld that sho1ld !e stran"e and hollo, to hi'Bleads to a constant re"1lation of pleas1re in the 'idst of thrivin", !1t also to a redo1!led if constantly denied foc1s on the 'aterial ,orld. Even as Malvolio cro,s a!o1t his "ood fort1ne after receivin" the confir'atory letter, he '1st al'ost s1perstitio1sly re'ind hi'self that E7ove, not +, is the doer of this, and he is to !e thankedE .#.G.%#M%G0. Part of the pro!le' in 'akin" a sec1re identification of Malvolio:s social or reli"io1s position !efore his conversion is that his very occ1pation has a spirit1al potential that neither he nor his tor'entors 1nderstands. E'!odyin" contradiction ,hich the other characters 'isread as hypocrisy, @livia:s servin" 'an act1ally co'prises tensions !et,een e'er"ent and resid1al ideolo"ies or historical presences. Malvolio, ) 1%5 ) taken as a co'posite of pre? and post?transfor'ation selves, e'!odies the notion of the incipiently capitalist P1ritan, a 5e!erian fi"1re descri!ed !est !y 8. >. -a,ney in Religion and the Rise of Capitalism . -a,ney:s not 1niversally re6ected thesis is that P1ritan theory validates the capitalist profit 'otive .or, 'ore to the point of this disc1ssion, social 'o!ility0 thro1"h the Edoctrine of ste,ardship,E ,hich holds that 'en '1st shepherd one another, and the ,orld, to try the !est they can to esta!lish a "odly kin"do' on earth= socioecono'ic 'ane1verin" !y that s'all se"'ent of h1'anity kno,n as the elect ,o1ld then !e 'erely one of the for's s1ch ste,ardship co1ld take. M1ch as this vie, has co'e 1nder attack, and '1ch as it recreates the i'a"e of P1ritan as 'oney?"r1!!in" hypocrite, it does open 1p the se'antic possi!ilities of Malvolio the ste,ard.C#FD -he doctrine or theolo"y of ste,ardship, as -a,ney fra'es it, is an inte"ral part of Protestant theory, and altho1"h the idea flo,ered in the late seventeenth cent1ry, it ,as nevertheless i'plicit in the ,ork of the early refor'ers and in Script1re. -he doctrine ar"1es fro' the Ae, -esta'ent .especially 1 Corinthians G:1, ;alatians G:/, 41ke 1/:G/, and Ephesians #:/0 that Eall Christians are . . . ste,ards of ;od:s 'ysteriesE and that Este,ardship !efore ;od involves ti'e, talents, possessions and self.EC#ID +n its do'estic or sec1lar sense, the ;reek oikonomos refers to Ea s1perior slave or a freed 'an ,ho ,as placed in co'plete char"e of the ho1seholdE .Enc#clopedia , //FG0BMalvolio:s position e*actly. B1t

@livia:s 'an o!vio1sly takes his 6o! a little 'ore serio1sly than that, and he delivers ,ith rin"in" clarity his sense not only of his o,n s1periority !1t of his fello,s: profli"acy: E:Co1sin -o!y,: Ehe i'a"ines hi'self sayin", E:Ko1 '1st a'end yo1r dr1nkenness. . . . Besides, yo1 ,aste the treas1re of yo1r ti'eE: ./.5.I$MIF0. >e so1nds like an early P1ritan diarist or 'inisterBan ins1ffera!le yet potentially indispensa!le presence. B1t even as ,e reco"ni&e that Malvolio represents the possi!ility of a 'ore serio1s spirit1al orientation to thin"s, it !eco'es clear ho, far short he falls of his potential. +n the Ae, -esta'ent 'etaphor, Christians are Este,ards of ;od:s varied "raceE .1 Peter G:1$0= each person '1st !e responsi!le for the spirit1al and physical ,ell?!ein" of his fello,s. Ste,ardship in the ;ospel Ecan !e nothin" less than a life reflectin" the ,hole?hearted response of love and "ratit1de to ;od for his i''eas1ra!le 'ercy in Christ. . . . C-heD totality of life, oriented to,ards the nei"h!or, respondin" to ;od:s loveE .Enc#clopedia , //FGMF50. 3s e*pressed, this doctrine ,holly co1nters Malvolio:s c1sto'ary relationship ,ith the ,orld. Even !efore receipt of the letterB!1t 'ost ) 1%F ) partic1larly after,ardsBMalvolio casts hi'self as a privile"ed 'an, set off a"ainst those ,ho Eare not of 'y ele'ent,E as he says. +n har!orin" s1spicions of his o,n election, Malvolio 1nkno,in"ly records his 1n,orthiness. >e is no Christian ste,ard, no doer of ;od:s !1siness= he ,ishes not to take care of, !1t rather to lord it over his ho1se'ates. Ket his opposite n1'!ers like,ise lack a sense of these principles, a point the play fre<1ently 'akes. Sir -o!y 'isses the ironies of his o,n scathin" <1estion to Malvolio: E3rt any 'ore than a ste,ardJE -o!y cannot i'a"ine, fro' his !esotted, class?driven perspective, that ste,ardship 'odels one relation to ;od and fello, on ,hich Christianity co1ld !e said to fo1nd itself. Malvolio, "ranted ste,ardship of @livia:s prospero1s ho1sehold, is finally in 'ost ,ays an 1nlikely candidate for P1ritan leanin"sBespecially insofar as Eli&a!ethan P1ritanis' si"nified active s1!versiveness, the threat to order. Maria seeks to r1in Malvolio !y finessin" the re'oval of this ne,ly altered, fractio1s ch1rl. B1t neither Maria nor Malvolio sets a!o1t to de'olish the @livia re"i'e= indeed, they !oth ,ant to rise <1ietly in po,er ,ithin it. -o do so necessitates that they !oth esta!lish E1nifor', "odly and <1iet order ,ithin CtheD real', to avoid all controversies, schis's, and dissensions that 'ay ariseEBthe ,ords of an Eli&a!ethan procla'ation of 71ne 15I# a"ainst the P1ritans.C#%D Maria herself is <1ite co''itted to the 'aintenance of ho1sehold order= as Elliot 9rie"er has ,ritten, she, like Malvolio, ,ants to rein in the 1nr1ly aristocrats: 3"ainst Maria:s involve'ent in the Malvolio?plot !alances her serio1s concern for the 'aintenance of orderBnot, as 'ay !e the case ,ith Malvolio, !eca1se of any personal predilection for decor1', !1t !eca1se her 'istress ,ants the ho1se to re'ain sad and civil. . . . 3s a res1lt, Maria enco1ra"es a partic1lar kind of revelry: she transfor's Sir -o!y:s dr1nken caro1sals and 'idni"ht catches into a sport that re<1ires silent o!servation and, for the 'ost part, non?interference. .)ar"ist Stud# , 11%M190 +n other ,ords, she s1cceeds ,here Malvolio failsBand on t,o co1nts. (irst, she 'ana"es to deli'it the disorder that he cannot= and second, she ascends in rank thro1"h an aristocratic 'arria"e, a "oal that also escapes her fello, 1nderlin". Maria and Malvolio are locked in a str1""le for social 'o!ility and favor fro' @livia, and therefore neither can !e e'phatically radical. 9rie"er 1nderstands a cr1cial point a!o1t the 'aidservant: EMaria is hardly a proto?!o1r"eoise, in that her aspiration s1pports and confir's rather than challen"es the contin1ed validity of ) 1%I )

aristocratic privile"e, !1t . . . only Maria in T elfth !ight indicates the !o1r"eois and P1ritan e'phasis on independence, co'petition, and the association of stat1re ,ith 'eritE .)ar"ist Stud# , 1/10.C#9D -his notion of Maria as a de facto P1ritan fr1itf1lly co'plicates 'y ar"1'ent. -he idea is s1pported !y her oppro!ri1' a"ainst Malvolio: E-he devil a P1ritan he is, or anythin" constantly, !1t a ti'e?pleaser, an affectioned ass, that cons state ,itho1t !ook, and 1tters it !y "reat s,arthsE ./.#.1GFMG%0. 71*taposed to her a'!ivalent re6ection of Malvolio:s ,orthiness to !e a real P1ritan is Maria:s conviction of his phony, sta"ed recitationsBthe fact that he Econs state ,itho1t !ook,E that he speaks only rehearsed, preinterpreted te*t. Maria here repeats a pivotal %uritan criti<1e a"ainst the Epopishe a!1ses yet re'ainin" in the En"lishe ch1rch.E +n -n -dmonition to the %arliament , the first lo1d shot in the lon" skir'ish !et,een En"lish refor'ers and the official ecclesiastical esta!lish'ent .and, therefore, Eli&a!eth:s "overn'ent0, the a1thor co'plains a!o1t the 3n"lican 'inistry: By the ,ord of ;od, it is an offyce of preachin", they 'ake it an offyce of readin". . . . +n the script1res there is attri!1ted 1nto the 'inisters of ;od, the kno,led"e of the heavenly 'isteries, and therfore as the "reatest token of their love, they are en6oined to rede ;ods 4a'!es, and yet ,ith these, s1che are ad'itted and accepted, as onely are !are readers that are a!le to say service, and 'inister a sacra'ent. . . . 8eadin" is not feedin", !1t it is as evill as playin" 1pon a sta"e, and ,orse too. (or players yet lea'e their partes ,ytho1t !ooke, and these, a 'anye of the' can scarcely read ,ithin !ooke. -hese are e'ptie feeders, darcke eyes, ill ,orke'en.CG$D -o the En"lish P1ritan, 'ere readin" of the Script1re to a con"re"ation, as opposed to i'provisational and heartfelt preachin", has the taint of theater a!o1t it.CG1D -hose evil sta"e players ,ho can Eyet lea'e their partes ,ytho1t !ookeE are 'ar"inally !etter, even in their actor:s infa'y, than 3n"lican priests ,ho can scarcely read at all. -o Maria, Malvolio merel# learns his part ,itho1t !ook, 'erely spits o1t ,hat he has 'e'ori&ed !y rote and not di"ested: he has not, that is, !een no1rished !y tr1e feedin", and he is incapa!le of the kind of inspired i'provisation that she 1ndertakes. ;iven her pro6ect to constr1ct hi' as a parody of reli"io1s and especially P1ritan e*cesses, her o!6ections to hi' are distinctly, oddly, P1ritanical. +n e*clai'in" a"ainst his !ein" a not very "ood P1ritan, a"ainst his inconstancy and his 3n"lican style, she so1nds the ideolo"ical note of re!ellion= he represents the insincere a1thority fi"1re a"ainst ,hose oppression she la!ors. -he 'ain effect of her efforts is the prod1ction of a sin"le 'o'ent of disorderBthe 'o'ent ) 1%% ) ,hen @livia ,ill discipline the 1pstart servant: E+ kno, 'y lady ,ill strike hi': if she do, he:ll s'ile, and take:t for a "reat favo1rE .#./.I9M%$0. Maria:s letter enco1ra"es an a""ressive overt1re fro' a parody of a P1ritan hopef1l that res1lts in his i'prison'ent. >er central pro6ect, to P1ritani&e or at least to transfor' her rival into a self?alienated reli"io1s farce, e*presses a firsthand kno,led"e of P1ritan ethos= she see's to have a!sor!ed, fro' personal kno,led"e of this ethos, the sense that partic1lar reli"io1s trappin"s can prod1ce discord, can attract a1thority:s attention, and can therefore inc1r p1nish'ent. Maria th1s overlays, on the pali'psest of Malvolio:s character, an historical narrative: a version of the early P1ritan 'ove'ent:s relations ,ith the esta!lish'ent. -hese relations ,ere constantly strained thro1"h refor'ers: !rash and so'eti'es 1nfatho'a!le defiance. +n 15I#, Bishop Ed,in Sandys ,rote to 4ords 4eicester and B1r"hley, co'plainin" a!o1t a tr1c1lent preacher, Eone Mr. 5ake, of Christs Ch1rche in @*forde, ,ho this last yeare 'ade a "ood ser'on at the Crosse,E !1t ,ho, 'ore recently, E!ein"e sett on and provoked ther1nto . . . !y s1che as are a1thors and 'aynteynors of theise ne,e and

seditio1s fansies, his ,hole ser'on ,as cons1'ed in raylin"e a"ainst this present state. . . . S1ch 'en '1st !e restrained if the state shall stand saffe. . . . -here is a con1enticle or rather conspiracie !reedin"e in 4ondonE .(rere and 2o1"las, %uritan )anifestoes , **iiM**iii0. -ypically, the official response to s1ch effrontery ,as, as Sandys s1""ests, restraint or i'prison'entBMalvolio:s fate. -he alar' in the !ishop:s report ste's fro' the literal conversion of for'erly "ood ser'on?"ivers to 1na!ashed railers a"ainst the En"lish ch1rch. B1t the !ishop also offers a psycholo"ical readin" of the 'ove'ent that sheds so'e li"ht on the converted Malvolio: S1che as preached discretelie the last yeare no, la!o1r !y raylin"e to feede the fansies of the people. Selfe likin"e hath into*icated the', and the flatterie of the fantasticall people hath !e,itched the'. Bothe seeke dan"ero1s alteration, thinkin" that their state cannot !e i'paired, hopin"e that it 'ay !e !etared. .(rere and 2o1"las, %uritan )anifestoes , **ii0 Malvolio, !e,itched !y the flattery of Ethe fantasticall peopleE .,ho' he ri"htly d1!s Ethe li"hter peopleE0, and into*icated ,ith or sick of ESelfe likin"e,E certainly seeks dan"ero1s alteration for the p1rposes of social ascent. B1t ,e '1st re'e'!er that he is an a"ent of order until his latent 1r"e for po,er is teased o1t !y ,hat he takes as an invitation to rise. +n other ,ords, he rese'!les a P1ritan 'ost in his disr1ption of his ) 1%9 ) o,n for'erly val1ed role as po,er:s operative, a 'aintainer of control. 2riven !y the tho1"ht that, as Sandys p1ts it, his state E'ay !e !etared,E he !eco'es 1seless to @livia .ES'il:st tho1J + sent for thee 1pon a sad occasionE C#.G.1%D0 and even an active affront to the ,o'an ,ho relies on hi'. +nterestin"ly eno1"h, Malvolio:s 'eta'orphosis is not politicall# ra'ified in the play. 2espite Maria:s crafty e*hortation to Elet thy ton"1e tan" ar"1'ents of stateE ./.5.15$0, the ste,ard never "ets the chance to do so, lar"ely !eca1se there are no ar"1'ents of state: +llyria is virt1ally ,itho1t politics. Malvolio:s political reticence is certainly a "ood thin": had he the chance to Eread politic a1thors,E as he says he ,ill, he 'i"ht ,ell have f1rther alienated @livia thro1"h inappropriate reli"io1s or diplo'atic co''entary, ,hich do1!tless ,as Maria:s intent. S1ch ar"1'ents of state ,ere fa'o1sly characteristic of P1ritans, ,hose attack on 3n"lican ch1rch practice ,as al,ays, directly or not, a criti<1e of the 'onarch and her policies.CG/D Beca1se Eli&a!eth:s ch1rch settle'ent ,as a co'pro'ise for'ation, the <1een:s ec1'enical control involved, like her co1rt affairs, delicate political ne"otiation, a perilo1s !alance= in this case, the !alance lay !et,een Catholic and 'ore vi"oro1sly refor'ist ideolo"ies and practices. So to the <1een, the s1stained doctrinal recalcitrance of P1ritan 'inisters, their insistence on a con"re"ational as opposed to a ri"idly hierarchical for' of ch1rch "overn'ent, and their co''it'ent to the individ1al as opposed to the collective sense of spirit1al responsi!ilityBall these represented a dan"ero1s, contrary political intervention.CG#D Maria:s re'oval of her rival thro1"h P1ritani&ed alienation 'akes historical sense !eca1se of Eli&a!eth:s lon"?standin" hostility to,ard the radical Protestant 'ove'ent. 5hat inf1riated the <1een 'ost a!o1t the refor'ers ,as neither their social or class pretensions, nor their .real or i'a"ined0 piety, !1t specifically their potential for political divisiveness. 3s early as 15F5, Eli&a!eth had hit 1pon and partly created the traits of stereotypical P1ritans in decryin" their Ediversity, variety, contention and vain love of sin"1larityE= she asserted that En"land '1st 'aintain Eone r1le, for' and 'anner of order.ECGGD 3s the 'inister of this order in the +llyrian "reat ho1se, Malvolio seeks to constrain riot of any sort, and stands as the !arrier a"ainst 61st those characteristics ,ith ,hich Eli&a!eth identified P1ritanis'. B1t his interpellation !y MariaB,hat ,e 'i"ht call his Marian persec1tionBleads hi' to i'a"ine hi'self !elon"in" in, not to, the syste' he protects, ,hich in t1rn leads to the stat1s threat and

social alienation of his dis"1ise in Catholic?colored ) 19$ ) P1ritan attri!1tes. Maria 'akes Malvolio into a type of the disorder that Eli&a!eth feared, the i'a"e of cra&ed, desiro1s sin"1larity that represented an assa1lt on her "overn'ent and her person. -he fear ,as not the <1een:s alone= the 'ost resol1tely anti?P1ritan character in +llyria is none other than that 'odel of holiday ,it, Sir 3ndre, 3"1echeek. Sir 3ndre, ,o1ld !eat Malvolio as a do" if he tho1"ht the 'an ,ere a P1ritan ./. #. 1G10, and ,o1ld Eas lief !e a Bro,nist as a politicianE .#./.#$0. 3 Bro,nist, ,ell o1t of favor and !1siness !y 1F$$, ,as a P1ritan separatistBone of the fe, tr1ly revol1tionary Eli&a!ethan P1ritans, a 'e'!er of a sect ,hose disa"ree'ent ,ith the Ch1rch of En"land ,as severe eno1"h to ca1se schis' and to inc1r an active 3n"lican persec1tionB,hich, for the 'ost part, 'ainstrea' P1ritans escaped.CG5D Sir 3ndre, '1st hate politicians !eca1se, pres1'a!ly, they need a sharp ,it to 'ake their ,ay in the ,orld. B1t ,hy is he so a"ainst Bro,nists, the P1ritans ,ith the 'ost e*tre'e convictionsJ Perhaps !eca1se an old?'oney, landed aristocratic type s1ch as Sir 3ndre, ,o1ld have '1ch to fear fro' those persons ,ho 'ost clearly represented contestatory politics and social as ,ell as reli"io1s refor'. 3ndre,, clin"in" desperately to a fadin" idea of his o,n privile"e, ,o1ld find threatenin" any depart1re fro' esta!lished str1ct1re or proced1re. -h1s, he is the central carrier of the play:s nostal"ic i'p1lse, its re"ret for a past 'o'ent that ,as not f1lly en6oyed: E@, had + !1t follo,ed the artsQE .1.#.9/0= E+n sooth, tho1 ,ast in very "racio1s foolin" last ni"htE ./.#.//0= E+ ,as adored once, tooE ./.#.1%10. +t is not an accident that this fi"1re, a'1sin"ly st1pid and kind of sad, is so hostile to P1ritanis'. -he pro!le' for 3ndre, and his sy'pathi&ers is that the 'ove'ent he fears ,as hardly a 'ar"inali&ed !elief or practice= Calvinist theolo"y .tho1"h not the co'plete pres!yterian pro"ra' for ch1rch refor'0 had penetrated even 5hit"ift:s conscio1sness, infl1encin" the 4a'!eth articles and dra,in" the <1een:s ire. 5hat is 'ore, there ,as lon" a "reat sy'pathy for the P1ritan pro"ra', especially in its 'ilitant anti?Catholicis', a'on" the <1een:s flashier and 'ore infl1ential no!les: Esse* and 4eicester ,ere P1ritan sy'pathi&ers, s1!scri!ers to the international doctrines of radical Protestant refor'. .Esse*, it 'i"ht !e added, had !oth P1ritan and Catholic hopef1ls a!o1t hi'.0 Sir 3ndre,:s ani'1s a"ainst P1ritans ill1'inates so'e of the play:s darker corners, insofar as the silly 3"1echeek fears effective chan"eB,hich P1ritans al,ays represented in the 8enaissance, ho,ever a!s1rdly or threatenin"ly the representation ,as 'ade.CGFD 3ndre,, of co1rse, ,o1ld dread any or"ani&ed 'ove'ent !eca1se he is inti'idated !y co'petence. B1t his protest ) 191 ) a"ainst !oth Bro,nists and politicians is ideolo"ical: ,hat ,orks .s1cceeds and la!ors0 is past his ken, or o1t of his ele'ent. +f the play relives a past oppression of the P1ritan !y the 1pper .and even the lo,er0 classes, it also ends ,ith a ta!lea1 of da'a"ed aristocrat dissol1tes <1arrelin" as they e*it= -o!y and 3ndre, have both !een !loodied. 3s for Malvolio, he retains at the end so'e po,er to h1rt, !1t can do none in the confines of the te*t. >is political i'potence follo,s on his ro'antic fr1strations= @livia:s 1navaila!ility erases his hand'ade drea's of po,er. 3ltho1"h Malvolio 'akes his erotic interest in @livia painf1lly clear, she interprets his !ehavior as either fati"1e or illness= she si'ply doesn:t kno, ,hat he:s talkin" a!o1t:

@4+O : M34 : @4+O :

5ilt tho1 "o to !ed, MalvolioJ -o !edJ 3y, s,eetheart, and +:ll co'e to thee. ;od co'fort theeQ 5hy dost tho1 s'ile so . . .J .#.G.#$M #/0

+t is too '1ch to say that Eli&a!eth fo1nd P1ritanis' 1nintelli"i!le, !1t she did find it profo1ndly alienatin". Malvolio, after his transfor'ation !y Maria, fi"1res a co'ple*ly convected and historically i'pro!a!le threat: a Catholic?like P1ritan ,ho has lon" ,ished to, and ,ho no, thinks he can, erotically 'aster the 'ost potent ,o'an in the land. -he a!s1rdity of this fi"1re is 1nparalleled in any serio1s historical conte*t= rec1sants tended not to think or !e tho1"ht of in these ter's. B1t, as + shall s1""est, there ,as an historical conte*t for P1ritan intervention in Eli&a!eth:s a'oro1s affairs. 3nd this intr1sion did not aid the P1ritans: ca1se or increase their favor. -hro1"h Maria:s devices, co'edy re'akes history. B1t in the for' of Malvolio, the constr1ction of EhistoryE is incoherent. >is "ar! is an effect of opposites yoked !y violence, t,o s1!versive strains !eco'in" a co'ic cost1'e, ideolo"ical 'otley. Since he does s1ffer a sort of Marian persec1tion, Malvolio can th1s !e ali"ned ,ith the c1lt1ral do'inantBnot the P1ritan so '1ch as the anti?Catholic 3n"lican. More perple*in"ly, the P1ritanical Catholic EMistress MaryE assi'ilates <1ietly into the do'ain of the Efair princessE .#.1.990 @livia. >er peacef1l disappearance into the lady:s e*tended fa'ily and her sco1r"e of the oppositional fi"1re she has created concept1ally pocket t o hi"hly ve*in" pro!le's of the early Eli&a!ethan era: the repeated Marian .-1dor and St1art0 plots a"ainst the peace of the <1een= and refor' Protestant disorders, ,hich ,ere al'ost as threatenin" to the real' fro' ,ithin as ,as the Scottish or Spanish Catholic 'enace fro' ,itho1t. B1t even in ) 19/ ) this political fantasy, the central fi"1re cannot escape 1nscathed: for the deft de'olition of Malvolio centrally involves and dis"1ises an assa1lt a"ainst @livia, ho,ever a!ortive. -o s1cceed, Maria '1st ri" a trap and !ait it ,ith her e'ployer. +t is not eno1"h that Malvolio !e o1sted= he '1st, pricked !y the sp1rs of Maria:s intent, atte'pt to possess the ,o'an of the ho1se, the "reat lady of the landBand this is the real Marian assa1lt on the central fe'ale fi"1re. B1t in enco1ra"in" the fl1rry of confrontational erotic activity, Maria correspondin"ly distances fro' @livia the sectarian i'plications of Malvolio:s chan"e, !eca1se the ste,ard asks for erotic, not reli"io1s reco"nition. +n fact, the episode 'ar"inali&es all doctrinal controversy: spirit1al <1estions are confined to (este:s prison?ho1se catechis' of Malvolio. -he disco1rse of eschatolo"y and trans'i"ration occ1rs ,ell o1t of @livia:s earshot. -his episode, in fi"1rin" a sco1r"in" of spirit1al controversies, encodes a ,ished?for distance of these controversies fro' the <1een= @livia is co'pletely 1na,are and inc1lpa!le of Malvolio:s in<1isition and h1'iliation, and so she is diplo'atically protected fro' .'ost of0 the !la'e for the P1ritan:s e*p1lsion. -o i'a"ine that a Marian plot ,o1ld act1ally help the co1rt, as Maria clai's of Malvolio:s o1ster .E-he ho1se ,ill !e the <1ieter,E she says co1nterint1itively, for his re'oval sho1ld liberate noisy Sir -o!y0, is to participate in an historical del1sion ,here!y anti?Eli&a!eth plots 1lti'ately stren"thened the nation. Mary St1art:s endless treasono1s sche'es, ,hich feat1red enciphered letters and secret?a"ent

'ediators, are def1sed in T elfth !ight , recalled on a sy'!olic !ias= they i'a"inatively !eco'e the topic of entertain'ent, the theatrical display of comic reli"io1s persec1tion. Malvolio f1nctions as a sy'!olic loc1s for '1ltiple !1t lar"ely fr1strated reli"io1s interests over ,hich Eli&a!eth:s 3n"lican co'pro'ise "ri'ly tri1'phed. B1t P1ritanis', Catholicis', and the eroticis' of Eli&a!eth ,orship ,ere lar"ely vesti"ial .tho1"h dor'ant and e'er"ent0 infl1ences on the rei"n in 1F$1. 5hy then are they represented in this playJ +f ,e take E-,elfth Ai"htE as an historical or sec1lar rather than a sacral all1sion, the play:s topicality si"nifies !oth an act of remembrance and the a,areness of c1sp, of endin". +n the historical readin", this so'e,hat so'!er co'edy !eco'es nostal"ia: a 'elancholy vision on the eve of 'o'ento1s chan"e and lenten entertain'ent. -he keenest P1ritan EthreatsE !e"an in the early 15I$s and contin1ed, ,ith so'e interr1ptions, thro1"h the 'id?15%$s.CGID By 1F$1, P1? ) 19# ) ritans and Catholics ,ere dispirited, and !oth ea"erly looked north to 7a'es of Scotland:s s1ccession for "reater tolerance, if not for spirit1al and political s1ccor.CG%DT elfth !ight :s specifically political inscriptions see' to fr1strate the endeavors of topical readin", !eca1se no pressin" ad6acency, no really char"ed conte'porary c1lt1ral a"on of 1F$1, can !e read into .or !eside0 the events of the play. Shakespeare:s vision see's rather 'ore prescient than present: Malvolio:s pro'ise to reven"e hi'self on the ,hole pack of revelers has the 1ncanny resonance of an a!1sed, ne,ly 'ade P1ritan ,arnin" a dissol1te aristocracy of the revol1tion to co'e. -his pro'ise act1ally e*tends in t,o directions at once: Malvolio does look eerily for,ard to the revol1tion of 1FG/, as 'any critics have said. B1t if ,e cannot credit Shakespeare ,ith e*traordinary foresi"ht, ,e 'ay at least allo, that his 'e'ory is "ood. (or the reven"e of the hostile P1ritan represents a ven"eance that had alread# !een taken, one ,hich the play deflects and displaces, !1t ,hich has a fir' dra'atic conse<1ence. -he play is caref1l not to let the P1ritani&ed or radicali&ed Malvolio interfere ,ith @livia:s erotic pro6ect, for the 'atch ,ith Se!astian .,ho' she thinks Cesario0 has already occ1rred= the Eli&a!eth fi"1re has ,ed ,ith re'arka!le and 1ncharacteristic alacrity, inca1tion, and hopef1lness. B1t historically, the P1ritan faction of the nation had so'ethin" si"nificant to say a!o1t the <1een:s n1ptials, and did indeed take its reven"e, in a 'anner of speakin", a"ainst the persec1tin" fi"1re to ,ho' they ,ere, ho,ever, resol1tely loyal. -he p1!lication of the P1ritan 7ohn St1!!s:s - 2isco.erie of a +aping +ulf 3hereinto England is 0ike to be S allo ed b# an other 'rench )arriage . . . .15I90 helped f1el the firestor' of local and international an"er a!o1t the proposed 'atch !et,een Eli&a!eth and the heir pres1'ptive of (rance= the ,ork pestered the <1een:s plans !y p1!lici&in" and revilin" the'. (or Eli&a!eth, the P1ritan threat had s1rprisin" force, 'a"nified in the ne*1s of politics and erotics. +n T elfth !ight , the specter of a P1ritan reven"e on 'atri'ony is not erased= it is 'erely displaced. (or Malvolio ,ill have the chance to forestall another allianceBthe Oiola?@rsino 'arria"eBthro1"h his i'prison'ent of the sea captain ,ho holds Oiola:s clothes and her "ender identity.CG9D Oiola '1st depend on the no, P1ritanical Malvolio:s "ood "races if she hopes to ,ear her ,o'an:s ,eeds a"ain. B1t since the P1ritans, in 7onas Barish:s ,ords, fa'o1sly Erehearse, ad na1sea', . . . the s1pposed script1ral in61nction a"ainst 'en in ,o'en:s dress, ,ith its i'plicit threat to the proper division !et,een the se*es,EC5$D ,e 'ay s1ppose that the ne,ly P1ritani&ed Mal? ) 19G ) volio ,o1ld haveBsho1ld he need oneBa ready e*c1se to fr1strate the proper resol1tion to the

'arria"e. So the Marian plot 'ay have a lastin" effect after all: the play holds o1t s'all hope of Malvolio:s 'ollification. Even as inscriptions of Catholic and P1ritan oppositionality conver"e in Malvolio, his lady:s ro'antic affairs rei'a"ine a critical historical episode t,o decades past: the co1rtship of L1een Eli&a!eth and (ranWois Oalois, d1ke of 3lenWon and 3n6o1. Eli&a!eth:s storied entertain'ent of the (rench 'atch has i'portant points of contact ,ith T elfth !ight . (or P1ritans ,ere not the only vi"oro1s opponents of the 'arria"e. Catholics, ,ho' the alliance directly threatened, ,ere none too pleased a!o1t it either. 3nd the <1een:s o,n 'en in the p1lpits and presence cha'!er, standin" on <1arrels of faith and safety, st1rdily opposed it= !y thro,in" eno1"h p1!lic relations o!stacles in the ,ay, they 'ana"ed to 'ake the 'arria"e prospect see' 'ore tro1!leso'e than advanta"eo1s. Consider this literary condensation of historical fact: !eca1se @livia ,eds in secret speed, neither Malvolio nor anyone else in her ho1se can disr1pt her 'arria"e= and !eca1se Maria herself has tr1ndled off to ,ed Sir -o!y, the P1ritani&ed and Catholic?coded i'pedi'ents to the 'arria"e have !een <1elled !efore they can arise. +n this daydrea' of sectarian political i'potence, an Eli&a!eth fi"1re escapes factional intr1sions in her 'arital pro"resses. +ndeed, prior to act 5, the only diffic1lty in @livia:s co1rse of tr1e love is her erotic choice: she favors a ro'antic 'ediator over the official s1itor. -o !etter 1nderstand this plot intervention, it ,ill help to have a closer look at the 3n6o1 episode.

III
Catherine de: MNdicis had proposed a 'arria"e !et,een Eli&a!eth and her yo1n"er son, (ranWois Oalois, then 21ke of 3lenWon, aro1nd the ti'e of the St. Bartholo'e,:s 2ay 'assacre of 15I/. Understanda!ly, occasions ,ere inhospita!le for an 3n"lo?(rench 1nion= still, Eli&a!eth toyed ,ith the idea for several years !efore lettin" interest in the 'atch lapse aro1nd 15IF. B1t to,ard the end of her second decade in po,er, the possi!ility of the 1nion ,ith Oalois, no, 21ke of 3n6o1, ,as res1rrected. +t 'ay have !een 3n6o1:s a""ressive confrontation of the Spanish forces in the Aetherlands that 'ade the 'arria"e see' ,orth p1rs1in" and the d1ke ,orth controllin". B1t as 7. B. Black has s1""ested, other factors co''ended the rene,ed overt1res: ) 195 ) C-Dhere ,as a serio1sness a!o1t this co1rtship of 3n6o1 in 15I% entirely a!sent fro' all previo1s 'anoe1vres of a si'ilar nat1re. 3part alto"ether fro' the (rench dan"er in the Aetherlands, a 'arria"e ,ith 3n6o1 see'ed to offer a 'eans of e"ress fro' 'any of the fears that ha1nted the <1een:s 'ind. . . . +t 'i"ht, for e*a'ple, "et rid of the other,ise insol1!le s1ccession pro!le' !y providin" an heir to contin1e the line of >enry O+++Ba 'atter that tro1!led Eli&a!eth 'ore ac1tely as she "re, older. +t ,o1ld "reatly stren"then the 3n"lo?(rench alliance. . . . +t ,o1ld "o far to dispose of the dan"er fro' Mary St1art. C51D @!stacles incl1ded the reli"io1s and, not incidentally, a"e differences of the prospective lovers: Eli&a!eth ,as already forty?five, 3n6o1 so'e t,enty years her 61nior. B1t the hi"h?level alliance pro'ised s1!stantial advanta"es, and so preparations for 'arria"e ne"otiations !e"an in the s1''er of 15I%.C5/D Preli'inary envoys ,ere sent fro' (rance, !1t they received little satisfaction and 'ade little pro"ress. +n the a!sence of the d1ke hi'self, the <1een ref1sed to ne"otiate serio1sly= she ,as distr1stf1l of an a!sent s1itor.C5#D (rance had to find a 'ore pers1asive inter'ediary to keep the ne"otiations alive ,hile 3n6o1 arran"ed his inevita!le visit. -he candidate: 7ean de Si'ier, the d1ke:s closest co1nselor

and 'aster of his ,ardro!e. 5illia' Ca'den calls hi' Ea 'ost choice co1rtier, e*<1isitely skilled in love?toys, pleasant conceits, and co1rt dalliances.EC5GD -he 'oral reproof !eneath this assess'ent has filtered do,n to the t,entieth cent1ry= Black na'es hi', ,ith less s1!tlety and civility, Ethe 'ost acco'plished philanderer of the period.EC55D Black see's to think it a scandal that the <1een sho1ld have had anythin" to do ,ith Si'ier. +n fact, scandal !eca'e the keynote of the e'issary:s e'ploy'ent. 7ean de Si'ier proved !oth a 'ore and less propitio1s choice for a'oro1s diplo'acy than previo1s a'!assadors had !een: he ca1sed the 'arria"e ne"otiations to proceed apace, !1t his presence and efficacy sent alar's thro1"h P1ritan and hard 3n"lican hearts in En"land. Eli&a!eth:s lon" indifference to the (rench affair softened in the presence of this 'an, 3n6o1:s Echief darlin".EC5FD -he <1een:s relations to the love a'!assador <1ickly !eca'e the s1!6ect of '1ch co1rt "ossip, not to 'ention so'e sinister activity= the earl of 4eicester, for one, plotted to kill hi', for he re"arded Si'ier as a threat to achieve a 1nion ,hich he and other 'ilitant Protestants reviled.C5ID Eli&a!eth, in t1rn, "re, increasin"ly vehe'ent in defense of 3n6o1:s servant, !anishin" 4eicester fro' co1rt for t,o 'onths ,hen the plot a"ainst Si'ier ,as discovered. S1ch ) 19F ) ,as the "ro,in" fondness !et,een Eli&a!eth and the (rench co1rtier that it !eca'e necessary to reass1re Oalois that his servant ,as not playin" hi' false, that her EapeE .her pet na'e for Si'ier0 ,as !ehavin" i'pecca!ly, as so'e of the r1'ors of se*1al i'propriety had sped across the channel. +n a letter to her (rench a'!assador, 3'ias Pa1let .circa (e!r1ary 15I90, Eli&a!eth pointedly praised the 'ediator:s dedication to the d1ke: 3nd as for the "entle'an hi'self, 2e Si'yer . . . ,e ChaveD fo1nd in hi' other,ise so "reat fidelity to,ards his 'aster, so rare a s1fficiency and discretion in one of his years in the handlin" of the ca1se, and so "reat devotion to,ards the 'atch itself, as ,e had !oth "reat reason to like of hi', as also to ,ish that ,e had a s1!6ect so ,ell a!le to serve 1s.C5%D Si'ier:s presence, ho,ever, contin1ed to elicit '1ch disc1ssion. E+t is not 1nkno,n to every estate and de"ree,E ,rites >enry >o,ard, earl of Aortha'pton, Eho, that Monsie1r d:3n6o1, !rother and heir apparent to the 9in" of (rance, for this year:s space al'ost, !y his led"er?a'!assador here .a "entle'an of "ood note and credit a!o1t hi' and of a "oodly ,it and "reat de*terity in 'ana"in" of affairs0 hath contin1ally solicited a 'arria"e to !e had !et,een o1r "racio1s soverei"n and hi'self.E -h1s !e"ins >o,ard:s defense a"ainst St1!!s:s 2isco.erie of a +aping +ulf .C59D -he earl intends to provide Es1fficient and invinci!le ar"1'ents,E as he later says, on !ehalf of the co1rtship, !1t he '1st !e"in !y validatin" Si'ier:s presence. (or St1!!s had assailed the "o?!et,een as a professional deceiver and an epito'e of continental Catholic 1ntr1st,orthiness: EKea, 1nless ,e o1rselves close o1r o,n eyes, ,e 'ay see that it is a very (rench Popish ,ooin" to send hither s'ooth?ton"1ed Si'iers to "loss and "laver CflatterD and hold talk of 'arria"eE .Berry, Stubbs1s B+aping +ulf,B %$0. B1t even defenders of the 'arria"e revealed s1ppressed do1!ts a!o1t the for' of the co1rtship. >o,ard, for one, strains a !it to defend Si'ier:s part in the yearlon" s1rro"ate ,ooin". -o praise Si'ier, as he does, for possessin" Ea "oodly ,it and "reat de*terity in 'ana"in" of affairsE so1nds like a ton"1e?in?check indict'ent. -he E'arria"e to !e had !et,een o1r "racio1s soverei"n and hi'selfE see's to refer either to 3n6o1 or to his pro*y as the "roo' in <1estion. Si'ier has intervened "ra''atically !et,een EMonsie1r d:3n6o1E and Ea 'arria"e to !e had.E Everyone kne, that the proposed alliance ,as a 'ediated affair= 3n6o1:s a!sence and the ,ooin" !y his Eled"er?a'!assador,E ho,ever, ,as s1spect, !eca1se E1nless the 'aster ,ere

) 19I ) the 'an,E as @livia says .1.5./9%0, the <1een 'ay have !een developin" an attach'ent to the ,ron" person. S1ch conf1sion ,as inherent in the 'ediator:s role. 4ike Oiola in her s1rro"ate co1rtship of @livia, the e'!assy to Eli&a!eth received li!eral ne"otiatin" prero"atives. >ere is Si'ier:s official co''ission fro' his 'aster: 5e 'ake it kno,n to all that !ein" ass1red of the fidelity, capa!ility, pr1dence and de*terity of o1r tr1sty 7ehan de Si'ier, lord of that place, Baron of St. Mary, etc., o1r co1ncillor and 'aster of o1r ,ardro!e, ,e have chosen hi' as o1r co''issioner to the said L1een, . . . "ivin" hi' here!y f1ll po,ers to ne"otiate, resolve, and concl1de 'arria"e ,ith the said L1een, accordin" to the articles ,e have "iven into his hands.CF$D -o ne"otiate, resolve, and concl1de a 'arria"e is virt1ally to 'arry= and the e*ceptional ran"e of privile"e the 'ediator en6oyed ca'e to encroach on the co1rtship proceedin"s. +n a royal procla'ation a"ainst St1!!s:s Ele,d, seditio1s !ookE and a"ainst the P1ritan Eli!elersE ,ho opposed the 'atch, the <1een praised 3n6o1 vis?T?vis Si'ier, even at the risk of protestin" too '1ch= the co1rtier not only lacked any E'anifest token of any evil condition as ,here,ith he is char"ed= !1t, contrari,ise . . . there hath appeared sin"1lar ,isdo', 'odesty, and "reat te'perance in all his e'!assy, to the allo,ance of the ,isdo' of his lord and 'aster in 'akin" choice of s1ch a servant.ECF1D 5e cannot kno, ,hether the <1een:s interest in Si'ier ,as 'ore than diplo'atic. 3s for the co1rtier, delicio1sly dedicated to the task of s1rro"ate ,ooin", he 'ay not, at first, have !een deli!erately 1ntr1e to his 'aster:s political and erotic pro6ect. @n 3pril 1/, 15I9, he ,rote that, havin" !e"1n to Etreat of the articles of 'arria"eE !et,een Eli&a!eth and 3n6o1, E+ have every "ood hope= !1t ,ill ,ait to say 'ore till the c1rtain is dra,n, the candle o1t, and Monsie1r in !ed. -hen + ,ill speak ,ith "ood ass1ranceE .CS%' 4CDEFDG , G%I0.CF/D B1t the ne"otiations ran a"ro1nd on several points. -he <1een kept addin" conditions and respondin" testily ,hen 3n6o1 added so'e of his o,n. She !alked at his de'ands for an allo,ance and "enerally o!6ected to his fiscal interests. -he 'ost i'portant early condition, ho,ever, ,as her insistence on seein" her intended face?to?face. -his point ca1sed Si'ier the "reatest an*iety: E-his intervie, . . . can only serve to hinder this happy ne"otiation and p1t off the entrance into a haven so desired.ECF#D 5hen the dis"1ised Oiola insists on speakin" to an 1nveiled @livia, the lady slyly replies: E>ave yo1 any co''ission fro' yo1r lord to ) 19% ) ne"otiate ,ith 'y faceJ Ko1 are no, o1t of yo1r te*t: !1t ,e ,ill dra, the c1rtain and sho, yo1 the pict1reE .1.5./#GM#I0. @livia:s riposte !oth hi"hli"hts the 'ediator:s independent initiative and alters the historical identifications of ,ooer and ,ooed: the oman is no, the coveted and rare si"ht. -he revelation of @livia:s co1ntenance allo,s the 'ediator an inti'acy that the 'aster sho1ld have atte'pted. -his is a decisive 'o'ent in the play:s ro'ance, and it carries ,ithin it !oth historical criti<1e and fancy: 3n6o1:s inappropriate distance, passivity, and coyness are overco'e on sta"e !y t,o assertive ,o'en in dedicated .if half?kno,in"0 flirtation. 3s a fancif1l !1t pointed historical co''entary, the scene s1""ests that Eli&a!eth:s co1rtships co1ld have !een e*pedited considera!ly had there !een no 'enBor only a 'ediatorBinvolved. S1ch co'e?hither 'ane1vers as Oiola 'akes in her intervie, ,ith the lady are ,ell past @rsino:s narcissistic and i'a"inative li'its. Oiola:s overt1re has 1n<1estiona!ly transcended her Eco''ission,E ,hich @rsino defines th1s: to E1nfold the passion of 'y love,E and Es1rprise her ,ith disco1rse of 'y dear faithE .1.G./GM/50. .+t !odes ill that the disco1rse of

@rsino:s EfaithE ,o1ld co'e as a s1rprise.0 5hen Oiola had perfor'ed only the co''ission, the res1lt ,as as al,ays: @livia:s indifference. +n response to the lady:s <1ery E>o, does he love 'eJE the "o? !et,een speaks Petrarchan !oilerplate: E5ith adorations, fertile tears, 5ith "roans that th1nder love, ,ith si"hs of fireE ./5%MF$0. S'all ,onder that the d1ke has !een 1ns1ccessf1l. @nly ,hen Oiola leaps Eall civil !o1nds,E only ,hen she enters a s1!6ectivity that @rsino co1ld not possi!ly inha!it, does @livia fall. (or the ro'ance to occ1r, a yo1thf1l, attractive, fe'ale 'ediator '1st take se*y initiative. -he ne, ho'oerotic co1rtship has ac<1ired an ed"e and a possi!ility ,hich the nonne"otiated relationship never had. -he co'plications of ho'oeroticis' and dis"1ise have only o!li<1e relations to the recorded facts of the (rench affair. Shakespeare:s ho'ose*1al s1!te*t has a vi!rant life of its o,n, and inscriptively its !1rdens are inconsidera!le. B1t it is clear that Si'ier:s 'ediator f1nction perfectly descri!es Oiola:s life in +llyria: E3ll the occ1rrence of 'y fort1ne since,E she tells the deceived at the end of the play, E>ath !een !et,een this lady and this lordE .5.1./55M5F0. +t is also plain that the dra'a translates an historical 'ediation into the se*1al and characterolo"ical in?!et,eenness that Oiola for's. Both real?,orld and theatrical co1rtships s1ffer in61ries fro' the "o?!et,een. 3fter the 1lti'ate collapse of the (rench ne"otiations, 3n6o1 did not !la'e the official o!6ect of his desire= instead, he slapped his ) 199 ) fr1strations on a sin"le scape"oat: Si'ier, the darlin" inter'ediary. 81'ors of Eli&a!eth:s flirtations ,ith her EapeE and others persisted thro1"ho1t the 3n6o1 co1rtship, and so the d1ke 'i"ht ,ell have felt !etrayed ,hen the triflin" vessel of his 'arria"e ne"otiations !e"an to sink. 5e cannot kno, the e*tent to ,hich these r1'ors f1nctioned as an e*c1se for a lon"?fo1nderin" affair. Certainly Catherine de: MNdicis did not hesitate to !la'e her son:s failed !etrothal on Eli&a!eth:s 'orals= she ,rote defiantly a!o1t 3n6o1 and the <1een to her a'!assador, 4a MothN (enelon: EMy son has infor'ed 'e thro1"h the 9in" that he ,ill never 'arry her even if she ,ishes it, especially !eca1se he has al,ays heard so poorly of her honor= and he has seen letters ,ritten !y all the a'!assadors ,ho have !een there, s1ch that Cif he ,ere to 'arryD he ,o1ld !elieve hi'self dishonored, and ,o1ld lose the rep1tation he thinks he has ac<1ired.ECFGD Mary L1een of Scots also acc1sed Eli&a!eth of se*1al incontinence in the conte*t of the (rench 'atch and clai'ed, in a fa'o1s 'issive to her rival, to have heard reports that the <1een Ehad not only en"a"ed yo1r honor ,ith a forei"ner na'ed Si'ier . . . C!1t thatD yo1 co1pled ,ith hi' and st1died vario1s i''odest li!erties to"ether.ECF5D S1ch char"es do not, of co1rse, e*plain the collapse of the 'arria"e ne"otiations. B1t the acc1sations a"ainst Si'ier prepare for a Shakespearean plot develop'ent: @rsino:s t1rn a"ainst his favorite. -he +llyrian d1ke co'pensates for his ro'antic 'isfort1ne ,ith this 1"ly, e'!arrassin" display of e"o and ho'oerotic !ravado !efore @livia: Since yo1 to non?re"ardance cast 'y faith, 3nd that + partly kno, the instr1'ent -hat scre,s 'e fro' 'y tr1e place in yo1r favo1r, 4ive yo1 the 'ar!le?!reasted tyrant still. . . . Co'e, !oy, ,ith 'e= 'y tho1"hts are ripe in 'ischief: +:ll sacrifice the la'! that + do love -o spite a raven:s heart ,ithin a dove. .5.1.119M/90 >e ,o1ld like to kill @livia .at 5.1.115M1I0, !1t the attack on the po,erf1l ,o'an, the E'ar!le?

!reasted tyrant,E cannot !e 'ade, not at least in Eli&a!eth:s ti'e= and so @rsino settles for a po,erless victi': ECo'e, !oy, ,ith 'e= 'y tho1"hts are ripe in 'ischief.E -he 'an ,ho once reveled in the phallic drea' of the Erich "olden shaftE killin" Ethe flock of all affections elseE in @livia, ,ho i'a"ined hi'self fillin" @livia:s Esoverei"n thronesE ,ith Eone self kin"E .1.1.#5M#90 and th1s prod1cin" a version of 3n6o1:s political desires, reveals hi'self at last as a passionate th1". +f @rsino:s ho'ose*1al leanin"s can !e read into the ) /$$ ) violence to,ard his !eloved !oy, the instr1'ent he Epartly kno,s,E so too can an historical all1sion. Bernardino de Mendo&a, the Spanish a'!assador to En"land in the 15%$s, reports a re'arka!le scene !et,een the (rench d1ke and his 'ediator. Eli&a!eth, havin" infor'ed 3n6o1 of her desire to reesta!lish an Eancient allianceE ,ith Philip ++ of Spain, noticed that Si'ier had entered the roo' E!y the private stairE= she ,ithdre,, Esayin" that she did not ,ish to stand !et,een 'aster and servant,E and the follo,in" e*chan"e took place: 3lenWon asked hi' ,hether his tarryin" here ,as ca1sed !y a fear that he ,o1ld have hi' killed ,hen he arrived in (rance. >e replied that, for his part, this ,as not the reason, altho1"h there ,as so'e "ro1nd for the fears that his ene'ies 'i"ht atte'pt it. 3lenWon ans,ered thro,in" 1pon hi' the ,hole !la'e of the present hopelessness of the 'arria"e ne"otiations.CFFD 3n6o1 follo,ed the veiled death threat ,ith 'is"1ided char"es a"ainst Si'ier, !la'in" hi' for the alienation of n1'ero1s political affections. 3ct1ally, Si'ier 'i"ht reasona!ly have !een acc1sed of "reater inti'acy ,ith the <1een than his co''ission allo,ed. +n 15%1, as the d1ke pressed Eli&a!eth for a 'arital co''it'ent, she responded !y tryin" "ently to convince hi' to leave her co1rt and "o to (landers, enlistin" B1r"hley and others to offer 'oney and citin" the o!vio1s reasons for a stron" anti? Catholic presence there. E5hen the L1een had done this,E Mendo&a ,rote, Eshe sent secretly for Si'ier, ,ho apparently for a lon" ti'e she has had in her interest, and has !een entertainin" here. -o hi' she co'plained "reatly of the annoyance she felt at 3lenWon:s pressin" her so closely, sayin" that she co1ld not "et rid of hi' ,itho1t dan"er, or entertain hi' f1rther ,itho1t inconvenienceE .CS%S , /G#MGG0. +ndeed, the only ,ay to re'ove 3n6o1 fro' her co1rt ,as to pro'ise hi' s1!stantial ,ealth, a pro'ise ,hich "reatly cheered hi'. So'eho, Mendo&a learned that the <1een Ed,elt at len"th ,ith Si'ier on the point, and the collo<1y ended ,ith "reat 'erri'ent as they said that 3lenWon ,as a fine "allant to sell his lady for 'oneyE .CS%S , /G50. +n the 3n6o1 'atch, the 'essen"er, sent as political "rease for the diplo'atic 'achine, !eca'e .in 7ohn 4ennon:s 'e'ora!le p1n0 a Spaniard in the ,orks, or if not <1ite so threatenin", at least so'ethin" of a do1!le a"ent crossin" his 'aster:s interests. -he rift !et,een 3n6o1 and his 'ediator !eca'e serio1s eno1"h to event1ate not only in death threats !1t in 3n6o1:s deprivin" Si'ier of all property and possessions.CFID 5hile Cesario shares no o.ertl# oppositional inti'acy ,ith @livia, the ) /$1 ) yo1n" ,o 'an certainly encroaches on the d1ke:s ro'antic prero"ative in the "1ise of s1in" for it. -o p1t the no!le lady into a holiday h1'or, Elike eno1"h to consent,E re<1ires delicate 'ane1verin", especially insofar as the a'oro1s instr1'ent '1st event1ally fore"o his or her place as the erotic s1rro"ate. Aeither Si'ier nor Oiola see's entirely ,illin" to relin<1ish this role. >istorical inscriptions in T elfth !ight recall 'ediational pro!le's in the (rench affair= they also

devastatin"ly 1nder'ine @rsino thro1"h si'ilit1de ,ith the re6ected Oalois. 3n6o1:s 1nsta!le character finds several echoes in @rsino:s deeply fla,ed person. 3s the ne,ly favored Cesario asks Oalentine a!o1t the d1ke, EKo1 . . . fear his h1'o1r . . . that yo1 call in <1estion the contin1ance of his love. +s he inconstant, sir, in his favo1rsJE .1.G.5MI0. 3ltho1"h Oalentine ans,ers in the ne"ative, +llyria:s d1ke appears ,ed to inconstancy. >is love, he clai's, is all?enco'passin", !1t ,hatever enters the ocean of his affections instantly dro,ns, fallin" Einto a!ate'ent and lo, price, Even in a 'in1teE .1.1.1#M1G0. 3n6o1 hi'self ,as, as 3'ias Pa1let ,rote, Enot i"norant of the :alar1's: .as he called the'0 and sinister i'pressions ,hich had !een "iven . . . of his treatin" for 'arria"e in other places, protestin" ,ith oaths that he ,as "1iltless thereinE .CS%' 4CDEFDG , GF/0. Even 'ore serio1s than these r1'ored dalliances, and ca1sally related to the', ,as the <1estion of the d1ke:s vacillatin" stance on reli"ionB initially a sellin" point for the 'arria"e in En"land, insofar as 3n6o1 ,as for 'any years a sta1nch >1"1enot defender. B1t he ,as also a >1"1enot !etrayer: in 15I5, E3lenWon deserted the Protestant ca1se entirely, and !eca'e s1ddenly a devo1t CatholicE on the pre'ise of a pro6ected 'arria"e ,ith Philip ++:s eldest da1"hter, and the attain'ent of "overn'ent over the Spanish Aetherlands. E>e even accepted the co''and of a force a"ainst the >1"1enots, 1pon ,ho' he ,as i'placa!le in his severity.ECF%D Besides their characterolo"ical si'ilarity, the critical link !et,een 3n6o1 and @rsino is erotic fail1re of a partic1lar type. +llyria:s d1ke is constantly 1nder'ined not only !y his !ehavior !1t 'ore serio1sly !y a ,o'an he cannot 1nderstand or control. Specifically, he cannot "rasp the idea that @livia, like Eli&a!eth, lacks interest in a ro'ance she does not 'aster. @ne of Se!astian:s 'ost char'in" feat1res .!esides his interchan"ea!ility ,ith Oiola0 is the easy, s,eet ,ay he allo,s hi'self to !e dra,n 1nder the contessa:s yoke= this yieldin", an interestin" co1nterpart to Oiola:s a""ression as Cesario, 'akes hi' the perfect ro'antic o!6ect: ) /$/ ) @4+O : -ho1 shalt not choose !1t "o: 2o not deny. Aay, co'e, + prithee= ,o1ld tho1:dst !e r1l:d !y 'eQ Mada', + ,ill. .G.1.5FM FG0 Se!astian, 1nlike @rsino, see's a,are that @livia inscri!es the fi"1re of Eli&a!eth. @livia, for her part, sees a fi"1re very '1ch like 3n6o1 in @rsino. >er ref1sal of the +llyrian r1lerBE+ cannot love hi'EB has so'ethin" of an historical rationale. B1t @rsino:s fail1re and @livia:s choiceBlike Oiola:s cross? dressin"Bdo not co'pletely yield to historical 1nderstandin". -hey are in effect derived fro' a theatrical i'p1lse that effaces the specificities of the past.

SEB :

IV
T elfth !ight concept1ally repairs a vast for'al if not historical deficit: the play 'arries off the 1n'arried <1een. -hro1"h @livia:s person, Shakespeare re,rites the 1nf1lfilled history of Eli&a!eth:s fr1stratin" 3n6o1 co1rtship. -he te*t ind1l"es a retrospective political fantasy a'idst its portrayal of fe'ale erotic initiati.e : the "reat lady circ1'vents 1n,ieldy, p1!lic, 'ediated ro'ance to privately

choose and ,ed her o,n h1s!andB,ho is, she thinks, the 'ediator of the political 'atch. @livia cares nothin" for a hi"h?level diplo'atic alliance. -he soverei"n ,o'an of Shakespeare:s co'edy splices Eli&a!eth:s for'ida!le political control onto a co'plicated fantasy of i'p1lsive aristocratic co1rtship, fe'ale erotic a""ressiveness, and social ascent thro1"h 'arria"e.CF9D (or "enre:s sake, the te*t '1st endorse the po,erf1l ,o'an:s ,edded condition, !1t it does not escape a'!ivalence in doin" so. @livia has in no 1ncertain ter's 'arried the ,ron" person, one she did not fall in love ,ith: a 'an. 5hat can it 'ean historically that @livia:s first, 'ost intense o!6ect of desire is a dis"1ised ,o'anJCI$D 3ltho1"h topicality in +llyria is la*ly 'i'etic and 1nderdeter'ined .E5hat yo1 ,illE0, at a distance fro' Hamlet :s or Troilus :s over,ro1"ht syste's of reference, ,e can vent1re that so'e cords !ind te*t and past. Eli&a!eth:s lifelon" aversion to 'arria"e is 'astered, in the plot of T elfth !ight , !y l1cky a'!ise*1ality: fe'ale po,er is E!etroth:d !oth to a 'aid and 'anE .5.1./F10. -he play effects, thro1"h erotics, a theatrical variant on the <1een:s political andro"yny. @livia:s desires, like Eli&a!eth:s p1!lic per? ) /$# ) sonae, span a !iolo"ical divide as T elfth !ight lets the <1een fi"1ratively ,oo and 'arry herself.CI1D Specific operations of inscription drop o1t here. +t is tr1e that the transvestite theater 'ay ironically encode and appro*i'ate certain historical factsBs1ch as that of Eli&a!eth:s rhetorical andro"ynyB!1t T elfth !ight :s se*1al plot sacrifices referentiality for a representational s1rpl1s of selves and desires. -he fantasy of @livia:s 'arria"e is paid for and a!etted !y its non?nor'ative eroticis'. -he play stron"ly insin1ates, ,ell !efore its shaky heterose*1al cli'a*, that @livia:s ErealE desires, on ,hich Oiola:s ,ooin" capitali&es, are les!ian. 3t the sa'e ti'e, as + shall ar"1e, this partic1lar ho'oeroticis' "ro1nds itself in a co'plicated appeal to narcissis'Ba decidedly different appeal than Patrocl1s 'akes to his s,eetheart 3chilles in Troilus and Cressida . @ne 'i"ht clai' that s1ch eroticis' has the effect of ne1trali&in" historical <1estions of s1rro"acy and 'ediation, and of cancelin" politics entirely: @livia prefers a vi"oro1s fe'ale servant to an enervated 'ale r1ler. B1t another, 'ore satisfyin" clai' a!o1t T elfth !ight :s ho'oeroticis' interprets it not as a ,ay of escapin" politics !1t as a ,ay of affir'in" affect. +n a play f1ll of replace'ent o!6ects of desireBletters, son"s, and 'oney for lovers, 6ests for passion, Se!astian for OiolaBho'oerotic love see's authentic , the thin" for ,hich .as @livia and 3ntonio !oth sho,0 1ndis"1ised risk is 1ndertaken. -he play:s !aseline, indeli!le passion 'ay ,ell !e ho'ose*1al. Even if this te*t1al i'p1lse '1tes specific historical si"nals, @livia:s and Oiola:s eroticis' can !e taken as generall# descriptive of the play:s relationship to its conte*ts: yearnin" !1t distant= an inti'acy enticed !y separation. Patriarchal nor's do not over,hel' T elfth !ight . -he central pren1ptial 'o'ents in the play are circ1its of specifically fe'ale eroticis' and a""ression: ,hen Oiola ,oos @livia= ,hen @livia easily 'asters Se!astian and leads hi' off to 'arry, follo,in" .he '1st think0 the ,orld:s shortest co1rtship= ,hen Maria so entices Malvolio thro1"h her dis"1ised letter that the ste,ard t1'!les fro' his place, Ein reco'pense ,hereof C-o!yD hath 'arried herE .5.1.#F#0. -he !etrothal "a'e ,hich 1s1ally red1ces a ,o'an to a possessed o!6ect is played in +llyria inside the lines of fe'ale prero"ative. +t is ,ithin Oiola:s po,er to ,in and re6ect the o!6ects of her love= in Maria:s po,er to l1re and !affle the contin"ent 'an .and 'ake hi' a 41crece, a 7e&e!el, a Pe"?a?8a'sey0= in @livia:s po,er to ref1se, to choose, and to e*c1se the o!6ects, convey? ) /$G )

ances, and victi's of desire. (e'ale erotic he"e'ony achieves its pinnacle near the end of act 1, ,here Oiola perfor's a 'irac1lo1s sed1ction of the hitherto 1no!taina!le @livia. -he pa"e entices, perhaps prod1ces, les!ian desire thro1"h the l1re of a specifically fe'ale narcissis'. 3fter so'e coy !adina"e in her first e'!assy to @livia, Oiola Cesario tells the "reat lady a!o1t the fiery love that @rsino !ears= !1t her lan"1a"e dan"ero1sly s1!stit1tes herself for the 'aster: E+f + did love yo1 in 'y 'aster:s fla'e, 5ith s1ch a s1ff:rin", s1ch a deadly life, +n yo1r denial + ,o1ld find no sense, + ,o1ld not 1nderstand itE .1.5./F%MI10. Oiola posits herself as the hypothetical ,ooer here and finds '1ch virt1e in EifE: specifically, she finds a voice of 'a"netic intensity. >er fictive lon"in" soon "enerates a t,inB@livia:s "en1ine desire. 2ra,n inside Oiola:s Eif,E the lady <1eries, E5hy, ,hat ,o1ld yo1JE Oiola then delivers a speech that co'prises !oth 'o1rnf1l vocalic distance and passive se*1al a""ression: Make 'e a ,illo, ca!in at yo1r "ate, 3nd call 1pon 'y so1l ,ithin the ho1se. 5rite loyal cantons of conte'ned love, 3nd sin" the' lo1d, even in the dead of ni"ht. >alloo yo1r na'e to the rever!erate hills, 3nd 'ake the !a!!lin" "ossip of the air Cry o1t, E@liviaQE @, yo1 sho1ld not rest Bet,een the ele'ents of air and earth B1t yo1 sho1ld pity 'e. .1.5./I#MI90 Coded as the Echo fi"1re to ,ho' she refers, Oiola vocally !esto,s an already solipsistic @livia 1pon herself !y deliverin" a speech that is a rhetorical 'irror of desire. +n this scene and for the rest of the play, aspects of Echo and Aarciss1s shado, the t,o ,o'en. >ere, the so1l that Oiola ,o1ld call 1pon 1n,ittin"ly reprod1ces the 'or!id desires @livia has !een har!orin": the ,illo,, conte'ned love, dead of ni"ht, hallo,ed na'e, and "hostly echo all s1""est the "reat lady:s practiced sorro,, and irresisti!ly entice her ,ith an i'a"e of her o,n e'otional fancies. @livia, concerned as she has !een to appear in 'o1rnin", receives fro' Oiola an echoic i'a"e of love like deathly sorro,. +n this speech, Oiola ind1cts a co'plicated, plastic self in ,hich the "ra''atical s1!6ectBthe E+EB drops o1t and !eco'es i'pro!a!ly an active o!6ect, a E'eE h#potheticall# !1sy as a recipient of co1rtship. -he "ra''atical trick lies in Oiola:s response to @livia:s <1ery E,hat ,o1ld yo1JE +'plyin" .!1t not sayin"0 E+ ,o1ld do the follo,in",E ) /$5 ) Oiola p1ts forth a list of activities that, re'oved fro' conte*t, so1nd like i'peratives, not s1!61nctives Bthat is, not thin"s she ,o1ld do, !1t thin"s she ,o1ld have the a1ditor do. Even in its final lines .E@, yo1 sho1ld not rest . . .E0, the speech posits the listener as the active participant= the speaker occ1pies the passive or receptive position.CI/D EMake 'e a ,illo, ca!in,E she orders. -he "ra''atical s1rprise of the lines accords ,ith a psycholo"ical and theatrical one: Oiola is i'pro!a!ly !oth takin" control and disappearin". By effectin" a reversal of the s1!6ect and the o!6ect, Oiola Cesario enacts a 'ythic paradi"': she !eco'es the vocal e*pression of an 1nf1lfilled, dislocated desire that desta!ili&es speaker and listener. She !eco'es, that is, an echo to so'ethin" that has not <1ite !een e*pressed, an ela!orate reflection of a narcissist ,ho, in the co1rse of the scene, loses her place. +'a"inatively collapsin" the distinction !et,een speaker and a1ditor, Oiola, in the !est co1rtly tradition, o!viates the other. -he so1l she ,o1ld Ecall 1pon . . . ,ithin the ho1seE is E'y so1l,E ,hich need not even refer to

the !eloved= it 'ay !e a self?reference. Ket Oiola:s disco1rse ,heels aro1nd a speakin" self that has !roken off fro' s1!6ectivity. 3s so'e critics have noted, it is hard to tell ,ho, e*actly, speaks and sed1ces so effectively here.CI#D -he hook of the speech occ1rs ,ith Oiola:s all1sion to the !a!!lin" "ossip Echo. +f ,e can !ypass for a 'o'ent the prono'inal a'!i"1ity, Oiola avers that she ,ill 'ake Echo call o1t @livia:s na'e. 3t first, this association !et,een Echo and Oiola see's apt. -hro1"ho1t the play Oiola e'1lates @vid:s 'ythic Echo !y har!orin" a f1tile desire for her o,n 1no!taina!le Aarciss1s, @rsino. 3nd like Echo, Oiola is invisi!le, el1sive= @livia cannot "1ess ,ho she is or to ,hat p1rpose she speaks .E5hat are yo1J 5hat ,o1ld yo1JE0. -he 1ncertainty of Oiola:s identity, prono'inal or other,ise, is a constant fact of the play, a fact that ena!les the ,illo, ca!in speech. B1t the correspondence !et,een Oiola and Echo is not sea'less. (or if Oiola can 'ake Echo, the E!a!!lin" "ossip of the air,E cry o1t E@livia,E then it is Oiola ,ho positions herself, ho,ever !riefly, as Aarciss1sBthe one ,ho calls. 3l'ost all of the ro'antic activity Oiola i'a"ines in the lines is lin"1istic: she ,o1ld call, ,rite, sin", hallo,, and 'ake the air cry. She !eco'es the i'a"e of a love that has t1rned co'pletely !odiless, into disco1rse= ho,ever, this i'a"e perfectly descri!es Echo1s ontolo"ical reality, her 'eta'orphosis fro' flesh to derivative ,ord. Echo:s repetitions of Aarciss1s:s cries dislod"e lan"1a"e fro' s1!6ectivity, si"nification fro' identification= 61st so, Oiola:s speech, a !ea1tif1l ,hirl of referent, !eco'es an odd conflation of echoic and narcissistic ele'ents. She plays a Aarciss1s cryin" o1t ) /$F ) the na'e of a lover she does not perfectly desire. 3t the sa'e ti'e, si'ply !y na'in" @livia, Oiola perfor's the echo f1nction she said she ,o1ld 'ake Echo perfor', ret1rnin" an a1ral i'a"e of the !eloved .E:@liviaQ:E0 even as she ret1rned a 'oral i'a"e earlier .E+ see yo1 ,hat yo1 are, yo1 are too pro1d, B1t if yo1 ,ere the devil, yo1 are fairE0. 5hat sets this scene apart fro' conventional ro'antic intervie,s is that the lan"1a"e of desire e'anates fro' a fictive, s1rro"ate voice of the E,ron"E "ender. -he ,illo, ca!in passa"e is not innocent of desire= indeed, it overflo,s ,ith lon"in"B!1t locatin" that desire is another 'atter. Oiola:s 'otives for deliverin" s1ch a sed1ctive acco1nt of her o,n passion are the'selves Echoic in that she cannot e*plain the' and that they are opa<1e to psycholo"istic analysis.CIGD -he erotic tide of this scene ripples thro1"h the rest of the play. 5hen he calls Oiola Etho1 disse'!lin" c1!QE near the end of T elfth !ight , @rsino, ,e can see, <1ite literally doesn:t kno, the half of it. >e does not kno, Oiola:s !iolo"ical fe'ininity= he does not kno, her love for hi'= he thinks he divines !1t cannot i'a"ine her flirtatio1s ret1rns to @livia, ,hich had lon" ceased to !e theatrically convincin" as co1rtship e'!assies solely on his !ehalf. Aecessary to the plot, !1t also psychose*1ally s1""estive, Oiola:s ret1rns to @livia are like echoes to the lady:s needs: ,henever @livia calls, Oiola co'es, and ans,ers. >er visits to @livia at /.G .ESir, shall + to this ladyJE0, #.1, and #.G li'n a s1!conscio1s desire that see's 'a"ically to 'ateriali&e, in socially accepta!le for', ,hen Se!astian reappears in act G. ;iven ,hat ,e kno, that Oiola kno,s a!o1t her effect on the "reat lady, @rsino cannot i'a"ine ho, ri"ht he is to s1spect Oiola of faithlessness= yet it is a deception she does not necessarily control.CI5D -he les!ian s1!te*t of the ,illo, ca!in scene challen"es ideas of psycholo"ical 1nity and linear or coherent se*1ality. 3spects of role playin", 'aster servin", and les!ian lon"in" all operate here. >o,ever, these notions descri!e only part of the co'ple*ity of the s1rro"ate co1rtship. Oiola:s disco1rse inserts itself in the ne*1s of ho'ose*1ality .desire for the sa'e0 and narcissis' .desire for the selfsa'e0, a collapsible space on the Shakespearean sta"e ,hich Oiola, as Cesario, literally crosses

in her transit fro' the 'aster narcissist @rsino to the 'aster?'istress @livia. -he pa"e appeals to the narcissis' of her fe'ale erotic tar"et= !1t fed as it is !y a ,o'an in dis"1ise, this narcissis' is indistin"1isha!le fro' les!ian eroticis'. @livia hears fro' the 'asked pa"e a pro'ise to va1lt her na'e into the rever!eratin" canyons of echo= since it is @livia:s o n na'e that thrillin"ly ,ill "ive her no rest, the precise a*es of her desire ) /$I ) are hard to locate. M1ch of the pro!le' is the person to ,ho' she responds. 4ike the hy!rid Aarciss1s? Echo that she is, Oiola has a!senceBa 'issin" or di'inished s1!6ectivityBat her heart. 7ohn >ollander, "ivin" a !rief history of the Echo trope, notes that E@vid:s ny'ph vanished into voice= the nat1ral fact of dise'!odied voice vanishes, in a later sta"e of thin"s, into te*t.ECIFD Oiola:s self? a!sence, apparent in the "ra''ar of her erotic overt1re, is a 'atter of fact: she later tells @livia E+ a' not ,hat + a',E speakin" not one !1t t,o E+:sE ,hich, +a"o?like, cancel each other o1t. Speakin" for so'eone else, pro6ectin" a desire that 'ay and 'ay not !e her o,n, effectively e*p1n"in" herself fro' her ro'antic synta*, Oiola is a kind of nothin": a c1rtain of resonant ,ords over Ea !lank,E the ,ord she 1ses to descri!e her history. So this scene, char"ed !y les!ian desire, is also ins1lated !y the very indeter'inacy of the cond1ctor. +n ;oldin":s @vid, Echo p1rs1es Aarciss1s thro1"h the forest even as he searches for her= in fr1stration, Ehe looketh !acke, and seein" no 'an follo,e, 5hy fliste, he cryeth once a"aine: and she the sa'e doth hallo,e.ECIID Aarciss1s, Eseein" no 'an follo,e,E does not even look for a ,o'an or consider the possi!ility that the ans,erin" voice is act1ally fe'ale. -his "ender !lindness 'ay ,ork s1!te*t1ally in the @livia?Oiola scene. 3nd Oiola:s pro'ise to Ehallo, yo1r na'e to the rever!erate hillsE pro!a!ly recalls ;oldin":s translation.CI%D +f so, Shakespeare re'e'!ers a 'o'ent ,hen Echo and Aarciss1s are indistin"1isha!le .Eshe the sa'e doth hallo,eE0: ,ho is callin", ,ho is calledJ -his conf1sion a'plifies the 1nsteady eroticis' of the Aarciss1s 'yth. ;oldin" descri!es his Aarciss1s the sa'e ,ay Oiola appears: as Cesario is Ein standin" ,ater, !et,een !oy and 'an,E so Aarciss1s Esee'de to stande !eet,ene the state of 'an and 4adE= and the si*teen?year?old Aarciss1s has the sa'e !ise*1al appeal that Oiola and Se!astian enfla'e: E-he hearts of divers tri' yon" 'en his !ea1tie "an to 'ove, 3nd 'any a 4adie fresh and faire ,as taken in his loveE .;oldin", )etamorphoses , #.G#%M G$0.CI9D @ne arrestin" 'o'ent in the co1rtship scene co'es 61st after the intervie,, ,hen @livia, st1pefied, recalls ,hat has taken place: @4+O+3 : E5hat is yo1r parenta"eJE E3!ove 'y fort1nes, yet 'y state is ,ell= + a' a "entle'an.E +:ll !e s,orn tho1 art. .1.5./9#M950

) /$% ) +n <1otin" ,hat has 61st taken place, @livia, the Etoo pro1dE !ea1ty and o!6ect of all desires, has s1ddenly, 'aterially !een transfor'ed into Echo, the a!6ect repeater. She soon p1rs1es her rel1ctant 1nkno,n <1arry, trailin" after the no, pro1d Aarciss1s Oiola: E@ ,hat a deal of scorn looks !ea1tif1l +n the conte'pt and an"er of his lipQE .#.1.1GIMG%0. -he i'plicit co'plications in the ,illo,

ca!in speech take shape in the plot: ,ooer and !eloved, seeker and so1"ht are reversed. Oiola, ,ho had ass1red the lady no rest EB1t yo1 sho1ld pity 'e,E ,ill herself !e forced to disco1ra"e the s'itten @livia, sayin", in a self?echo, E+ pity yo1E .#.1.1/50. -he reversal of s1itor and love o!6ect is 'ytho"raphic as ,ell as theatrical. @livia !eco'es the lovelorn voice, destined for 1nre<1ited passion 1ntil Oiola:s o,n !iolo"ical echo .or reflection0 appears.C%$D +nti'ations of Echo and Aarciss1s r1n "racef1lly thro1"h the play. -hese fi"1res help define the +llyrians: erotic and social possi!ilities. -he person in control of echo, in control of the voice:s so1rce, has relatively "reater po,er than one ,ho is 'ade to echo and ,ho th1s !eco'es contin"ent, s1!6ected. (or instance, the 'ove'ent of echo fro' a referent in Oiola:s speech to an enact'ent in @livia:s recollection of the conversation 'arks a shift in erotic do'inance: @livia soon a!andons her aloof station, steppin" do,n fro' ad'ired to i'port1nate.C%1D @ther characters try to deploy echo for the ill1sion of control, !1t the fi"1re often rever!erates their ,eaknesses. -he hopeless Sir 3ndre, !eco'esBpitif1lly, as @livia is notBanother Echo to Oiola, <1otin" in asides Cesario:s dashin" speech: O+@43 : Most e*cellent acco'plished lady, the heavens rain odo1rs on yo1Q

3A28E5 -hat yo1th:s a rare co1rtier: Erain odo1rsEB,ell. : O+@43 : My 'atter hath no voice, lady, !1t to yo1r o,n 'ost pre"nant and vo1chsafed ear.

3A28E5 E@do1rs,E Epre"nant,E and Evo1chsafedE: +:ll "et :e' all : three ready. .#.1.%FM 9#0. 2espite Oiola:s clai' that her 'atter Ehath no voiceE !1t to @livia:s ear, Sir 3ndre, is really the voiceless one here. >is echoic !ehavior, 1nlike @livia:s, re"isters a 'ental deficit= he repeats ,hat he:s heard in an atte'pt to appropriate a style he has !een practicin" to no noticea!le effect. @livia echoes her conversation ,ith Oiola in an erotic reverie= 3ndre, echoes in a tense pitch of envy. 5hile Oiola:s invocation of echo proves sed1ctive, and 3ndre,:s i'? ) /$9 ) potent, the trope can have darker conse<1ences. 5hen Malvolio e'ploys the fi"1re, it redo1nds disastro1sly. +n echoin" Maria:s letter, he endeavors to sec1re co'plicit identification ,ith so1nds that ,ere never 'ade. -he echoin" ste,ard see's <1ite 'ad !eca1se of his 1nintelli"i!le <1otations: M34 : EBe not afraid of "reatnessE: :t,as ,ell ,rit.

@4+O+3 : M34 : @4+O+3 : M34 : @4+O+3 : M34 : @4+O+3 :

5hat 'ean:st tho1 !y that, MalvolioJ ESo'e are !orn "reatEB >aJ ESo'e achieve "reatnessEB 5hat say:st tho1J E3nd so'e have "reatness thr1st 1pon the'.E >eaven restore theeQ . . . . . . 5hy, this is very 'ids1''er 'adness. .#.G.#%M 550

Malvolio:s echoes are s1pposed to reveal the secret history of a desire that does not e*ist= instead, his fat1o1s parrotin" doo's hi' to -o!y:s rotten care. >e s1ffers the @vidian Echo:s fate: desire?laden play!ack prod1ces not cons1''ation !1t solit1de. Malvolio loses his di"nity thro1"h the ver!al 'irror of Maria:s for"ery, ,hich not only ill1'inates his desires !1t 'a"nifies his inclination to serve. >e is 'ade to 'i'e !ehavior that, literally, no one re<1ests: his response to the for"ed letter is an echo to a vac11'. >e responds to a "ap ,here te*t ordinarily stands for voice, and ,here voice stands for selfhood. 5hat allo,s or f1rthers Malvolio:s s1!6ection, then, is that echoic trope ,hich "ives Oiola s1ch erotic po,er in the play. C1rio1sly, his h1'iliation is itself echoed. 3t the end of the play (este speaks his lines a"ain .E:So'e are !orn "reat:E0 ,hen Malvolio:s victi'i&ation has !eco'e p1!lic and palpa!le. B1t the (ool does not confine his echoes to the letter: C4@5A 5hy, ESo'e are !orn "reat, so'e achieve "reatness, and : so'e have "reatness thro,n 1pon the'.E + ,as one, sir, in this interl1de, one Sir -opas, sir, !1t that:s all one. EBy the 4ord, fool, + a' not 'ad.E B1t do yo1 re'e'!er, EMada', ,hy la1"h yo1 at s1ch a !arren rascal, and yo1 s'ile not, he:s "a""edEJ 3nd th1s the ,hirli"i" of ti'e !rin"s in his reven"es. .5.1.#F9M IF0 5hat the ,hirli"i" !rin"s in, here at least, is history, the ver!al pastMecho:s reven"e. 5ith pec1liar do1!leness in his roles as !oth controller

) /1$ ) and cond1it of senti'ent, (este !etrays his o,n v1lnera!ility. >e sho,s ho, Malvolio:s earlier o!lo<1y ,o1nded hi', ho, the echo of that ins1ltin" lan"1a"e has lin"ered= he has !een ,aitin" the ,hole play to !o1nce those ,ords !ack to the speaker. (este:s <1otations reveal echo:s la!ility as a trope: it can enlar"e or di'inish the social presence of the speaker, 1nderscorin" his or her ,eakness or po,er, so'eti'es .as here0 !oth at once. 3s if to prove the point, (este:s 'ention of reven"e is itself echoed i''ediately !y MalvolioBE+:ll !e reven":d on the ,hole pack of yo1QEBand this cry represents both his threat to festivity and his present ina!ility to 'ake "ood on that threat. 3 last rever!eration f1rther co'plicates echo:s 'eanin"s. @livia delivers, in response to her ste,ard:s plaint, a state'ent of apparent sy'pathy: E>e hath !een 'ost notorio1sly a!1s:d.E B1t !eca1se, as several readers have noticed, this too echoes Malvolio .E(ool, there ,as never 'an so notorio1sly a!1sedE CG./.9$D0, the trope f1nctions a'!ivalently as either parodic anaphora or sincere confir'ation. 8epeatin" Malvolio:s cries of in61stice either ne1trali&es or le"iti'ates the'. -he echo cha'!er in ,hich the ste,ard finds hi'self h1'iliated 'ay event1ally ans,er to his p1rpose: the ,hirli"i" co1ld !rin" in another set of reven"es, dependin" on the sincerity of the fe'ale echo, @livia:s response. Echo traditionally 'anifests a defective version of lin"1istic selfhood in that it is disco1rse narro,ly deter'ined !y another speaker. 5hen (este, as Sir -opas, tells the i'prisoned Malvolio to Eleave this vain !i!!le?!a!!leE .G./.1$$0, the phrase recalls Oiola:s E!a!!lin" "ossip of the airE= !oth Malvolio:s and Oiola:s lan"1a"e serve poorly as self?representations .,hich in +llyria are al,ays EvainEBi'potent or conceited0. B1t as deployed !y @livia and (este, and as enacted in Oiola:s ,illo, ca!in speech, echo erases the passivity that @vid ,rites in the fi"1re. @vid:s Echo is an a1ral replication of a 'ale vocalic self. B1t the plot of T elfth !ight reconsiders this tradition, as 'asc1line narcissistic lassit1de in +llyria .@rsino0 "ives ,ay to fe'inine echoic and not incidentally erotic potency .Oiola, @livia0. -hat is, echo in the play enacts a co1nter'ytho"raphy of fe'ale a"ency. Even in the )etamorphoses , tho1"h, this possi!ility is latent. 3s Caren ;reen!er" has said of @vid:s fi"1re, EEcho still perfor's lin"1istically= she is a!le to choose ho, '1ch of the end of an 1tterance she ,ants to repeat. She re'ains a speaker !eca1se she can prod1ce lan"1a"e ,hich is in relation to her desires.EC%/D Perhaps, as a fe'ale appropriation of perple*ed 'ale 1tterance, Echo has al a#s si"naled a "endered redistri!1tion of po,er: her lan"1a"e serves a desire different fro' that ,hich prod1ced it. B1t ) /11 ) echoic lan"1a"e also represents a kind of i'potence, and that is relational : a fail1re of interloc1tors to connect. +n Shakespeare:s s1!tle adaptation, echo fi"1res a disco1rse that !oth ackno,led"es the force of the e*cl1ded speaker and si'1ltaneo1sly 'arks his or her deficiency. Even so, as ;reen!er" s1""ests, echo does provide a ,ay to appropriate so1nd or sense fro'Bto alter the 'eanin"s ofB another speaker. -he traditionally contin"ent fi"1re "athers, in the co1rse of T elfth !ight , force and 'eanin".

V
+t:s a poor sort of 'e'ory that only ,orks !ack,ards. 4e,is Carroll, -hro1"h the 4ookin" ;lass -he transfor'ations of echo in T elfth !ight e*pose an i'portant fact a!o1t this trope of si'ilarity: it alters si"nification thro1"h repetition. 71st as @livia:s echo of Malvolio:s lan"1a"e t,ists it into a ne, state'ent, the valence of ,hich is left to an actor to deter'ine, so does every echo rin" chan"es on its

ori"inary 1tterance. Echo is not, like e'1lation in Troilus and Cressida or conta"ion in Hamlet , a fi"1re for the dissipation of si"nificance. 5hen, for instance, 2io'edes 'i'ics -roil1s:s chivalry and pays co1rt to the captive Cressida, he e*poses thro1"h e'1lation the hollo,ness of the chivalric code and its potential for coercive, antife'inist violence= he does not f1nda'entally alter the 'eanin" of that code. 4ike,ise, >a'let:s infective psychic t1r!1lence !eco'es horri!le precisely !eca1se of the ,ay it red1ces several intellects to a se'antic flatline, to the sa'e kind of dysf1nction. Conta"ion in 2en'ark and e'1lation in -roy are !oth historical referents and processes of her'ene1tic depletion. By contrast, ,hen @livia echoes to herself a !it of conversation ,ith Cesario, she si"nifies 'ainly an e'otional and erotic shift: the felt presence of the !eloved:s lan"1a"e is positi.el# disorientin". >avin" the sa'e ,ords spoken !y another person in another place entirely chan"es their sense. Echoes of lan"1a"e sho, ho, te'poral and spatial chan"es reconfi"1re 'eanin". Echo t1rns on, !eco'es a trope of, conte*t. +t th1s has conse<1ences for a theory of historical inscription and, like e'1lation and conta"ion, can e'er"e as inscription:s 'etaphor. 3 te*t1red repetition of prior lan"1a"e, echo e'!roiders 'eanin"s on history !y dint of ti'e alone. +n hi"hli"htin" ne, speakers and conte*ts, it confo1nds the s1pposition that a later, derivative disc1rsive for' ,ill ) /1/ ) faithf1lly replay an earlier, fo1ndational one. +n the ter's of this st1dy, echoic reconte*t1ali&ation decisively chan"es and so pro!le'ati&es historical 'eanin"s. 5e sho1ld not i'a"ine that the Eli&a!eth or the reli"io1s controversy rever!erated !y T elfth !ight in 1F$1 has a perfectly 'i'etic relationship to historical fact= the echo of history in the play proffers the simultaneous presence and a!sence, voice and silence, of the 1tterance that is the past. Beca1se echoes 6ar conte*t1al certainty, they tell a se'antic distance !et,een the speakin" .historical0 voice and its present vi!ration. +n its standard poetic for', echo fi"1res a str1ct1re of call?and?i''ediate?response. B1t in T elfth !ight Shakespeare delays the echoic loop s1ch that repetitions often occ1r ,ith a s1!stantial la" !et,een speech and speech. -his delay, this te'poral "ap, sche'ati&es the play:s relation to its conte*ts. T elfth !ight :s historical inscriptions have the kind of si'plicity and el1siveness, the echoic distance, that enfranchise nostal"ia a!o1t the re'ote past. B1t ,hile the inscri!ed events are a lon" ,ay fro' the te*t that echoes the', their dissonances can still !e heard. By recallin" the 3n6o1 affair thro1"h the 1nappealin" @rsino and the 'essy 'ediation of Oiola, the play forestalls re"ret a!o1t a failed, finally inconse<1ential episode ,hich strained diplo'atic and fiscal reso1rces. +f any nostal"ia re'ains over Eli&a!eth:s last chance at 'arria"e, T elfth !ight sc1ttles it. Aostal"ia is an 1nenc1'!ered access of history= once facts and do1!ts 'ake the voya"e !ack, landfall in the past see's less desira!le. 3fter nearly a year of Si'ier:s s1rro"ate ,ooin", (ranWois Oalois finally arrived in En"land for his first 'eetin" ,ith Eli&a!eth on 31"1st 1I, 15I9. Unfort1nately, only a!o1t ten days !efore the ,idely and p1!licly anticipated visit, 7ohn St1!!s:s ra"in" anti'arria"e pa'phlet appeared. Beca1se of this develop'ent, the <1een took care to conceal 3n6o1:s visit= interestin"ly eno1"h, he ca'e ashore in dis"1ise.C%#D >e stayed t,o ,eeks, and Eli&a!eth reportedly liked hi' ,ell= !1t accordin" to a'!assador Mendo&a, the visit 'ainly inspired the 'ore resol1te Protestants in the co1rt, especially 4eicester and 5alsin"ha', to plot ever 'ore fervently a"ainst the 'arria"e. 3nd the aristocrats ,ere not the only ones stirred= s1pposedly, Mendo&a clai'ed, the "eneral pop1lation ,as on the ver"e of open revolt over the iss1e. @f all the anti'arria"e constit1encies, ho,ever, the P1ritans ,ere the 'ost a"itated. 3ccordin" to a (rench a'!assador, they tho1"ht that this 'atch ,o1ld spell their de'ise, and as Conyers 8ead notes, E-hey did not lose an ho1r of ti'e to preach, ,rite and incite the people of En"land to oppose

) /1# ) it. . . . C-Dhe L1een ,as '1ch shaken !y these tactics and . . . at one ti'e she tho1"ht of addin" to her Co1ncil fo1r Catholics of infl1ence in order to co1nter!alance the rest.EC%GD P1ritan o1tra"e at the prospective 'arria"e ca1ses the historical referent on the 'ar"ins of T elfth !ight to cro,d the the'atic center, and rationali&es the notorio1s a!1se the constr1cted scape"oat s1ffers. 3 neat inscriptive irony 'akes the play:s affecter of P1ritanis' the 1n,ittin" ori"inal pandar for @livia:s ro'ance. +t is Malvolio:s enticin", !ise*1al description of Cesario that ca1ses the lady to !rin" hi' in .E@ne ,o1ld think his 'other:s 'ilk ,ere scarce o1t of hi'E C1.5.1F#D0= it is the ste,ard ,ho delivers the rin" to the 'essen"er. 4ater, after Malvolio:s transfor'ation into o!livio1s oppositionality, he post1res and preens for his lady ,hen she calls= !1t a"ain 1n!ekno,nst to hi', @livia ea"erly a,aits Cesario1s visit and ,ants Malvolio there only for the co'pany of so'eone Esad and civilE .#.G.50. -he c1l'ination of this irony co'es in the ste,ard:s last appearance in the play: !eca1se of ,hen he enters and e*its, he re'ains in darkness a!o1t @livia:s 'arria"e. 3ll that he kno,s for certain is that his lady does not love hi'.C%5D >ad Malvolio kno,n of the "apin" "1lf into ,hich his hopes ,ere a!o1t to fall, he s1rely ,o1ld have o!6ected as stren1o1sly to @livia:s 'arria"e as St1!!s did to the (rench 'atch. St1!!s, tho1"h severely p1nishedBnotorio1sly a!1sed, ,e 'i"ht say B!y Eli&a!eth for his pa'phlet, nonetheless recovered fro' his ,o1nds and infa'y ,ell eno1"h to achieve a post fro' ,hich he co1ld serve as 61d"e and 61ry in civil and cri'inal cases: he ended his career as ste,ard of Kar'o1th, a position he attained in 15%5. Malvolio:s s1fferin"s !rin" a "eneric disr1ption to this historically dislocated play. (or'ally the co'edy is off?kilter= Oiola does not ret1rn to the fe'ale "ender, @rsino and @livia do not end to"ether, 3ntonio re'ains sh1t o1t of pleas1re. +t ,o1ld !e ,ron" to assi"n all the "eneric "litches to the ste,ard:s ill treat'ent, !1t it is not ,ron" to insist that the pain he !ears revives tonal dissonances and historical ironies of the 3n6o1 affair and its after'ath. @ne of these is that the s1pposedly radical P1ritans ,ere, in their o!6ections to the Catholic?3n"lican 'atch, artic1latin" a mainstream senti'ent ,hose 'ost ardent s1pporters ,ere the <1een:s o,n 'inisters and co1nselors. 3nother, "loo'ier irony is that the <1een:s scape"oatin" of St1!!s and his printer .,hose ri"ht hands ,ere chopped off in a "rotes<1e e*hi!ition of state po,er0 p1t 1nder color of treason ,hat ,as really a fiercely nationalist desire to 'aintain En"lish Protestant inte"rity. 3nd ,orse still: Eli&a!eth:s o,n ) /1G ) feelin"s a!o1t the 'arria"e 1lti'ately ca'e a,f1lly close to those of the 'en she p1nished. +n topical ter's, the defeat of the constr1cted P1ritan and the theatrical presence of the 'ediator reprod1ce essential feat1res of Eli&a!eth:s last si"nificant co1rtship, ,hich took place, fro' the perspective of T elfth !ight , lon" a"o: Oiola and Malvolio play strains of a fantasia a!o1t the politico? erotic history of the En"lish <1een. -he fi"1res also si"nal a si'1ltaneo1s distance fro', and an echoic, yearnin" ret1rn to, a prior 'o'ent in history. -he play th1s at once erases and reconstit1tes historical distance. 71st as Si'ier and Oiola stand in for other lovers, so too does the te*t offer itself as an estran"ed s1rro"ate for history, positin" and disfi"1rin" fo1ndational 'eanin"s. -he play:s .i'0position !et,een history and its o,n ti'e is a 'ediation, representationally 1nsta!leBand th1s a 'odel for the literary deploy'ent of the past. 3ctively re?for'in" a reality fro' ,hich it stands ,ell re'oved, T elfth !ight !ehaves like one of its o,n interlopers, connectin" ,hat is ,idely separate? theatrical characters and historical i'plicationsB,hile dist1r!in" an order that it esta!lishes fro' the 'aterials of history and ,ish. 3nd 61st as Cesario is !oth a 'ediator and the prod1ct of a 'ediation or

intervention .Oiola:s dis"1ise0, so is the play a prod1ct and process of the dis"1isin" of history + have called inscription. (or a story so radiant ,ith the all1re of the fa1lty or false i'a"e, T elfth !ight cannot offer anythin" like an 1ndis"1ised history. -he 1n1s1ally fl1id !o1ndaries ,ithin the play:s cate"ories of "ender and identity, and even ,ithin a sin"le character:s notions of hi'self or herself, conspire to doo' '1lish hopes a!o1t representational 'i'esis. +n spite of the inscriptive 'odel that Echo ,o1ld see' to s1pply, the play:s rever!erations are never perfectly consonant ,ith the past= they are rather necessarily distortin". @ne e*a'ple of this point co'es a'idst Maria:s o!servations a!o1t the events at @livia:s ho1se: M38+3 Since the yo1th of the Co1nt:s ,as today ,ith 'y lady, she is : '1ch o1t of <1iet. (or Monsie1r Malvolio, let 'e alone ,ith hi'. ./.#.1#1M #50 Oiola:s s1rro"ate ,ooin" and Malvolio:s i''inent ,oe are 61*taposed to prod1ce an historically s1""estive "lissando, and it is the kind of so1nd that disr1pts alle"orical readin". -he tho1"ht of the .dis"1ised0 'ediator leads Maria directly into one of the tr1ly pec1liar epithets of the play: she re"isters snide disrespect for her fello, servant !y na'in" Malvolio EMonsie1r,E "lancin" at the e*alted position she kno,s the ) /15 ) ste,ard ,o1ld like to occ1py. B1t EMonsie1rE is not 'erely a title of respect= it ,as the co''on na'e for 3n6o1 thro1"ho1t En"land d1rin" the co1rtship. +n 15%$, there ,as a sin"le, 1niversally reco"ni&ed EMonsie1rE in the nation. 5hat co1ld it 'ean that Maria anticipates her P1ritani&in" e*p1lsion of Malvolio !y la!elin" hi' ,ith the epithet for Eli&a!eth:s fa'o1s s1itorJ @f all the fi"1res in the play, it ,o1ld see' that the conscientio1s do'estic rese'!les the 21ke of 3n6o1 least. Perhaps !y na'in" Malvolio EMonsie1rE !efore she t1rns the ste,ard into a fr1strated lover, Maria evokes ,hat in 1F$1 looked like the historical ine.itabilit# of the fail1re of the (rench 'atch. @r perhaps she 'erely tosses a !ar! at Malvolio:s aristocratic aspirations. B1t @livia:s 'aidservant also ca1ses an ironic collapse of inscriptions, for !y "rantin" Malvolio the sarcastic title of Eli&a!eth:s official ,ooer, Maria s1!versively dra,s 3n6o1 and the soon?to?!e?'ade P1ritan into co'parison. Maria:s 'ention of EMonsie1r MalvolioE prepares 1s for a f1sed i'a"e, t,o ,recks of the 15%$s: the hopef1l (rench lover and the re6ected P1ritan. (avor flo,s to the protean, not the P1ritanBto the one ,hose self or desire s1stains convincin" chan"e or ad'its of fle*i!ility. +n the psycholo"ical r1les of the play, not only Malvolio !1t also 3ntonio '1st s1ffer, !eca1se they fool no one. 3ntonio is, as 4eo Salin"ar points o1t, Ethe only character in the 'ain plot ,ho tries to esta!lish a false identity and failsE= this occ1rs ,hen, apprehended !y @rsino:s officer, he pretends to !e so'eone else: EKo1 do 'istake 'e, sir.E EAo sir, no 6ot,E replies the officer= E+ kno, yo1r favo1r ,ellE .#.G.##FM#I0.C%FD Malvolio:s and 3ntonio:s opposites are @rsino, the chan"ea!le taffeta and opal= dis"1ised Oiola, an @ ,itho1t a fi"1re= @livia, lady of volatile passions= and Se!astian, E,hich + called 8oderi"oE ./.1.1F0, a !ise*1al stran"er ,ho does not at all 'ind !ein" called Cesario. 4ike its characters, the te*t partakes of a for'al and historical shape?shiftin" that slips the !onds of constrainin" te'porality, the cra'ped sea's of its o,n c1lt1re. -h1s, the partic1lar past to ,hich

T elfth !ight refers, circa 15%$, see's to offer a retreat fro' c1rrent, 1nhopef1l conditions. B1t the parado* of the play is that this past ,as every !it as fra1"ht and insec1re as En"land:s late?Eli&a!ethan present. -he te*t cannot intervene !et,een its lived present and this history ,itho1t reprod1cin" dissonances that co'edy fails to contain. 3 final "li'pse at the 'ost ha1ntin" of the play:s historical representations 'ay ill1'inate the diffic1lty that te*ts have in 'eta'orphosin" history into nostal"ia. Conte'porary ,ith and politically related to the 'achinations of the ) /1F ) (rench 'atchB,hich, ,e ,ill recall, had as one of its "oals the c1rtail'ent of Spain:s po,er thro1"ho1t E1ropeB,as the str1""le over the Port1"1ese s1ccession. Si* clai'ants for the throne of Port1"al vied after the death, in 15I%, of 9in" Se!astian. -he clearest title !elon"ed to En"land:s ne'esis, Philip ++ of Spain= and after Se!astian:s death, the Port1"1ese a'!assador 'ade Eli&a!eth reali&e, as Conyers 8ead ,rites, ho, dan"ero1s it ,o1ld !e for En"land to allo, her secret ene'y to add Port1"al and all the ,ealth of the Port1"1ese +ndies to his reso1rces. . . . -he increasin" enth1sias' for the 'atch on !oth sides of the Channel ,hich led 1p to the secret visit of 3lenWon to En"land in 31"1st 15I9 ,as clearly sti'1lated !y the Port1"1ese <1estion.C%ID Chief a'on" the alternatives to Philip ,as 2on 3ntonio, prior of Crato, 9in" Se!astian:s ille"iti'ate nephe,. 3ntonio ,as proclai'ed kin" !y pop1lar voice= !1t Port1"al:s 'onarchy ,as definitively nonelective, and the vote carried no political ,ei"ht. 5hen he ,as driven o1t of the co1ntry !y the Spanish in Septe'!er 15%$B3ntonio ,ent first to (rance, then to En"landBthe necessity of Eli&a!eth:s alliance ,ith (rance .and s1pport of 3n6o1 in the Aetherlands0 !eca'e inescapa!ly clear. ;iven T elfth !ight :s o!sessive "a'es'anship ,ith na'es of varyin" si"nificance, the presence of a 'an na'ed 3ntonio p1rs1in" another na'ed Se!astian s1''ons one 'ore reference that accords ,ith the periodic fra'e in ,hich + read the te*t. 3ntonio:s ro'antic fi*ation on Se!astian in +llyria historically recalls the political pretender:s passion for Se!astian:s place , not his person.C%%D By clai'in" le"iti'acy to inherit, 2on 3ntonio atte'pted to sec1re the sa'e 'istaken testa'ent to political reco"nition that his theatrical na'esake atte'pts for affective and spirit1al reasons: 3A-@A+@ : -his yo1th that yo1 see here + snatch:d one half o1t of the 6a,s of death, 8eliev:d hi' ,ith s1ch sanctity of love= 3nd to his i'a"e, ,hich 'etho1"ht did pro'ise Most venera!le ,orth, did + devotion. (+8S@((+CE8 : 5hat:s that to 1sJ -he ti'e "oes !y. 3,ayQ

3A-@A+@ : B1t @ ho, vile an idol proves this "odQ .#.G.#F%M IG0 -his scene of 3ntonio:s !etrayal !y Oiola .not, as he thinks, Se!astian0 and the officer:s response

strikin"ly echoes 71das:s "1ilt over the con? ) /1I ) de'nation of Christ: E-hen 71das, ,hich had !etrayed hi', ,hen he sa, that he ,as conde'ned, repented hi'self, . . . Sayin", + have sinned in that + have !etrayed the innocent !lood. 3nd they said, 5hat is that to 1sJE .Matthe, /I:#MG0. +t is of co1rse the Christlike 3ntonio ,ho has !een t,ice !etrayed !y the vile idol Oiola, !1t the dra'atic scene cleaves closer to the historical tale than the !i!lical. 3ntonio, fi"1red as a for'er threat to +llyria .E-ho1 nota!le pirate, salt,ater thief,E @rsino calls hi'0, is <1ietly ne"lected at the last, !ereft of s1pport. T elfth !ight records his defeat and o!serves his final solit1de= his !eloved Se!astian fails, ,ith ,hatever "ood intentions, to provide for hi'. S1ch ,as the fate, too, of the historical 2on 3ntonio, left ,itho1t hereditary provision and seekin" al,ays his place to r1le, or at least a place to reside. >is sorry treat'ent !y several forei"n potentates, incl1din" alle"ed allies like Eli&a!eth, ,as 1nderp1!lici&ed in the rei"n. +n 15%/, he lan"1ished in 1npleasant <1arters in 4ondon, terri!ly ill, Edesolate not only of necessaries, !1t of co'fortE= he sent for the aid of one of the <1een:s physicians, ,ho never arrived .Aicolas, 0ife of Hatton , /$/0. 3ntonio s1rvived that indi"nity, !1t others follo,ed hard 1pon. >e re'ained, for the rest of his life, poorly attended and ill fated= this E!astard of the royal lineE spent the decade of the 15%$s 'ovin" !et,een (rance and En"land, Ea forlorn s1ppliant.EC%9D >is later career is a history of lost sea !attles, failed 1prisin"s, and fr1strated piracy. Even his voya"e to the Port1"1ese coast in 15%9 ,ith Sir (rancis 2rake failed e*pensively= a year later he retired to (rance, i'poverished, and died there after five years of pen1ry in 1595.C9$D (or the 3ntonio ,ho finds hi'self in +llyria, in love ,ith a 'an he resc1ed, ,itho1t fiscal, se*1al, or e'otional "ratification at the last, r1in is finally the 1pshot of erotics, not politics. +ndeed, this transfor'ation of history is vitally characteristic of T elfth !ight : the play 'eta'orphoses str1""les of ideolo"y and history into inti'ate e'otional confrontations, tra1'as, and restit1tions. +n s1!stit1tin" affective or se*1al entan"le'ents for the political past that representationally 1nder,rites the', the play i'itates Oiola !y o!sc1rin" its o,n ori"ins. B1t ,eary and defeated fi"1res, the oppositional or inco'petent, the dissol1te and the disappointed on the !orders of the Eli&a!ethan story, filter into Shakespearean representation here ,ith their conta'inatin" histories. T elfth !ight :s p1tative nostal"ic pro6ect th1s constantly 1nder'ines itself thro1"h the 'ne'onics of the 'ar"inal. -he 3ntonio Se!astian references, 3n6o1 Si'ier all1sions, and "li'pses of a reconstr1cted, o1sted P1ritanis' set the si"nificant refer? ) /1% ) ential 'o'ent of the play t,o decades prior to its accepted date of perfor'ance, 'akin" it, as 3ntonio feels hi'self to !e, Ea t,enty years: re'oved thin"E .5. 1.%I0 fro' the present historical reality. B1t 61st !eca1se topicality is retro"ressive does not 'ean that it is retrospective= the play s'1d"es a collective and already faded c1lt1ral 'e'ory to salva"e ,hat carelessness and pleas1re it can. Aostal"ia cannot, ,ill not, clarify the past. 3nd like narcissis', it cannot ret1rn a co'pletely satisfyin" i'a"e of the self. -he recollection of the (rench 'atch p1rposely o!sc1res one of the 'ost t1'1lt1o1s periods of the <1een:s career, ,hen the nation, in the a!sence of a reco"ni&ed heir, stepped at last into the do,n,ard spiral of s1ccession str1""les so co'ple*ly fi"1red in Hamlet and in virt1ally every parlia'entary de!ate fro' the 'id?15%$s on. So T elfth !ight provides ,hat the 'arvelo1s rei"n of Eli&a!eth co1ld

not: 'irac1lo1sly speedy, s1ccessf1l co1rtship shorn of political i'plications, in ,hich erotic fail1re or error is "racef1lly overco'e= and, 'ost i'portant, a ven1e in ,hich echoes of the past evoke ad'ired and 1nresented fe'ale 'astery. -he past is al,ays constr1cted fro' the 'aterials of the present. @1r 1nderstandin" of history does not 61st 'ove !ack,ards= it reprod1ces c1rrent e*perience and anticipates ,hat:s ne*t. +f Shakespeare:s play recalls an era ,hen Eli&a!eth had a real, practical chance at 'arria"e, it also 'ana"es to recall o!li<1ely that, even in 15%$, an heir to the throne ,as on the o1ter re"ions of physical pro!a!ility. Oiola infor's the <1een fi"1re of +llyria, E4ady yo1 are the cr1ellest she alive -o lead these "races to the "rave 3nd leave no copy.E -his sonnetlike re<1est for the !eloved:s self?reprod1ction thro1"h offsprin" 'o'entarily ca1ses the tensions of the fact1al present to dist1r! the fantasy co1rtship scene. B1t @livia !1ries the reco''endation for pro"eny !y t1rnin" the 'eanin" of EcopyE fro' EchildE into so'ethin" else entirely: @ sir, + ,ill not !e so hard?hearted: + ,ill "ive o1t divers sched1les of 'y !ea1ty. +t shall !e inventorled, and every particle and 1tensil la!elled to 'y ,ill. 3s, ite', t,o lips indifferent red= ite', t,o "rey eyes . . . .1.5./GIM510 -his, clearly, is a copy the ,o'an can for' ,itho1t help fro' a 'an, a reprod1ction that can !e self ?'ade. -he <1estion of an heir never ceased to !e 1nco'forta!le, even in 1F$1. B1t @livia deflects the disco'fort ,ith Eli&a!ethan "race and e"otis', as if to say, in her te'porally dis? ) /19 ) 61nctive 'anner: Es1ch a one + ,as this presentE .1.5./#IM#%0, this one, is and al,ays has !een s1fficient. @n the last ni"ht of festivity, epiphanies are to co'e. @ne can hope for the !est: E-his shall end ,itho1t the perdition of so1lsE .#.G./9G0. -,o choices re'ain: look !ack, "ratef1l and !leary eyed= or ,ake to nervo1sness. ) //1 )

N$tes
Intr$*+cti$n
1. My chronolo"ies have, ,ith the conspic1o1s e*ception of Hamlet , relied on received scholarly ,isdo' a!o1t the 'ost pla1si!le co'positional dates for the plays. -he earliest ass1red ter'in1s ad <1e' for any of the ,orks ,o1ld !e for T elfth !ight , seen and recorded !y 7ohn Mannin"ha' in 1F$1. Hamlet and Troilus have consec1tive Stationer:s 8e"ister .S80 entries .in 1F$/ and 1F$#, respectively0, !1t !oth of these ,orks e*ist in <1artos that sho1ld co'plicate o1r certit1de a!o1t their final co'position dates. Troilus and Cressida 'ay have !een revised at any ti'e !efore its first te*t1al appearance in the <1arto of 1F$9. Convenience, the S8 entry, and certain for'al feat1res ar"1e for 1F$/, and so + set it in that year= !1t other aspects of the ,ork, s1ch as its fi*ation on venereal disease, co1ld ,ell 61stify a later date .the c1rses of -hersites, 4ear, and -i'on see' conte'poraneo1s0. (1rther disc1ssions of 'y datin" of L/ Hamlet ,ill !e fo1nd in chapters / and #.

/. 7. E. Aeale, Essa#s in Elizabethan Histor# .4ondon: 7onathan Cape, 195%0, 11#. #. (rankie 81!instein:s note on the E"ood yearsE 'akes clear ho, the pec1liar ter' applied to disaster, partic1larly to !odily disaster s1ch as pla"1e and venereal disease. See E-hey 5ere Aot S1ch ;ood Kears,E Shakespeare (uarterl# G$, no. 1 .sprin" 199$0: I$?IG. G. 5allace Stevens, E3necdote of the 7ar,E in The %alm at the End of the )ind: Selected %oems and a %la# , ed. >olly Stevens .Ae, Kork: Ointa"e Books, 19I/0, GF. 5. (redric 7a'eson, The %olitical &nconscious: !arrati.e as a Sociall# S#mbolic -ct .+thaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 19%10, %1= hereafter cited in te*t. 7a'eson:s infl1ential policy state'ents a!o1t conte*t and its relation to Mar*ist readin"s of class str1""le have !een the fo1ndin" !allast for .less political0 ne,historicist readin"s of the relations !et,een social and literary for's. -r1e to the political deracination of historicis', 'y readin"s evade a class?conscio1s aesthetic !y e'phasi&in" historical for's that are not specifically or inevita!ly econo'ic and !y st1dyin" ideolo"ical e*tensions in c1lt1re that are not necessarily 'asks of class str1""le and do'ination. F. Stephen ;reen!latt, EM1rderin" Peasants: Stat1s, ;enre, and the 8epresentation of 8e!ellion,E Representations 1 .19%#0: 1?/9= ;reen!latt, E(iction and (riction,E in his Shakespearean !egotiations: The Circulation of Social Energ# in Renaissance England .Berkeley: Univ. of Calif. Press, 19%I0, FF? 9#. (or a potent criticis' of ;reen!latt:s 1se of the tan"entially related fact or story, partic1larly re"ardin" the story of Marin le Marcis and T elfth !ight , see 7oel (ine'an, E-he >istory of the 3necdote: (iction and (iction,E in >. 3ra' Oeeser, ed., The !e Historicism .4ondon: Meth1en, 199$0, G9?IF. I. 5alter Cohen, EPolitical Criticis' of Shakespeare,E in 7ean E. >o,ard and Marion (. @:Connor, eds., Shakespeare Reproduced .Ae, Kork and 4ondon: Meth1en, 19%I0, #G. See also 7ean E. >o,ard, E-he Ae, >istoricis' in 8enaissance St1dies,E E0R .19%F0: 1#?G#. %. -he co''it'ent to narro, topicalities has, + think, prod1ced so'e of the 'ost consistently interestin" ne,?historical ,ork: 8enaissance readers Patricia (1'erton, 8ichard >el"erson, 4eah Marc1s, 4o1is Montrose, Ma1reen L1illi"an, and 2on E. 5ayne co'e to 'ind as e*e'plary practitioners of the local. My inde!tedness to their st1dies ,ill !e apparent thro1"ho1t. 9. The Random House 2ictionar# of the English 0anguage , 1na!rid"ed ed., s.v. EtellE .Ae, Kork: 8ando' >o1se, 19I10. -he ,ord derives fro' the 3ra!ic tall , a 'o1nd or hill. 1$. E+n effect, fiction plays on the stratification of 'eanin": it narrates one thin" in order to tell so'ethin" else= it delineates itself in a lan"1a"e fro' ,hich it contin1o1sly dra,s effects of 'eanin" that cannot !e circ1'scri!ed or checked.E Michel de Certea1, E>istory: Science and (iction,E in Heterologies: 2iscourse on the *ther , trans. Brain Mass1'i .Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 19%F0, /$/. 11. 4ee Patterson ar"1es .on political "ro1nds0 for restorin" intentionalit# as an interpretive ter'= see the e*cellent chapter E>istorical Criticis' and the Clai's of >1'anis',E in his !egotiating the %ast: The Historical &nderstanding of )edie.al 0iterature .Madison: Univ. of 5isconsin Press, 19%I0, G1? IF, esp. F5ff. (or one acco1nt of the '1ltiplicity of the te*t and its co'po1nd a1thorship, see 8oland Barthes, E-heory of the -e*t,E in 8o!ert Ko1n", ed., &nt#ing the Te"t: - %oststructuralist Reader .4ondon: 8o1tled"e, 19%10, #1?GI. 1/. L1oted in 7. E. Aeale, Elizabeth I and Her %arliaments, 4CEHA4564 , / vols. .4ondon: 7onathan Cape, 195I0, /:119.

1#. Spenser, The 'aerie (ueene , ed. -ho'as P. 8oche, 7r. .Midddlese*: Pen"1in, 19I%0, 1F. (or a directly relevant analysis of Spenser:s Eli&a!ethan inscriptions, see 4o1is 3drian Montrose, E-he Eli&a!ethan S1!6ect and the Spenserian -e*t,E in Patricia Parker and 2avid L1int, eds., 0iterar# Theor#?Renaissance Te"ts .Balti'ore and 4ondon: 7ohns >opkins Univ. Press, 19%F0, #$#?G$. 1G. End#mion: The )an in the )oon , in Charles 8ead Baskerville, Oir"il B. >elt&el, and 3rth1r >. Aethercot, eds., Elizabethan and Stuart %la#s .Ae, Kork: >olt, 8inehart, and 5inston, 19#G0, 1I1?/$G. 15. E-he Prolo"1e at Co1rt,E in *ld 'ortunatus , in vol. 1 of The 2ramatic 3orks of Thomas 2ekker , ed. (redson Bo,ers .Ca'!rid"e: Ca'!rid"e Univ. Press, 195#0. 1F. 3lan 4i1, E-he Po,er of (or'alis': -he Ae, >istoricis',E E0H 5F .19%90: I/1?I1. 1I. 8enN ;irard, $iolence and the Sacred , trans. Kvonne (reccero .Balti'ore: 7ohns >opkins Univ. Press, 19II0. 1%. 7a'es ;leick defines Eself?si'ilarityE as Esy''etry across scale. +t i'plies rec1rsion, pattern inside of pattern,E and he "ives as an e*a'ple the Einfinitely deep reflection of a person standin" !et,een t,o 'irrors.E ;leick, Chaos: )aking a !e Science .Ae, Kork: Pen"1in, 19%I0. 1$#. 19. + a' inde!ted to the l1cid and s1""estive disc1ssion of relations !et,een chaos theory and poststr1ct1ralis' in A. 9atherine >ayles, Chaos ,ound: *rderl# 2isorder in Contemporar# Theor# and Science .+thaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 199$0, esp. chaps. I and %= hereafter cited in te*t. /$. Sonta", Illness as )etaphor .Ae, Kork: 8ando' >o1se, 19I90, FF. /1. 3lvin M. Saperstein, EChaosB3 Model for the @1t!reak of 5ar,E !ature #$9 .May 19%G0: #$#. //. 5. >. 31den, E )usIe des ,eau" -rts ,E in Selected %oetr# , /d ed. .Ae, Kork: 8ando' >o1se, 19I10, G9. -he 'a6or 1pheavals of history 'ay have no de'onstra!le effect on i'a"inative doc1'ents: the 'ore tra1'atic the occasion, the 'ore likely it is to short o1t 'etaphorical circ1its. C1lt1ral disaster dist1r!s not only the psyche !1t lan"1a"e and all social rit1al and practice= ,ords slip, playho1ses close, an ina!ility to or"ani&e sets in. -o so'e e*tent + a' ,ritin" a!o1t the tyranny of the a!sent, a!o1t the thin" that do'inates !y reason of its !ein" 1nder"ro1nd= it is a (re1dian historicis' that interests 'e. -he repressed thin", the deflected or 'ar"inali&ed historical referent, drives these plays. >istorical press1res, like personal tra1'as, e*ert disar'in"ly co'plicated force on the Shakespearean te*t. /#. See Elaine Scarry, The ,od# in %ain: The )aking and &nmaking of the 3orld .Ae, Kork: @*ford Univ. Press, 19%50= ;aff 9ern Paster, The ,od# Embarrassed: 2rama and the 2isciplines of Shame in Earl# )odern England .+thaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 199/0= and (rank 5hi"ha', Seizures of the 3ill in Renaissance 2rama .Ca'!rid"e: Ca'!rid"e Univ. Press, forthco'in"0. See also Peter Stally!rass and 3llon 5hite, The %oetics and %olitics of Transgression .+thaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 19%F0. /G. (or 9aposi:s sarco'a as the early 'ass?'edia indicator of the disease, see 4oren 9. Clarke and Malcol' Potts, The -I2S Reader .Boston: Branden P1!lishin", 19%%0, %G?%%, and ;erald M. @ppenhei'er, ECa1ses, Cases, and Cohorts: -he 8ole of Epide'iolo"y in the >istorical Constr1ction of 3+2S,E in Eli&a!eth (ee and 2aniel M. (o*, eds., -I2S: The )aking of a Chronic 2isease .Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 199/0, G9?%#. + a' inde!ted to Mark Condon for these references. /5. (or an interestin" criti<1e of this 'edia?sponsored vie,, see 2o1"las Cri'p, E>o, to >ave Pro'isc1ity in an Epide'ic,E in Cri'p, ed., -I2S: Cultural -nal#sis?Cultural -cti.ism .Ca'!rid"e: M+- Press, 19%90, /#I?I1.

/F. L1oted in 8andy Shilts, -nd the ,and %la#ed *n: %olitics, %eople, and the -I2S Epidemic .Ae, Kork: Oikin" Pen"1in, 19%I0, #5/. /I. @ne e*ception is Ed,ard ;1errero, E3+2S as Monster in Science (iction and >orror Cine'a,E 7ournal of %opular 'ilm and Tele.ision 1%, no. # .fall 199$0: %F?9#. /%. -he antitechnolo"ical !ias of the 'ovie sho1ld not !e overlooked, especially insofar as that, too, plays into the 3+2S the'atic. 3fter all, in a hideo1sly real ,ay, Br1ndle has a!sor!ed into his !ody a computer vir1s. -he threat is fi"1red as 1nnat1ral not only !eca1se of nonnor'ative se*1al associations !1t !eca1se Br1ndle is the first h1'an to contract ,hat only inte"rated circ1its co1ld "et: a vir1s trans'itted thro1"h di"ital technolo"y. +n an infected a"e, neither flesh nor 'ind is safe. B1t the final "rotes<1etie of the fil', Br1ndle:s f1sion ,ith the telepod itself, is not 'ore appallin" than the deco'posin" half'anBan i'a"e of the a"ed, !roken !odyBthat is the 'ovie:s tra"ic ni"ht'are. -echnolo"y, it see's, only accelerates a"oni&in" nat1ral processes, 'akin" the' see' 1nnat1ral. /9. 4inda Ba'!er, Comic 3omen, Tragic )en .Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 19%/0. #$. Michel de Certea1, E-he (re1dian Aovel: >istory and 4iterat1re,E in Heterologies , #1?#/.

One, Em+l$+s Facti$ns an* the C$lla-se $% Chi&alr'

1. -ho'as 5ilson, The State of England, -nno 2om. 4566 , ed. (. 7. (isher, Ca'den Miscellany, vol. 1F .4ondon: Ca'den Society, 19#F0, #G= hereafter cited in the te*t. +n 159F an envoy of the Oenetian a'!assador ,rote of his reception in En"land: E+ noticed that in this co1ntry they are in "reat alar' a!o1t the ene'y= they ,ill not allo, anyone to enter ,ho is not <1ite ,ell kno,n and ,ho has not !een thoro1"hly e*a'ined.E Calendar of State %apers, $enetian, 4CGJA 456K .4ondon, 1%9I0, /#F= hereafter cited as CSPO. /. So'e of En"land:s rare attacks ,ere conceived as preventive, defensive 'eas1res. -ho'as Birch <1otes a state paper . The ad.antages, hich her ma=est# hath gotten b# that, hich hath passed at Cadiz . . . 4CG5 0 ,hich !e"ins: E>er 'a6esty !ein" threatened to !e invaded, hath like a 'i"hty and 'a"nani'o1s prince sent her navy and ar'y to offer her ene'y !attle at his o,n door.E Birch, )emoirs of the Reign of (ueen Elizabeth , / vols. .4ondon, 1I5G= rpt. Ae, Kork: 3MS Press, 19I$0, /:GI. S1!se<1ent references ,ill !e to vol1'e / of this edition. #. L1oted in ;eor"e P. 8ice, The %ublic Speaking of (ueen Elizabeth I .Ae, Kork: Col1'!ia Univ. Press, 19510, 9F. +t is likely that the speech ,as not delivered in this precise for'= its te*t1al ori"ins are rather shady. See S1san (rye, E-he Myth of Eli&a!eth + at -il!1ry,E Si"teenth Centur# 7ournal /# .199/0: 95?11G. G. 8. B. @1th,aite asserts that Eal'ost every year after 15%% prod1ced fears of invasion.E E2earth, the En"lish Cro,n, and the :Crisis of the 159$:s:,E in Peter Clark, ed., The European Crisis of the 4CG6s .4ondon: ;eor"e 3llen and Un,in, 19%50, /G. 5. 3ll <1otations fro' Troilus and Cressida are fro' the 3rden edition, ed. 9enneth Pal'er .4ondon: Meth1en, 19%/0. L1otations fro' all other Shakespeare plays are fro' ;. Blake'ore Evans, ed., The Ri.erside Shakespeare .Boston: >o1"hton Mifflin, 19IG0. Cressida:s defense of her E!elly,E like Eli&a!eth:s, is a defense of the ,o'!= see *.E.2. , s.v. E!elly.E En"land:s invasion ne1rosis potentially fi"1red a vast c1lt1ral parado*: it let soldiers and co1rtiers i'a"ine that the collective !ody they constit1ted ,as penetra!le, not penetratin"Bfe'ale, not 'ale. 3 ,idescale .historical0 identification ,ith the fe'inine threatens 'asc1line identity, a threat ,hich the play vario1sly inscri!es. @ne of the 'ost 'e'ora!le instances of profo1nd 'ale insec1rity in these

ter's occ1rs ,hen -roil1s ,itnesses Cressida:s !etrayal= he descri!es his horror as his o,n reason:s self?separation, division, penetra!ility, and dissol1tion .5./.1G5?59.0. F. 5ilson, State of England , G1. >e 'ay have !een referrin" to the s1'pt1ary la,s as those that disco1ra"e e'1lation !et,een the peers and "entle'en. I. See 7ohn Aeale, E-he Eli&a!ethan Political Scene,E in his Essa#s in Elizabethan Histor# .4ondon: 7onathan Cape, 195%0, 59?%G, and Conyers 8ead, E(actions in the En"lish Privy Co1ncil 1nder Eli&a!eth,E -merican Historical -ssociation -nnual Report 1 .19110: 11#?19. -his is Aeale:s vie,, !1t ;. 8. Elton takes a 'ore ca1tio1s stance: E5hether Eli&a!eth took care to 'aintain the factions si'ply to prevent herself !ein" over,hel'ed !y any one of the' '1st re'ain a 'atter for do1!t= the effect, ho,ever, of her ref1sal to allo, total victory to this or that "ro1p ,as to provide all political a'!ition ,ith a platfor' at the very centre of affairs. +n her rei"n, and in her father:s, too, conflict took place ,ithin the Co1rt.E Elton, Studies in Tudor and Stuart %olitics and +o.ernment , G vols. .Ca'!rid"e: Ca'!rid"e Univ. Press, 19%#0, #:5/. Eli&a!eth felt it ,as !etter to s1ffer internal divisions that co1ld re'ain 1nder s1rveillance than to lose contain'ent of those dist1r!ances and find the' "atherin" stren"th o1tside the co1rt, in the city, the ch1rch, the co1ntry. %. C3ndrN >1ra1lt, sie1r de MaisseD, 2e )aisse: - 7ournal of -ll that as accomplished b# )onsieur de )aisse, -mbassador in England . . . 4CGD , trans, and ed. ;. B. >arrison and 8. 3. 7ones .Bloo's!1ry, En".: Aones1ch Press, 19#10, 1%. >ereafter cited parenthetically in the te*t as de Maisse, 7ournal . 9. 8o!ert Aa1nton, 'ragmenta Regalia , in 5alter Scott, ed., Somers1 Tracts .4ondon, 1%$9= rpt. Ae, Kork: 3MS Press, 19F50, /5#. + have also !enefited fro' the edition of 7ohn S. Cerovski .5ashin"ton, 2.C.: (ol"er Books, 19%50. Aa1nton refers here to the early factions in the <1een:s rei"n. (or an opposin" vie, of the i'portance of early Eli&a!ethan factions, see Si'on 3da's, EEli&a EnthronedJ -he Co1rt and +ts Politics,E in Christopher >ai"h, ed., The Reign of Elizabeth I .4ondon: Mac'illan, 19%G0, 55. 3da's else,here ad'its that factions profo1ndly infl1enced -1dor r1le in the 159$s: E(action, Clienta"e, and Party: En"lish Politics, 155$?1F$#,E Histor# Toda# #/ .2ece'!er 19%/0: ##? #9. 1$. 3nthony Esler, The -spiring )ind of the Elizabethan :ounger +eneration .21rha': 21ke Univ. Press, 19FF0, %I?1FG, has a thoro1"h e*position of this point. 11. L1oted in Aeale, EEli&a!ethan Political Scene,E I9. 1/. 3da's 'entions the indirection of the 5hitehall plot in E(action, Clienta"e, and Party,E #9. Sir >enry 5otton, ,ho fo1"ht !eside Esse* in +reland, later ,rote of the Cecilians: Estron" and s1!tile faction, ,hich cared and cons1lted for CEsse*:sD r1in, as a fo1ndation they '1st !1ild 1ponE= the Cecilians E,ere intent to !etray hi' a!road, and 'is?interpret hi' at ho'e.E Reli;uae 3ottonianae , Gth. ed. .4ondon, 1F%50, 1%%. 1#. Aeale asserts that Esse*:s spectac1lar de'ands left Eli&a!eth little choice !1t to !ack the Cecilians: E3t the ti'e of Esse*:s fall 8o!ert Cecil ,as Secretary, Chancellor of the 21chy of 4ancaster and Master of the Co1rt of 5ardsBa 1ni<1e co'!ination of offices= and if ,e reflect on the po,er and patrona"e they conferred . . . ,e can appreciate ho, near to creatin" a rival 'onopoly Eli&a!eth ,as forced to "o.E EEli&a!ethan Political Scene,E %1. 1G. ;eor"e Chap'an, preface to the Sea.en ,ookes of the Iliades , in Chapman1s Homer , ed. 3llardyce Aicholl, / vols. .Ae, Kork: Pantheon, 195F0, 1:5$#= hereafter cited in the te*t as Chapman1s Homer .

(or a fine, co"ent readin" of the place of Esse* in the careers of !oth Chap'an and Shakespeare, see 8ichard +de, %ossessed ith +reatness: The Heroic Tragedies of Chapman and Shakespeare .Chapel >ill: Univ. of Aorth Carolina Press, 19%$0, #?##, 9%?1$1. 15. CS%$ , #%G. -he a'!assador 'akes this clai' in the conte*t of Esse*:s recent arrest for ins1!ordination. S1!versiveness 'ade Esse* see' all the 'ore heroic. 1F. +de, %ossessed ith +reatness , /#. 1I. Cedric 5hit'an, Homer and the Heroic Tradition .Ae, Kork: Aorton, 195%0, 1%/. 1%. -he threat ,as to Esse* as ,ell. 2epart1res fro' the affairs of state did nothin" to !etter his fort1nes= if anythin", they only har'ed hi' and intensified factional 1nrest. >is ,ithdra,als !lended ele'ents of self?ind1l"ence and selfsa!ota"e. 2e Maisse kne, ,ell that the earl:s a!sence E"ives occasion to his ene'ies to cal1'niate hi', and to 'ake hi' s1spected !y the L1een as if he ,ished to 'ake a separate party and ,ithdra, hi'self, favored !y the no!ility and the peopleE . 7ournal , FI?F%0. >o,ever, 7oel >1rstfield contends that 8o!ert Cecil:s 1ndoin" of Esse* ,as not intentional or at least did not represent a syste'atic pro"ra'= see E-he S1ccession Str1""le in 4ate Eli&a!ethan En"land,E in his 'reedom, Corruption, and +o.ernment in Elizabethan England .Ca'!rid"e: >arvard Univ. Press, 19I#0, 1/I. Cecil fre<1ently clai'ed to !ear Esse* no ill ,ill and even alle"edly s1ed on his !ehalf to the <1een d1rin" Esse*:s dis"race= Birch, )emoirs , G#%, GG/. @n this point, see P. M. >andover, The Second Cecil .4ondon: Eyre and Spottis,oode, 19590, 15#?5I. 3s Ulysses ,arns the i''1red 3chilles, E-o have done is to han" L1ite o1t of fashion, like a r1sty 'ail +n 'on1'ental 'ockeryE .#.#.151?5#0, and Esse* certainly kne, the advanta"es of presence: EMy 4ord of Esse* did lately ,ant Sir ;eor"e Care, to !e 4ord 4ei1tenante of +reland, rather than his o,ne 1nkle, Sir 5illia' 9nollys, !eca1se he had "iven hi' so'e ca1se of offence, and !y th1s thr1stin" hi' into hi"h office, he ,o1ld re'ove hi' fro' co,rte.E 7ohn >arin"ton, in !ugae -nti;uae , ed. -. Park, / vols. .4ondon, 1%$90, 1:1I#. 19. 3 perceptive co''entary on these lines, and on the ,ays in ,hich the fi"1re of >enry reconceives Esse*, can !e fo1nd in 7onathan 2olli'ore and 3lan Sinfield, E>istory and +deolo"y: -he +nstance of Henr# $ ,E in 7ohn 2rakakis, ed., -lternati.e Shakespeares .4ondon: Meth1en, 19%50, /$F?/I. E>enry is !oth "eneral and r1ler, and therefore the str1ct1ral pro!le' of the over?'i"hty s1!6ect . . . does not present itselfE .//$0. /$. My de!t to 4o1is 3drian Montrose ,ill !e increasin"ly clear thro1"ho1t this chapter= this partic1lar for'1lation of a te*t1al and c1lt1ral interrelationship is adapted fro' his co''ents a!o1t )idsummer !ight1s 2ream . See Montrose, E:Shapin" (antasies:: (i"1rations of ;ender and Po,er in Eli&a!ethan C1lt1re,E Representations / .sprin" 19%#0: F1?9G. +n ter's of 'ethod + have also fo1nd 1sef1l his E8enaissance 4iterary St1dies and the S1!6ect of >istory,E English 0iterar# Renaissance 1F .,inter 19%F0: 5?1/= and in the sa'e vol1'e, 7ean >o,ard, E-he Ae, >istoricis' in 8enaissance St1dies,E 1#?G#. /1. Aote Ulysses: ,arnin" to 3chilles a!o1t the providence in a ,atchf1l state .#.#.195?/$50, lon" taken to !e a reference to the Eli&a!ethan spy net,ork. See >arry Ber"er 7r., E Troilus and Cressida : -he @!server as Basilisk,E Comparati.e 2rama / .s1''er 19F%0: 1//?#F, on the play:s tendency to cond1ct e*tensive o!servations of its characters. -he faction syste' fostered voye1ris' and paranoia !eca1se, as -ho'as 5ilson notes, each no!le had Ehis ene'yes eye to overlooke hi'E . State of England , G/0. 3ll actions ,ere acco1nta!le si'ply !eca1se nothin" co1ld re'ain hidden. S1ch ,atchf1lness ,as the constant ,ei"ht 1nder ,hich the

co1rtiers la!oredBo!served of all o!servers. -he strain ,as partic1larly "reat on Esse*. +n 1599, d1rin" his confine'ent at Kork >o1se, the earl ,as repeatedly ,arned !y friends s1ch as Sir -ho'as E"erton that Esharp eyes ,ere 1pon hi', that his actions, p1!lic and private, ,ere o!served.E See 4a1ra >anes Cad,allader, ECareer of the Earl of Esse* 159I?1F$1,E Ph.2. diss., Univ. of Pennsylvania, 19/#, F/. Cad,allader:s ,ork is an indispensa!le acco1nt of the events leadin" to Esse*:s de'ise. //. L1oted in ;. B. >arrison, The 0ife and 2eath of Robert 2e.ereu", Earl of Esse" .4ondon: Cassell, 19#I0, /F1. /#. See Oir"inia Crocheron ;ildersleeve, +o.ernment Regulation of the Elizabethan 2rama .Ae, Kork: Col1'!ia Univ. Press, 19$%0, 9%?99. -his readin" of Esse*:s theatrical intent '1st !e <1alified !y the re'arka!le resonance !et,een the earl:s career at this point .1F$10 and 8ichard:sBnot Bolin"!roke:sBpolitical fort1nes in Shakespeare:s Richard II . Scholars traditionally ass1'e that the earl and his 'en co''issioned the perfor'ance to foster sy'pathy for re!ellion a"ainst an 1n61st 'onarch= in this readin", >enry Bolin"!roke ,o1ld Estand forE Esse*, ,ho ,ishes to !e the a'!itio1s no!le ridin" a ,ave of pop1lar acclai'. -o this e*tent, Eli&a!eth:s reported "loss on the perfor'anceBE+ a' 8ichard the second, kno, ye not thatJEB has !een entirely infl1ential. B1t it 'ay !e shortsi"hted. 8ather, Esse* 'ay have tho1"ht of hi'self as 8ichard: not the 1s1rper !1t the 'istreated and displaced 'an. (or 9in" 8ichard finds hi'self s1pplanted, his po,er 1pended, after ret1rnin" fro' a rash trip to +reland. -his sit1ation, as + disc1ss !elo,, echoes the sit1ation in ,hich Esse* fo1nd hi'self in 1F$1 follo,in" his +rish 6o1rney. Certainly it is only once he is o1t of po,er, after his ret1rn fro' +reland, that 8ichard !eco'es a sy'pathetic and attractive fi"1re. 3nd it is Esse*, not Eli&a!eth, ,ho in 1F$1 is i'potent, ,ho has !een i'prisoned !y rivals, ,ho !roods over and !e,ails his sorry state. -h1s the E'eanin"E of the historical perfor'ance of Richard II in 1F$1 'ay have 'ore to do ,ith 'anip1latin" sy'pathies and dra'atic identificationsBEsse* as the sorro,f1l, !ereft 'anBthan ,ith the naked "ra! for po,er that, it has !een tho1"ht, the deposition scene ,as s1pposed to s1pport. -his is not to say that the co''issionin" of the perfor'ace ,as not a challen"e to the <1een, only that it ,as contestatory in a different ,ayB'ore passively or resi"nedly so .th1s, perhaps, 'ore 3chillean0. +f the earl theatrically identified hi'self as Shakespeare:s 8ichard, it ,as an atte'pt to redefine his persona as 'is1nderstood, ne,ly tho1"htf1l and, in a ,ay, repentant .E+ ,asted ti'e, and no, doth ti'e ,aste 'eE0. -he p1!lic "atherin" of sy'pathy is in itself an ins1rrection, a revision of the <1een:s vie, of her for'er favorite. Richard II sho,s ho, 1nlika!le, ho, ro!otic a s1ccessf1l 1s1rper can !e. >enry, tho1"h he has history on his side, is not a fi"1re to inspire an overthro, if the affective readin"BShakespeare:s character st1dyBis taken serio1sly. +t is 'ore likely that, !y 1F$1, Esse* sa, hi'self thro1"h the play as the 'an ,ho once had a kin":s prero"ativeBEthe "reatest persona"e in En"land,E as Contarini had called hi'Brather than as the 'an ,ho ,o1ld or co1ld !e kin" .E(or yo1 have !1t 'istook 'e all this ,hileE C Richard II , #./. 1IGD0. +t is al'ost intolera!ly opti'istic, "iven the state of his fort1nes and reso1rces at the ti'e, for Esse* to have s1pposed that any play co1ld have sec1red hi' po,er. /G. Shakespeare:s 'i'etic politics of sickness are an 1n'etaphored version of the conventional ,isdo' that strife !et,een the peers diseased the nation. 4a1rence >1'phrey ,rote in 15F# that EAothin" pla"eth En"land !1t the 'any !reaches and ever 1ns1re, never faithf1ll, frendshyppe of the Ao!les.E L1oted in 4a,rence Stone, The Crisis of the -ristocrac#, 4CCEA45H4 .@*ford: Clarendon Press, 19F50, 1I9. +t is ,orth notin" that 15F# ,as a partic1larly terri!le pla"1e year= to say that the "reatest pla"1e in En"land ,as the infi"htin" of the no!ility ,as, then, to 'ake <1ite a clai'. /5. 7oel (ine'an, E(ratricide and C1ckoldry: Shakespeare:s 2o1!les,E in M1rray M. Sch,art& and Coppelia 9ahn, eds., Representing Shakespeare: !e %s#choanal#tic Essa#s .Balti'ore: 7ohns >opkins Univ. Press, 19%$0, 9G= hereafter cited in te*t. 8enN ;irard:s application of the concept of

e'1lation to the play has infl1enced 'y readin" "reatly= see E-he Politics of 2esire in Troilus and Cressida ,E in Patricia Parker and ;eoffrey >art'an, eds., Shakespeare and the (uestion of Theor# .Ae, Kork: Meth1en, 19%50, 1%%?/$9. /F. E5hat ,e call :co'petition: is !etter descri!ed as 'en:s atte'pt to outimitate one another.E 9enneth B1rke, cited in (rank 5hi"ha', -mbition and %ri.ilege: The Social Tropes of Elizabethan Courtes# Theor# .Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 19%G0, I%. See also Esler, -spiring )ind , 51?%F. /I. 8enN ;irard, E-he Pla"1e in 4iterat1re and Myth,E in his E To 2ouble ,usiness ,ound11: Essa#s on )#th and 0iterature .Balti'ore: 7ohns >opkins Univ. Press, 19I%0, 1#F? 5G. -he idea of 1ndifferentiated disr1ptive rivals is central to '1ch of Shakespeare:s .and ;irard:s0 ,ork, !1t rivals are not <1ite do1!les in this play= they are co'ple'entary 'e'!ers of a sin"le dis61nctive political and se*1al syste'. (rancis Bacon:s 1nderstandin" of factional 1ndifferentiation ,as si'ilar to ;irard:s: EShepherds of people had need kno, the calendars of te'pests in state= ,hich are co''only "reatest ,hen thin"s "ro, to e<1ality= as nat1ral te'pests are "reatest a!o1t the E;uinoctia .E E@f Seditions and -ro1!lesE .1F/50, in The 3orks of 'rancis ,acon , ed. 7a'es Speddin", I vols. .4ondon, 1%9$0, F:G$F. Bacon had lon" !een chary of factio1s alliances and pro!a!ly so1"ht to ,arn Esse* a"ainst the'. +n E@f (ollo,ers and (riendsE . Essa#s , 159I0, he notes: E(actio1s follo,ers are ,orse to !e liked, ,hich follo, not vpon affection to hi' ,ith ,ho'e they ra1n"e the'sel1es, !1t vpon discontent'ent concei1ed a"ainst so'e other, ,herevpon co''only ins1eth that ill intelli"ence that ,ee 'any ti'es see !et,een "reat persona"es.E 3orks , F:5/%. /%. -he play repeatedly enacts this diffic1lty of differentiation as a diffic1lty of reco"nition. @n this 'atter, see 8osalie Colie:s splendid chapter on the play, E(or's and -heir Meanin": :Mon1'ental Mock:ry,:E in her Shakespeare1s 0i.ing -rt .Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 19IG0, #1I?G9. /9. +n ,ritin" Troilus and Cressida , Shakespeare ans,ered the conte'porary vo"1e of -ro6an ,ar dra'as !y e'1latin" the'. -he last years of Eli&a!eth:s rei"n sa, a proliferation of sta"ed versions of the -roy story. See 7. S. P. -atlock, E-he Sie"e of -roy in Eli&a!ethan 4iterat1re, Especially in Shakespeare and >ey,ood,E %)0- #$, no. G .19150: FI#?II$. #$. Conon de BNth1ne, 0#rics of the Troubadours and Trou.eres , trans. and ed. (rederick ;oldin .Ae, Kork: 3nchor Books, 19I#0, #GF?GI. #1. Stone, Crisis , /55. (or the phrase Ep1rse and person,E see The )erchant of $enice , 1.1.1#%, and / Henr# I$ , /.1.11F. #/. Ed,ard Said, E-he -e*t, the 5orld, the Critic,E in 7os1N O. >arari, ed., Te"tual Strategies: %erspecti.es in %ost Structuralist Criticism .+thaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 19I90, 1%G. ##. (rances Kates, -straea: The Imperial Theme in the Si"teenth Centur# .4ondon: 8o1tled"e and 9e"an Pa1l, 389, 19%50, 5$. #G. 5illia' Ca'den, ,ritain> or, - Chorographicall 2escription of . . . England, Scotland and Ireland , trans. Phile'on >olland .4ondon, 1F#I0, I. +t '1st !e 'entioned that the 'yth of -ro6an ori"ins dies hard. Ca'den:s !oldness is te'pori&ed !y this ironic aftertho1"ht: E(or 'ine o,ne part, let Br1t1s !e taken for the father, and fo1nder of the British nation= + ,ill not !e of a contrary 'indE .%0. #5. (or Shakespeare, the fo1ndations of the -roy story are 'edieval= his 'ost i'portant so1rces, ,ith the i'portant e*ception of Chap'an:s >o'er, are 4yd"ate, Cha1cer, and Ca*ton. Ca*ton is partic1larly pro'inent in the literary history of Shakespeare:s Troilus and Cressida , "iven his stat1s as the !earer of

chivalric c1lt1re into print. +ndeed, an i'portant so1rce te*t for the play ,as also the first !ook printed in En"lish: Ca*ton:s Recu#ell of the histor#es of Tro#e .1GIG0, a co'pendi1' of kni"hts and co1rts, to1rna'ents and challen"es. #F. Ma1rice >1"h 9een, EChivalry, Ao!ility, and the Man?at?3r's,E in C. -. 3ll'an, ed., 3ar, 0iterature, and %olitics in the 0ate )iddle -ges .4iverpool: 4iverpool Univ. Press, 19IF0, ##, G5. 9een:s convincin" ar"1'ents a!o1t the chivalric ethic, ,hich he develops 'ore f1lly in Chi.alr# .Ae, >aven: Kale Univ. Press, 19%G0, have helped shape 'y 1nderstandin" of the 8enaissance chivalric code and its trans"ressions. #I. ECa*ton:s Preface,E in )alor#: 3orks , ed. E1"ene Oinaver, /d ed. .@*ford: @*ford Univ. Press, 19I10, *v. #%. See Aor'an Co1ncil, EBen 7onson, +ni"o 7ones, and the -ransfor'ation of -1dor Chivalry,E E0H GI .s1''er 19%$0: /F1. #9. Malcol' Oale, 3ar and Chi.alr# .4ondon: 21ck,orth, 19%10, 1FI. G$. @n the chan"in" at'osphere of later Eli&a!ethan chivalry, see 8oy Stron", The Cult of Elizabeth .4ondon: -ha'es and >1dson, 19II0, 11I?F/, and Stephen @r"el, EMakin" ;reatness (a'iliar,E +enre 15 .sprin" s1''er 19%/0: G1?G%. G1. Montrose, E:Shapin" (antasies,:E %5. Professor Montrose has skillf1lly charted the overlappin" tra6ectories of politics and se*1ality in the Eli&a!ethan co1rt, and often it is !est si'ply to reconte*t1ali&e his insi"hts, as + do here. My readin" of Troilus and Cressida is in part an atte'pt to e*tend the chronolo"ical and the'atic field of his o!servations to sho, the increasin" ineffectiveness of the se*1al and political 'echanis's !y ,hich the Eli&a!ethan co1rt 'aintained its dan"ero1s !alance. G/. @r"el, EMakin" ;reatness (a'iliar,E G1. G#. Early in the rei"n, in a speech to Parlia'ent, she said to the Co''ons, E-ho1"h after 'y death yo1 'ay have 'any stepda'es, yet shall yo1 never have a 'ore nat1ral 'other than + 'ean to !e 1nto yo1 all.E L1oted in 4o1is Montrose, E:Eli&a, L1eene of shepheardes,: and the Pastoral of Po,er,E English 0iterar# Renaissance 1$ .sprin" 19%$0: 15F. -his prono1nce'ent ,as !oth reass1rin" and so'e,hat defiant in 15F#, !eca1se for several years advisers had already !een 1r"in" 'arria"e and 'otherhood for the sake of the s1ccession= at the !e"innin" of Eli&a!eth:s career, then, the 'aternal 'etaphor ,as e*c1lpatory. B1t ,hen the <1een ,as older and ,itho1t hope of a direct heir, there ,as less stake in see'in" 'otherly than 1ncon<1era!le, as she does in the -il!1ry speech. +n her last address to Parlia'ent she rephrased her early devotion, e*cisin" the 'aternal trope: E3nd tho1"h yo1 have had and 'ay have 'any 'i"htier and ,iser Princes sittin" in this Seat, yet yo1 never had nor shall have any that ,ill love yo1 !etter.E EL1een Eli&a!eth:s Speech to >er 4ast Parlia'ent,:: in 3rth1r 9inney, ed., Elizabethan ,ackgrounds .>a'den, Conn.: 3rchon Books, 19I50, ##5. +t ,o1ld see' that the only s1!6ects ,ho co1ld still !e receptive to the <1een:s erotic 'aternalis' ,ere "enerational conte'poraries. +n 5illia' Cecil:s last letter .71ly 1$, 159%0, the !edridden co1nselor ,rote to his son of the <1een:s recent solicit1de: E4et her Ma6esty 1nderstand ho, her sin"1lar kindness doth overco'e 'y po,er to ac<1it it ,ho, tho1"h she ,ill not !e a 'other, yet she sho,ed herself !y feedin" 'e, ,ith her o,n princely hand, as a caref1l n1rse. 3nd if + 'ay !e ,eaned to feed 'yself + shall !e 'ore ready to serve her on the earth.E L1oted in Conyers 8ead, 0ord ,urghle# and (ueen Elizabeth .Ae, Kork: 9nopf, 19F$0, 5G5. -he royal distance fro' se*1al and 'aternal roles is apparent, !1t so is the a!idin" po,er of those roles. Cecil:s ca1tion a!o1t the 'ode of feedin" <1ietly !etrays his o,n 1ndyin" hopes for Eli&a!eth:s 'aternality .Etho1"h

she ,ill not !e a 'otherE0 even as it reco"ni&es the need to !e ,eaned fro' s1ch inti'ate and 1ncons1''ated hopes !ack into a position of s1!ordination and service. GG. Stron", Cult of Elizabeth , 11/: E-he stren"th of the Eli&a!ethan i'a"e lay in its capacity to !e read and re?read 'any ,ays and never to present a sin"le o1tri"ht state'ent ,hich left no roo' for 'anoe1vre, as did its s1ccessors in the ne, style.E Montrose also notes that Eas vir"in, spo1se, and 'other, Eli&a!eth "athered 1nto herself all the Marian attri!1tes.E E:Eli&a,::: 15F. G5. EEli&a!eth:s self?'astery and 'astery of others ,ere enhanced !y . . . the s1!li'ation of her te'poral and ecclesiastical a1thority into a n1rt1rin" 'aternity.E Montrose, E:Shapin" (antasies,:E I9? %$. GF. ;eor"e Peele, -nglorum 'eriae , in The 0ife and )inor 3orks of +eorge %eele , ed. 2avid >. >orne, # vols. .Ae, >aven: Kale Univ. Press, 195/0, 1:/F5?I5, ll. ##/?##. GI. 8ale"h is "iven as the so1rce of this <1otation in the 2ictionar# of !ational ,iograph# , ed. 4eslie Stephen and Sidney 4ee, // vols. .Ae, Kork: Mac'illan, 19$%0, 5:%%1= hereafter cited as 2!, . G%. Montrose, E;ifts and 8easons: -he Conte*ts of Peele:s -ra#gnement of %aris ,E E0H GI .fall 19%$0: GG$. G9. -he co1rt incl1ded a very fe, other ,o'en, and Eli&a!eth insisted on veto po,er over all of her favorites: 'arria"es. Esse* circ1'vented this po,er ,hen he ,ed secretly in 159$, and he te'porarily fell fro' favor !eca1se of it= 8ale"h ,as i'prisoned in 195/ for his covert 'arria"e to Eli&a!eth -hrock'orton. 3nd, as Aeville 5illia's has said, E+f 'arria"e ,as !ein" entered !eca1se the lady ,as pre"nant the L1een:s te'per kne, no !o1nds.E 5illia's, -ll the (ueen1s )en: Elizabeth I and Her Courtiers .Ae, Kork: Mac'illan, 19I/0, /1. 5$. 4a,rence Stone descri!es these delayin" tactics as the Epolicy of 'asterly inactivity and politic te'pori&in" C,hichD ,as a !rilliant s1ccess insofar as it staved off the civil ,ars ,hich ,ere tearin" apart lar"e areas of conte'porary E1rope.E The Causes of the English Re.olution 4CJGA45HJ .Ae, Kork: >arper and 8o,, 19I/0, I%. 51. (or a 1sef1l introd1ction to so'e of the rec1rrin" the'es and tropes of the to1rna'ent and tilt perfor'ances, see (rances Kates, EEli&a!ethan Chivalry: -he 8o'ance of the 3ccession 2ay -ilts,E in -straea , %%?111. 5/. 8ichard McCoy has ar"1ed convincin"ly that the earl of Esse*:s spectac1lar chivalric self? presentations at L1een:s 2ay events ,ere threatenin"ly contentio1s. Esse*:s 1595 tilt device, an e*traordinarily self?a""randi&in" .and th1s self?cancelin"0 ar"1'ent for his o1tstandin" capacity for service, so 1pset Eli&a!eth that she ,alked o1t of the perfor'ance. See E:3 2an"ero1s +'a"e:: -he Earl of Esse* and Eli&a!ethan Chivalry,E 7ournal of )edie.al and Renaissance Studies 1# .fall 19%#0: #1#? /9. See also section +O, !elo,, for f1rther disc1ssion of Esse*:s 1595 tilt. 5#. >ector:s challen"e, 1nlike its antecedents in the -roy le"ends, is 1tterly s1perfl1o1s to the ,ar. 3t the !e"innin" of !ook I of the Iliad the "ods i'pel >ector to deliver an offer of sin"le co'!at to stop the !loodshed for one day. +n Ca*ton:s Recu#ell of the histories of Tro#e , ed. >. @skar So''er .4ondon, 1%9G0, F$#, >ector and 3chilles consent to sin"le co'!at to prevent any f1rther loss of life. -he chi.alric challen"e and defense of the lady are Shakespeare:s inventions, as 8o!ert 9. Presson notes in Shakespeare1s Troilus and Cressida and the 0egends of Tro# .Madison: Univ. of 5isconsin Press, 195#0, ##. 5G. See E. 9. Cha'!ers, Sir Henr# 0ee .@*ford: Clarendon Press, 19#F0. 55. Sara P. 5atson, E-he L1een:s Cha'pion,E 3estern Reser.e ,ulletin , n.s., #G .19#10: F5?%9.

5F. Eric Partrid"e does not cite these lines, !1t he does say that come s1""ested or"as' in Shakespeare:s day. >o,ever, he confir's 'y sense of the passa"e ,ith his definitions of lance and sunburnt. Shakespeare1s ,a d# .Ae, Kork: 21tton, 19F$0, 1#%, 19%. 5I. See Pa1l (1ssell, The +reat 3ar and )odern )emor# .@*ford: @*ford Univ. Press, 19I50, /I$? #$9. (or an insi"htf1l readin" of represented ho'ose*1ality in -roy, see 4inda Charnes, E:So Unsecret to @1rselves:: Aotorio1s +dentity and the Material S1!6ect in Shakespeare:s Troilus and Cressida,B Shakespeare (uarterl# G$ .19%90: G1#?G$. 5%. + o,e this point to M. M. B1rns:s fine analysis in E Troilus and Cressida : -he 5orst of Both 5orlds,E Shakespeare Studies 1# .19%$0: 1$5?#$. 59. Partrid"e, Shakespeare1s ,a d# , 19%. F$. -his point is 'ade !y Aeil Po,ell in E>ero and >1'an: -he Pro!le' of 3chilles,E Critical (uarterl# /1, no. / .s1''er 19I90: 1I?/%. F1. ;irard, EPolitics of 2esire,E 199. >e is referrin" here to >elen. F/. 3rth1r Percival 8ossiter first noticed this Eknavish device of a1ral a'!i"1ity.E -ngel ith Horns , ed. ;raha' Storey .4ondon: 4on"'ans, 19F10, 1##. Many co''entators have elo<1ently decried the fla"itio1s antife'inis' in the play. See 9atherine Stockholder, EPo,er and Pleas1re in Troilus and Cressida , or 8hetoric and Str1ct1re of the 3nti? -ra"ic,E College English #$, no. I .3pril 19F%0: 5#9?5G: E-roil1s and Pandar1s e<1ally en6oy the 'asc1line 6oke ,hich derives fro' the 1n?co1rtly tendency to treat ,o'en only as se* o!6ects. . . . C-Dheir !anter for's a kind of inverted 8estoration Co'edy= rather than 'ask tender feelin" ,ith ,orldly cynicis', it 1ses the tender co1rtly role to 'ask cynical detach'entE .5G10. See also ;rant Ooth and @liver Evans, ECressida and the 5orld of the Play,E Shakespeare Studies % .19I50: /#/?#9. F#. ;irard see's several ti'es on the ver"e of ackno,led"in" the ho'oerotic as a central ele'ent if not a "oal of the proceedin"s: E-roil1s needs the ad'irin" look of other 'en. . . . +t al,ays takes other 'en to 'ake an erotic or a 'ilitary con<1est tr1ly val1a!le in the eyes of the con<1eror hi'self.E EPolitics of 2esire,E 19#. B1t he serio1sly 1nderesti'ates the potent ho'oerotic nat1re of 6ealo1sy in this te*t. FG. Eve 9osofsky Sed",ick, ,et een )en: English 0iterature and )ale Homosocial 2esire .Ae, Kork: Col1'!ia Univ. Press, 19%50, /$. See also Sed"? ,ick:s criticis' of ;irard:s 'i'etic desire 'odel as ins1fficiently acco1ntin" for "ender differences in its acco1nt of trian"1lation ./1?/50. F5. (or the ho'osocial fra'e aro1nd heterose*1al relations, see ;ayle 81!in, E-he -raffic in 5o'en: Aotes -o,ard a Political Econo'y of Se*,E in 8ayna 8eiter, ed., To ard an -nthropolog# of 3omen .Ae, Kork: Monthly 8evie, Press, 19I50, 5I?/1$. FF. See Si"'1nd (re1d, E@n Aarcissis': 3n +ntrod1ction,E in The Standard Edition of the Complete %s#chological 3orks of Sigmund 'reud , ed. and trans. 7a'es Strachey, /G vols. .4ondon: >o"arth, 195I0, 1G:I#?.1$/. (re1d allo,s for a Enor'alE narcissis' that is not a perversion !1t rather Ethe li!idinal co'ple'ent to . . . the instinct of self?preservationE .#10. Else,here he e'phasi&es the ho'oerotic character of the disorder .if in fact it is a disorder0. 2enis de 8o1"e'ont e*plicates the entire co1rtly ro'antic ethos as a transfor'ation of self?love, altho1"h ,itho1t the ho'oerotic overtones: E-he passion of love is at !otto' narcissis', the lover:s self?'a"nification, far 'ore than it is a relation ,ith the !eloved. . . . Passion re<1ires that the self shall !eco'e "reater than all thin"s.E

0o.e in the 3estern 3orld .Ae, Kork: >arper Colophon, 19F10, /F$. FI. L1oted in 7. E. Aeale, (ueen Elizabeth I .Ae, Kork: 2o1!leday, 3nchor, 195I0, ##G. F%. Sir 7ohn Markha' noted sharply that Esse* ,as "oin" to +reland not Eto serve the L1eenes real'e, !1t to h1'o1r his o,n reven"eE a"ainst Mo1nt6oy, another co1rt rival. >arin"ton, !ugae -nti;uae , 1:/G1. Esse* did not "o to +reland ,itho1t hesitation= he kne, the stron" possi!ility of fail1re there. 3!o1t his +rish ca'pai"n, see Cad,allader, ECareer of the Earl of Esse*,E #G?5I= and >arrison, 2e.ereu" .s1pra, n. //0, /11?GI. F9. L1oted in Birch, )emoirs , G15. I$. L1oted in >arin"ton, !ugae -nti;uae , 1:#5F= italics in ori"inal. >arin"ton:s letters and re'e'!rances repeatedly record the t1r'oil that Esse*:s +rish e*c1rsion ,ro1"ht in the <1een. See !ugae -nti;uae , esp. 1:1I%?%$= #$#= #1#?1G= #1I?19= #//. I1. McCoy, E:2an"ero1s +'a"e,:E #1F. I/. 7ohn Speed, Histor# of +reat ,ritain .4ondon, 1F110, 119$= cited in Pal'er, ed., Troilus and Cressida , 1G/. I#. L1oted in 7a'es E. Sava"e, E Troilus and Cressida and Eli&a!ethan Co1rt (actions,E &ni.. of )ississippi Studies in English 5 .19FG0: 5$. See also 2!, , 5:%II, and -ho'as Conin"s!y, 7ournal of the Siege of Rouen , ed. 7ohn ;o1"h Aichols .4ondon: Ca'den Society, 1%GI0. IG. (or the Phila1tia tilt speeches, see 7a'es Speddin", The 0ife and 0etters of 'rancis ,acon , 15 vols. .4ondon, 1%F10, 1:#F9?91. I5. 8o,land 5hite to 8o!ert Sidney, Aov. //, 1595, <1oted in 7ohn Aichols, %rogresses and %ublic %rocessions of (ueen Elizabeth , # vols. .4ondon, 1%/#0, #:#I1. See McCoy, E:2an"ero1s +'a"e,:E #/#= Stron", Cult of Elizabeth , 1G1. IF. Aote, for instance, the 'any readers ,ho have seen Esse* in 3chilles .as ,ell as a host of other Eli&a!ethan parallels in the play0, in the $ariorum edition of Troilus and Cressida , ed. >arold A. >ille!rand .Philadelphia: 4ippincott, 195#0, #I5?%/. See also >arrison, 2e.ereu" , #GI: E8eflections of the an*ieties and disill1sions of these years can !e seen in 'any conte'porary !ooks and plays. Ao one, for instance, at the ti'e co1ld have failed to notice the strikin" parallels !et,een Esse*:s story and '1ch of Shakespeare:s Troilus and Cressida .E -he 'ost 61dicio1s and perceptive treat'ent in the EoldE historicist 'ode is C. (. -1cker Brooke:s se'inal article, EShakespeare:s St1dy in C1lt1re and 3narchy,E :ale Re.ie , n.s., 1I, no. # .3pril 19/%0: 5I1?II. (or another consideration of the place of Esse* in the play, see E. 3. 7. >oni"'ann, )#riadminded Shakespeare .Ae, Kork: St. Martin:s, 19%90, 11/?/9. II. Sava"e, E Troilus and Cressida ,E 5$. + a' '1ch in de!t to this s1""estive article, altho1"h + do not share its vie, of a sin"le reflective 'anifestation of Esse* or its tendency to alle"ori&e the play in strict correspondences: E+f >ector reflects Esse*, then -roil1s reflects So1tha'ptonE .510. I%. 2e Maisse ,rites, E-he L1een is p1t in fear of hi', and they tell her that he ,ishes to !e al,ays in ar's.E 7ournal , 1I. I9. Esse* to the 4ords of the Privy Co1ncil, 1599, <1oted in 4acey Bald,in S'ith, Treason in Tudor England: %olitics and %aranoia .4ondon: 7onathan Cape, 19%F0, /#1. %$. >o,ard, E-he Ae, >istoricis' in 8enaissance St1dies,E /5.

%1. (rancis >enry Cripps?2ay, Histor# of the Tournament .4ondon, 191%= rpt. Ae, Kork: 3MS Press, 19%/0, 1/5. See also 7ohan >1i&in"a, The 3aning of the )iddle -ges , #d ed. .4ondon: Ed,ard 3rnold, 19#I0, I/: E-he no!les like to thro, a veil of 'ystery and 'elancholy over the proced1re. -he kni"ht sho1ld !e 1nkno,n. >e is called :le !lanc chevalier,: :le chevalier 'esconn1.:E %/. Stron", Cult of Elizabeth , 1G1. %#. E+t is the En"lish 1sa"e for e'inent lords or kni"hts at their decease to !e<1eath and leave al'ost the !est of their clothes to their servin" 'en, ,hich it is 1nsee'ly for the latter to ,ear, so that they offer the' then for sale for a s'all s1' to the actors.E -ho'as Platter .15990, <1oted in 3ndre, ;1rr, The Shakespearean Stage , 15IG?1FG/, /d ed. .Ca'!rid"e: Ca'!rid"e Univ. Press, 19%$0, 1I%. %G. -he fine phrase is Montrose:s, ,hich he 1ses in reference to L1een Eli&a!eth: Eher pervasive c1lt1ral presence ,as a condition of the play:s i'a"inative possi!ility.E E:Shapin" (antasies,:E F/. %5. (or another treat'ent of si'ilar co1rt dyna'ics, incl1din" the relationship of Machiavellian politickin" to chivalry and Eresid1al 'ale discontentE a!o1t fe'ale po,er, see Peter Erickson, E-he @rder of the ;arter, the C1lt of Eli&a!eth, and Class?;ender -ension in The )err# 3i.es of 3indsor ,E in 7ean E. >o,ard and Marion (. @:Connor, eds., Shakespeare Reproduced: The Te"t in Histor# and Ideolog# .Ae, Kork and 4ondon: Meth1en, 19%I0, 11F?G$. %F. See 7a'es McMana,ay, EEli&a!eth, Esse*, and 7a'es,E in Elizabethan and 7acobean Studies %resented to '. %. 3ilson .@*ford: Clarendon Press, 19590, /19?#$. -his article is a cr1cial reso1rce for infor'ation a!o1t politics at the end of Eli&a!eth:s rei"n= + e'ploy it f1rther in chapter #. %I. Cressida is a!andoned not only !y -roil1s !1t, 'ore s1rprisin"ly, !y Shakespeare: !y the end of the play she !eco'es 1nkno,n, 1nkno,a!le, her last ,ords a letter ,e never hear !eca1se -roil1s destroys it .Eno 'atter fro' the heart,E he pres1'es for 1s C5.#.1$%D0. -he play,ri"ht th1s conspires to a!scond ,ith the captive Cressida:s selfhood. +t is the soldier:s 'ode to deny the ,o'an her 'otivational di'ensions and sy'pathetic clai's= !1t in Troilus and Cressida it is 1lti'ately the a1thorial 'ode to do so as ,ell. @n this point, see 7anet 3del'an, E:-his is and is not Cressid:: -he Characteri&ation of Cressida,E in The L)Mother Tongue: Essa#s in 'eminist %s#choanal#tic Interpretation , ed. Shirley Aelson ;arner et al. .+thaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 19%50, 119?G1. %%. 4ike 'ost assertions a!o1t individ1al characters in this perple*in" dra'a, this one '1st !e <1alified: 2io'edes later adopts the chivalric style. @n the ,idespread characterolo"ical inconstancy in the play, see Colie .s1pra, n. /%0. %9. (or a fine readin" of the fiss1res in Eli&a!ethan ideolo"y e*posed !y one lon"?standin" pro!le', the +rish ,ars, and the Shakespearean representation of those "aps, see 2olli'ore and Sinfield, E>istory and +deolo"yE: E-he play offers a displaced, i'a"inary resol1tion of one of the state:s 'ost intracta!le pro!le'sE .//50. By the ti'e of Troilus and Cressida , no resol1tion, i'a"inary or other,ise, see'ed possi!le. 9$. E+t is . . . the atte'pt of ideolo"ies to render other,ise inco'prehensi!le social str1ct1res 'eanin"f1l, to so constr1e the' as to 'ake it possi!le to act p1rposef1lly ,ithin the', that acco1nts !oth for the ideolo"ies: hi"hly fi"1rative nat1re and for the intensity ,ith ,hich, once accepted, they are held.E Clifford ;eert&, E+deolo"y as a C1lt1ral Syste',E in The Interpretation of Cultures .Ae, Kork: Basic Books, 19I#0, //$.

T)$, .$r* an* Plag+e in the Sec$n* /+art$ 1amlet

1. Most of 'y infor'ation a!o1t the !e"innin" and pro"ress of the pla"1e of 1F$# is dra,n directly

fro' an indispensa!le reference on the s1!6ect: (. P. 5ilson, The %lague in Shakespeare1s 0ondon .@*ford: Clarendon Press, 19/I0= hereafter cited in te*t and notes as 5ilson, %lague . See %5?11# for the pla"1e of 1F$#. See also the Calendar of State %apers, $enetian , 159/?1F$#, 5/I .hereafter cited as CS%$ 0, and Calendar of State %apers, 2omestic 4564A456K , #$1. /. Pa1l 3. Slack, EMortality and Epide'ic Crisis, 1G%5?1F1$,E in Charles 5e!ster, ed., Health, )edicine, and )ortalit# in the Si"teenth Centur# .Ca'!rid"e: Ca'!rid"e Univ. Press, 19I90, //. Slack notes that the pla"1e of 1F$# ca1sed a /$ percent depop1lation of 4ondon. Pla"1e ,as ende'ic in En"land for so lon" after the first horri!le -1dor o1t!reak of 15F# that ,e cannot say the conditions had act1ally "ro,n 'ore favora!le. +t had !een possi!le for the Oenetian a'!assador to say in 15G5 that the En"lish Ehave so'e little pla"1e . . . ,ell ni"h every year, for ,hich they are not acc1sto'ed to 'ake sanitary provisions, as it does not 1s1ally 'ake "reat pro"ress.E L1oted in C. Crei"hton, - Histor# of Epidemics in ,ritain , / vols. .Ca'!rid"e: Ca'!rid"e Univ. Press, 1%910, 1:#1/. -he a'!assador reveals the econo'ic !ias of this indifference: Ethe cases for the 'ost part occ1r a'on"st the lo,er classes, as if their dissol1te 'ode of life i'paired their constit1tions.E B1t that ,as !efore the "reat o1t!reak of 15F#, ,hich took 1p,ards of thirty tho1sand lives. #. L1oted in 7ohn Aichols, ed., The %rogresses and %ublic %rocessions of <ing 7ames the 'irst , 5 vols. .4ondon, 1%/%= rpt. Ae, Kork: 9ra1s 8eprint, 19%$0, 1:19$= hereafter cited in te*t and notes as Aichols, %rogresses . + have 'oderni&ed the spellin" in <1otations fro' this te*t. G. 5illia' Ca'den, -nnals of the Reign of (ueen Elizabeth , <1oted in Aichols, %rogresses , 1://% n. 1. -hose n1'!ers, 'odern scholars !elieve, are lo,. 3s 5ilson notes, a fi"1re that incl1ded the li!erties and o1tparishes '1st have !een considera!ly hi"her. See 5ilson, %lague , 9#?9G, and Pa1l Slack:s cr1cial st1dy, The Impact of %lague in Tudor and Stuart England .4ondon: 8o1tled"e, 19%50, 1GG?I/. 5. See E. 9. Cha'!ers, The Elizabethan Stage , G vols. .@*ford: Clarendon Press, 19/#0, G:#G9?5$, for the theater closin"s of 1F$#?G. F. See Pa1l 5erstine: E-he -e*t1al Mystery of Hamlet,B Shakespeare (uarterl# #9, no. 1 .sprin" 19%%0: 1?/F. 5erstine s1''arily i"nores L1 in his acco1nt of E'ystery,E !1t he does 1sef1lly sho, that alternative te*ts are not 'erely versions of a sin"le ,ork !1t, rather, de'onstra!ly and radically different ,orks. I. Eric Sa's c1nnin"ly tracks the te*t1al controversy over revision, 'e'orial reconstr1ction, and ori"in ,hile levelin" devastatin" criticis' at those editors ,ho re6ect the first <1arto o1t of hand. E-a!oo or Aot -a!ooJ -he -e*t, 2atin", and 31thorship of Hamlet , 15%9?1F/#,E Hamlet Studies 1$ .s1''er ,inter 19%%0: 1/?GF. 3nother revie, of the possi!ilities of date and te*t1al "enesis, ,hich e*a'ines recent editorial choices, is Mac2. P. 7ackson, EEditin" Hamlet in the 19%$:s: -e*t1al -heories and -e*t1al Practices,E Hamlet Studies 11 .s1''er ,inter 19%90: F$?I/. 7ackson, ,ho does not refer to Sa's, cas1ally repeats in a footnote the notion that L1 '1st represent a later state of Hamlet than does L/ !eca1se Eit perpet1ates so 'any of (:s 'odifications to L/E .FI n. #0. >e does not, 1nfort1nately, say ,hat these 'odifications are, nor does he 'ention, as Sa's tells 1s, that there are E1II L1 a"ree'ents ,ith L/ a"ainst ( and 1I# ,ith ( a"ainst L/E .E-a!oo or Aot -a!ooJ:: /%0. %. + sh1t the folio Hamlet o1t of consideration here !eca1se of its contradictory and perple*in" historical si"nals. @!vio1sly, it cannot sensi!ly !e e*trapolated fro' or interpolated into the conte*ts of its p1!lication in 1F/#. 5e 'i"ht ar"1e on a'!i"1o1s evidence that ( represents an earlier or later 'an1script than either L/ or L1, !1t s1ch spec1lations, ,hile often interestin" for their ideas a!o1t theatrical and te*t1al revision, tend to !e historically occl1ded. -he folio is a theatrically s1perior

version, and + do not think it sho1ld !e i"nored as a copy te*t or a!andoned for analysis 61st !eca1se its p1!lication history o!sc1res its relation to conte'porary conte*ts. B1t contentions a!o1t (:s or L/:s pro!a!le co'position date that depend on the passa"es a!sent fro' one or the other te*t al,ays strain to provide notorio1sly el1sive a1thorial or theatrical rationale for the discrepancies. -here are flies in every oint'ent of te*t1al datin". (or e*a'ples of these pro!le's, see 7oseph 4oe,enstein, EPlays 3"ohistic and Co'petitive: -he -e*t1al 3pproach to Elsinore,E Renaissance 2rama , n.s., 19 .19%%0: /G5?FF= and 2avid 5ard, E-he 9in" in Hamlet,B Shakespeare (uarterl# G#, no. # .fall 199/0: /%$?#$/. 5ard:s ar"1'ent rese'!les 'ine in re"ardin" the second <1arto:s relevant referential fra'e as 7aco!ean, !1t o1r vie,s of the 1nderlyin" relation of the te*t to its histories diver"e ,idely. 3 later version of Hamlet than 'ost scholars have so far entertained, and one related to the presence of pla"1e, is posited !y 5ille' Schrick*, E-he 2ate of 2ekker:s The )eeting of +allants and the Printin" of Hamlet,B Hamlet Studies 5 .s1''er ,inter 19%#0: %/?%F. +t 'ay see' perverse to i"nore ( in favor of a co'parison !et,een the E!adE first <1arto and the E"oodE <1arto. >o,ever, recent reval1ations of L1 have helped reha!ilitate its tarnished rep1tation. See Stephen Urko,it&, E;ood Ae,s a!o1t :Bad: L1artos,E in Ma1rice Charney, ed., B,adB Shakespeare: Ree.aluations of the Shakespeare Canon .Cran!1ry, A.7.: 3ssociated University Presses, 19%90, 1%9? /$F= and for an ar"1'ent a"ainst i"norin" the a1tono'y of separate te*ts, see Urko,it&, :::5ell?sayd olde Mole:: B1ryin" -hree Hamlets in Modern Editions,E in ;eor"ianna Vie"ler, ed., Shakespeare Stud# Toda# .Ae, Kork: 3MS Press, 19%F0, #I?I$. Un<1estiona!ly, L1 has its pro!le's as a Shakespearean artifact= it contains !le'ishes and lac1nae that s1""est its stat1s as a draft copy and perhaps its hasty asse'!ly. B1t the edition has a 1ni<1e clai' on o1r attention: ,hatever its so1rce or <1ality, it is the first printed Hamlet to ,hich Shakespeare:s na'e is attached. 5e do not need to deter'ine the a1thority or validity of the te*t to see that, even if it is a poorly recalled reconstr1ction of a perfor'ance !ased on the second <1arto, its representation of that perfor'ance contri!1tes si"nificantly to an historical vie, of ,hat E Hamlet E 'eant in 1F$#. 9. Caroline Sp1r"eon sho,s that Shakespeare:s disease i'a"ery peaks conspic1o1sly in Hamlet. Shakespeare1s Imager# and 3hat It Tells &s .Ae, Kork: Mac'illan, 19#50. +n chart I .appendi*0, Sp1r"eon tallies t,enty disease i'a"es for the play. (or ar"1'ents a!o1t the date of the play, see the 3rden edition, ed. >arold 7enkins .4ondon: Meth1en, 19%/0, 1?1#. 1$. 5e do not need to posit that the o1t!reak prod1ced the i'a"ery of the second <1arto te*t, of co1rse= the the'atics of disease in the play dra, fro' a variety of so1rces, incl1din" 'edical disco1rse, political 'etaphor, and theolo"ical s1spicion. (ro' 1F$# to 1F$9, 4ondon re'ained al'ost constantly 1nder attack fro' !1!onic pla"1e, and the years 1F/$ and 1F11 had several pla"1e?ridden 'onths. 7. 4eeds Barroll has noted that the period !et,een 1F$# and 1F11 held Every fe, possi!ilities for p1!lic perfor'ance of the plays at . . . the ;lo!eE !eca1se Ein these nine years, there ,ere availa!le to Shakespeare not 'ore than t,enty?ei"ht 'onths . . . of p1!lic perfor'anceE !eca1se of the ende'ic pla"1e and the conse<1ent theater closin"s. Barroll, EShakespeare and the Pla"1e,E in 5endell M. 3ycock, ed., Shakespeare1s -rt from a Comparati.e %erspecti.e: %roceedings of the Comparati.e 0iterature S#mposium , vol. 1/ .41!!ock: -e*as -ech Univ. Press, 19%10, /F. +ncl1din" the pla"1e years 159/?9G, then, a!o1t ei"ht years of Shakespeare:s t,enty?three?year career ,ere interr1pted !y the epide'ic. (or a f1ller treat'ent of the chronolo"y and theatrical history of the disease, see Barroll, %olitics, %lague, and Shakespeare1s Theater: The Stuart :ears .+thaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 19910, a fine acco1nt of the sociolo"ical and practical effects of the first 7aco!ean pla"1e. 11. + have 1sed the collotype facsi'ile edition of !oth the first and the second

<1artos, p1!lished for the Shakespeare 3ssociation .4ondon: Sid",ick and 7ackson, 19G$0, nos. I and G, respectively. + have 'oderni&ed o!solete typo"raphical conventions. Spellin" and p1nct1ation have !een retained, e*cept ,here other,ise noted in !rackets. Beca1se the facsi'ile te*t is 1nlineated, <1otations fro' this edition are cited parenthetically !y si"nat1re leaf, ,ith the verso pa"e indicated !y Ev.E 1/. 2erek 3. -raversi, -n -pproach to Shakespeare , /d ed. .Ae, Kork: 2o1!leday, 195F0, 9G. Many co''entators have e'phasi&ed Hamlet :s "eneral dependence on ideas of disease= + a' inde!ted to, a'on" others, 8o!ert ;r1din, )ight# *pposites: Shakespeare and Renaissance Contrariet# .Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 19I90, and Maynard Mack, E-he 5orld of >a'let,E :ale Re.ie G1 .195/0: 5$/?/#. ;r1din notes that Hamlet treats h1'an passions Eas !ase, 1n,holeso'e thin"s ,hich rese'!le diseasesE .1//0. -his re'ark even 1nderstates the case a !it: passions, actions, ,ords, and indeed all h1'an practices in the play are diseases in that they corr1pt or 1ndo a s1pposedly pristine prior condition and in that they are irresisti!le to other persons. Mack like,ise sees that for >a'let, the Echaracter of the ,orld:: co'prises a Edeep conscio1sness of infectionE that inevita!ly s1llies the hero .51%0. +n E5hy >a'let 2ies,E 7oseph 7. 8o'' co''ents on the conta"ion i'a"ery in the play and concl1des that the disease ,ith ,hich >a'let is infected is the same as the ;host:s sickness: E>as not the ;host infected >a'let ,ith >ell:s conta"ionBhis all?cons1'in" desire for reven"e, ,hich leads >a'let to co''it fo1l '1rdersJE Hamlet Studies 1$ .s1''er ,inter 19%%0: %/. + disc1ss the si'ilarity of the infections !elo,, !1t s1ffice it for no, to say that the ;host:s desire for reven"e is not the only ail'ent that >a'let contracts. (or an e*e'plary readin" of the te*t1al and theatrical presence of death in the play, see Mar"aret (er"1son, E4etters and Spirits in Hamlet ,E in Patricia Parker and ;eoffrey >art'an, eds., Shakespeare and the (uestion of Theor# .Ae, Kork: Meth1en, 19%50, /9/?#$9. 1#. +n an early pla"1e tract, for instance, ;il!ert Skene ,rites of the Ecorr1pt ven1'E that Eocc1peis the hartE in a pla"1e patient. -ho'as 4od"e, in 1F$#, sees the pla"1e car!1ncle as a cr1ci!le f1ll of Econta"io1s and pestilent veni'e . . . infected !y the e1il <1ality of the aire, ,hich 'aketh s1ch p1st1les o1er and a!o1e their nat1rall 'alitio1snesse 'ore 'ali"ne, dan"ero1s, P deadly.E +n The 3onderfull :eare 456K -ho'as 2ekker addressesB,ith overtones s1""estive for Hamlet BEthe "hosts of those 'ore .!y 'any0 than G$$$$. that ,ith the vir1lent poison of infection ha1e !een dri1en o1t of yo1r earthlie d,ellin".E 4ater, in 3orke for -rmorours .1F$90, 2ekker descri!es the e'otional effect of the disease on 4ondoners: E-he poyson of the 4in"erin" infection, strikes so deepe into all 'ens harts, that their cheekes .like co,ardly So1ldiers0 ha1e lost their colo1rs.E 5ritin" also in the pla"1e year 1F$9, 7ohn 2avies of >ereford i'a"ines E-h:3l'i"hties handE !reakin" a vial of poison, and Ea pla"1e o1t?flees -hat "l1ts the 3ire ,ith Oapors vene'o1s, -hat p1trifie, infect, and flesh confo1nd, 3nd 'akes Earthes !reath 'ost conta"io1s, -hat in the Earth and 3ire !1t 2eath is fo1ndQE ;il!ert Skene, -ne ,re.e 2escriptio.n of the %est .Edin!1r"h, 15F%= rpt. 3'sterda': -heatr1' @r!is -errar1', 19I1 CS-C //F/F.5D0, 3Iv= -ho'as 4od"e, - Treatise of the %lague .4ondon, 1F$#= rpt. 3'sterda' and Aor,ood, A.7.: -heatr1' @r!is -errar1', 19I9 CS-C 1FFIFD0, 7G= -ho'as 2ekker, The 3onderfull :eare 456K , in The %lague %amphlets of Thomas 2ekker , ed. (.P. 5ilson .@*ford: Clarendon Press, 19/50, /F .hereafter cited as 2ekker, %lague %amphlets 0= 2ekker, 3orke for -rmorours , in The !onA 2ramatic 3orks of Thomas 2ekker , ed. 3le*ander B. ;rosart, 5 vols. .Ae, Kork: 81ssell and 81ssell, 19F#0, G:95= 7ohn 2avies, E-he -ri1'ph of 2eath, or -he Pict1re of the Pla"1e: 3ccordin" to the 4ife, as it ,as in -nno 2omini 1F$#,E in The Complete 3orks of 7ohn 2a.ies of Hereford , ed. 3le*ander B. ;rosart, / vols. .Ae, Kork: 3MS Press, 19FI0, 1:G/. + have 1sed these so1rces for their chronolo"ical ran"e, !1t ,ith the e*ception of 2ekker, ,hose

concerns are 'ore !roadly literary than 'edical, there is not '1ch diversity to !e fo1nd in the conte'porary approach to or theory a!o1t the disease. -he fact that a1thority rather than ori"inality ,as, in the 8enaissance, still the !est sellin" point for a 'edical treatise 'ay help e*plain the contin1ity in the conception of the epide'ic. 1G. Stephen Brad,ell, %h#sick 'or the Sicknesse, Commonl# Called The %lague .4ondon, 1F#F= rpt. 3'sterda', -heatr1' @r!is -errar1', 19II CS-C #5#FD0, #= hereafter cited in te*t as Brad,ell, %h#sick . 15. >arold ;oddard ,as the first to e'phasi&e the parallel !et,een the ;host:s speech and 9in" >a'let:s death as t,o versions of a1ral poisonin". ;oddard plays 'any variations on the the'e, especially stressin" Poloni1s:s vir1lent speech acts thro1"ho1t= >a'let:s o,n ver!al veno', ho,ever, receives less attention. See The )eaning of Shakespeare , / vols. .Chica"o: Univ. of Chica"o Press, 195#0, 1:##1?%F. @ne of the !est early co''entaries on >a'let:s infective potential, central to ;oddard:s ,ork and 'y o,n, is ;. 5ilson 9ni"ht:s classic readin" E-he E'!assy of 2eath: 3n Essay on Hamlet ,E in The 3heel of 'ire: Interpretations of Shakespearean Traged# , 5th ed. .Ae, Kork: Meridian Books, 195I0, 1I?GF. (or later co''entaries that treat the a1ditory the'e, see -erence >a,kes, That Shakespeherian Rag: Essa#s on a Critical %rocess .4ondon and Ae, Kork: Meth1en, 19%F0, 9/?119= Malcol' Evans, Signif#ing !othing: Truth1s True Contents in Shakespeare1s Te"t .3thens: Univ. of ;eor"ia Press, 19%F0= 7a'es Calder,ood, To ,e and !ot To ,e: !egation and )etadrama in Shakespeare1s BHamletB .Ae, Kork: Col1'!ia Univ. Press, 19%#0, esp. FI?I/, /$G n.1/. 1F. -he "eneral pattern has !een sketched insi"htf1lly !y 4ee Sheridan Co*, ,ho also reads the con61nction of poison, pla"1e, and lan"1a"e as central to the .second?<1arto !ased0 te*t: -hat talk can take on the property of poison is a"ain i'plied !y the 1se of for's of the ,ord blast to descri!e !oth. . . . -here is si'ply no do1!t that the speech ear fi"1res repeatedly say that as he!enon E!lastedE the ,holeso'e !lood, so speech 'ay conta'inate, that as poison !ro1"ht on a Elepero1sE death, so ,ords 'ay infect and destroy. . . . -he 'ove'ent of the pattern . . . leads to the possi!ility that. . . the ori"inal 'ethod and 'eans of '1rder infor's an ironic !1t lo"ical process ,herein a poisoned 'an:s speech !eco'es a potential poison and a victi' a latent poisoner. Co*, 'igurati.e 2esign in Hamlet: The Significance of the 2umb Sho .@hio: @hio State Univ. Press, 19I#0, G1?G#. Co* points to a pattern of Echain reac? tionE ,here!y Ethe pestilential nat1re of evilE .G#0 t1rns all listeners into victi's and those victi's into f1t1re potential infectors. -his cr1cial sche'atic has e*planatory force for '1ch of the play. B1t the po,er of lan"1a"e in the second <1arto, its startlin" 'aterial effect, e*tends even f1rther than Co* i'plies. >is fine ,ork, ,hich ,as called to 'y attention after this chapter ,as co'plete, anticipates 'any of 'y o!servations here= and altho1"h Co* does not historici&e his insi"hts, his close readin" of disease in the play confir's so'e of 'y concl1sions. 1I. The Complete Essa#s of )ontaigne , trans. 2onald M. (ra'e .Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 195%0, IG?I5. 1%. ;iralo'o (racastoro, 2e Contagione et Contagiosis )orbis et Eorum Curatione , trans. 5il'er Cave 5ri"ht .Ae, Kork: P1tna':s, 19#$0= hereafter cited in te*t and notes as (racastor, Contagion . 19. 8enN ;irard, E-he Pla"1e in 4iterat1re and Myth,E in E To 2ouble ,usiness ,oundB: Essa#s on )#th and 0iterature .Balti'ore: 7ohns >opkins Univ. Press, 19I%0, 1#F. (or ;irard, the act1al or referential presence of epide'ics in i'a"inative te*ts si"nals or all1des to a social 1pheaval that can !e resolved only thro1"h the c1lt1re:s deploy'ent of the scape"oat 'echanis'. +n other ,ords, cycles of reciprocal violence, 'etaphori&ed !y the 1ndifferentiation of pla"1e effects, can !e !roken only !y the ar!itrary selection .caref1lly rationali&ed thro1"h plot dyna'ics and internal lo"ic0 of a sacrificial

victi'. My interest in Hamlet1s operative and "enerally s1!te*t1al pla"1eBthat is, there is no act1al ph#sical epide'icBhas !een sparked in 'any ,ays !y ;irard:s ,ork, !1t it leans a,ay fro' the sociolo"ical and 'ytho"raphic aspect of sickness to,ard the play:s aesthetic inscriptions of its interco1rse ,ith history. /$. -he ;host evokes an e*tensive, a'!i"1o1s lan"1a"e of similarit# that is ins1fficiently differentiated .and differentia!le0 fro' the disco1rse of identit# . 5hen, for e*a'ple, >oratio tells >a'let that he sa, a "host, he calls it Ethe 9in" yo1r fatherE= clai'in" that the specter is the dead kin", he says E+ kne,e yo1r father, -hese hands are not 'ore likeE .C/?C/v0. Aot 'ore like each other than the ;host is like the 9in" .i.e., reverse or 'irror i'a"es0J @r not 'ore like themsel.es than the ;host is like the elder >a'letJ +n one case the iss1e is a likeness fi"1red parado*ically in a left?ri"ht reversal= in the other, the iss1e is identity. 5e can also see the openin" crises of self?na'in" and identification in these ter's .E ,ar . Say, ,hat is Horatio thereJ Hor . 3 peece of hi'.E0 as lin"1istic and ontolo"ical pro!le's "enerated !y the e*perience of the ;host, a fi"1re that traditionally p1ts s1ch <1estions front and center. + thank ;ena 9. >ooper for her insi"hts a!o1t these iss1es. /1. @phelia is .at least0 t,ice victi' of horrific a1ral conta'ination. Early in the play, Poloni1s darkens @phelia:s 'ental landscape ,ith .self?revelatory0 ,arnin"s a!o1t >a'let:s pro!a!le !ad intents: E+ doe kno,e 5hen the !lood !1rnes, ho, prodi"all the so1le 4ends the ton"1e vo,esE .CGv0, he infor's her. -hese loveless ,ords literally chan"e her 'ind. She is 'ade s1scepti!le to infectionBthe rational dis61nctions of the sort that >a'let later o!scenely co''1nicates d1rin" The )urder of +onzago B thro1"h the father:s 'etalan"1a"e. E*plicit reference to the conta"io1s or to*ic effects of lan"1a"e is not 1n1s1al in the Shakespeare canon. +a"o tells 1s of his plans to r1in @thello: E+:ll po1r this pestilence in his earE . *thello , /.#.#5F0= and 4ady Mac!eth says so'ethin" si'ilar ,hen she ponders ho, her h1s!and lacks the EillnessE that sho1ld attend a'!ition, to re'edy ,hich, E+ 'ay po1r 'y spirits in thine earE .1.G.19?/$, /F0. .8eferences to Shakespeare:s plays other than Hamlet ,ill !e to the versions in The Ri.erside Shakespeare , ed. ;. Blake'ore Evans CBoston: >o1"hton Mifflin, 19IGD.0 +a"o:s plan ali"ns se*1ality ,ith episte'olo"ical do1!t, the assertion that 2esde'ona is tryin" to reinstate Cassio as lie1tenant Efor her !ody:s l1st.E +a"o:s ver!al poison is a fi"1rative pestilence that spreads ,ithin the Moor:s i'a"ination, see'in"ly of its o,n accord, conta'inatin" ,hat ,as s1scepti!le !1t less corr1pt. >is de'olition of @thello, ,ro1"ht al'ost entirely in lan"1a"e .E+t is not ,ords that shakes 'e th1s,E @thello incorrectly notes0, indicates the e*tent to ,hich Shakespeare 1nderstands co''1nicative acts as capa!le of h1"e destr1ction. //. -ho'as 4od"e also descri!ed the pla"1e as an i'pair'ent of character: Ean e1il, 'ali"nant, vene'o1s, or vitio1s disposition . . . 'ay !e i'parted and !esto,ed on an other !y to1ch.E 4od"e, Treatise of the %lague .1F$#0, B#. /#. / Henr# I$ .5.1.I5?II0. -his clever social dia"nosis spins off of a vis1al rather than a ver!al spool of imitatio = (alstaff:s ass1'ption that diseases are spread spec1larly is replaced !y Hamlet :s kno,led"e that the trans'ission is al,ays a1ditory. /G. ESe'inar1'E is (racastor:s ter'. +n his re'arka!le, see'in"ly clairvoyant treatise on infection, he anticipates !y several cent1ries the 'odern discovery of !acterial and viral vectors of epide'ic disease. /5. 4aertes 'ay !e citin" a received Polonian ,isdo' a!o1t the dan"ers of pla"1e= Brad,ell . %h#sick , 90 sees as partic1larly s1scepti!le to infection 3omen , especially omen ith childe = for their !odies are f1ll of e*cre'entitio1s h1'ors, and '1ch

heat ,ithall. . . . 3lso $irgins that are ripe for 'arria"e, are apt to receive infection, and !ein" once stricken, seldo'e or never escape ,itho1t "reat 'eanes. Aote that the s1scepti!ility of pre"nant ,o'en calls for an e*planation alon" the lines of h1'or theory, !1t that of vir"ins does not= the <1arantine aro1nd e*pectant 'others re<1ires 61stification, !1t the already present 'ental and 'oral <1arantine aro1nd 'aids needs no ideolo"ical reinforce'ent. /F. Cla1di1s, like the ;host, co''its an a1ral assa1lt ,hich is also fi"1ratively a se*1al assa1lt, a po1rin" of fl1id into an 1n"1arded receptacle. -he incest1o1s ho'oeroticis' of the attack co'plicates the horror ,ith ,hich the ;host reacts to its o,n story. Cla1di1s:s desi"nation as Ethat incest1o1s . . . !eastE 'ay refer !oth to his affair ,ith ;ertr1de and to his rapine '1rder of the kin" his !rother. /I. Marina 5arner, -lone of -ll Her Se": The )#th and Cult of the $irgin )ar# .Ae, Kork: 9nopf, 19IF0, #I: E@ri"en. . . s1""ested that Mary had conceived 7es1s the 5ord at the ,ords of the an"el. >e intended perhaps to 'ake a characteristic 3le*andrian point, a!o1t the conception of ,isdo' in the so1l !y the po,er of the spirit, as e*po1nded !y Philo 71dae1s: school of 'ystical philosophy. B1t @ri"en:s idea <1ickly ac<1ired a literal sta'p.E 5arner also <1otes a thirteenth?cent1ry En"lish dancin" son" that is relevant here: E;lad 1s 'aiden, 'other 'ild -hro1"h thine ear tho1 ,ere ,ith child ;a!riel he said it thee.E -he Christian a1ditory conception is o!vio1sly desi"ned to avoid se*1ality, to preserve the possi!ility of Mary:s physical vir"inity. +n >a'let:s case, ho,ever, the 'essa"e fro' the ;host is so deeply fra1"ht ,ith se*1al and cri'inal tones that it can f1nction only as divine parody, not as "en1ine replica. /%. >a'let is repelled !y corporeality, yet he never f1lly ,ishes or 'ana"es to escape fro' it. 3 fine recent readin" of the hero:s o!sessive concerns ,ith physicality and its conse<1ences for the play:s plot is !y 7ohn >1nt, E-he Catastrophic Body in Hamlet,B Shakespeare (uarterl# #9, no. 1 .sprin" 19%%0: /I?GG. See also (rancis Barker, The Tremulous %ri.ate ,od# .4ondon: Meth1en, 19%G0, /5?G1. /9. -he line EMost 4a&arlike ,ith vile and loatheso'e cr1stE is 1ni<1e to L/= the e'phasis on the kin":s lepro1s de'ise is th1s hi"hli"hted here. L1 does 'ention the Eleapro1s distil'entE and ho, the elder >a'let:s Es'oothe !odyE ,as E!arked, and tetterd o1erE .CGv0. B1t the infectio1s overtones of the '1rder are 1nderscored in the later te*t. #$. S.A. Brody, The 2isease of the Soul: 0epros# in )edie.al 0iterature .+thaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 19IG0. See also Steven M1llaney, The %lace of the Stage .Chica"o: Univ. of Chica"o Press, 19%I0, #1? G$, for an interestin" readin" of the theatrical si"nificance .in ter's of rit1al and 'ar"in0 of the la&ar ho1ses in 8enaissance En"land. #1. 5illia' B. @!er, ECan the 4eper Chan"e >is SpotsJ -he +cono"raphy of 4eprosy,E in his ,ottoms &pN: - %athologist1s Essa#s on )edicine and the Humanities .Ae, Kork: >arper, 19%%0, 99?15/. #/. -ho'as 2ekker, in EAe,es fro' ;ra1es?endeE .1F$G0, identifies 'oral corr1ption as the ca1se of epide'ics and aptly descri!es its la&arlike sy'pto's: E(or e1ery 'an ,ithin hi' feedes 3 ,or'e ,hich this conta"ion !reedes= @1r hea1enly parts are pla"1y sick, 3nd there s1ch leapro1s spotts do stick, -hat ;od in an"er fills his hand 5ith Oen"eance.E 2ekker, %lague %amphlets , %5?%F. Pla"1e ,as a s1!s1'in" illness that a!sor!edBcate"orically and percept1allyBother for's of sickness. @n Ethe vario1s skin 'anifestations acco'panyin" pla"1e,E Barroll co''ents: Ethe individ1al po*like irr1ptions often coverin" the !ody affected !y "eneral pla"1e ,ere kno,n as !lains. -he car!1ncles, ,hich 'ay also acco'pany pla"1e, . . . ,ere <1ite painf1l and, in fact, the e*cr1ciatin" pain of pla"1e ,as 1nderstood !y physicians of the ti'e as co'in" not fro' the r1pt1rin" of the !1!o. . . !1t fro' the 1n!eara!le !1rnin" of the car!1ncles.E %olitics , %$. 5e o1"ht to keep this description in 'ind ,hen considerin" the f1ll horrific force of Pyrrh1s, to !e disc1ssed !elo,.

##. -here is another precise appropriateness in the ;host:s sy'pto'atolo"y of the kin":s de'ise. 5hereas pla"1e ,as ac1te and hi"hly 'or!id, leprosy ,as chronic Bs1rviva!le for lon" periods. +n fact, lepers ,ere often re"arded as the livin" dead, their state a death?in?life. +n this ,ay, the ail'ent fits a "host:s o!sessions. 5illia' @!er !elieves that this 'ay !e the tr1e ori"in of the ter' E4a&arEBin other ,ords, one ,ho has ret1rned fro' the dead, and not 'erely one ,ho is isolated and physically decrepit. ECan a 4eper Chan"e >is SpotsJE +++. 7anet 3del'an notes .in Suffocating )others: 'antasies of )aternal *rigin in Shakespeare1s %la#s, BHamletB to BThe TempestB C4ondon: 8o1tled"e, 199/D, /5G?55 n. ##0 that Eskin er1ptions of the sort the "host descri!es ,ere one of the sy'pto's of syphilisE= she cites 7a'es Cle1"h, Secret Enem#: The Stor# of a 2isease .4ondon: -ha'es and >1dson, 195G0, GF?5$. Sca!s, cr1sts, and e*cresences Eharder than !arkE .7osef ;r1n!eck, in Cle1"h, G90 ,ere the topical sy'pto's. Syphilis, like leprosy, ,as a chronic, inc1ra!le ail'ent. -he diseased se*1ality i'plied in the association f1rther 'arks the ;host as de!ased, and adds another co'plication to >a'let:s dile''a a!o1t ,hether to tr1st ,hat he hears. #G. -his is a tellin" depart1re fro' L1, ,here the ;host ans,ers >a'let:s o1t!1rst of reali&ationBE'y vncleQ 'y vncleQEB,ith a direct affir'ation: EKea he, that . . . ,retch.E B1t in the second <1arto, the ;host see's to !e acc1sin" itself in ans,erin" >a'let a!o1t the so1rce of the cri'e: E+ that incest1o1s . . .E #5. Cedric 5atts has an ad'ira!ly concise treat'ent of the ;host:s several contradictions in E HamletB: Har.ester !e Critical Introductions to Shakespeare .Ae, Kork and 4ondon: >arvester, 19%%0, #/?#9. #F. 9in" >a'let:s life see's not to have !een retrospectively ill1'inated <1ite eno1"h, !1t the ;host o,ns a verita!le treas1re trove of relia!le infor'ation co'pared to the kno,led"e possessed !y another reven"in" ;hostB2on 3ndrea of 9yd:s The Spanish Traged# . 3ndrea is 'arkedly 1ndere*ercised a!o1t ,hat he kno,s and, incredi!ly, does not even kno, ,hat he kno,s. -ransfor'ation into a ;host see's to ca1se episte'olo"ical deficit= or perhaps it is only !eca1se of s1ch transfor'ations that deficits !eco'e clear. #I. 5as ;ertr1de co'plicito1s ,ith or sed1ced !y Cla1di1sJ 2id she love or at least sleep ,ith hi' !efore the '1rderJ 5as 9in" >a'let a creat1re of virt1e, and ,ho preyed on ,ho'J 3s 3lvin 9ernan has re'arked a!o1t the play, E The dramatis personae are c1rio1s a!o1t and deter'ined to find ans,ers to e*actly the sa'e <1estions that inevita!ly occ1r to readers and critics.E 9ernan, E-he Plays and the Play,ri"hts,E in 7. 4eeds Barroll et al., eds., The Re.els Histor# of 2rama in English , G vols. .4ondon: Meth1en, 19I50, #:#%/. #%. +f ,e take EhonestE to 'ean Etr1th?tellin",E the 61ry is still o1t on the ;host at this point in the play. +f EhonestE 'eans Eso!er or se*1ally chaste,E as it so often does in Shakespeare, >a'let tr1ly has !een dist1r!ed !y the narrative. #9. See >arry 4evin, E3n E*plication of the Player:s Speech,E in The (uestion of Hamlet .Ae, Kork: @*ford Univ. Press, 19590, 1#%?FG. @n Ediso,nin" kno,led"eE as a typical tra"ic 'ode in Shakespeare and in Hamlet , see Stanley Cavell, 2iso ning <no ledge in Si" %la#s of Shakespeare .Ca'!rid"e: Ca'!rid"e Univ. Press, 19%I0, 1I9?91. G$. @phelia:s co'para!le report in L1 e'phasi&es >a'let:s disordered appearance !1t contains only this e'!ryonic idea a!o1t >a'let:s si'ilarity to the ;host: E>e . . . parts a,ay Silent, as is the 'id ti'e of the ni"htE .L1, si". 2/v0. G1. -he prono'inal referent pro!le' here is 'ore than ro1tinely annoyin": all the third?person 'asc1line prono1ns in this passa"e could refer to Cla1di1s ,itho1t strainin" the sense of the lines. S1ch a readin" ,o1ld sho, >a'let 'erely !olsterin" his hatef1l opinion of his 1ncle and still not

ackno,led"in" any of his father:s fla,s: Cla1di1s:s !road?!lo,n cri'es and heavy heavenly a1dit '1st not !e 'eliorated !y a happy death. B1t the very fact that the referent is a'!i"1o1s or i'precise points to the 'ore pla1si!le readin". L1, predicta!ly, lacks a'!i"1ity at this point= co'in" 1pon Cla1di1s at prayer, >a'let reflects: Ehe tooke 'y father sleepin", his sins !ri' f1ll, 3nd ho, his so1le stoode to the state of hea1en 5ho kno,esE .;1v0. -he potential 1nclarity of Ehis so1leE is <1ickly resolved ,ith the past tense ver! EstoodeE: the dead 9in" >a'let '1st !e the s1!6ect of the sentence. G/. 3s 7anet 3del'an interestin"ly s1""ested to 'e, pla"1e fear 'ay 'anifest a terror of biological reprod1ction, ,hich re<1ires se*1al .not 61st lin"1istic0 interco1rse. G#. 4od"e, Treatise of the %lague .1F$#0, B/v. GG. Montai"ne provides a typical at'ospheric readin" of the pla"1y 'ias'a: Both o1tside and inside 'y ho1se + ,as "reeted !y a pla"1e of the 1t'ost vir1lence. (or as healthy !odies are s1!6ect to "raver illnesses !eca1se they can !e overco'e only !y these, so the very sal1!rio1s air of 'y place, ,here in the 'e'ory of 'an no conta"ion, even tho1"h in the nei"h!orhood, had !een a!le to "et a foothold, !eca'e poisoned and prod1ced stran"e res1lts. -he lan"1a"e of pla"1e, poison, and dan"ero1s air collects in an i'a"inative caps1le. Montai"ne "oes on to descri!e, ,ith characteristic incisiveness, the paranoia that settles on social "ro1ps 1nder the r1le of the disease: E+, ,ho a' so hospita!le, had a "reat deal of tro1!le findin" a retreat for 'y fa'ily: a fa'ily astray, a so1rce of fear to their friends and the'selves, and of horror ,herever they so1"ht to settle, havin" to shift their a!ode as soon as one of the "ro1p !e"an to feel pain in the end of his fin"er. 3ll illnesses are taken for the pla"1e= people do not "ive the'selves ti'e to reco"ni&e the'. . . . yo1r i'a"ination 'ean,hile C,orksD yo1 1p in its o,n ,ay and Ct1rnsD even yo1r health into a fever.E E@f Physio"no'y,E in Complete Essa#s , %$1?/. 3lain Co1r!in disc1sses the ho'eopathy of aro'atic f1'i"ation as a pop1lar defense a"ainst at'ospheric pla"1e p1trefaction in The 'oul and the 'ragrant: *dor and the 'rench Social Imagination .Ca'!rid"e: >arvard Univ. Press, 19%F0, F1. (or 'ore on corr1pt air as a co''only perceived ca1se of several diseases ancient and 'odern, see Cla1dine >er&lich and 7anine Pierret, Illness and Self in Societ# , trans. El!or" (oster .Balti'ore and 4ondon: 7ohns >opkins Univ. Press, 19%I0, 9%?1$9. (or corr1pted air and the EstinksE in 4ondon, see Cheryl 4ynn 8oss, E-he Pla"1e of The -lchemist,B Renaissance (uarterl# G1, no. # .a1t1'n 19%%0: G#9?5%. -ho'as 4od"e states confidently that Eall pestilential sicknesses . . . are in"endered fro' the ayre,E !1t this ca1se creates an alar'in" vac11' of possi!le c1res, !eca1se E'en ha1in" a necessitie to s1cke in the ayre, to"ether ,ith the sa'e s1cke in the infection and veno'eE . Treatise of the %lague , B#v, BG0. @r as Brad,ell says, E3yre is that ,hich ,e dra, in ,ith o1r !reath contin1ally, and ,ee cannot live ,itho1t it one 'in1te . . . therefore ,e had need take heed that the ayre ,e dra, !e p1re and ,holso'eE . %h#sick , 1/0. G5. 7ohn 2avies, too, e'ploys this lan"1a"e in a si'ilar ,ay: E-he !a!e ne, !orn Cpla"1eD nipped strai"ht in the head, 5ith air that thro1"h his yet 1nclosed Mo1ld 2id pierce his !rains, and thro1"h the' poison spread.E E-he -ri1'ph of 2eath,E in Complete 3orks , 1:GF. GF. (rancis >erin", Certaine Rules, 2irections, or -d.ertisements . . ., si". B/ .4ondon, 1F/50= <1oted in 5ilson, %lague , 1$. GI. 4od"e, Treatise of the %lague , 9Gv. G%. 2avies, E-he -ri1'ph of 2eath,E 1:GF. (ro' s1ch an at'osphere, ,e 'i"ht e*pect the ,ritten to take pro'inence over the oral, script over

speech, if only for safety:s sake. B1t no lan"1a"e ,as a haven, as -ho'as 2ekker 'akes clear in his preface to The 3onderfull :eare 456K : +f yo1 read, yo1 'ay happilie la1"h= tis 'y desire yo1 sho1ld, !eca1se 'irth is !oth %hisicall , and ,holeso'e a"ainst the %lague , ,ith ,hich sicknes, .to tell tr1th0 this !ooke is, .tho1"h not sorely0 yet so'e,hat infected. + pray, dri1e it not o1t of yo1r co'panie for all that. .2ekker, %lague %amphlets , #0 -he possi!ility of his o,n te*t:s infection artic1lates 2ekker:s a,areness of the disease:s o'nipresence and of the threat inherent in any co''1nicative act. G9. So, to,ns fear:d to,ns, and 'en each other fear:d= 3ll ,ere at least attainted ,ith s1spect, 3nd sooth to say so ,as their envy stirr:d -hat one ,o1ld seek another to infect: (or ,hether the disease to envy 'ov:d, @r h1'an nat1re:s 'alice ,as the ca1se, -h:infected often all Concl1sions prov:d -o pla"1e hi' that fro' the' hi'self ,ithdra,s. 2avies, E-he -ri1'ph of 2eath,E in Complete 3orks , 1:GI. Aote the ,ay in ,hich EenvyE ,orks opposite to the e*pected 'ode of 'i'etic desire in this <1otation: the envio1s person seeks to spread or !esto,, not contract or i'itate, diseases. 5ilson 'entions the depraved '1ltit1de ,ho, Eafflicted ,ith r1nnin" sores recklessly thr1st the'selves into co'pany.E %lague , 95, citin" 7. Ba'ford:s - Short 2ialogue .1F$#0. 5$. (or a different se'iosis of disease indicators, see E1"en Baer, E-he Medical Sy'pto',E in 7ohn 2eely, Brooke 5illia's, and (elicia E. 9r1se, eds., 'rontiers in Semiotics .Bloo'in"ton: +ndiana Univ. Press, 19%F0, 1G$?5/. 51. 8o"er (enton, - perfume against the !o#some %estilence, prescribed b# )oses unto -aron, !um. 45:H5 .4ondon, 1F$# CS-C 1$%$$D0, si". 35. 5/. Eric Partrid"e cites the 4atin pestis and ad'its it Eof o!sc1re ori"inE= he calls 1p the >ittite pasihati , Eto cr1shE or Eto tra'ple,E for co'parison. S.v. Epest,E in *rigins: - Short )odern Et#mological 2ictionar# of )odern English .Ae, Kork: ;reen,ich >o1se Mac'illan, 19%#0. Cons1ltation ,ith >e!raists and relevant te*t1al so1rces a!o1t the passa"e in A1'!ers has failed to 1ncover or ill1'inate the ety'olo"ical !asis for (enton:s assertion. 5#. >enoch Clapha', Epistle 2iscoursing upon the present %estilence , /d ed. .4ondon, 1F$#0, si". B1v= <1oted in Slack, Impact of %lague , /##?#G. 3pparently, the sense of havin" !een str1ck ,as not 1n1s1al. Stephen Brad,ell, ,ritin" in 1F#F of the last "reat pla"1e year .1F/50, o!served, ESo'e felt the'selves 'anifestly stricken, !ein" sensi!le of a !lo, s1ddenly "iven the' on the head, neck, !ack, or side: So'eti'e so violently, that they have !een eyther al'ost, or alto"ether over?t1rnedE . %h#sick , /0. 5G. +n spec1latin" ,ith terror on the infinite tort1res in the arsenal of a "od ,ho co1ld rain do,n s1ch pestilence, 7ohn 2avies of >ereford s1''ons the ine*pressi!ility topos: ,hat !e Cthose tort1resD that de1ised are By 5isedo'e that of Ao1"ht 'ade all this 3ll, -hat stretch as farre past speach, as past co'pare: S1r'o1ntin" 5onder= s1pernat1ralQ

E-he -ri1'ph of 2eath,E in Complete 3orks , 1:G%. Scarcely a paean to divine "oodness, these lines hint that the vast 'isery of the present pla"1y ,orld .Eall this 3llE0 inhered in the chaos, the Ao1"ht, that spa,ned it. E@f no1"htE 'eans Eo1t of nothin",E !1t it 61st as ,ell co1ld 'ean Eall for na1"ht, for no conse<1ence or p1rpose:: !eca1se the ,orld 'ay ret1rn to nothin" ,ith s1ch lar"e 'ortality. 55. +ronically, this fear ,as 1nfo1nded e*cept in the case of the rare and al'ost al,ays fatal pne1'onic pla"1e, ,hich ,as .1nlike the !1!onic and septice'ic varieties0 trans'itted aerially !y patients: snee&in" or co1"hin". (or a s1''ary of the disease:s epide'iolo"y, see Barroll, %olitics , I#?9F. 5F. ;il!ert Skene:s early vernac1lar pla"1e tract, -ne ,re.e 2escriptio.n of the %est , contains a s1""estive clinical note that 'ay !e relevant: E-he principall si"nis of dethe in pestilentiall personis,E Skene avers, Ear . . . i'perfectio1n of speche and stinkand Cstinkin"D !reithe.E Skene, -ne ,re.e 2escriptio.n, cap. F .cited s1pra, n. 1#0. -he second of these attri!1tes is clear eno1"h= the ,riter refers to the p1trid e*halations of the dyin", a halitosis ,hich pestered individ1als and ,hole cities in the olfactory 'ess of epide'ics. B1t Skene provides no f1rther clinical definition of Ei'perfectio1n of speche.E >e pro!a!ly has in 'ind the pla"1e victi':s cripplin" shortness of !reath and pain?ind1ced de'entia, !oth of ,hich ,o1ld allo, only a!!reviated or 1nintelli"i!le 1tterances. >o,ever, the ,riter 'ay !e descri!in", as so 'any did, the pla"1e:s in61rio1s i'pact on social relations. +'perfect .1nintelli"i!le0 speech and reekin" !reath co'pel intracta!le isolation, iss1in" as they do fro' one ,ho can !e neither approached nor 1nderstoodBthe parado*ical 1pshot of s1fferin" fro' a disease anyone can "et. +n >a'let:s case, ver!al Ei'perfectionE a'al"a'ates lin"1istic i'potence and pointed if el1sive f1nctionality. 5I. Michel (o1ca1lt, E-he @rder of 2isco1rse,E in 8o!ert Ko1n", ed., &nt#ing the Te"t: - %ostA Structuralist Reader .Boston: 8o1tled"e and 9e"an Pa1l, 19%10, 51= hereafter cited in te*t. -his essay ,as also p1!lished in En"lish as E-he 2isco1rse on 4an"1a"e,E an appendi* to (o1ca1lt:s The -rchaeolog# of <no ledge .Ae, Kork: Pantheon, 19I/0, /15?#I. -he piece ,as an ina1"1ral lect1re for the Colle"e de (rance in 19I$= (o1ca1lt:s ,ish to slip s1rreptitio1sly into disco1rse co1ntervails the instit1tion:s need for a de'arcated, cere'onial presentation. >is lect1re centers on Ethe order of disco1rse,E or the nat1re, control, conditions, and political co'plications of the interloc1tive act. 3s the p1re, dise'!odied speaker .parado*ically o!sessed ,ith his for'er !ody0, the ;host does to an e*tent pro6ect (o1ca1lt:s desires: to hover on the !orders of the livin" ,orld ,itho1t corporeality, ,itho1t s1fferin" the indi"nities that !odies al,ays s1ffer. -he ;host, as a for' of pla"1e, !eco'es an i'a"e of lan"1a"e. Usef1l 4acanian spec1lations on the ;host have !een 'ade !y Mar6orie ;ar!er, E Hamlet : ;ivin" Up the ;host,E Shakespeare1s +host 3riters .4ondon: Meth1en, 19%I0, 1/G?IF. 5%. + have !orro,ed the lovely phrase Ehori&on of s1r'iseE fro' Professor 3llen ;ross'an. 59. (or this principleBthat there is no te*t1al interpretation ,itho1t alteration of ,hat constit1tes the te*tBsee Stanley (ish, E5ron" 3"ain,E in 2oing 3hat Comes !aturall#: Change, Rhetoric, and the %ractice of Theor# in 0iterar# and 0egal Studies .21rha': 21ke Univ. Press, 19%90, 1$#?19. F$. -he o!vio1s analo"1e here, to o1r o n intr1sive 1nderstandin", o1r o,n ina!ility to interpret ,itho1t alteration, constantly e'er"es in the e*perience of atte'ptin" to process the second <1arto te*t. B1t since it is a,f1lly hard to kno, ,hat >a'let is fro' the !e"innin", it !eco'es i'possi!le to kno, ,hat he !eco'es 1nless ,e, the interpreters, enter into the process of his !eco'in"B,hich, in the infectio1s space of theater, ,e all certainly do. (or 'ore on theater as a partic1larly conta"io1s space for literary lan"1a"e, see 3ntonin 3rta1d, Theater and Its 2ouble , vol. G of Collected 3orks , trans. Oictor Corti .4ondon: Calder and Boyars, 19IG0= and 7ac<1eline 8ose, ESe*1ality in the 8eadin" of Shakespeare,E in 7ohn 2rakakis, ed., -lternati.e Shakespeares .4ondon: Meth1en, 19%50, 95?11%.

F1. -ho'as Aashe, Strange !e es, of the Intercepting Certaine 0etters .159/0, in The 3orks of Thomas !ashe , ed. 8onald Br1nlees Mc9erro,, 5 vols. .4ondon: 3. >. B1llen, 19$G0, 1:/%I. Shakespeare ,o1ld likely have !een a,are of this passa"e= he ,as a,are of '1ch of Aashe:s ,ork. 7. 7. M. -o!in, EMore Ele'ents fro' Aashe,E Hamlet Studies 5 .s1''er ,inter 19%#0: 5/?5%, notes that : Strange !e es . . . provided Shakespeare ,ith so'e t1rns of phrase or pieces of diction 1ni<1e in the canon for 1se in Hamlet E .5/0. F/. -he fa'o1s d1'!sho, cr1* ,as the interpretive ne'esis of 5. 5. ;re" and 7. 2over 5ilson, and it has recently !een recalled !1t ela!orately evaded !y -erence >a,kes in his acco1nt of the play in That Shakespeherian Rag , 9/?119. >a,kes "ives an interestin" acco1nt of one history of this cr1*= he e*plicates 5ilson:s e*tensive avoidance of a politically i'plicated critical position on Hamlet . B1t s1rprisin"ly, >a,kes then reiterates avoidance !y retreatin" interpretively fro' the te*t, even fro' a deconstr1ctive readin"= ,e cannot ret1rn to Hamlet , he says, !eca1se Ethere is no 1nitary, self? presentin" play for 1s to t1rn !ack to.E -he critic renders hi'self as silent on the d1'!sho, as Cla1di1s had !een. (or a s1rvey on the d1'!sho, pro!le', see 7enkins, Hamlet , 5$1?5. F#. 4ookin" at the t,o <1artos, ho,ever, ,e can "et a fair idea a!o1t ,hat pesters Cla1di1s in each te*t. +n L/, the kin" feels co'pelled to depart i''edi? ately after >a'let anno1nces: EKo1 shall see anon ho, the '1rtherer "ets the lo1e of +onzagoes ,ifeE .>#0. B1t in the first <1arto, it is the i'a"e of the p1rely political, not se*1al, po,er "ra! that forces the kin" o1t of the roo'= >a'let:s last line !efore the kin" rises is E>e poysons hi' for his estateE .(Gv0. 3s + disc1ss in the ne*t chapter, the second <1arto is insistent on the intert,ined corr1ptions of se*1ality and politics in a ,ay that L1 is not. FG. Ai"el 3le*ander, %oison, %la#, and 2uel: - Stud# in BHamletB .4ondon: 8o1tled"e and 9e"an Pa1l, 19I10, /$. F5. ;eor"e P1ttenha', The -rte of English %oesie , ed. ;ladys 2oid"e 5illcock and 3lice 5alker .Ca'!rid"e: Ca'!rid"e Univ. Press, 19#F0, /F$. FF. -he play:s shiftin" patterns of sense and nonsense have !een ele"antly e*plicated !y Stephen Booth, E@n the Oal1e of Hamlet ,E in Aor'an 8a!kin, ed., Reinterpretations of Renaissance 2rama .Ae, Kork: Col1'!ia Univ. Press, 19F90, 1#I?IF. >o,ever, neither Booth nor any other reader that + kno, of re"ards >a'let:s certit1de after the ;on&a"o perfor'ance as a pro!le'. FI. 9ni"ht, 3heel of 'ire , #%= see also #/. F%. +f >a'let !eco'es the 'etaphorical ail'ent afflictin" 2en'ark, (ortin!ras 'i"ht !e the c1rative the state has neededBso'eone e*ternal to the nation:s ills, even if he has participated indirectly in the'. 3ltho1"h do1!ts ,ill s1rely re'ain that the 'an ,ho has Esharkt vp a list of la,elesse resol1tes (or foode and diet to so'e enterprise -hat hath a sto'acke in:tE .B/v0 is the !est 'an for the 6o! of kin", he is virt1ally the only one left. F9. Philippe d1 Plessis?Mornay, $indiciae Contra T#rannos .2efense of li!erty a"ainst tyrants0, trans. and ed. 71lian >. (ranklin, in Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Si"teenth Centur#: Three Treatises b# Hotman, ,eza, and )orna# .Ae, Kork: Pe"as1s, 19F90, 19$= hereafter cited in te*t. See 9enneth 8oth,ell, E Hamlet , 21plessis?Mornay, and the :+renic: Oision,E Hamlet Studies # .19%10: 1#?#1, and his later E>a'let:s :;lass of (ashion:: Po,er, Self, and the 8efor'ation,E in 41ther >. Martin et al., eds., Technologies of the Self: - Seminar ith )ichel 'oucault .3'herst: Univ. of Massach1setts Press, 19%%0, %$?9%. 8oth,ell takes Shakespeare:s 1se of the >1"1enot antityrant tract

1nironically, and as a key to character: E>a'let:s refor'ist tendencies often parallel the disco1rse of . . . 21plessis?Mornay. . . . @f pri'ary interest here is the ideolo"y of 21plessis and the (rench refor'ers, ,hich 'i"ht acco1nt for >a'let:s shift fro' pert1r!ation to serenity, a shift that parallels in 'any ,ays the :irenicist: attit1des that 'ade the (rench refor'ers the 'ost tolerant of the dissenters.E E>a'let:s :;lass of (ashion,::: 9$?91. I$. ;. 5ilson 9ni"ht sa, >a'let 'any years a"o as Ethe a'!assador of death ,alkin" a'id lifeE: B1t it is to !e noted that the conscio1sness of death, and conse<1ent !itterness, cr1elty, and inaction, in >a'let not only "ro,s in his o,n 'ind disinte"ratin" it as ,e ,atch, !1t also spreads its effects o1t,ard a'on" the other persons like a !li"htin" disease, and . . . insidio1sly 1nder'ines the health of the state, and adds victi' to victi' 1ntil at the end the sta"e is filled ,ith corpses. . . . -h1s >a'let is an ele'ent of evil in the state of 2en'ark. 9ni"ht, 3heel of 'ire , #/, #%. I1. @pinions a!o1t the relative 'oral and ethical rectit1de of >a'let and Cla1di1s are as diverse as the critics ,ritin" a!o1t the'. @n Eco'ple'entarity,E see Aor'an 8a!kin, Shakespeare and the Common &nderstanding .Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 19FI0, 1?15, and Shakespeare and the %roblem of )eaning .Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 19%10. >o,ard M1'ford 7ones 'akes an interestin" defense of Cla1di1s in The <ing in Hamlet , Co'parative 4iterat1re Series, no. 1 .31stin: Univ. of -e*as, 191%0. -he contrary and predo'inant vie, of Cla1di1s:s ,icked tyranny, and the play:s a!1ndant historical si"ns thereof, is provided !y, a'on" others, 8oland M1shat (rye in The Renaissance Hamlet .Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 19%G0, esp. 1#1?G$. So'e aspects of the kin":s depravity are 1nar"1a!le. B1t >a'let 'atches hi', cap a pI . I/. 3 heart!reakin" e*a'ple of this fail1re is Aehe'iah 5allin"ton:s acco1nt of his spirit1al consolation over the deaths of his children in pla"1e= in 8alph >o1l!rooke, ed., English 'amil# 0ife, 4CD5A4D45: -n -ntholog# from 2iaries .4ondon: Basil Black,ell, 19%%0, 1G1?GG. I#. (or a s1stained treat'ent of the conver"ence the'e, see Eileen 7or"e 3ll'an, %la#er <ing and -d.ersar# .Baton 8o1"e: 4o1isiana State Univ. Press, 19%$0. See also (er"1son, E4etters and Spirits,E for a sharp disc1ssion of this 'atter. IG. Oir"il, The -eneid , trans. 5. (. 7ackson 9ni"ht .>ar'onds,orth: Pen"1in, 195F0, 1$%. >arold 7enkins also notices the Oir"ilian connection here, !1t + !elieve he 'isreads it: E>a'let:s slip of 'e'ory th1s stresses the sava"ery of Pyrrh1s fro' the start.E Hamlet , /F# .note to /./.GGF0. I5. 3eneas, incidentally, is not so terri!ly heroic in the 'edieval historiae destructionis Troiae , havin" in so'e versions !etrayed the city so that the prophecy of his fo1ndin" the ne*t "reat civili&ation co1ld !e ass1red. 3nd in 4yd"ate and Ca*ton, the -ro6an is also .alon" ,ith 3ntenor0 lar"ely responsi!le for the city:s do,nfall. IF. >a'let also ,ants a corrective 'odel of maternal 'o1rnin", ,hich is ,hy he recalls that ;ertr1de had for'erly follo,ed his Epoore fathers !odie 4ike !iobe , all tearesE .C1v0= Aio!e 'o1rned not for a h1s!and, ho,ever, !1t for her children. II. -r1e to his conta"io1s spirit, >a'let !eseeches >oratio to Edra,e thy !reath in paine -o tell 'y storyE .@+O0. +n his final ver!al "a'!it, the prince char"es his !eloved co'panion to reprod1ce and trans'it a narrative that >oratio co1ld not possi!ly retell acc1rately. .+n the first <1arto, >a'let 'ore 'odestly asks not to !e individ1ally represented, !1t rather to !e part of a collective representation: E5hat ton"1e sho1ld tell the story of o1r deaths, +f not fro' theeJE C+#vD.0 -he second <1arto >a'let:s in61nction to >oratio is a re'arka!ly ;host?like 'ane1ver, en6oinin" an a1ditor to prolon" the infectio1s discord that death pro'ised to end. 3ltho1"h the physical circ1it of poison closes, a

narrative conta"ion ,ill end1re. I%. +n L1, finally, it is >a'let hi'self ,ho calls o1t, in response to the <1een:s s,oon, E-reason, ho, keepe the "atesE .+#v0= in the earlier te*t he is not the threat to order, !1t its defender.

Three, S+ccessi$n0 Re&enge0 an* 1ist$r'2 The P$litical 1amlet

1. 7ohn >arin"ton pithily anticipates this point: E-reason dothe never prosper=B,hat:s the reasonJ 5hy= if it prosper, none dare call it -reason.E Aor'an E"!ert McCl1re, ed., The 0etters and Epigrams of 7ohn Harington .Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 19#$0, /55. /. -ho'as 2ekker, The 3onderfull :eare 456K , in The %lague %amphlets of Thomas 2ekker , ed. (. P. 5ilson .@*ford: Clarendon Press, 19/50, /1, /5. #. 5illia' McEl,ee, The 3isest 'ool in Christendom: The Reign of <ing 7ames I and $I .Ae, Kork: >arco1rt, Brace, 195%0, 1$9= hereafter cited in te*t and notes as McEl,ee, 3isest 'ool . G. E-he -r1e Aarration of the Entertain'ent of his 8oyal Ma6estie fro' the ti'e of his 2epart1re fro' Eden!ro1"h till his 8eceivin" at 4ondon,E in 7ohn Aichols, ed., The %rogresses and %ublic %rocessions of <ing 7ames the 'irst , 5 vols. .4ondon, 1%/%= rpt. Ae, Kork, 9ra1s 8eprint, 19%$0, 1:11#= hereafter cited as Aichols, %rogresses . 5. L1oted in (. P. 5ilson, The %lague in Shakespeare1s 0ondon .@*ford: Clarendon Press, 19/I0, 9G? 95= hereafter cited in te*t and notes as 5ilson, %lague . F. L1oted in Pa1l Slack, The Impact of %lague in Tudor and Stuart England .4ondon: 8o1tled"e, 19%50, #$G. B1t else,here ./5%?590 Slack notes that s1ch re!ellions as the 'ayor feared ,ere re'arka!ly rare. I. 5ilson, %lague, GCAG5 . 5ilson also <1otes a procla'ation fro' the 4ord Mayor iss1ed at the hei"ht of the pla"1e on Septe'!er 1I, 1F$#: -he people infected and ,hose ho1ses are infected .a"ainst all honesty, h1'an Civility and "ood conscience seekin" as it ,ere rather the desolation of the City and of this kin"do' !y dispersin" of the infection than other,ise0 do daily intr1de the'selves into all Co'panies !oth private and p1!lic . . . and do flock and follo, the dead to the "rave in '1ltit1des one still infectin" another to the displeas1re of 3l'i"hty ;od and "reat "rief of his Ma6esty. +n this vision of pla"1y society, the h1'an i'p1lse to,ard self?preservation !eco'es perverted, and the only co''1nity e*ists as death?centered, flockin" .literally and fi"1ratively, + take it0 to the "rave. Slack notes that 'ost incidents of ,illf1l disse'ination of pla"1e ,ere 1nconfir'ed hearsay= !1t he ri"htly o!serves that Er1'o1rs and threats are s1fficient in the'selves to sho, the divisive i'pact of pla"1e in social relationships at every levelE . Impact of %lague , /9#0. %. +n 1F$F 4ord 21nfer'line, the lord chancellor of Scotland, ,rote to -ho'as E"erton, 4ord Elles'ere, to tell hi' of the devastatin" tenacity of the disease: -he onlie tr1!le ,e haiff is this conta"io1s sicknes of peste, ,hilk C,hichD is spread 'arvelo1slie in the !est to,nes of this real'e. +n Eden!1r"ht it hes !ene co1ntin1all this fo1r yeares, at the present not ,erie ,ehe'ent, !ot sik Cs1chD as stayes the co,'o1n co1rse of ad'inistration off 61stice, ,hilk can not !e ,eill e*ercised in naa other plaice. 3ir and Strivelin" ar al'oste overthro,in ,ith the seiknes, ,ithin thir t,a 'onethes a!o1t t,a tho,sand personnes dead in ane of the'. -he 'aist of the peple fled, and the to1nes al'ost left desolat. The Egerton %apers , ed. 7. Payne Collier .4ondon: Ca'den Society P1!lications, 1%G$0, G$F?I. -o the 'a"istrate:s aristocratic cha"rin, even Ethe !est to,nes of

this real'eE cannot defend a"ainst the epide'ic, as if class !o1ndaries sho1ld !e i'penetra!le to illness. 21nfer'line "oes on to descri!e the fre<1ent co1ncil 'eetin"s in ,hich E,e tak the !est ordo1r ,e 'ay for 'antenance of his Ma6esties peace and o!edience.E 3ltho1"h he 'entions the deaths of the to,nspeople, the lord chancellor see's 'ost concerned ,ith 1pholdin" order. Aot only does the disease prevent the ad'inistration of 61stice every,here it "oes, !1t it 'ore threatenin"ly fi"1res active revolt: t,o to,ns Eat al'oste overthro,in ,ith the seiknes.E S1ch lan"1a"e discloses the sy'!olis' of the pestilence as treason in the 8enaissance. 9. -he history of the disease in the En"lish 8enaissance is a history of 'onarchy on the r1n= every r1ler fro' >enry O++ to 7a'es + fled an o1t!reak of the disease at least once. See 7. (. 2. Shre,s!1ry, Histor# of the ,ubonic %lague in the ,ritish Isles .Ca'!rid"e: Ca'!rid"e Univ. Press, 19I$0, 1/I?#5. See also Philip Vie"ler, The ,lack 2eath .Ae, Kork: 7ohn 2ay, 19F90, 15I. 1$. >o,es:s Chronicle testifies to the kin"ly attri!1tes of the disease, in specific contrast to 7a'es and his pro"ress into the city: EBy reason of ;od:s Oisitation for o1r sins, the Pla"1e and Pestilence there rei"nin" in the City of 4ondon and S1!1r!s . . . the 9in" rode not fro' the -o,er thro1"h the City in 8oyal 'anner as had !een acc1sto'ed.E >ere the Erei"nin"E of the pla"1e s1""ests a divine sanction a"ainst En"land, and pict1res the disease as a pro*y r1ler= !1t the point of the passa"e is to co'pare the c1sto'ary E8oyal 'annerE ,ith the ,ay 7a'es:s o,n royalty has !een co'pro'ised. L1oted in Aichols, %rogresses , 1://I. +ndeed, a Erei"nE of pla"1e see's to have !een a standard loc1tion. +n Romeo and 7uliet , (riar 7ohn e*plains that he ,as 1na!le to convey (riar 4a,rence:s 'essa"e !eca1se, ,hile he ,as in Oerona, Ethe searchers of the to,n, S1spectin" that ,e !oth ,ere in a ho1se 5here the infectio1s pestilence did rei"n, Seal:d 1p the doors, and ,o1ld not let 1s forthE .5./. %?110. 11. 5ilson, %lague , 1$F?I. 1/. Aichols, %rogresses , 1:/I1. -he second letter, also fro' 5oodstock, is dated Septe'!er 1I. 1#. Sir 7ohn 2avies, E-he -ri1'ph of 2eath, or -he Pict1re of the Pla"1e: 3ccordin" to the 4ife, as it ,as in -nno 2omini 1F$#,E in The Complete 3orks of 7ohn 2a.ies of Hereford , ed. 3le*ander B. ;rosart, / vols. .Ae, Kork: 3MS Press, 19FI0, 1:G5. 1G. Procla'ation no. 9FI, in 8o!ert Steele, ed., - ,ibliograph# of Ro#al %roclamations of the Tudor and Stuart So.ereigns . . . 4HECA4D4H , vol. 1, England and 3ales .191$= rpt. Ae, Kork: B1tt (ranklin, 19FI0, 11$. 15. 7oel >1rstfield, E-he S1ccession Str1""le in 4ate Eli&a!ethan En"land,E in S.-. Bindoff, 7. >1rstfield, and C. >. 5illia's, eds., Elizabethan +o.ernment and Societ#: Essa#s %resented to Sir 7ohn !eale .4ondon: 3thlone Press, 19F10, #F9?9F: E(inally, at the ti'e of the parlia'ent of 1F$1, a !ill ,as drafted to prohi!it the ,ritin" or p1!lishin" of !ooks a!o1t the s1ccession on the "ro1nds that they !red faction and inspired traitoro1s acts a"ainst the L1eenE .#I/0. Aevertheless, -ho'as 5ilson kne, Ethat the 9in" of Scotland ,ill carry it, as very 'any En"lish'en do kno, ass1redly. B1t to deter'ine thereof is to all En"lish capitally for!idden, and therefore so + leave it.E State of England, -nno 2om. 4566 .4ondon: Ca'den Society P1!lications, 19#G0, 5. 1F. Conrad 81ssell, The Crisis of %arliaments: English Histor# 4C6GA4556 .4ondon: @*ford Univ. Press, 19I10, /5F. 1I. -he 6oy of cere'ony, like 'ost other f1nctions of kin"ship, ,as dispensa!le in the ti'e of an epide'ic. 7ohn Cha'!erlain ,rote his escalatin" despair a!o1t the 'atter: EPo,les "ro,s very thin, for every 'an shrinckes a,ay and + a' half asha'ed to see 'yself left alone. @1r pa"eants are prettely for,ard, !1t 'ost of the' are s1ch s'all ti'!red "entle'en that they cannot last lon" and + do1!t yf

the pla"1e cease not the sooner they ,ill rot and sincke ,here they stand.E 0etters of 7ohn Chamberlain , ed. Aor'an E"!ert McCl1re, / vols. .Philadelphia: 3'erican Philosophical Society, 19#90, 1:195 .letter o f 71ly 1$, 1F$#, to 21dley Carleton0. 1%. E3t the !e"innin" Cpla"1eD strooke .like an 3rro,e0 on the head !1t of one Citty, !1t in a short ti'e after, it fle,e fro' Cittie to Citty, and in the end st1cke in the very hart of the ,hole kin"do'e. +nso'1ch, that 2eath ca'e .like a tyranno1s Us1rper0 to the Co1rt "ates, P threatned to depose the E'pero1r hi'selfe.E ;eor"e 5ilkins, The Three )iseries of ,arbar#: %lague, 'amine, and Ciuill 3arre .4ondon, 1F$F CS-C /5F#9D0, si". C/. 19. See Clifford ;eert&, ECenters, 9in"s, Charis'a: 8eflections on a Sy'!olics of Po,er,E in his 0ocal <no ledge .Ae, Kork: Basic Books, 19%#0, 1/1?GF. /$. McEl,ee points o1t . 3isest 'ool , 115 0 that 7a'es:s trip to 4ondon ,as 'ade in a closed coach: !eca1se of the sickness, the kin" co1ld not even !e seen. /1. +t 'i"ht !e 'entioned that, !y the end of the play, >a'let !eco'es e*ceedin"ly conscio1s of rank: Ethis three yeeres + ha1e tooke note of it, the a"e is "ro,ne so picked, that the toe of the pesant corns so neere the heele of the Co1rtier he "alls his ky!eE .M#0. -his co''ent is apropos of the "ravedi""er:s fr1stratin"ly precise responses to >a'let:s in<1iries= the peasants no, speak 61st as i'passa!ly as co1rtiers, and >a'let, for once, cannot o1t,it an interloc1tor. 3nna!el Patterson disc1sses >a'let as a 'ediator !et,een pop1lar and aristocratic concerns in Shakespeare and the %opular $oice .@*ford: Basil Black,ell, 19%90, 1#?#1, 9#?1$F. //. Aote 4aertes: ass1'ption here that >a'let:s choice is dependent on election Bon ,hat the !ody of people ,ant for hi'. 4aertes: speech corro!orates the notion of 2en'ark:s Eelective 'onarchy,E a syste' ans,era!le to the desires of the '1ltit1de. >a'let, at least in his theatrical tastes, resists s1ch de'ocratic syste's: he ,ishes to hear a speech fro' the player that ,as caviar to the "eneral. /#. >ere + follo, E. 3. >oni"'ann, E-he Politics in Hamlet and :-he 5orld of the Play,:E in StatfordA uponA-.on Studies , vol. 5, Hamlet .Ae, Kork, 19FG0, 1/9?GI. >e ar"1es that Cla1di1s:s first speech Ecreates a 'ystery a!o1t the s1ccession that is not resolved.E 3lso i'portant is 3. P. Sta!ler, EElective Monarchy in the So1rces of Hamlet ,E Studies in %hilolog# F/, no. 5 .@cto!er 19F50: F5G?F1. Sta!ler asserts that ::the <1estion as to ,ho is ri"htf1lly kin" . . . ,o1ld !e an e*a'ple of one 'ore a'!i"1ity, one 'ore :<1estion: ,hich >a'let has to face, and in ,hose treat'ent !y >a'let ,e co'e to kno, his character. . . . +t is an a'!i"1o1s, rather than a clear?c1t case of 1s1rpation as the ter' is "enerally 1nderstoodE .FF$0. Contrary vie,s are provided !y >arold 7enkins in his Elon"er noteE to Cla1di1s:s speech . Hamlet C4ondon: Meth1en, 3rden, 19%/D, G##?#G0. 3ltho1"h 7enkins ri"htly 'entions the parallel to Aor,ay:s sit1ation, ,here the !rother of (ortin!ras the Elder, not the son, s1cceeded to the throne, ,e '1st re'e'!er the conditions 1nder ,hich Aor,ay ca'e to r1le. -here ,as a clear and p1!lic vacancy after the sin"le co'!at !et,een the elder >a'let and (ortin!ras= ,ith the kin" of Aor,ay "one, it only 'akes sense that his ad1lt !rother sho1ld take the reins, for it see's 1nlikely that yo1n" (ortin!ras is '1ch older than >a'letBand the fi"ht occ1rred the very day yo1n" >a'let ,as !orn. >ad 9in" >a'let lost the fi"ht ,ith (ortin!ras, it ,o1ld !e reasona!le to e*pect that his !rother Cla1di1s ,o1ld have taken control of the nation, if only 1ntil the 'ale heir reached 'a6ority, at ,hich point .perhaps0 an election ould occ1r. So 7enkins:s point a!o1t the s1ccession is 'isplaced, !eca1se the si"nificant parallel is not in political process !1t in s1!6ect position: Aor,ay, Ei'potent and !edrid,E ta'es his nephe, in a !rief po,er str1""le over the iss1e of forei"n policy= Cla1di1s, ,ho see's so '1ch 'ore potent, never can handle >a'let co'pletely. /G. @n this point Sta!ler a"rees ,ith >oni"'ann:s hypothesis that Cla1di1s ,as never elected in the

first place, that he si'ply Epop:t in,E as >a'let later says, ,ith no vote havin" !een 'ade: E>a'let had hoped, in the nor'al co1rse of events, for an election, in ,hich he ,o1ld certainly have stood an e*cellent chance a"ainst Cla1di1s ,ith the electorate= !1t Cla1di1s has . . . !y takin" over the "overn'ent at that ti'e and thro1"h s1ch 'eans, co'e !et,een >a'let and the reali&ation of the hoped?for electionE .F59 n. 1G0. /5. -he s1!'er"ed disco1rse a!o1t !irth in these linesBin the ,ords Ep1rse,E Eseal,E Efolded,E Efor',E Ei'pression,:: and Echan"elin"EBs1""ests that >a'let:s conception and !rin"in" to li"ht prod1ce only death, in the !est tradition of a1to"enetic Shakespearean villains s1ch as +a"o: E+ have:t. +t is en"end:red. >ell and ni"ht M1st !rin" this 'onstro1s !irth to the ,orld:s li"htE . *thello , 1.#.G$#? $G0. >a'let did not, ,e sho1ld re'e'!er, need to for"e the orders to escape his co'patriots= his for"ery th1s hi"hli"hts the 'ortality he creatively disperses. /F. -he "enerally erotic character of this passa"e ,as first called to 'y attention !y Sharon Berken. /I. 3ilson1s -rte of Rhetori;ue .15F$0, ed. ;. >. Mair .@*ford: Clarendon Press, 19$90, 99. /%. 3 ,ord a!o1t the second <1arto:s readin" of this line. E-ho1"h yo1 fret 'e notE 'akes as '1ch sense as Etho1"h yo1 fret 'e,E the standard editorial choice: it 61st 'akes different sense. +n L/, >a'let s1""ests that si'ply !eca1se the friends do not actively ,orry hi' does not 'ean that he is rela*ed or off his "1ard aro1nd the'. -he folio readin" Etho1"h yo1 fret 'e, yo1 cannot . . .E "ives 8osencrant& and ;1ildenstern a !it 'ore po,er to a""ravate >a'let. Either readin" strikes 'e as valid, ,ith the folio:s E-ho1"h " , not # E havin" 'ore lo"ical .if not necessarily the'atic0 inte"rity than E-ho1"h not " , not # E of the <1arto. /9. (or an interestin" readin" of >a'let:s latent fe'ininity, see 2avid 4everen&, E-he 5o'an in Hamlet : 3n +nterpersonal Oie,,E in M1rray M. Sch,art& and Coppelia 9ahn, eds., Representing Shakespeare: !e %s#choanal#tic Essa#s .Balti'ore: 7ohns >opkins, 19%$0, 11$?/%. #$. Sta!ler has 'ade this point: EAo 'atter that here the :ra!!le: is in fact :a!1sin" the c1sto': and choosin" to :ratify and prop: inappropriately= the point is that they, the people, and not Cla1di1s:s cronies of the royal Co1ncil, are assertin" the elective privile"eE .EElective Monarchy,E F59?F$0. #1. +n the folio, 61st after Eis:t not perfect conscience -o <1it hi' ,ith this ar'JE thirteen lines intervene in ,hich >a'let .10 f1rther 61stifies killin" Cla1di1s= ./0 a"rees ,ith >oratio that the kin" ,ill soon kno, Ethe iss1e of the !1sinessE fro' En"land= .#0 apolo"i&es to >oratio for his dis"racef1l !ehavior at @phelia:s f1neral, and .G0 resolves to Eco1nt C4aertes:D favors.E >a'let:s eleventh?ho1r re'orse here th1s paves the ,ay for @sric:s challen"e, ,hich >a'let 'i"ht ,ell 61stify takin" 1p as a co1rtesy to the ,ron"ed 4aertes. >a'let:s ,holesale fli"ht fro' the reven"e on ,hich he ,as perched th1s has a dra'atic point in the folio version, and the di"ression fro' the prince:s intentions 'ay see' less noticea!le. B1t have lines !een c1t in the second <1arto or added in the folioJ Aeither te*t ,ill ans,er. #/. My acco1nt of the Mary?2arnley?Both,ell episode is dra,n principally fro' t,o so1rces, 7. E. Aeale, (ueen Elizabeth I .Ae, Kork: 2o1!leday, 3nchor, 195I0, 1#$?IF .see p. 1#5 for the description of 2arnley0, and 5illia' McEl,ee, 3isest 'ool , 19?##. .Both ,orks are hereafter cited in the te*t.0 + have also cons1lted 2avid >arris 5illson, <ing 7ames $I and I .4ondon: 7onathan Cape, 195F0, 1%?19= hereafter cited as 5illson, <ing 7ames . ##. 21ncan -ho'son, %ainting in Scotland 4CD6A45C6 .Edin!1r"h: -r1stees of the Aational ;alleries of Scotland, 19I50, 1%?19= <1oted in 8oland M1shat (rye, The Renaissance Hamlet .Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 19%G0, #/. (rye reprod1ces 4ivin1s de Oo"elaare:s paintin" The 2arnle# )emorial , and ;eor"e Oert1e:s ei"hteenth?cent1ry en"ravin" of the sa'e, on #/?##.

#G. 4illian 5instanley ,as the first to sho, that 'any of the essentials of Hamlet :s characters and plot derive not fro' literary so1rce !1t fro' 7aco!ean !io"raphy. 5instanley:s Hamlet and the Scottish Succession .Ca'!rid"e: Ca'!rid"e Univ. Press, 19/10 is the 'ost thoro1"h e*position of the relationship !et,een the 2arnley '1rder and the plot, lan"1a"e, and 'eanin" of the play. 7a'es, she ar"1es, rese'!les >a'let far 'ore closely than the Scandinavian aven"er 3'leth does. 5instanley reali&es that a conver"ence of historical events need not !e represented perfectly in a literary te*t. +f the parallels she dra,s are too pat, her concl1sions so'eti'es stretched a !it, she still provides a treas1re trove of infor'ation and s1""estions a!o1t the 7aco!ean Hamlet , and her ,ork is indispensa!le to 'y readin". #5. +t is interestin" to note that the 'arria"e of Mary and 2arnley 1nited, in the eyes of 'any conte'porary o!servers, the t,o people ,ith the stron"est clai' to inherit En"land:s throne= and ,hen Eli&a!eth heard of the proposed 1nion, she sent ,ord that the 'arria"e ,as Edan"ero1s to the co''on a'ityE of the En"lish and Scottish nations. #F. Pa1l Slack provides a s1""estive historical footnote a!o1t the pla"1e that 1nites these apparently disparate iss1es: E(rancis >errin" called 1F$# :the ,o'en:s year,: and a thoro1"h st1dy of St. Boltoph:s Bishops"ate parish in 4ondon has a'ply confir'ed that 'ale deaths vastly o1tn1'!ered fe'ale deaths in that epide'ic.E Slack, Impact of %lague , 1I9, citin" >errin", )odest 2efence .1F$G0, si". 3G. -he ,o'en in Hamlet do not fare conspic1o1sly !etter than the 'en, !1t all an*iety, incl1din" 'iso"yny, is e*acer!ated in the conte*t of epide'ic o1t!reaks and f1rther hei"htened !y political 1pheaval. #I. @n Escreen 'e'ory,E see Si"'1nd (re1d, The %s#chopatholog# of E.er#da# 0ife , trans. 3lan -yson .Ae, Kork: Aorton, 19FF0, G#?5/. (re1d s1pposes that the screen 'e'ory covers for or even s1!conscio1sly eradicates an 1npleasant or threatenin" pri'al event. #%. +n psychoanalytic theory, this inference ,o1ld !e 1naccepta!le or heretical: the 'other al,ays 'atters, perhaps even 'ore so in her a!sence than in her presence. B1t in ter's of 7a'es:s conscio1s and p1!lic an*ieties, the lack of parental .and fa'ilial0 infl1ence ,as i'portant only insofar as it affected his chances at s1ccession. +n the conte*t of e*plainin" ,hy he ,as headin" off to 2en'ark to o!tain his !ride in 15%9, 7a'es descri!es his childhood: E+ ,as alone, ,itho1t father or 'other, !rother or sister, kin" of this real' and heir apparent of En"land. -his nakedness 'ade 'e to !e ,eak and 'y ene'ies stark. @ne 'an ,as as no 'an, and the ,ant of hope of s1ccession !red disdain.E ;. P. O. 3kri"", ed., 0etters of <ing 7ames $I and I .Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 19%G0, 9%. +t is note,orthy that 7a'es constr1cts his deprivation of fa'ily not as a personal !1t a political lia!ility and that as early as 15%9 he re"arded hi'self 1ne<1ivocally as ne*t in line to the En"lish throne. 7onathan ;old!er" "ives an acco1nt of 7a'es:s co'ple* attit1de to,ard Mary in 7ames I and the %olitics of 0iterature .Balti'ore: 7ohns >opkins Univ. Press, 19%#0, 11?1I, /5?/F, 119. #9. -his oscillation also speaks of the strain >a'let feels in confrontin" 'aternal se*1ality. (or a fine, e*tended e*plication of this point, see 7anet 3del'an, Suffocating )others: 'antasies of )aternal *rigin in Sbakespeare1s %la#s, BHamletB to BThe TempestB .Ae, Kork: 8o1tled"e, 199/0, 11?#I. G$. (rye, Renaissance Hamlet , #G. G1. Shre,s!1ry, Histor# of the ,ubonic %lague , /FG. Pla"1e ,as ,idespread in Scotland 61st !efore the 'a6or o1t!reak in En"land, !1t it is i'possi!le to tell ,here the epide'ic !e"an. -he 'ost likely s1spect ,as the 4o, Co1ntries= Sto, ,rites in his -nnals of 1F$5: Ethe pla"1e of pest. !ein" "reat in >olland, Sealand, and other the lo, co1ntries, and 'any so1ldiers ret1rnin" thence into En"land, the infection ,as also spied in divers parts of this real'eE .<1oted in 5ilson, %lague , %F0. G/. @ne possi!le ca1se for Hamlet :s conflicted relationship to its conte*ts rests in the play:s '1ltiple,

indeter'inate chronolo"y= it is o1t of te'poral 6oint. +n its Eli&a!ethan ti'e fra'e, the play looks to !e ,istf1lly valedictory for an heroic a"e no, faded, one ,hich Troilus and Cressida decisively inters a year or t,o later. L1 .pre?1F$#0 has a 'ore po,erf1l, affir'ative <1een than the s1!se<1ent <1arto= !1t the plot of royal !lockade and the '1rdero1s stepfather .i.e., the 7aco!ean plot0 e*ists there all the sa'e. Straddlin" t,o re"i'es, the Hamlets of L1 and L/ !oth !elon" to !oth: the play.s0 cannot !e synthesi&ed, !1t neither do they independently see' EcharacteristicE of an a"e or a re"i'e. L1 and L/ !oth cond1ct their 'ost intense referentialities pointin" si'1ltaneo1sly in t,o directions, lookin" !efore and after. -he s1persession of c1lt1res in 1F$# and the s1!se<1ent s1persession of te"ts in 1F$GBL/ s1pplantin" and 1s1rpin" L1Bprod1ces a"itations in any atte'pt to interpret the' as if they ,ere f1lly co'ple'entary. G#. 7ohn >arin"ton, in !ugae -nti;uae , ed. -. Park, / vols. .4ondon, 1%$90, 1:1I9. GG. 5'stanley, Hamlet and the Scottish Succession , 1I/. (or an e*tended application of the idea that Esse* is inscri!ed in Hamlet , see i!id., 1#9?FG. G5. See 3kri"", 0etters of <ing 7ames , 1I#. GF. 7a'es McMana,ay, EEli&a!eth, Esse*, and 7a'es,E in >er!ert 2avis and >elen ;ardner, eds., Elizabethan and 7acobean Studies %resented to '. %. 3ilson .@*ford: Clarendon Press, 19590, //F= hereafter cited in the te*t. GI. L1oted in >1rstfield, ES1ccession Str1""le,E #9#. 21rin" the previo1s year Esse* had 'ade serio1s overt1res to 7a'es that indicated an ar'ed Scottish threat ,o1ld !e the !est ,ay to co'pel Eli&a!eth to declare 7a'es as her s1ccessor. 7a'es ca1tio1sly responded to Esse*:s te'ptin" invitation for s1pport= he ,rote that he E,o1ld think of it, and p1t Chi'selfD in a readiness to take any "ood occasion.E -his readiness for 7a'es, 1nlike for >a'let, as 'artial. +n 71ne 1F$$, the Scots kin" tried to solicit 'oney fro' his lords for an ar'y to s1pport his !id for L1een Eli&a!eth:s cro,n. @n these iss1es, and the <1otation fro' 7a'es, see 7ohn ;1y, Tudor England .@*ford: @*ford Univ. Press, 199$0, GG5. 3fter Cecil:s s1pport ,as offered, 7a'es repented of his itchy tri""er fin"er. >e reali&ed E,hat a foolish part ,ere that in 'e if + 'i"ht do it to ha&ard 'y hono1r, state, and person, in enterin" that kin"do' !y violence as a 1s1rperE .<1oted in >1rstfield, ES1ccession Str1""le,E #9/?9#0. (or a !rief !1t si"nificant 'o'ent in history, the 'o'ent in ,hich the s1ccession 'ay, in fact, have !een en"ineered, 7a'es re'arka!ly rese'!ledBin intention, in desireBnot 61st the prince denied his place !1t, 'ore tellin"ly, Cla1di1s, 4aertes, and (ortin!ras. + disc1ss f1rther kaleidoscopic possi!ilities of the royal i'a"e, and >a'let:s relation to the sa'e, !elo,. See >1rstfield, ES1ccession Str1""le,E for a fine acco1nt of Cecil:s role in the s'ooth transition of po,er. @n En"lish invasion an*iety a!o1t 7a'es, the Calendar of State %apers, 2omestic Series C CS%2 D .159%?1F$10 contains s1""estive s1''aries and e*cerpts fro' the letters of 7ohn Petit to Peter >alins. >ere is !1t one dispatch, dated @cto!er 11, 1599: E81'o1rs fly that the 9in" of Scots is preparin" to ,ar a"ainst En"land, and that his !rother?in?la, of 2en'ark has !roken the ice alreadyE .#/I0. 8eferences to the CS%2 letters and 7ohn ;1y are fro' St1art 91rland:s essay E>a'let and the Scottish S1ccessionJE ,hich + ,as fort1nate to see in 'an1script. My thanks to 4eah Marc1s for dra,in" this essay to 'y attention. G%. (rye, Renaissance Hamlet , ##$ n. %I. G9. 7ohn Cha'!erlain to 21dley Carleton, // (e!r1ary 1F$$, in 0etters , 1:%I. 5$. 7on Elster perceptively co''ents that the conditions of ,hat ,e con?

ceive of as rational choice are often really the selections ,e 'ake fro' a set of e*tre'e restrictions. See Elster, Sour +rapes: Studies in the Sub.ersion of Rationalit# .Ca'!rid"e: Ca'!rid"e Univ. Press, 19%#0. 51. +t is a c1rio1s irony that the 'an leadin" the char"e for reven"e ,as (rancis Ste,art >ep!1rn, fifth earl of Both,ellBthe nephe, of Mary:s second h1s!and. -he yo1n"er Both,ell proved to !e a painf1l thorn in 7a'es:s side, as + disc1ss !elo,. 5/. See Peter 5ent,orth, - %ithie E"hortation -bout the Succession .4ondon, 159%0. 5#. >1rstfield, ES1ccession Str1""le,E #91. 5G. +n the "ravedi""er scene, the second Eclo,neE says to the first a!o1t @phelia:s death that Ethe cro,ner hath sate on her, and finds it Christian !1riallE .Miv0. -hat a coroner ,as a Ecro,nerE see's entirely !1t el1sively si"nificant in Hamlet = it does contin1e a s1stained association !et,een kin"ship and death, !1t it 'ay also s1""est that in death people receive their apotheoses, their cro,ns or re,ards, for their earthly lives. 55. +ndeed, the play <1ickly dispenses ,ith the possi!le infl1ence that co''1nities 'i"ht have= 4aertes ref1ses to let the 'o! that seeks to elect hi' into the royal presence cha'!er ,ith Cla1di1s. 5F. Even a cas1al per1sal of the '1ltiple '1rders, !etrayals, and treasons that pepper Scottish clan history in the si*teenth cent1ry reveals that the reven"e code ,as an inte"ral part of fa'ily and political life of the ne, kin":s ti'e. 7a'es ,as, in fact, called on fre<1ently to aven"e the death of kins'en and friendsB'ost nota!ly .other than that of his father, 2arnley0 the death of the earl of Moray. See McEl,ee, 3isest 'ool , I$. 5I. -his o1tco'e 'ay ,ell !e pinned to Cla1di1s:s deeds rather than >a'let:s, insofar as the kin" has per'itted (ortin!ras to 1se 2en'ark as a shortc1t on the ,ay to Poland and, pres1'a!ly, on the ,ay !ack. +'a"ine the dan"er involved: Cla1di1s "ives free passa"e thro1"h his lands to ar'ed forces ,hich 1ntil fairly recently ,ere threatenin" his kin"do'. 5hile it see's i'pro!a!le that he ,o1ld 'ake s1ch a !road tactical error, the a1dience and >a'let '1st !e allo,ed to track the pro"ress of (ortin!ras the fort1nate. 5%. 3s the *E2 notes 1nder the ver! Eha1nt,E E(ro' the 1ncertainty of the derivation, it is not clear ,hether the earliest sense in (rench and En"lish ,as to practise ha!it1ally .an action, etc.0 or to fre<1ent ha!it1ally .a place0.E 3s part of a potentially relevant ety'olo"y, note Eric Partrid"e:s intri"1in" incl1sion of the ,ord Eha'letE !eneath the ste' ::ha1ntE in *rigins: - Short Et#mological 2ictionar# of )odern English .Ae, Kork: ;reen,ich >o1se, 19%#0. 59. L1oted in Aichols, %rogresses , 1:/5%?59. F$. (or a closer look into 7a'es:s foot?in?the?'o1th an"er ,ith Eli&a!eth over the Both,ell affair, see 3kri"", 0etters of <ing 7ames , 11/?/%. F1. 5instanley, Hamlet and the Scottish Succession , 9$?91. F/. Christina 4arner, E7a'es O+ and + and 5itchcraft,E in 3lan ;. 8. S'ith, ed., The Reign of 7ames $I and I .4ondon: Mac'illan, 19I#0, %1. @n Both,ell and ,itchcraft, see also McEl,ee, 3isest 'ool , I$?IG. F#. 4ike the end of Troilus and Cressida, Hamlet evokes an a!sence of a do'inant ideolo"y, 'issin" fro' or 1navaila!le in transitional c1lt1re. .-he cr1shin" !1t va"1e o!6ect called EpatriarchyE '1st !e e*cepted fro' this "enerali&ation.0 +t has !een s1""ested that the notion of Edo'inant ideolo"yE !e a!andoned, and this a!andon'ent 'i"ht !e appropriate in a pla"1e ,orld, ,here that ,hich is 'ost conta"io1s and infectio1s .i.e., pers1asive0 is also and o!vio1sly 'ost

1nsta!le and fatal. See Aicholas 3!ercro'!ie and Bryan S. -1rner, E-he 2o'inant +deolo"y -hesis,:: ,ritish 7ournal of Sociolog# /9 .71ne 19I%0: 1G9?I$, and -. 7. 7ackson 4ears, E-he Concept of C1lt1ral >e"e'ony: Pro!le's and Possi!ilities,E -merican Historical Re.ie 9$, no. # .19%50: 5FI?9#. + a' inde!ted to (rank 2ono"h1e for these references. FG. E+n 15%$, the Stratford?on?3von archives record an in<1est on 9atherine >a'lett, dro,ned in the 3von. OerdictB'isadvent1re.E Eric Sa's, E-a!oo or Aot -a!ooJ -he -e*t, 2atin", and 31thorship of Hamlet , 15%9?1F/#,E Hamlet Studies 1$ .s1''er ,inter 19%%0: 1G. F5. + refer the reader to 8oland M. (rye:s i'pressive co'pendi1' of s1ch conte*ts in The Renaissance Hamlet . FF. -he e*perience of dan"ero1s se<1ence and desi"n in history !ro1"ht the ,ord EplotE an actively threatenin" connotation: 7a'es hi'self p1!lici&ed the evils of plot, first in the ;o,rie conspiracy, then, 'ost f1lly, in the ;1npo,der Plot of 1F$5. 3s Peter Brooks s1""estively ,rites: E-he fo1rth sense of the ,ord C:plot:D, the sche'e or conspiracy, see's to have co'e into En"lish thro1"h the conta'inatin" infl1ence of the (rench complot , and !eca'e ,idely kno,n at the ti'e of the ;1npo,der Plot. + ,o1ld s1""est that in 'odern literat1re . . . the or"ani&in" line of plot is 'ore often than not so'e sche'e or 'achination, a concerted plan for the acco'plish'ent of so'e p1rpose ,hich "oes a"ainst the ostensi!le and do'inant le"alities of the fictional ,orld, the reali&ation of a !locked and resisted desire.E Brooks, Reading for the %lot: 2esign and Intention in !arrati.e .Ae, Kork: Ointa"e, 19%G0, 1/. Blocked and resisted desire is the fo1ndation of Hamlet :s plot= the play 1ndoes plot ,itho1t resolvin" the !locka"e or resistance.

F$+r, 3A T)ent' Years4 Rem$&e* Thing32T)el%th Night4s N$stalgia

1. +n 'akin" this clai', 'y ar"1'ent directly opposes that of 4eslie >otson, ,hose close readin" of the play:s conte*ts is !ased on archival records of 2on Oir"inio @rsino:s visit to L1een Eli&a!eth:s co1rt in 1F$1, ,here the d1ke ,as entertained ,ith dances, 'as<1es, and '1sic. >otson:s ,ork is inval1a!le for its ,ealth of conte'porary e*cavations and its i'a"inative te*t1al forays= + have !een especially infl1enced !y his treat'ent of the @livia?Eli&a!eth parallel. >o,ever, his readin" as a ,hole is !ased on ,hat see' to 'e several 1ntena!le pre'ises, chief a'on" the' this: that @rsino in T elfth !ight is 'eant as a compliment to the visitin" di"nitary. See 4eslie >otson, The 'irst !ight of BT elfth !ightB .4ondon: 81pert >art?2avies, 195G0, esp. 11#?#/, for the inscription of Eli&a!eth in the play. /. -he 'ost thoro1"h treat'ent of Malvolio:s social position is 7ohn 2raper, The BT elfth !ightB of Shakespeare1s -udience .Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 195$0, %F?11#. #. 3rch!ishop 7ohn 5hit"ift, -n -ns ere to a certen libel intituled -n -dmonition to the parliament 4CDJ .4ondon, 15I/0, 1%. G. Aashe, %as;uil1s Return , in The 3orks of Thomas !ashe , ed. 8onald Br1nlees Mc9erro,, 5 vols. .4ondon: 3. >. B1llen, 19$G0, 1:9G. 5. Aashe, %ierce %enniless , in 3orks , /:1$$. F. ;. 9. >1nter, ed., -ll1s 3ell That Ends 3ell Lrpt. 0ondon: )ethuen, 4GDDM, and note to 4.K.G4AGJ. Robert +reene complains that e.en his genuine remorse about past turpitude as mocked as a h#pocritical act: B3hen I had discouered that I sorro ed for m# ickednesse. . . the# fell .pon me in ieasting manner, calling me %uritane and %resizian.B +reene, Repentance , in The 0ife and Complete 3orks in %rose and $erse of Robert +reene , ed. 3le*ander B. ;rosart, 1/ vols. .4ondon: 3yles!1ry, printed for private circ1lation, 1%%1?%F0, 1/:1IF. (or 'ore on the vestiarian controversy, see Marshall Mason 9nappen:s se'inal ,ork, Tudor

%uritanism: - Chapter in the Histor# of Idealism .Chica"o: Univ. of Chica"o Press, 19#90, 1%I?/1F. I. @n this point, see any of the follo,in" s1per! st1dies: 9nappen, Tudor %uritanism = Patrick Collinson, The Elizabeth %uritan )o.ement .4ondon: 7onathan Cape, 19FI0= Michael 5al&er, The Re.olution of the Saints: Studies in the *rigins of Radical %olitics .4ondon: 5eidenfeld and Aicholson, 19FF0= 5illia' >aller, The Rise of %uritanism .Ae, Kork: >arper and 8o,, 195I0= 7. E. Aeale, Elizabeth I and Her %arliaments, 4CEHA4564 .4ondon: 7onathan Cape, 195I0= and for the literary response, 5illia' P. >olden, -ntiA%uritan Satire 4CDJA45HJ .Ae, >aven: Kale Univ. Press, 195G0. %. So Meredith >an'er, ,ritin" in 15II a history of the early ch1rch, asserts that EAovat1s . . . !eca'e hi'self the a1thor and rin"leader of his o,n hereticall sect, to ,it, of s1ch as thro1"h their s,ellin" pride do call the'selves P1ritans.E +n The auncient ecclesiasticall histories of the first si" hundred #ears after Christ . . . .4ondon, 15II0, O+.G#.11F. 9. Pa1l Sie"el, EMalvolio: Co'ic P1ritan 31to'aton,E in Ma1rice Charney, ed., Shakespearean Comed# .Ae, Kork 4iterary (or1', 19%$0, /1I?#$= hereafter cited in te*t and notes as Sie"el, EMalvolio.E 1$. 7. 4. Si''ons, E3 So1rce for Shakespeare:s Malvolio: -he Eli&a!ethan Controversy ,ith the P1ritans,E Huntington 0ibrar# (uarterl# #F .May 19I#0: 1%1. Si''ons 'akes the 'ost co'plete case for Malvolio as a P1ritan inscription= Sie"el and all s1!se<1ent co''entators on the iss1e are '1ch inde!ted to this article. 11. 3ll citations and <1otations fro' T elfth !ight are fro' the 3rden edition, ed. 7. M. 4othian and -. 5. Craik .4ondon: Meth1en, 19I50. 1/. Pa1l Sie"el, Shakespeare in His Time and *urs .Aotre 2a'e: Univ. of Aotre 2a'e Press, 19F%0, /GF. 1#. E(or a static and deter'inistic >1'o1r, Shakespeare s1!stit1ted a kinetic, "overnin" 3ppetite in the action . . . of his 'a6or characters.E 7ohn >ollander, E T elfth !ight and the Morality of +nd1l"ence,E in 7a'es 4. Calder,ood and >arold E. -oliver, eds., Essa#s in Shakespearean Criticism .En"le,ood Cliffs, A.7.: Prentice?>all, 19I$0, /9/. See also 9enneth B1rke:s 'arvelo1s description of @rsino:s ::larval feedin",E fro' E-rial -ranslation .(ro' T elfth !ight 0,E in his The %hilosoph# of 0iterar# 'orm , #d ed. .Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 19I#0, #GG?G9. + thank (rank 5hi"ha' for this reference. 1G. Sie"el 'akes the leap !et,een Maria:s desi"nation Eti'e?pleaserE and one ,ho professes reli"ion si'ply for his o,n profit !y 'eans of -ho'as 5ilson:s - 2iscourse upon &sur# .15I/= rpt. Ae, Kork: >arco1rt, Brace, 19/50, ,hich 'ay have appeared ,hen it did partly as a co1nter to -n -dmonition to %arliament .15I/0. Sie"el cites 5ilson:s ar"1'ent that Eto1chin" this sinne of 1s1ry, none doe 'ore openly offende in thys !ehalfe than do these co1nterfaite professo1rs of thys p1re reli"ionE .1I%0= Sie"el, EMalvolio,E /1%. 15. Sie"el cites >olden:s -ntiA%uritan Satire 4CDJA45HJ , G/, 11G?15, for evidence that P1ritans ,ere re"arded as 'isers and !1siness cheats. Sie"el, EMalvolio,E /19. 1F. -his c1sto' 'i"ht so1nd !ar!aric and i'pro!a!le, !1t in a"ric1lt1ral areas it is .or ,as0 fre<1ent. +n one recent 3'erican case, E3 for'er a"ric1lt1ral sciences hi"h school teacher ,ho ,as fired after one of his st1dents castrated a pi" ,ith his teeth is askin" the -e*as Ed1cation 3"ency for his 6o! !ack.E -he 'an, na'ed .this is tr1e0 2ick Pirkey, defended his peda"o"ical 'ethod !y e*plainin" that E,hen he ,as in colle"e, his professor sho,ed hi' ho, to orally castrate la'!s. . . . +ndeed, a te*t!ook 1sed !y the >ar'ony C-e*asD school district reco''ends oral castration of la'!s. . . . 3 la,yer

representin" Pirkey presented three te*t!ooks that disc1ss oral la'! castration, incl1din" one ,ith pict1res.E 2avid Elliot, EPi" Castration -eacher 5ants 7o! Back,E -ustin -mericanAStatesman , 7an1ary /%, 199#, B1. 1I. (or -o!y:s o,n inclination to ass1'e and co''and s1ch post1res, see his orders to 3ndre, concernin" Cesario: E;o, Sir 3ndre,: sco1t 'e for hi' at the corner of the orchard, like a !1'?!ailyE .#.G.1II?I%0. 4othian and Craik define the ter': Ea !ailiff .sheriff:s officer0 ,ho co'es 1p behind his <1arryE . T elfth !ight , 1$/0. -his positionin" is re'iniscent of the o!servation of Malvolio and his discovery of the letter, as + disc1ss !elo,. 1%. (or a f1ll?len"th consideration of the ,ays in ,hich the 41crece story f1nctions in the lar"er conte*t of 5estern h1'anis', see Stephanie >. 7ed, Chaste Thinking: The Rape of 0ucretia and the ,irth of Humanism .Bloo'in"ton and +ndianapolis: Univ. of +ndiana Press, 19%90. 19. See Bar!ara (reed'an, Staging the +aze: %ostmodernism, %s#choanal#sis, and Shakespearean Comed# .+thaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 19910, 19/?/#5, and Eli&a!eth (re1nd, E T elfth !ight and the -yranny of +nterpretation,E E0H 5# .19%F0: GI1?%9. /$. (or so'e other e*a'ples of the I?a# and @ p1ns, see Eric Partrid"e, Shakespeare1s ,a d# .Ae, Kork: 21tton, 19F$0, 1$9 and 159, s.v. EeyeE and E@.E -he E3E 'ay stand for EassE or Earse,:: a possi!ility + a' less confident a!o1t= still, the readin" is te'ptin", in that the E3E and the E@E are said to !e in the ,ron" places in the ana"ra', and so this scene can stand as a lo,?co'ic, parodic version of the Oiola plot. /1. See 7a'es (. (orrest, EMalvolio and P1ritan :Sin"1larity,:E English 0anguage !otes 11 .19I#0, /F$= cited in Sie"el, EMalvolio,E //1. //. See >olden, -ntiA%uritan Satire , for a !alanced readin" of Malvolio:s P1ritan and non?P1ritan ele'ents: E+ndeed, Malvolio sho,s no si"n of reli"io1s eccentricity in the co1rse of the play= it is, rather, in other respects that he "ives the i'pression of !ein" P1ritanical. . . . >e is too sole'n and sad: he talks 1n?necessarily of decay and death. . . . >o,ever, in his speeches in later scenes, Malvolio has no trace of the traditional idio' or phrase of the precisian: he talks as a ,ell? trained servant in a ho1sehold sho1ldE .1/G?/50. See also the note !y 8olfe in the $ariorum edition of T elfth !ight , ed. >orace >o,ard (1rness .Philadelphia: 7. B. 4ippincott, 19$G0, 1#$. Malvolio:s interest in decay and death, !y the ,ay, invites a co'parison !et,een the ste,ard and the fool, ,ho is al,ays sin"in" a!o1t the end of festivity. -his co'parison !eco'es e*plicit at the end of the play ,hen @livia, ,ith 'eas1red sy'pathy, says to her ste,ard: E3las, poor fool, ho, have they !affled thee.E +t sho1ld also !e noted that Malvolio:s description of Oiola as Cesario co1ld play as a species of Ee*cellent foolin",E altho1"h this ,o1ld not occ1r to hi': 5e can spy a f1rther conver"ence !et,een Malvolio and (este not only in their !itter rivalry !1t in the fool:s o,n 'oral prono1nce'ents= he has already 'ade to @rsino the most P1ritanical co''entary in the dra'a: E-r1ly, sir, and pleas1re ,ill !e paid, one ti'e or anotherE ./.G.I$0. Malvolio is far fro' isolated in his constr1cted convictions. +ndeed, P1ritanis', ver!al precision, and acco1ntin" .or attention to 'oney0 are all of a piece in +llyria. Sho,n to !e, in the letter?decipherin" scene, a Ecorr1pter of ,ordsE like (este .and, 'ore to the point, of non,ords s1ch as EM.@.3.+.::0, Malvolio does not 'ake ,anton ,ith lan"1a"e, as (este and Maria do, !1t atte'pts to 'ake ,ords too acc1rate, too representational. S1''in" 1p the evidence of -o!y:s !ehavior that, he thinks, points to his favor, Malvolio asserts that Eno dra' of a scr1ple, no scr1ple of a scr1ple, no o!stacle, no incred1lo1s or 1nsafe circ1'stanceB,hat can !e saidJBnothin" that can !e can co'e !et,een 'e and the f1ll prospect of 'y hopesE .#.G.I9?%#0. >is ver!al invol1tions, shorn of the spirit of foolery, see' like foolishness. B1t the atte'pts either to strait6acket lan"1a"e or to disen"a"e it fro' sense .(este: E'y

lady has a ,hite hand, and the Myr'idons are no !ottle?ale ho1sesE C/.#./%?/9D0 have the sa'e de"ree of 'oral rectit1de, and !oth serve their corr1pters a sin"le p1rpose: to profit 'aterially .ECo'e on, there is si*pence for yo1E0. -he clo,n and the ste,ard, the fool and the 'ad'an, fi"ht over the sa'e precise "ro1nd. /#. -he o!str1ction in the !lood re"isters the !odily effect of interpretive !locka"e= earlier, siftin" thro1"h the letter:s cl1es, Malvolio co''ented: E5hy, this is evident to any for'al capacity. -here is no o!str1ction in thisE ./.5.11I?190. -he c1l'ination of these references co'es in act G, ,here (este Sir -opas parado*ically asserts that Malvolio:s prison is and is not dark: E5hy, it hath !ay? ,indo,s transparent as !arricadoes, and the clerestories to,ard the so1th? north are as l1stro1s as e!ony: and yet co'plainest tho1 of o!str1ctionJE .G./.#I?G$0. -he sy'!olic s1!te*t of these lines is the clai' that Malvolio sees only Ethro1"h a "lass darklyEBthat is, not at all: Eno, + kno, in part= !1t then shall + kno, even as also + a' kno,nE .1 Cor. 1#:1/0. B1t even tho1"h revelation and reco"nition do co'e to hi', they are scarcely spirit1al 1ncoverin"s. -he clai' that Malvolio:s desi"ned tor'ent has anythin" to do ,ith his spirit1al deficit is itself a 'orally occl1ded one, partic1larly co'in" fro' the reven"in" (ool and his ad'irers. /G. 3 perceptive acco1nt of this dyna'ic !et,een servants is in Elliot 9rie"er, - )ar"ist Stud# of Shakespeare1s Comedies .Ae, Kork: Barnes and Ao!le, 19I90, 9I?1#$= hereafter cited in te*t. /5. >otson, 'irst !ight , 11#. /F. ;enerally speakin", P1ritans .,hose Calvinist theolo"y ,as inte"rally related to and not far afield fro' the do'inant 3n"licans:0 ,ere not treated in s1ch fashion. (or a !rief acco1nt of 7es1it persec1tion, see Patrick Mc;rath, %apists and %uritans under Elizabeth I .4ondon: Blandford Press, 19FI0, /55?5%. /I. 4othian and Craik note that the folio spellin", E8ene"atho,E Ereflects the ,ord:s Spanish ori"in and Eli&a!ethan pron1nciationE . T elfth !ight , %%0. /%. Bancroft, Sur.a# of the %retended Hol# 2iscipline .4ondon, 159#0, G15?1F= <1oted in Si''ons, ESo1rce for Shakespeare:s Malvolio,E 1%G. /9. L1oted in >arry C1lver,ell Porter, ed., %uritanism in Tudor England .4ondon: Mac'illan, 19I$0, 19%?99= hereafter cited in te*t. #$. 7ohn Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion , trans. (ord 4e,is Battles .;rand 8apids, Mich.: Eerd'ans, 19%F0, #G. B1t Malvolio sho1ld have read on: Enever ,ill ,e have eno1"h confidence in ;od 1nless ,e !eco'e deeply distr1stf1l of o1rselves. Aever ,ill ,e lift 1p o1r hearts eno1"h in hi' 1nless they !e previo1sly cast do,n in 1sE .#G0. #1. @liver @r'erod, %uritanoA%apismus: or - discouerie of %uritanpapisme , /G, si". P/= hereafter cited in te*t. -his ,ork is appended to The %icture of a %uritan> or, - Relation of the opinions, ;ualities, and practises of the -nabaptists in +ermanie, and of the %uritanes in England .4ondon, 1F$5= rpt. 3'sterda': -heatr1' @r!is -errar1', 19I5 CS-C 1%%51D0. #/. 7ohn S. Coolid"e, The %auline Renaissance in England: %uritanism and the ,ible .@*ford: Clarendon Press, 19I$0, esp. 1?//. ##. 7.E. Aeale, E-he Oia Media in Politics: 3 >istorical Parallel,E in his Essa#s in Elizabethan Histor# .4ondon: 7onathan Cape, 195%0, 1/$?/1. #G. 7ohn (ield, the stal,art P1ritan a1thor and or"ani&er, invei"hed a"ainst the c1sto': 3s for 'atri'ony, that also has corr1ptions too 'any. +t ,as ,ont to !e co1nted a sacra'ent= and therefore they 1se yet a sacra'ental si"n, to ,hich they attri!1te the virt1e

of ,edlock. + 'ean the ,eddin" rin", ,hich they fo1lly a!1se and dally ,ithal, in takin" it 1p and layin" it do,n. (ield, E3 Oie, of popish 3!1ses yet re'ainin" in the En"lish Ch1rch, for ,hich the "odly Ministers have ref1sed to s1!scri!e,E <1oted in Porter, %uritanism in Tudor England , 1/%?/9. (or 'ore on (ield, see Patrick Collinson, E7ohn (ield and Eli&a!ethan P1ritanis',E in S. -. Bindoff, 7. >1rstfield, and C. >. 5illia's eds., Elizabethan +o.ernment and Societ#: Essa#s %resented to Sir 7ohn !eale .4ondon: 3thlone Press, 19F10, 1/I?F/. #5. Marshall Mason 9nappen, ed., T o Elizabethan %uritan 2iaries b# Richard Rogers and Samuel 3ard .Chica"o: 3'erican Society for Ch1rch >istory, 19##0, F5. #F. 8. >. -a,ney, Religion and the Rise of Capitalism , rev. ed. .Ae, Kork: >arco1rt Brace, 19#I0, esp. //F?G#. (or a vi"oro1s re6ection of -a,ney:s hypothesis on the "ro1nds that Es1ch ideas are 1tterly 1nrepresentative of classical P1ritanis' and even of P1ritan econo'ic theory,E see 3. ;. 2ickens, The English Reformation .Ae, Kork: Schocken, 19FG0, #1F?1I. 2ickens ar"1es, ,ith i'portant resonances for those ,ho ,o1ld see Malvolio in solely P1ritanical "ar!, that the P1ritan 'ove'ent ,as Ean essentially other?,orldly reli"ion, do'inated not only !y an al'ost 'or!id 'oral sensitivity !1t !y a real distr1st of :'odern: capitalist tendenciesE .#1I0. B1t 2avid Varet s1""ests that the Erhetorical 1se of contract1al the'es !y P1ritan clerics 'akes sense only in vie, of their ass1'ption that "odly parishioners ,ere fa'iliar ,ith the principles and practices dictated !y the rational p1rs1it of self? interest in 'arkets. +ndeed, te*t1al evidence indicates ho, this ass1'ption e*plicitly ani'ated P1ritan rhetoric.E See The Hea.enl# Contract: Ideolog# and *rganization in %reARe.olutionar# %uritanism .Chica"o: Univ. of Chica"o Press, 19%50, /$#. -he Ecorrosive individ1alis' that 1nder'ined the corporate solidarity and str1ct1re of co''1nal life and th1s paved the ,ay for capitalist societyE . Hea.enl# Contract , /$10 that so'e historians have descri!ed P1ritanis' as fosterin" ,ell descri!es Malvolio:s solitary .if not Esin"1lar::0 stance and concern ,ith his o,n stat1s in the play. B1t + cannot help thinkin" that the so?called festive co''1nity of +llyria, especially the other 'e'!ers of @livia:s ho1se, co'prises an a""re"ate of corrosive individ1als ,hose sincere dedication to prod1cin" nothin" itself 1nder'ines the capitalist enterprise. -he str1ct1re of co''1nal life in T elfth !ight is a'on" the play:s 'ost diffic1lt social ele'ents to pin do,n. #I. See The Interpreter1s 2ictionar# of the ,ible , s.v. Este,ard, ste,ardship.E + have also !enefited fro' the citations in The Enc#clopedia of the 0utheran Church , ed. 71li1s Bodensieck, # vols. .Minneapolis: 31"s!1r", 19F50, #://FG?F5= hereafter cited in the te*t as Enc#clopedia . #%. L1oted in Porter, %uritanism in Tudor England , 1G#. #9. +t 'i"ht !e ar"1ed that these characteristics !eca'e distinctly EP1ritanE only in the 'id to later seventeenth cent1ry, and th1s that 9rie"er:s clai' is ahistorical. B1t he 'akes a 1sef1l point a!o1t the sy'!olic and philosophical si'ilarity of tor'entor and victi', and a!o1t their act1al diver"ence in ter's of class affiliations. G$. 7ohn (ield .J0, -n -dmonition to the %arliament .4ondon, 15I/0, in 5. >. (rere and C. E. 2o1"las, eds., %uritan )anifestoes: - Stud# of the *rigin of the %uritan Re.olt .4ondon: Ch1rch >istorical Society, 19$I0, //= hereafter cited in te*t. G1. (or 'ore on the specific o!6ections of P1ritans to theater, see 7onas Barish, The -ntitheatrical %re=udice .Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 19%10, %$?1#1. G/. (or a st1nnin" early Eli&a!ethan e*a'ple of a direct criti<1e, see Ed,ard 2erin", - Sermon %reached ,efore the (ueenes )a=estie .15I$0, in his 3orkes .4ondon, 159I0. G#. Aeale, EOia Media in PoliticsE: E-o L1een Eli&a!eth, P1ritanis' ,as an a!o'ination. She hated

and scorned its doctrinaire character, disliked its radicalis', and detested its in<1isitorial disciplineE .1/10. GG. 4etter to 3rch!ishop Parker, <1oted in Porter, %uritanism in Tudor England , 1G1. G5. (or a fine s1''ary of the position and stat1s of the Bro,nists in Eli&a!ethan En"land, see Sa'1el >opkins, The %uritans and (ueen Elizabeth> or, the Church, Court, and %arliament of England , # vols. .Ae, Kork, 1%I50, 1:/1%?##. GF. E-he thr1st of P1ritan doctrine, for all the evasiveness of the 'inisters, ,as clear eno1"h: it pointed to,ard the overthro, of the traditional order.E 5al&er, Re.olution of the Saints , 11%. GI. 3n"lican a1thorities ,orried openly a!o1t and fo1"ht vi"oro1sly a"ainst !1r"eonin" P1ritan parlia'entary infl1ence pri'arily in the 15I$s to the early 159$s. +n Elizabeth I and Her %arliaments , Aeale asserts that E:the "odly !rotherhood:Bas they ter'ed the'selvesB,ere in process of creatin" a revol1tionary sit1ationE .1G50 in the parlia'ents of the 'id?15%$s. G%. Patrick Mc;rath confir's that Ethe P1ritans, like the Papists, ,ere not a"ain to en6oy the s1ccesses ,hich had !een so 'arked a feat1re of their history in the 15%$s.E Mc;rath, %apists and %uritans , /5/. G9. -his point is e'phasi&ed !y Stephen @r"el, E:Ao!ody:s Perfect:= or, 5hy 2id the En"lish Sta"e -ake Boys for 5o'enJE South -tlantic (uarterl# %%, no. 1 .,inter 19%90: /I. 5$. Barish, -ntitheatrical %re=udice , %9. -he P1ritan criti<1e of a'!ise*1al "ar! ,as not the only so1rce for invective a"ainst sartorial !o1ndary?crossin". +n The 2escription of ,ritaine .15II0, 5illia' >arrison ,rites ,ith ill te'per of the "ro,in" favor for 'en:s acco1tre'ents in ,o'en:s clothin": +n ,o'en also, it is 'ost to !e la'ented, that they do no, far e*ceed the li"htness of o1r 'en .,ho nevertheless are transfor'ed fro' the cap even to the very shoe0. . . . 5hat sho1ld + say of their do1!lets ,ith pendant codpieces on the !reast f1ll of 6a"s and c1ts, and sleeves of s1ndry colo1rsJ -heir "alli"ascons to !ear o1t their !1's and 'ake their attire to fit pl1' ro1nd .as they ter' it0 a!o1t the'. -heir fardin"als, and diversely colo1red nether stocks of silk, 6erdsey, and s1ch like, ,here!y their !odies are rather defor'ed than co''endedJ + have 'et ,ith so'e of these tr1lls in 4ondon so dis"1ised that it hath passed 'y skill to discern ,hether they ,ere 'en or ,o'en. -h1s it is no, co'e to pass, that ,o'en are !eco'e 'en, and 'en transfor'ed into 'onsters. +n Elizabethan England , ed. 4othrop 5ithin"ton .4ondon: 5alter Scott, n.d.0, 11$. -his acco1nt of the colorf1l, shape?chan"in" "ar'ents recalls at once Malvolio, ,hose constrictin" "arters pain hi' pleasin"ly, and @rsino, ,ho, accordin" to (este, sho1ld have a do1!let 'ade of chan"ea!le taffeta. 51. 7. B. Black, The Reign of Elizabeth, 4CCEA456K .@*ford: Clarendon Press, 19#F0, #$$?#$1. -he !est?detailed st1dy in En"lish of the political ener? "ies and 'ane1vers aro1nd the affair is !y Conyers 8ead, )r. Secretar# 3alsingham and the %olic# of (ueen Elizabeth , # vols. .@*ford: 3rchon Books, 19FI0, /:1?11I. 5/. 3s B1rlei"h and other lords spec1lated, the cr1cial !enefit of the 'atch ,o1ld have !een its creation of a potent anti?Spanish alliance, for 9in" >enri +++ ,o1ld likely have 6oined his !rother 3n6o1 and Eli&a!eth in aidin" 21tch re!els a"ainst the encroach'ents of Spanish forces. -he Aetherlands revolt, 1nder 3n6o1:s a1spices, ,as a 'a6or sellin" point for the (rench 'atch. See Mack P. >olt, The 2uke of -n=ou and the %oliti;ue Struggle 2uring the 3ars of Religion .Ca'!rid"e: Ca'!rid"e Univ.

Press, 19%F0, 11%?/$. 5#. >er s1spicions 'ay have !een fed !y a diet of reports a!o1t 3n6o1:s appearance. >is visa"e ,as r1'ored to have !een !adly 'arred !y s'allpo*, and the <1een disco1ra"in"ly instr1cted his a'!assadors that Eshe co1ld not 'arry any prince ,itho1t seein" hi', and if 3lenWon ,as "oin" to take offence in case, after seein" hi', she did not accept hi', he had !etter not co'e.E Cited in Martin 3ndre, Sharp >1'e, The Courtships of (ueen Elizabeth .Ae, Kork: Mac'illan, 1%9%0, 195. 5G. L1oted in >arris Aicolas, )emoirs of the 0ife and Times of Sir Christopher Hatton .4ondon: 8ichard Bentley, 1%GI0, 1$F. 55. Black, Reign of Elizabeth , #$1. 5F. -he epithet is cited in Aeale, (ueen Elizabeth I. - ,iograph# .Ae, Kork: 2o1!leday, 3nchor, 195I0, /G5, !1t 1nfort1nately he does not "ive a so1rce for it. 5I. See Aicolas, 0ife of Hatton , 1$F. 5%. L1oted in Aicolas, 0ife of Hatton , 1$%. -he letter can also !e fo1nd in ;. B. >arrison, ed., The 0etters of (ueen Elizabeth .4ondon: Cassell, 19#50, 1#$?#5. -he 'issive ends ,ith another chafed reference to r1'ors that 'ay have arisen a"ainst the <1een and Si'ier: E>avin" th1s at lar"e laid !efore yo1 the ,hole co1rse of o1r late proceedin" ,ith de Si'ier. . . ,e nothin" do1!t !1t that yo1 ,ill report the sa'e !oth to the 9in" and to the 21ke in that "ood sort as !oth they 'ay !e ind1ced to see their error, and ,e dischar"ed of s1ch cal1'niations as perhaps !y s1ch as are 'alicio1sly affected to,ards 1s in that Co1rt 'ay !e "iven o1t a"ainst 1s.E 59. 4loyd E. Berry, ed., 7ohn Stubbs1s B+aping +ulfB ith 0etters and *ther Rele.ant 2ocuments .Charlottesville: Univ. Press of Oir"inia for the (ol"er Shakespeare 4i!rary, 19F%0, 15F. S1!se<1ent references to St1!!s and Aortha'pton ,ill !e to this edition, cited in te*t and notes as Berry, Stubbs1s B+aping +ulf.B F$. Calendar of State %apers, 'oreign Series, 4CDEA4CDG , ed. 3rth1r 7ohn B1tler .4ondon, 19$#0, #1$. >ereafter cited as CS%' 4CDEADG . F1. Berry, Stubbs1s B+aping +ulf,B 1G9?5$. -his doc1'ent is also e*cerpted in 7ohn Strype, -nnals of the Reformation and Establishment of Religion , % vols. .@*ford: Clarendon, 1%/G0, G:/#/?#%. (or f1rther praise of Si'ier, see CS%' 4CDEADG , GF#. F/. -he letter, fro' Si'ier to 8och des Sor!iers, sei"ne1r des Pr1nea1* .3n6o1:s co''issioner to the Aetherlands0, contin1es ,ith sincere praise of the <1een: E+ s,ear to yo1 that she is the 'ost virt1o1s and hono1ra!le princess in the ,orld= her ,it is ad'ira!le, and there are so 'any other parts to re'ark in her that + sho1ld need '1ch ink and paper to catalo"1e the'.E CS%' 4CDEADG , G%I. F#. Si'ier to Michael de Castelna1, sei"ne1r de Ma1vissiere, (rench a'!assador in En"land, Aov. #, 15I%= in CS%' 4CDEADG , /F$. FG. EC:est <1e 'on fils ':a faict dire par le 8oy <1:il ne la ve1t 6a'ais espo1ser, <1and !ien elle le vo1droit, d1aultant ;u1il a tous=ours si real oui parler de son honneur , et en a ve1 des lettres escriptes de to1sles a'!assade1rs, <1i y ont estN, ;u1il penseroit estre dIshonnorI et perdre toute la rIputation ;u1il pense a.oir ac;uise .E L1oted in Aicolas, 0ife of Hatton , 1F note != italics in ori"inal. Ao date is "iven for this letter, !1t + ass1'e it ,as ,ritten circa 15%1?%/, ,hen the ne"otiations ,ere all !1t finished. F5. EL1e vo1s avie& non se1lle'ent en"as"e vostre honne1r a1ve<1es 1n estran"ier Ao''e Si'ier . . . o1 vo1s le !asie& et lisie& a1vec l1y de diverses priva1ltes deshonnestes.E +n 5illia' M1rdin, -

Collection of State %apers . . . relating to affairs in the reign of (ueen Elizabeth, from the #ear 4CD4 to 4CG5 .4ondon, 1I590, 55%?F$. Concernin" the <1een:s se*1al voracity, Mary see's to s1""est that Eli&a!eth:s interests ran to,ard !oth 'en and ,o'en .Eind1!ita!ly, yo1 ,ere not like other ,o'enE0. -he letter is partly <1oted and translated .,ith these passa"es deleted0 in -ho'as 8o!ertson, The Histor# of )ar# (ueen of Scots .Edin!1r"h, 1I9#0, 1G9. FF. Calendar of 0etters and State %apers, Spanish, 4CE6A4CE5 , ed. Martin 3. S. >1'e .4ondon, 1%9F0, /FF. >ereafter cited as CS%S . FI. >1'e, Courtships of (ueen Elizabeth , /#1. F%. +!id., 1%F. (or 'ore on 3n6o1:s 1ntr1st,orthiness, see CS%' 4CDEADG , G51= Berry, Stubbs1s B+aping +ulfB = and especially the ,ell?kno,n letter fro' Sir Philip Sidney to the <1een. E3s for 'onsie1r,E he says, he is to !e 61d"ed !y his ,ill and po,er: his ,ill to !e as f1ll of li"ht a'!ition as is possi!le. . .= his inconstant atte'pt a"ainst his !rother, his thr1stin" hi'self into the 4o,?Co1ntry 'atters, his so'eti'e seekin" the kin" of Spain:s da1"hter, so'eti'es yo1r 'a6esty, are evident testi'onies of his !ein" carried a,ay ,ith every ,ind of hope= ta1"ht to love "reatness any ,ay "otten. 8eprinted in 7ohn Strype, -nnals of the Reformation and Establishment of Religion , % vols. .@*ford: Clarendon, 1%/G0, /:FGG. F9. -his fantasy depends on a limited dist1r!ance of class str1ct1res: the t,ins are, after all, ,ell?!orn. B1t '1ch of the sta"e !1siness devolves fro' the o!vio1s favor that the servant Cesario "arners fro' @livia. -h1s does Oiola !eco'e the tar"et of al'ost everyone:s an"er and 6ealo1sy. Co'petition for the "reat ,o'an is played o1t in 'eas1red co'part'ents of class hostility. Even Sir -o!y plots a"ainst the 'ediator, insofar as the prank fi"ht ,ith 3ndre, tar"ets the ne, favorite. @livia:s position at the co1rtly center of nearly everyone:s desires in the play is the s1rest si"n of her participation in Eli&a!ethan inscription. Many of the characters fantasi&e a!o1t possessin" her. -he 'otives have often to do ,ith property ri"hts, stat1s, or 'oney, !1t these do not di'inish the sincerity of the passion. Malvolio:s s'1" i'a"inin"s of potency, of leavin" @livia sleepin" in her day !ed, is a drea' of po,er 'any Eli&a!ethan co1rtiers ind1l"ed= and Sir -o!y:s overly an"ry response to the fantasy all1des to the profo1nd personal and c1lt1ral invest'ent in this drea'. Sir 3ndre,:s interest in @livia, atten1ated as it is .and virt1ally indistin"1isha!le fro' his interest in Sir -o!y0, adds 'ore than a filip to the plot= it ro1nds o1t the i'pression of her 1niversal desira!ility. 3nd ,hen (este co'es at Oiola ,ith this 6ealo1s shrapnel, the i'pression is consolidated: O+@43 : + ,arrant tho1 art a 'erry fello,, and car:st for nothin". Aot so, sir, + do care for so'ethin"= !1t in 'y conscience, sir, + do not care for yo1: if that !e to care for nothin", sir, + ,o1ld it ,o1ld 'ake yo1 invisi!le. 3rt not tho1 the 4ady @livia:s foolJ .#.1./FM#/0

C4@5A :

O+@43 :

5ith this deft <1estion, Oiola 1ncovers ,hat (este does indeed care for. -he possi!ility of his lady:s 'arria"e !rin"s the clo,n no pleas1re: EShe ,ill keep no fool, sir, till she !e 'arried, and fools are as like h1s!ands as pilchards are to herrin"s, the h1s!and:s the !i""erE .#.1.##M#F0. Mannin"ha', si"nificantly, re'e'!ered @livia as a ,ido,: E(EB8. 1F$1. 3t o1r feast ,ee had a play called :-,elve ni"ht, or ,hat yo1 ,ill:= '1ch like the co''edy of errors . . . . 3 "ood practise in it to 'ake the ste,ard !eleeve his 4ady ,ido,e ,as in 4ove ,ith hi', !y co1nterfaytin" a letter, as fro' his 4ady, in "enerall ter'es, tellin" hi' ,hat shee liked !est in hi'.E 8o!ert Parker Sorlien, ed., The 2iar# of 7ohn )anningham of the )iddle Temple, 456JF6K .>anover, A.>.: Univ. Press of Ae, En"land for the Univ. of 8hode +sland, 19IF0, G%. 3s an i'a"ined ,ido,, @livia ,o1ld !e capa!le of "rantin" the !o1r"eois ,ish for social ascent thro1"h profita!le 'arria"e. +n this respect, @livia 'ay ,ell prefer the lo,er?ranked s1itor, as Sir -o!y has s1""estedBEshe:ll not 'atch a!ove her de"ree, neither in estate, years, nor ,it= + have heard her s,ear itE .1.#.1$FMI0Ba reasona!le preca1tion a"ainst relin<1ishin" her hi"h station. I$. S1ch a co1rtship recalls, as readers have noted, 7ohn 4yly:s lastin" i'a"e of t,o ,o'en in love in +allathea .c. 15%50. See 4eah Marc1s:s co''entary on the fashion for these representations, ,ith potential historical correlates: %uzzling Shakespeare: 0ocal Reading and Its 2iscontents .Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 19%%0, 9I?1$G. Marc1s:s disc1ssion of the ,ish for Eli&a!eth:s 'eta'orphosis into a 'an in order to 'eet and possi!ly ,oo Mary L1een of Scots is especially interestin". I1. See 4eah Scra"", The )etamorphosis of +allathea: - Stud# in Creati.e -daptation .5ashin"ton, 2.C.: Univ. Press of 3'erica, 19%/0, and Phyllis 8ackin, E3ndro"yny, Mi'esis, and the Marria"e of the Boy >eroine on the En"lish 8enaissance Sta"e,E %)0- 1$/, no. 1 .7an1ary 19%I0: /9?G1. Ellen M. Cald,ell ar"1es, so'e,hat ahistorically, that 4yly:s play ai's at Eli&a!eth and s1""ests a E'ethod for 1nitin" the parts of a ,o'an:s divided nat1re, of her co'petin" 1r"es for separateness and 1nion, or for chastity and love.E Cald,ell, E7ohn 4yly:s +allathea : 3 Ae, 8hetoric of 4ove for the Oir"in L1een,E E0R 1I .,inter 19%I0: /#. I/. (re1nd, E-yranny of +nterpretation,E says so'e pertinent thin"s a!o1t the E+E in Oiola:s and @livia:s disco1rse= she re"ards it as a si"nifier in crisis: E5e e*pect the speech of self?presentation to sit1ate or conte*t1ali&e an identity, !1t if ,e seek 'odest ass1rance of the identity of the speakin" E+E ,e are co'pelled to 1nravel a la!yrinthine spec1larity, a tiss1e of s1!versive te*t1ality. 5ho speaksJE .G%#0. 3!o1t the ,illo, ca!in speech she ar"1es, even 'ore sharply, ::-he tonalities of the speech incorporate voices and echoes to the point ,here lan"1a"e overe*tends the confines of personal identityE .G%%0. I#. See (re1nd, E-yranny of +nterpretation,E and Catherine Belsey, E2isr1ptin" Se*1al 2ifference: Meanin" and ;ender in the Co'edies,E in 7ohn 2rakakis, ed., -lternati.e Shakespeares .4ondon: Meth1en, 19%50, 1FF?9$. IG. -he 'ost pla1si!le psycholo"ical readin" of Oiola:s sincere co1rtship can !e fo1nd in 3le*ander 4e""att:s fine chapter on the play in Shakespeare1s Comed# of 0o.e .4ondon: Meth1en, 19IG0, //1?5G. (re1nd cleverly s1''ari&es Oiola:s possi!le 'otives, ,hich she then takes pains to deconstr1ct, in E-yranny of +nterpretation,E G%5. I5. (or 'ore on the ho'oerotics of the play, see Oalerie -ra1!, 2esire and -n"iet#: Circulations of Se"ualit# in Shakespearean 2rama .4ondon: 8o1tled"e, 199/0, 1#Iff. IF. 7ohn >ollander, The 'igure of Echo: - )ode of -llusion in )ilton and -fter .Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 19%10, //.

II. 3rth1r ;oldin", Shakespeare1s *.id: ,eing -rthur +olding1s Translation of the )etamorphoses , ed. 5. >. 2. 8o1se .4ondon: 2e 4a More Press, 19$G0, #:GII?I%= hereafter cited in te*t .!y !ook and line n1'!ers0 as ;oldin", )etamorphoses . I%. 3nthony Brian -aylor, EShakespeare and ;oldin": Oiola:s +ntervie, ,ith @livia and Echo and Aarciss1s,E English 0anguage !otes 15, no. / .2ece'!er 19II0: 1$#?F. Sa'1el 2aniel:s speaker in 2elia .c. 159/0 addresses Echo in a fa'iliar ,ay: Echo, da1"hter of the air, Ba!!lin" "1est of rocks and hills, 9no,s the na'e of 'y fierce (air, 3nd so1nds the accents of 'y ills: Each thin" pities 'y despair, 5hilst that she her lover kills. Elizabethan 0#rics , ed. Aor'an 31lt .Ae, Kork: 5'. Sloane, 19G90, 15%. -he a'!i"1o1s prono1ns in the last line s1""est that the Echo and Aarciss1s paradi"' co''only involves a slippa"e of identities !et,een the lover and the !eloved. I9. @ne other s1""estive, co'plicatin" parallel e'er"es at the end of T elfth !ight , ,hen Oiola instr1cts her !rother: E2o not e'!race 'e, till each circ1'stance @f place, ti'e, fort1ne, do cohere and 61'p -hat + a' OiolaE .5.1./G9?510. 3lon" ,ith the odd Christian i'plications of !oir me tangere , the lines 'ay harken !ack to the description of Aarciss1s:s Epassin" prideE: E-hat to !e to1cht of 'an or Mayde he ,holy did disdaineE .#.GG1?G/0. %$. Oiola and @livia are not the sole @vidran descendants in T elfth !ight . +n one of @rsino:s first conceits in the play, he i'a"ines hi'self as a love h1nter, p1rs1in" Ethe hart.E +'a"istically, he 'eta'orphoses at once into 3ctaeonB not seekin" !1t so1"ht, yet not so1"ht !y the !eloved !1t rather his o,n 1r"es: E'y desires, like fell and cr1el ho1nds, E:er since p1rs1e 'eE .1.1.//?/#0. @rsino:s h1ntin" i'a"e, dra,n like the Echo and Aarciss1s story fro' )etamorphosis , !ook #, provides an active, !odily co'ple'ent to the passive incorporeality of narcissistic self?i'perilin"= 3ctaeon, Echo, and Aarciss1s all die radically defaced, ,itho1t !odies. 3ctaeon:s tra"edy proleptically co'prises the Echo and Aarciss1s tale, especially after his transfor'ation into a sta": B1t ,hen he sa, his face 3nd horned te'ples in the !rooke, he ,o1ld have cryde alas, B1t as for then no kinde of speach o1t of his lippes co1ld passe. .;oldin", )etamorphoses , #./#F?#%0 +n anticipatin" !oth Aarciss1s .!eholdin" his 1nreco"ni&a!le i'a"e0 and Echo .in a state of ver!al ins1fficiency and fr1stration0, the 3ctaeon story prepares @vid:s reader for the vision of failed, !odiless self?love. Perhaps re'e'!erin" 3ctaeon:s fate and s1!conscio1sly seekin" ro'antic dis'e'!er'ent, @rsino tells Cesario on his first e'!assy to E!e cla'oro1s and leap all civil !o1ndsE .1.G?/10. %1. +t 'i"ht !e ar"1ed that @livia:s a!ase'ent is deli!erately not 'ale?factored= it th1s pre.ents that fantasy of co1rtier do'inance co''on in the co1rt of L1een Eli&a!eth. %/. Caren ;reen!er", E8eadin" 8eadin": Echo:s 3!d1ction of 4an"1a"e,E in Sally McConnell?;inet, 81th Borker, and Aelly (1r'an, eds., 3omen and 0anguage in 0iterature and Societ# .Ae, Kork: Prae"er, 19%$0, #$5. ;reen!er" f1rther e*plains that E,hen Aarciss1s re6ects Echo:s love, she repeats his ,ords in s1ch a ,ay as to e*press her o,n love for hi'. Echo:s repetition is, therefore, a readin". Echo has a!d1cted the first person prono1n, and the ne"ation of passion si'1ltaneo1sly !eco'es an

e*pression of passionE .#$I0. %#. >olt, 2uke of -n=ou , 1/$. %G. 8ead, )r. Secretar# 3alsingham , /:/1 n. 1. %5. Even tho1"h @livia s1""ests she E,o1ld not have hi' 'iscarry for the half of 'y do,ry,E her co''ent !etrays Malvolio:s p1rely 'aterial ,orth to her. -his is the sa'e deh1'ani&ation that the ste,ard 'ovin"ly descri!es in his i'prison'ent: E-hey have here propertied 'eE .G./.9G0. +n his !r1tal co'e1ppance, he !eco'es mere 'aterial, E'atter for a May 'ornin"E: 'atter for cr1el 6est on the one hand, for @livia:s 'arria"e activities on the other. %F. Salin"ar, E-he 2esi"n of T elfth !ight ,E Shakespeare (uarterl# 9 .195I0: 119. %I. 8ead, )r. Secretar# 3alsingham , /:/5?/F. %%. (or ESe!astianE as a na'e ,ith ho'ose*1al overtones in the 8enaissance, and for a f1rther 'editation on the si"nificance of his no'inal relation ,ith 3ntonio, see Cynthia 4e,is, E :5ise Men, (olly (all:n:: Characters Aa'ed :3ntonio: in En"lish 8enaissance 2ra'a,E Renaissance 2rama /$ .19%90: 19I?/#F. %9. Aeale, (ueen Elizabeth I , #1F. 9$. More on 3ntonio:s l1ckless career can !e fo1nd in 8ead, )r. Secretar# 3alsingham : E3t the !e"innin" of the year 15%1 2on 3ntonio, ,ith a price of t,enty tho1sand d1cats on his head, ,as practically a f1"itive. >is ,herea!o1ts ,ere not even certainly kno,n= his ca1se appeared to !e a!sol1tely desperateE ./:510. + have also cons1lted the entry on E3ntonio, Prior of CratoE in the Enc#clopedia ,ritannica , 11th ed. .Ae, Kork, 191$0. -he na'es E3ntonioE and ESe!astianE rec1r, ,ith no apparent relevance to the 3n6o1 'atch and no ho'oerotic .!1t plenty of political0 i'plications, in The Tempest. (or f1rther s1""estions that the central referentiality of T elfth !ight hovers aro1nd the year 15%$, see the pa"es on the play in Eva 4ee -1rner Clark, Hidden -llusions in Shakespeare1s %la#s , #d ed. .Port 5ashin"ton: 9ennikat Press, 19IG0, #FGM9/. Clark !riefly 'entions Se!astian and 3ntonio .Ei'portant na'es to CEli&a!eth:sD co1rt circle in 15%$E C#%$M%1D0 and re'inds 1s that the Bro,nists, to ,ho' Sir 3ndre, o!6ects, ,ere E!y the end of 15%$ . . . "ro,n to s1fficient n1'!ers to !e of official concernE .#%9, #9$0, !1t they had lost real po,er as an historical force !y 15%#. + o,e this reference to Shannon Prosser.

In*e5
A
3ccession 2ay tilts, G# ?GG= Esse*:s Phila1tia perfor'ance, 55 ? 5F = finery fro', 5% = >ector:s challen"e and, G5 ?GF= hostility latent in, G# ?GG, /#1 n5/= the Unkno,n 9ni"ht and, 5I ?5%. See also chivalry= Eli&a!eth += Esse*, 8o!ert 2evere1*, earl of

3del'an, 7anet, /#5 n%I, /G# n##, /GG nG/ -n -dmonition to the %arliament,1F% , 1%I 3esc1lapi1s, 9# 3+2S, 1% ?/1, //G n/% 3le*ander, Ai"el, 9/ 3ll'an, Eileen 7or"e, /G9 nI# ampbibolog#, 9/ ?9# 3n6o1, (ranWois Oalois, d1ke of 3lenWon and, 19G , 19% ?/$1, /1/ , /1G ?15, /1I , /F5 n5/, /F5 n5#, /F5 nF/, /FF nFG, /FF nF%, /I$ n9$ antife'inis', // ?/#, G# ?GG, GF ?51, F$ , I5 , 1/$ , 1#G , 1#5 ?#F, /#/ nF/, /5G n#F antitheatricality, 1%I , 19# ?9G 3ntonio .2on 3ntonio, Prior of Crato0, /15 ?1%, /F9 ?I$n9$ 3rta1d, 3ntonin, /GI nF$ 3scha', 8o"er, #9 31den, 5. >., 1I

6
Bacon, (rancis, G$ , 55 ?5F, //9 n/I Bancroft, 8ichard, 1I9 Barish, 7onas, 19# Barroll, 7. 4eeds, /#I n1$, /G/ n#/, /G# n#I, /GF n55 Black, 7. B., 19G ?95 !ond of association, 1GF ?G%, 15$ Booth, Stephen, /G% nFF Both,ell, (rancis Ste,art?>ep!1rn, fifth earl of, 15% ?F1, /5I n51 Both,ell, 7a'es >ep!1rn, fo1rth earl of, 1/I , 1#5 , 1G# ?GG Brad,ell, Stephen, %h#sick for the Sickness,F5 ?FI, %$ ?%1, /G1 n/5, /G5 nGG, /GF n5# Brooke, C. (. -1cker, /#G nIF Brooks, Peter, /5% nFF Br1t1s, #I ?#% !1!onic pla"1e: and !reath, /GF n5F= co''1nica!ility of, %$ ?%I, /G5 nG%= death tokens of, ## = and divinity, %# ?%5, /G/ n#/, /GF n5G= effect on te*ts of, 1F ?1I, FG ?F5=

etiolo"ies of, %$ ?%/, /GG nGG, /GF n55= 8o"er (enton on, %# ?%5, 99 = follo,in" the co1rt, F# , 1$F ?1$, 1#9 = (racastor on, F% ?F9, I9 = as i'a"e of history, 1F$ ?F#= inscription of, 1F ?1I, /1 , 155 , 15% ?FF= -ho'as 4od"e on, %$ , %1 , /#% n1#, /G1 n//, /GG nGG= 'etaphors of rec1rsion and, 15F ?5I= and 'onarchy, F/ ?F#, 9% , 1$G ?5, 1$F ?11, 1#% ?G$, 155 , /51 n9, /51 n1$, /5/ n1%, /5/ n/$= o1t!reak of 15F#, //% n/G, /#5 n/= o1t!reak of 159#, F/ = o1t!reak of 1F$#, F1 , F/ ?FG, 9% , ) /I/ ) !1!onic pla"1e .continued 0 1$F?11, /#5 n1, /#I n/$, /5$ nI, /5/ n1I, /55 nG1= pa'phlets and tracts a!o1t, F5 ?FI, %$ , %1 , /#% n1#, /#9 n1G= poison in, F5 ?FI, F9 ?I$, /#% n1#, /#9 n1G= and si'ilit1de, F% ?F9, 9F = and s1ccession, 1$G ?5, 1$F ?11, 1#% ?G$, 155 ?5I, 1FF = as treason, 9% , 1$5 ?11, 1F# , /51 n%, /51 n9, /51'1$, /5/ n1%= variety of responses to, 1F ?/I. See also 3+2S= disco1rse= e'1lation= Hamlet = pla"1e .'etaphorical0= poison= tropes of si'ilarity B1rke, 9enneth, //% n/F, /59 n1#

C
Calvin, 7ohn, Institutes,1%1 Ca'den, 5illia', #% , 195 , //9 n#G Carleton, 21dley, F# Cavell, Stanley, /G# n#9 Ca*ton, 5illia', #9 , //9 n#5, /#/ n5#, /G9 nI5 Cecil, 8o!ert, /I , /% , 59 , 15$ ?51, /5F nGI Cecil, 5illia', 4ord B1rlei"h, /I , /% , /#$ nG# Certea1, Michel de, /# , /// n1$

Cha'!erlain, 7ohn, 1GF chaos theory, 1G ?15 Chap'an, ;eor"e, #$ ?## Charnes, 4inda, /#/ n5I chivalry, #% ?G9, 55 ?5%= Esse*:s aptit1de for, G1 , 5G ?5F, 5% = and "ender difference, G/ = ;reek response to, in Troilus and Cressida,GI ?G9= herita"e of, #9 ?G$, GG = ho'oeroticis' and, GF = 'iso"yny of, GF , G% = L1een Eli&a!eth:s co1rt and, #9 , /#1 n51= s1!versiveness of, 55 ?5F, /#G n%5= sy'!olic destr1ction of, G1 = -ro6ans in Troilus and Cressida, as representatives of, #% ?#9. See also 3ccession 2ay tilts= Eli&a!eth += Esse*, 8o!ert 2evere1*, earl of= Troilus and Cressida chronolo"y: of Hamlet ;uartos , F# , FG , /#F nI= of plays disc1ssed, //1 n1 Clapha', >enoch, %G Clark, Eva 4ee -1rner, /I$ n9$ Cohen, 5alter, 5 Colie, 8osalie, //9 n/%, /#5 n%% conta"ion, 1# , 1G , // . See also !1!onic pla"1e= e'1lation= pla"1e .'etaphorical0= poison= si'ilit1de conta'inatin" histories, / , 1#G , /15 ?1I Co1r!in, 3lain, /GG nGG Co*, 4ee Sheridan, /#9 n1F Cre,e, -ho'as, 1$% Cronen!er", 2avid, 1I ?/$

7
2arnley, >enry St1art, 4ord, 1/F ?/9, 1G# = in Hamlet, 1/5 ?#/= 'e'orial of, 1/% ?/9, 1## ?#G=

rivalry ,ith Both,ell, 1#F 2avies, 7ohn, of >ereford, %1 , 1$9 , /#% n1#, /G5 nG5, /G5 nG9, /GF n5G 2ekker, -ho'as: *ld 'ortunatus,11 ?1/= pla"1e pa'phlets of, 1I , 1$F , /#% n1#, /G/ n#/, /G5 nG% 2evere1*, 8o!ert. See Esse*, 8o!ert 2evere1*, earl of 2ickens, 3. ;., /F# n#F disco1rse: and do'ination, %# ?%5= (o1ca1lt on, %F ?%I= as a type of pla"1e, in Hamlet,%1 ?9I 2olli'ore, 7onathan, and 3lan Sinfield, /#5 n%9 d1 Plessis?Mornay, Philippe, 99 ?1$$, /G% nF9

E
Echo .'ytholo"ical character0: Aarciss1s and, /$G ?1/= vanishes into te*t, /$I , /$9 echo .trope of0, 1# , /$G ?1/= fe'ale po,er and, /$F ?11= (este:s 1se of, /$9 ?1$= and history, /$/ , /11 ?1/= Malvolio:s 1se of, /$9 ?1$= @livia and, /$I ?1$= and tropes of si'ilarity, /11 ?1/ Ed'onds, -ho'as, 15I election: in Calvinist doctrine, 1%1 , 1%F = the 2anish 'onarchy and, 11F ?1I, 119 ?/$, /5/ n//, /5# n/# Eli&a!eth +: a"in" of, 11 ?1/, #F , G$ ?G#= attit1des to,ard P1ritanis', 1%F , 1%9 ?9/= Bond of 3ssociation for, 1GF = chastity c1lt of, /5 , 1/$ , /#1 nG9= and chivalric tradition, #9 ?GG= and Esse*, /I , /% , G1 ?G/, 5# ?5F, 59 ?F$= factionalis' at co1rt and, /I , G/ , G# = and the (rench co1rtship, 19G ?/$/, /1/ ?1F= and 7a'es +, 1#$ , 1#I , 1GI ?G%, /5F nGI=

Mary L1een of Scots and, 1#/ , 1#5 , 1G9 , 199 , /FF nF5= as 'aternal and erotic sy'!ol, /#$ nG#= '1ltiple inscriptions of, 9 ?1/, 1#5 , 1I% , 1%# , /$# , /FF nF9= nostal"ia for, 191 ?9/, /1% ?19= ro'antic relations of, G$ ?G1, 191 , 19# ?/$#= threat of invasion to, /5 ?/I= at -il!1ry, /F , //G n# e'1lation, 1# , #$ ?#F, 5/ ?5#, //5 nF, //% n/G, //% n/F, //9 n/I?n/9 episte'olo"y: in Hamlet,I1 , I# ?I9, %I = and interpretation, /GI nF$= and lan"1a"e, %I ?%9= and pla"1e, IG ?I9= and rationality, 9G ?9I ) /I# ) Esse*, 8o!ert 2evere1*, earl of: conflicts ,ith L1een Eli&a!eth, /I , 1% , G1 ?G/, 5# ?5F, 59 ?F$= contradictions of, 59 = factional str1""les of, /I , 1% , #$ ?##= and ho'osocial narcissis', 5# ?5I= +rish ca'pai"n of, G1 , 5G , //F n1/, /## nF%, /#5 n%9= and 7aco!ean s1ccession, 1G1 ?G#, 15$ = '1ltiple inscriptions of, #1 ?##, 5I ?F$, 1G1 ?GG, 15/ , /## nIF= overt1res to 7a'es + !y, 59 , /5F nGI= presence in Hamlet,1// , 1G$ ?G#= and p1ritanis', 19$ = re!ellion and fall of, 1% , G1 , 1// , //% n/#= in Richard II,#G , //I n/#= and Unkno,n 9ni"ht, 5%

F
factionalis' at co1rt, /I ?/9, #G ?#5, 5F , //5 nI, //5 n9, //F n1#, //F n1%, //I n/1, //9 n/I, /#G n%5 (enton, 8o"er, - perfume against the !o#some %estilence,%# ?%5, 99 (er"1son, Mar"aret, 1#% n1/ (ield, 7ohn, /F/ n#G

(ine'an, 7oel, #G ?#5 (ish, Stanley, /GI n59 The 'l# .Cronen!er"0, 1% ?/1 (o1ca1lt, Michel, %F ?%I, /GF n5I (racastoro .(racastor0, ;irola'o: and 2e Contagione,F% ?F9, I9 = and 2e S#mpathia,F9 = and notion of si'ilit1de, F% ?I$, I9 = and seminarum,I1 , /G1 n/G (re1d, Si"'1nd, /## nFF (re1nd, Eli&a!eth, /FI nI/, /F% nIG (rye, 8oland M1shat, 1G# , /G9 nI1, /5F nG%, /5% nF5 (1rness, >orace >o,ard, 1IF ?II

8
;eert&, Clifford, /#5 n9$ ;eoffrey of Mon'o1th, #% ;host, in Hamlet : ca1se of cate"ory conf1sions, I1 ?IF, I% ?I9, 15F ?5I, /G$ n/$, /G# n#%, /GI n5I= eval1ation of, 9G , 111 = pla"1y lan"1a"e of, %# , %5 , 15F ?5I= and Pyrrh1s, IF ?II. See also !1!onic pla"1e= disco1rse= episte'olo"y= Hamlet = pla"1e .'etaphorical0= poison ;irard, 8enN: on e'1lation, 1# , #G , G% , //% n/I= on ho'oeroticis', /#/ nF#= on pla"1e in literat1re, F9 , 1#I , /G$ n19= on Troilus and Cressida,5$ , //% n/5 ;leick, 7a'es, //# n1% ;oddard, >arold, /#9 n15 ;reen!er", Caren, /1$ ?11, /F9 n%/ ;reen!latt, Stephen, G ?5 ;reene, 8o!ert, 159 nF ;r1din, 8o!ert, 1#% n1/

1
Hamlet : antife'inis' in, I5 , 1/$ , 1## ?#5, /5G n#F= conta'ination of cate"ory in, I1 ?IF, I% ?I9, 9G ?9F, 1$$ ?1$#, 1#G , 15F ?5%, /G$ n/$, /GG nG1=

disease in .see Hamlet : inscription of pla"1e in0= d1'!sho, in, 9$ ?91, /GI nF/= ;host in .see ;host, in Hamlet 0= 9atherine >a'lett and, 1FG , /5% nFG= her'ene1tic 1ncertainty in, %I ?9$, 1$$ ?1$#, 1#G , 15$ ?5G, 1F1 ?FF= ho'oerotics in, 11I ?/$, /G1 n/F= indict'ent of patriarchy in, 1#$ ?#1= inscription of pla"1e in, FG ?F5, FI ?F%, I$ ?IG, IF ?I9, %9 ?9G, 95 ?9%, 1$1 , 1$5 , 111 , 1// , 1#$ , 1#% , 1#9 ?G$, 151 , 155 ?5I, 1F1 ?F#, 1FF , /#I n1$, /#% n1/, /#9 n1F, /G$ n19, /G$ n/1, /G1 n/5, /G/ n#/, /G/ n##, /GF n5F, /GI nF$, /G% nF%, /G% nI$, /G9 nII, /5I n5%= 41cian1s and amphibolog# in, 9/ ?9#= and the 'isreadin" of history, 1#I = )urder of +onzago in, %I , 9$ ?95, 9I , 1$/ , /G$ n/1= piracy in, 1G# ?G5= Player:s speech in, IF ?II, 1$1 ?/= and poison .see Hamlet : inscription of pla"1e in0= political erotics in, 11F ?19= rede'ption of patriarchy in, 1#/ ?##, 1#G , 1#F = re'oval of fe'ale a"ency in, 1## = reven"e in, 1/1 ?/#, 15$ ?55 .see also !ond of association= 7a'es +0= s1ccession in .see s1ccession0= te*t1al differences !et,een (irst and Second L1artos, F# ?F5, I$ , IG ?I5, II , I% , %9 , 91 , 95 , 9F , 9I , 1$5 , 11G , 119 ?#$, 1#/ , 1#G ?#5, 1#I , 151 , 1F/ , /#F nI, /#F n%, /G/ n/9, /G# n#G, /G# nG$, /GG nG1, /GI nF#, /G9 nII, /G9 nI%, /55 nG/= te*t1al differences !et,een Second L1arto and (olio, 91 , 1$# ?G, 11% ?19, 11# ?1G, 1/5 , /#I n%, /5# n/%, /5G n#1= treason in .see !1!onic pla"1e: as treason0= ver!al dan"er in, I1 ?9I >an'er, Meredith, /59 n% >arin"ton, 7ohn, 1G$ , //F ?/In1%, /## nF%, /## nI$, /5$ n1 >arrison, ;. B., //I n//, /## nIF >arrison, 5illia', The 2escription of ,ritaine,/FG n5$ >a,kes, -erence, /#9 n15, /GI nF/ >ayles, A. 9atherine, 15 , //# n19 Henr# $, #/ ?##, //I n19

>eylin, Peter, 1I1 ) /IG ) historicis'. See ne, historicis' history: and analo"y in theater, 1 ?/= dilation of, in close readin", 1/ ?1#= and "ender, // ?/#, 1#/ ?##= and her'ene1tic insta!ility, F ?I, 1/ ?1G, 1F , #5 ?#F, 5# , F$ ?F1, FG ?F5, 9% , 11$ ?11, 1/G ?/5, 1#5 , 1G$ ?G1, 1GG , 1GF , 151 ?FF, 191 , 19# , /1G , //# n//= and inscription, 1G$ ?FF= ne, criticis' and, 11 = and personal 'e'ory, 1/9 ?#1= pla"1e as 'odel of, 1F1 ?F/= topical 'eanin"s and, 1 ?1I, /1 ?/#, F$ , 1#/ ?#G, 1#F , 1F# , 1FI. See also inscription= si'ilit1de >ollander, 7ohn, /$I , /59 n1# ho'oeroticis': and chivalry, GF , 55 ?5F= dis"1ise and, 19% ?99, /$/ , /$F ?I, /1F = love and, GI , 51 ?5/, /$# ?I, /F9 n%%= 'iso"yny and, 5$ ?51= narcissis' and, 51 ?5#, /$F ?I= political violence of, in Hamlet,11I ?1% >otson, 4eslie, 1I% , /5% n1 >o,ard, >enry, earl of Aortha'pton, 19F >o,ard, 7ean E., 5F ?5I, //I n/$ >1i&in"a, 7ohan, /#G n%1

I
ideolo"y, #% , 59 ?F1, 1#$ , /#5 n9$, /G1 n/5, /5I nF# Iliad,#1 ?#/, 5# , /#/ n5# inscription: altered e*pectations of, #F ?#%= conte*ts of, # ?I, /# = and disease i'a"es, 1I ?//, /G$ n19= Echo and, /11 = and "ender reversals, 1#/ ?##=

and intentionality, % ?1/, 15 ?1F, /1 ?//, /// n11= 7aco!ean, in Hamlet,1/F ?#/, 151 ?5/, 15I ?FF= 'etaphors for, /11 . See also !1!onic pla"1e= Eli&a!eth += Esse*, 8o!ert 2evere1*, earl of= history= p1ritanis' intention, a1thorial. See inscription invasion an*iety, /5 ?/I, //G n1, //5 nG, //5 n5, /5F nGI +rish ,ars .Eli&a!ethan0, G1 , 5G , 59 , /## nF%, /#5 n%9

9
7ackson, Mac2. P., /#F nI 7a'es +: !ond of association for, 1GF ?G%, 15$ ?51= and Both,ell earls, 1/I , 1#5 , 1G# , 15% ?F1, /5I n51= and earl of Esse*, 1G1 ?G5, 15$ = early s1ccession history of, 1/G ?#$, 1#I ?#%, 1G# ?G5= and Eli&a!eth, 1G9 ?5$, /5F nGI= and Hamlet,151 ?55, 1F# ?FF= and )easure for )easure,1#9 = pla"1ed pro"resses of, 1$F ?1$= procession fro' Scotland, F/ ?F#, 1$F ?I= relationship to parents, 1#5 , /55 n#I= reven"e oath of, 1/% ?/9 7a'eson, (redric, G , I 7enkins, >arold, 1$# , /#I n9, /GI nF/, /G9 nIG 7onson, Ben, 1F , 1I

:
9een, Ma1rice >1"h, /#$ n#F 9ernan, 3lvin, /G# n#I 9ni"ht, ;. 5ilson, 9F , /#9 n15, /G% nI$ 9no*, 7ohn, 1%1 9rie"er, Eliot, 1%F , /F# n#9 9yd, -ho'as, /G# n#F

L
4arner, Christina, 159 , /5I nF/

4ee, Sir >enry, GF 4e""att, 3le*ander, /F% nIG 4eicester, 8o!ert 21dley, earl of, /% , 195 4ennon, 7ohn, /$$ leprosy, I/ , /G/ n## 4e,is, Cynthia, /F9 n%% 4i1, 3lan, 1/ 4od"e, -ho'as, - Treatise of the %lague,%$ ?%1, /#% n1#, /G1 n//, /GG nGG 4yly, 7ohn: End#mion , 1$ ?11= +allathea , /FI nI$

M
Maisse, 3ndrN >1ra1lt, sie1r de: on co1rt factions, /I = on Eli&a!eth, G/ , G# , /#G nI%= on Esse*, #1 ?#/ Mannin"ha', 7ohn, /FI nI$ Marc1s, 4eah, /FI nI$ Mary, L1een of Scots, 1/F ?/9, 1#/ , 1#G , 1#5 , 1G9 , 199 , /FF nF5 McCoy, 8ichard, /#1 n5/ McEl,ee, 5illia', 1/I , 1/% , /5G n#/ McMana,ay, 7a'es, 1G/ , 1GF , 1GI , /#G n%F, /5F nGF MNdicis, Catherine de:, 19G , 199 Mendo&a, Bernardino de, /$$ , /1/ Montai"ne, Michel de, F% , /GG nGG Montrose, 4o1is 3drian, G$ , G/ , /// n1#, //I n/$, /#$ nG1, /#1 nG5, /#G n%G

N
narcissis': and chivalry, G# ?GG, 5G ?5I= disc1rsive, %# = erotics of, 51 ?5#, /$# ?1/, /F% nI9= (re1d on, /## nFF= nostal"ia and, /1% = and Oiola in T elfth !ight,/$G ?%, /F% nI9= violence of, 5I . See also chivalry= e'1lation= Troilus and Cressida

Aashe, -ho'as, %9 , 1F% , /GI nF1 Aa1nton, 8o!ert, 'ragmenta Regalia,/I Aeale, 7. E., 1 , 1%# , //5 nI, /## nFI ne, historicis', G ?5, // ?/#, 1/5 ?/F, //# n//. See also history= inscription Aichols, 7ohn, /#F n# nostal"ia, 191 ?9/, /1% ?19 ) /I5 )

O
@!er, 5illia', /G/ n#1, /G/ n## @r'erod, @liver, %uritanoApapismus,1%/ ?%# @vid, )etamorphosis,/$5 ?%, /F% nI9?%$

P
Partrid"e, Eric, /#/ n5F, /G5 n5/, /5I n5%, /F$ n/$ Peele, ;eor"e, -nglorum 'eriae,G1 Philip ++, kin" of Spain, /1F pla"1e .'etaphorical0: as characterolo"ical device, I$ ?I1, /G1 n//= disco1rse of, %I = and ;host in Hamlet,15F ?5I= lan"1a"e and, I/ ?IG, IF ?II, %$ ?91, 9F ?9I= as 'odel of historical inscription, 1F$ ?F#= plot and, 1#I ?#%, 1F1 ?F#= politics of, ## ?#G, //% n/G= and si'ilit1de, 95 ?1$G= as the'e and str1ct1re, 1F/ . See also !1!onic pla"1e= poison= si'ilit1de pla"1e .'etaphorical0, in literary te*ts: The -lchemist,1F = Coriolanus,1#% = <ing 0ear, %1 = 0o.e1s 0abor1s 0ost,1I = )acberh, %% , 1#% = )easure for )easure,1#9 ?G$=

- )idsummer !ight1s 2ream,1I = Tamburlaine,1I = Timon of -thens,%1 , 1#% = The &nfortunate Tra.eller,1F Platter, -ho'as, /#G n%# poison: conta"ion and si'ilit1de ,ith, F% ?I$= episte'olo"y and, I5 ?II= (racastor:s conta"ion theory and, F% ?F9= and lan"1a"e, I1 ?I#, %$ ?%1, 9$ ?9F= in pla"1e tracts, F5 ?FI, %$ p1ritanis', 1F% ?F9, 1I1 , 1I/ , 1IF , 1I% ?9G, /1/ , /F$ ?F1n//= and the 3n6o1?Eli&a!eth 'atch, 191 , 19# ?9G, /1/ ?1G= antitheatricality of, 1%I = Bro,nists and, 19$ ?91= Catholicis' and, 1I% , 19F = class aspiration and, 1%F = Malvolio and, 1I# ?9G= 'aterial profit and, 1%G ?%F= and the vestiarian controversy, 1F% , /59 nF P1ttenha', ;eor"e, 9/ ?9#

R
8ale"h, Sir 5alter, /#1 nGI 8ead, Conyers, /1/ ?1#, /1F , /F5 n51 referentiality. See history= inscription= te*t and conte*t reven"e: and !ond of association, 1GF ?G%= and >a'let:s desires, I9 , 1/1 ?/G, 1#% , 1G% = and 7a'es +, 1/% , /5I n5F= si"nification of, 15$ ?55= and s1ccession in Hamlet,1G% ?G9 Richard II, //I n/# 8i&&io, 2avid, 1/I

8o"ers, 8ichard, 1%G 8o'', 7oseph 7., /#% n1/. 8oth,ell, 9enneth, /G% nF9 8o1"e'ont, 2enis de, /## nFF

S
Said, Ed,ard, #F Salin"er, 4eo, /15 Sa's, Eric, /#F nI Sava"e, 7a'es E., 5F , /#G nII Sed",ick, Eve 9osofsky, 5$ ?51, /#/ nFG Shakespeare, 5illia', personal history of, 1F# ?FG Shakespeare, 5illia', ,orks: -ll1s 3ell That Ends 3ell,1F% = Coriolanus,1#% = / Henr# I$,/G1 n/#= <ing 0ear, %1 = 0o.e1s 0abor1s 0ost,1I = )acbeth, %% , 1#% , /G1 n/1= )easure for )easure,1#9 ?G$, 1F% = - )idsummer !ight1s 2ream,1I , 1#F , 1F5 = *thello, /G$ n/1= Timon of -thens,%1 , 1#%. See also Hamlet> Troilus and Cressida> T elfth !ight Sidney, Sir Philip, /FF nF% Sie"el, Pa1l, 1F9 ?I$, 1IF , 1II Si'ier, 7ean de, 195 ?/$$, /1/ , /1G , /1I , /F5 n5%, /F5 nF/, /F5 nF5 si'ilit1de, /1 , #$ ?#F, 5/ ?5#, F% ?F9, II ?I9, 9F ?9I, /$G ?11= and conta"ion theory, F% ?F9, I9 = destr1ction thro1"h, 9I , /G$ n/$= >a'let:s, to royalty, 1$/ ?G, 11F , 151 ?5#= of the real, /# . See also pla"1e .'etaphorical0= poison Si''ons, 7. 4., 1F9 , 1I9 , /59 n1$ Skene, ;il!ert, -ne ,re.e 2escriptio.n of the %este,/#% n1#, /GF n5F

Slack, Pa1l 3., /#5 n/, /#F nG, /5G n#F social death, %# Spenser, Ed'1nd: and Eli&a!ethan inscription, 9 ?1$, /// n1#= on -roynovant, #I Sp1r"eon, Caroline, /#I n9 Stevens, 5allace, G Stockholder, 9atherine, /#/ nF/ Stone, 4a,rence, /#1 n5$ Sto,e, 7ohn, /55 nG1 Stron", 8oy, /#$ nG$, /#1 nGG St1!!s, 7ohn, 19# , 19F , 19I , /1/ , /1# s1ccession, 1$# ?5, 1$F ?11, 115 ?1F, 1/F , 15/ ?5#, 1F5 , 19# , /5/ n##, /5# n/G, /5G n#G, /5G n#5, /5F nG/, /5F nGI= diversion of the topic, 1/# ?/G= elective 'onarchy and, 111 ?1#= eroticis' in, 11I ?/1, 1#/ ?##= ;ertr1de:s role in, in Hamlet,11# , 1G9 = and interpretation, 1/F = and 7aco!ean history, 1/5 ?/9, 1#$ , 1#I ?#%= and plot, 1F5 ?FF, /5% nFF. See also !1!onic pla"1e= Eli&a!eth += Hamlet> history= 7a'es + ) /IF )

T
-a,ney, 8. >., 1%5 , /F# n#F tell .archaeolo"ical ter'0, I ?%, 15 , /1 te*t and conte*t, # ?F, % ?9, 1/ ?1#, /1 ?/#. See also 1nder Hamlet : te*t1al differences !et,een (irst and Second L1artos -o!in, 7. 7. M., /GI nF1 -raversi, 2erek, F5 Troilus and Cressida : 3chilles in, /9 , #$ ?#1, #/ ?#G, #I ?#%, 5F ?5%= chivalry in .see chivalry0= co1rt factionalis' and, /9 ?#F, #I , G/ , 5# , 5F , 59 ?F$= Cressida in, /F , G9 , 5$ ?51, 59 , F$ , /#G n%I=

dra'at1r"ic conta"ion in, /$ , ## ?#F, //% n/G= erotic politics in, G$ ?GG, /#$ nG1, /#$ nG#= >ector in, G5 ?G9, 5F ?5%= ho'oeroticis' in, GF ?5#= inscriptions of Esse* in, #% , 5I ?F$, 15/ , //I n/#, /## nIF, /#G nII= 'iso"yny in, GI ?51= Patrocl1s:s theater in, #G = and the re,ritin" of herois', #% = and the sin"le?co'!at challen"e, GG ?G%= -roil1s:s affair ,ith Cressida in, G9 ?5$= Ulysses in, /9 ?#$, //F n1%, //I n/1. See also chivalry= Eli&a!eth += e'1lation= Esse*, 8o!ert 2evere1*, earl of= narcissis' -ro6an 5ar: disastro1s heterose*1ality of, 51 = and Eli&a!ethan co1rt, #F = loss of central fe'ale fi"1re in, 59 ?F$= 'edieval fo1ndations of, #% , //9 n#5, /G9 nI5= Troilus and Cressida :s attack on 'yths of, #5 ?#F tropes of si'ilarity, 1# ?15, /1 , /11 -roy: and En"land:s 'ythic ori"ins, #I ?#%= fall of, F1 T elfth !ight : class stat1s in, /$/ , /FF nF9= constr1ction of identity in, 1F% , 1I/ ?9G= cross?dressin" in, /$/ , /FG n5$= erotics in, 1I1 , 1I/ , 1IG ?I5, 1II , 191 ?9G, 195 ?/$%, /1I ?19, /F9 n%%= fe'ale po,er in, /$# ?1/, /1% ?19= and (este, 1F9 , /$9 ?1$, /F1 n//, /F/ n/#, /FI nF9= ho'oeroticis' in, /$/ ?%, /1I ?19, /F9 n%%= inscription of Eli&a!ethan affairs in, 19G ?/$1, /1/ ?1F= Malvolio in, 1FI , 1F9 , 1I$ , 1I1 , 1I# ?9G, /1/ ?15, /FF nF9= Maria in, 1I/ ?I9= @livia:s centrality to, 199 , /$/ , /1% ?19, /FF nF9= @rsino in, 19% , 199 , /$1 , /5% n1= rape of 41crece in, 1I/ ?I5= reli"ion and politics in, 1F% ?IF, 1I% ?9G=

sheep?!itin" in, 1I1 ?I/, /F$ n1F= Oiola:s E,illo, ca!inE speech in, /$G ?I

V
Oale, Malcol', #9 Oillars, Mar<1is of, 55 Oir"in Mary, /G1 n/I Oir"in L1een. See Eli&a!eth +

.
5aad, 5illia', 1$I 5arner, Marina, /G1 n/I 5erstine, Pa1l, /#F nF 5hit"ift, 3rch!ishop, 1F% 5hit'an, Cedric, #F 5ilkins, ;eor"e, The Three )iseries of ,arbar#,/5/ n1% 5illson, 2avid >arris, 1/I ?/% 5ilson, (. P., /#5 n1, /G5 nG9 5ilson, -ho'as, -rte of Rhetori;ue,11% 5ilson, -ho'as, The State of England -nno 2om . 1F$$, /5 , /% , //I n/1, /51 n15 5instanley, 4illian, 1G1 , 15% ?F$, /5G n#G

Y
Kates, (rances, #I , /#1 n51

;
Varet, 2avid, /F# n#F
Preferred Citation: Mallin, Eric S. Inscribing the Time: Shakespeare and the End of Elizabethan England. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1995 1995. http: ark.cdli!.or" ark: 1#$#$ ft#n#9n%&'