Thispageintentionallyleftblank
SPEECHANDPERFORMANCEINSHAKESPEARE’SSONNETSANDPLAYSDavidSchalkwykoffersasustainedreadingofShakespeare’ssonnetsinrelationtohisplays.Hearguesthatthelanguageofthesonnetsisprimarilyperformativeratherthandescriptive,andbasesthisdistinctiononthephilosophyofLudwigWittgensteinandJ.L.Austin.Inawide-ranginganalysisofboththequartoofShakespeare’ssonnetsandthePetrarchandiscoursesinaselec-tionofplays,Schalkwykaddressessuchissuesasembodimentandsilencing,interiorityandtheatricality,inequalitiesofpower,status,genderanddesire,bothinthepublishedpoemsandonthestageandinthecontextoftheearlymodernperiod.Inaprovocativediscussionofthequestionofpropernamesandnamingeventsinthesonnetsandplays,thebookseekstoreopenthequestionoftheautobiographicalnatureofShakespeare’ssonnets.isAssociateProfessorandHeadoftheDe-partmentofEnglishLanguageandLiteratureattheUniversityofCapeTown.HehaspublishedonShakespeare,literarythe-ory,philosophyandSouthAfricanliteratureinShakespeareQuarterly,EnglishLiteraryRenaissance,theJournalofAestheticsandArtCriticism,Pretexts,LinguisticSciences,TextusandtheJournalofLiteraryStudies.
SPEECHANDPERFORMANCEINSHAKESPEARE’SSONNETSANDPLAYSDAVIDSCHALKWYK
Cambridge,NewYork,Melbourne,Madrid,CapeTown,Singapore,SãoPauloCambridgeUniversityPressTheEdinburghBuilding,Cambridge,UnitedKingdomPublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyCambridgeUniversityPress,NewYorkwww.cambridge.orgInformationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9780521811156©DavidSchalkwyk2002Thisbookisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexceptionandtotheprovisionofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewrittenpermissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.Firstpublishedinprintformat2002-isbn-13978-0-511-07288-8eBook(EBL)-isbn-100-511-07288-0eBook(EBL)-isbn-13978-0-521-81115-6hardback-isbn-100-521-81115-5hardbackCambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracyofsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhisbook,anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,accurateorappropriate.
ToChristina,AndrewandJames
ContentsAcknowledgementspageviiiIntroduction:thesonnetsPerformatives:thesonnets,AntonyandCleopatraandAsYouLikeItEmbodiment:thesonnets,Love’sLabour’sLost,RomeoandJulietandTwelfthNightInteriority:thesonnets,HamletandKingLearNames:thesonnets,RomeoandJuliet,TroilusandCressidaandOthelloTransformations:thesonnetsandAll’sWellthatEndsWellConclusionBibliographyIndexvii
AcknowledgementsThisbookbeganasanideasparkedbyapapergivenbyJohnRoe.ThegermofthatideawasnurturedintheseminarsonShakespeare’ssonnetsatthemeetingsoftheShakespeareAssociationofAmericainAlbuquerqueinandtheWorldShakespeareCongressinLosAngelesin,andtookrootduringmytenureasaSolmsenResearchFellowattheHumanitiesInstituteoftheUniversityofWisconsininMadison,in.IowemorethanIcanexpresstoLarsEngleandHeatherDubrow,whorantherespectiveseminars,fortheirhelp,en-couragementandacutecriticismthroughouttheproject.Larsgotmetotakethesonnetsseriously;Heatherenabledmetopursuethatseri-ousnessintheidealcollegialenvironmentoftheHumanitiesInstituteinMadison.Bothhavebeenexceptionallygenerouscolleaguesandfriends.Moregenerally,IwishtothankJacquesBerthoud,underwhoseguid-anceIfirstbegantoexploretherelevanceofWittgensteintoliterature.Ihavebenefitedinequalmeasurefromhisboundlessgenerosityandtoughnessofmindoverthepasttwentyyears.Ioweagreatdealofper-sonalandintellectualdebtfortheirselflessengagementandreadinesstoreadpartsofthemanuscripttoJacquesLezra,LesleyMarx,TonyParrandSusanneWofford.AnstonBosman,JonathanCrewe,JohnHiggins,StephenGreenblatt,RandyMcCloud,thelateNickVisserandRobertWeimannallcontributedtotheformationofthisprojectthroughtheirconversationandcomments.SarahStantonofCambridgeUniversityPresshasofferedpatientguidanceandadvice,andIowethetwoPressreadersagreatdealofthanksfortheiracuteandhelpfulcommentsontheoriginaltypescript.AnearlierversionofchapterappearedinShakespeareQuarterly(),aversionofchapterinShakespeareQuarterly(),andsomeparagraphsfromtheintroductioninShakespeareQuarterly().TheresearchforthisbookwasgenerouslysupportedbyagrantfromtheNationalResearchFoundationofSouthAfrica.Ialsowishtothankviii
AcknowledgementsixtheUniversityofCapeTownandmycolleaguesintheEnglishDepart-mentforprovidingthecollegialsupportthatmadethisprojectpossible.Mostimportantisthegenerosity,friendshipandencouragementthatIreceivedfromthemembersoftheInstituteforResearchintheHuman-itiesattheUniversityofWisconsin,inMadison.Myspecialthanksgotothedirector,PaulBoyer,whomadeourtriptoMadisonavoyageofdiscoveryanddelight.Christina,AndrewandJamesknow,Ihope,howmuchofthisbookistheirs.NoteThetextofShakespeare’ssonnetsusedinthisbookisthefacsimileoftheQuartoreproducedinShakespeare’sSonnets,ed.StephenBooth(NewHaven,CTandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,).QuotationsfromtheplaysarefromTheOxfordShakespeare,ed.StanleyWellsandGaryTaylor(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,).
Introduction:thesonnetsWhyaretherepropernamesinShakespeare’sdramaticworks,butnoneinShakespeare’ssonnets?Whatrolesdopropernames(ortheabsenceofpropernames)playinthesepoems,andhowaresuchrolesrelatedtothevarietiesoflanguageusedinthesonnetsandShakespeare’splays?Arethesonnetsprimarilyconcernedwithdescription,oristheirlan-guagechieflyperformative?Andhowarethesequestionsaboutlanguage,propernamesandgenreconceptuallyrelatedtothelifeoftheauthorandthehistoricalconditionsunderwhichthetextswereproduced?ThesequestionsprovideaframeworkfortheanalysisofShakespeare’ssonnetsinthisbook,whichtakesasthecentralconditionofthesonnetsthefactthattheirauthorwasalsotheperiod’sforemostdramatist.Thesonnetsaredeeplyinformedbytheplayer-poet’speculiarself-consciousnessabouthislowlysocialstatus.Despitetheaddedsenseofpersonalinadequacyandsocialtaintthatsuchself-consciousnessabouthisprofessionbringstothepoet’sPetrarchanmoments,asplayer-dramatistheis,nevertheless,abletobringtothepoet’staskanextraordi-narilydevelopedsenseoflanguageasaperformativeforce.ByfocusingonsuchperformativedimensionsIseektotakeforwardanapproachtolan-guagethatbeganinthephilosophicalwritingsofLudwigWittgensteinandJohnAustin.Itenjoyedsomestatuswithinliterarycriticismandthe-oryinthesands,buthaslatelyreceivedlessattentionintheeraofhighhistoricism.Austin’sstatuswithinliterarytheoryneverrecoveredThisisnottoclaimthattherewerenootherdramatistswhowerealsosubstantialpoets.Marston,Chapmanand,especially,Jonson,werebothpoetsanddramatists,butnoneofthemwrotesubstantialsonnetsequences,noristheirpoetryinformedbyaself-consciousnessofthecommonplayer’slowlysocialposition.SeeMaryLouisePratt,TowardsaSpeech-ActTheoryofLiteraryDiscourse(Bloomington,IN:IndianaUniversityPress,).Forapioneeringapplicationofthesetwophilosophers’worktoShakespeare,seeKeirElam,Shakespeare’sUniverseofDiscourse:LanguageGamesintheComedies(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,).Averyfine,recentpost-speech-actstudyoftherhetoricofsocialexchangeinearlymodernEnglandisLynneMagnusson’sShakespeareandSocial
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysfromthepolemicbetweenJacquesDerridaandJohnSearle,andtheapparentlyformalistfocusofspeech-acttheoryhasbeenoverlookedbyCulturalMaterialistandNewHistoricistconcernswithFoucauldiannotionsofdiscourseandpower.ButWittgensteinandAustinofferapowerfulpictureofthemultifariouswaysinwhichlanguageworksasaformofactionintheworld:negotiating,constitutingandinformingsocialandpersonalrelationshipsinthesituationsofitsactualuse.UntilLynneMagnusson’spath-breakingbook,ShakespeareandSocialDialogue,littlecloseattentionhadbeenpaidtotheintricaterelationshipbetweendialogicalinteractionandsocialcontext.Inplaceofthecurrentbifurca-tionofcriticisminto‘formalist’analysisoflanguageontheonehand,and‘historicist’or‘materialist’interestincultureandpoliticsontheother,Magnussonshowsthatweneedaphilosophicalframeworkthatisalivetotheutteranceinallitssituatedrichness,ratherthanthesentenceorthesignorthecodeasproductofanoverarchingsystemoflanguage,dis-courseorideology.Suchaframeworkwillenablethefullestinvestigationofboththelinguistictexturesandforcesofliterarytextsandtheactionsuponandwithinthemofsociety,politicsandhistory.Theaimofthisbookisthustolinkcloselinguisticanalysiswithques-tionsofpowerandsociety.BytreatingShakespeare’ssonnetsastheproductofadramatistwhowashimselfembroiledinasocialstruggleforacceptanceandstatus,Ihopetomakepalpabletheirshapeandforceassituatedformsofsocialaction.Plainly,Shakespeare’sdramaticartmadepossibletheextraordinaryusesoflanguageinthesonnets.Buttheplaysthemselvesalsorendermorepalpablecircumstancesofaddressthatescapeinclusionwithintherestrictedbodyofthesonnet.Thecon-cretesituationofaddressthatistheconditionofthePetrarchansonnetisclearestintheplaysinwhichsonnetsarerepresented,notasdisembod-iedtexts,butasaperformativediscourseinwhichembodiedcharactersseektotransformtheircircumstancesandrelationships.Eachoftheplaysthroughwhichthesonnetsarediscussedinthefollowingpages–AsYouLikeIt,AntonyandCleopatra,Love’sLabour’sLost,TwelfthNight,Hamlet,KingDialogue:DramaticLanguageandElizabethanLetters(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,).Magnusson’sbookappearedafterIhadcompletedmostofthepresentwork,soIhavebeenunabletoincorporateitsmanyinsightsintothebodyofmytext.Mybookismuchthepoorerforthisomission.SeeJacquesDerrida,LimitedInc,ed.GeraldGraff(Evanston:IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,)andJohnR.Searle,‘ReiteratingtheDifferences:AReplytoDerrida’,Glyph(),–().LudwigWittgenstein,PhilosophicalInvestigations,trans.G.E.M.Anscombe(Oxford:Blackwell,)andJ.L.Austin,HowToDoThingsWithWords(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,).
Introduction:thesonnetsLear,RomeoandJuliet,TroilusandCressida,OthelloandAll’sWellthatEndsWell–eitherrepresentsthesonnetasaformofsocialactionorembod-iesformsofverbalpracticethatapproximatekeymomentsintheQuarto.Thesonnetsas‘embodiedtexts’arethuscloselyimbricated,inbothsociologicalandaestheticterms,withtheirpoet’sworkinthenewlycommodifiedspaceofthetheatre.ThenotionofanembodiedtexthasrecentlybeenusedbyDouglasBrustertoarguethattheperiodduringwhichthesonnetswerewritten,andinwhichShakespearebecameincreasinglywellknownthroughhisappearanceinthenew,professionalisedtheatre,sawadramaticincreaseintheconnectionsbetweenauthorandtext.Shakespeare’ssonnetsdis-playaconsistentawarenessofthewaysinwhich‘everyworddothalmosttellmyname’(sonnet),notmerelyinstylisticbutalsoinsocialterms.Hispresence,evenattenuatedthroughwriting,isthoughttodisgracetheyoungmanofbirth.Thevery‘publicspace’inwhich‘writerspubli-cizedhithertoprivatebodiesandidentities,includingtheirown’(Bruster,‘StructuralTransformation’,)contaminatesthoseofhighbirthwhoarebroughtintoitsambitasmorethanaloofspectators,atthesametimeasittransformstheveryconditionsoftraditionalauthority.Somehavearguedthatthefamiliarityofthesonnetsprecludesthepossibilityofanaristocraticaddresseeorlover.Butthisoverlooksthewayinwhichfamiliarityalternateswithextremeabjectionandthepowerofthenewpublicspace,whichwasbothshapedbyandinturnshapedShakespeare’s‘publickmanners’(sonnet),totransfigurerelationshipsofauthorityandsubjection.IfShakespeare’ssonnetsmaybesaidtobe‘embodied’inBruster’ssensebythepresenceoftheirpublicpoetintheir‘everyword’,theyarealsoembodiedthroughtherepresentationofsimilarsonnetsintheplaysthemselves.ApproachingShakespeare’ssonnetsthroughthestagedworldsofhisplaysenablesonetointerrogatetwosetsofcriti-calassumptions.Theembodimentofaddressee,thesonneteerandthesonnetitselfthroughtheplayscounterstherecenttendencytodissolveDouglasBruster,‘TheStructuralTransformationofPrintinLateElizabethanEngland’,inPrint,Manuscript,&Performance:TheChangingRelationsoftheMediainEarlyModernEngland,ed.ArthurF.MarottiandMichaelD.Bristol(Columbus:OhioStateUniversityPress,),–.SeeRobertWeimann,AuthorityandRepresentationinEarlyModernDiscourse,ed.DavidHilman(Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,)andAuthor’sPenandActor’sVoice:PlayingandWritinginShakespeare’sTheatre(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,),foranextensiveaccountofthetransformationofauthoritythroughthedynamicsofrepresentationinbothitspoliticalandmimeticsenses.Seeespecially,JosephPequigney,SuchIsMyLove:AStudyofShakespeare’sSonnets(Chicago:Uni-versityofChicagoPress,).
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysthecorporealityofthereferentinasolutionoftextualityandsubjectiv-ity,eitherthroughaformalistconcentrationontheirverbalorlyricalcomplexity,orthroughamoretheoreticalinterestintheirforginganewpoeticsubjectivity.Suchembodimentalsoquestionstheassumptionthattheprimaryworkofthesonnetingeneral,andShakespeare’ssonnetsinparticular,istopraisetheirsubjectsthroughdescription.Ishallfocusontheperformative,ratherthanthedescriptive,natureoftheirlanguage;thatistosay,onthewaysinwhichtheyseektobetransformativeratherthanmerelydenotative.Thiswillmeanreopeningthequestionofthe‘dramatic’natureofthesonnets:takingseriouslythefactthattheQuartoistheonlymajorbodyofsonnetsinearlyModernEnglandwrit-tenbyadramatist,andexploringtheinteractionofthesonnetandthetheatreonavarietyofsociologicalandaestheticlevels.TotakeintoaccountthefactthattheQuartowastheonlybodyofsonnetswrittenbyadramatistopensawiderpassagebetweenthepoemsandtheplaysviatherootednessoftheircommonauthorinaparticularcommunityataparticulartime.Suchapassagewillnaturallyrevealtheirdifferences,amongthemostobviousbeingthefactthatthesonnets,unliketheplays,arewritteninanautobiographicalmode.Thisraisesthequestionofnamesandpronouns,andthelogicalrolethattheyplayinthetwogenres.IwillarguethatthegrammaticalorlogicalThesetwocriticalpositionsareexemplifiedbytwoofthemostinfluentialrecentcriticsofthesonnets:StephenBoothandJoelFineman.Thattheycontinuetoexertaninordinatedegreeofinfluenceisshownbythefactthattheycontinuetobethetwomostfrequentlycitedcriticsinthemostrecentcollectionofessaysonthesonnets.SeeJamesSchiffer(ed.),Shakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays(NewYork:Garland,),.ForearlyinterestintheirdramaticnatureseeG.K.Hunter,‘TheDramaticTechniqueofShake-speare’sSonnets’,EssaysinCriticism,(),–();GiorgioMelchiori,Shakespeare’sDramaticMeditations:AnExperimentinCriticism(Oxford:ClarendonPress,),.Seealso,AntonM.Pirkhoffer,‘TheBeautyofTruth:TheDramaticCharacterofShakespeare’sSonnets’,inNewEssaysonShakespeare’sSonnets,ed.HiltonLandry(NewYork:AMSPress,),–;andDavidParker,‘VerbalMoodsinShakespeare’sSonnets’,ModernLanguageQuarterly,.(September),–.Suchcriticismhasbeensupersededbyinvestigationsoftheir‘innerlanguage’(AnnFerry,The‘Inward’Language:SonnetsofWyatt,Sidney,Shakespeare,andDonne(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,));theexplorationoftheir‘speaker’spsyche’(HeatherDubrow,CaptiveVictors:Shakespeare’sNarrativePoemsandSonnets(Ithaca,NYandLondon:CornellUniversityPress,),);theirnovelconstructionofpoeticsubjectivity(JoelFineman,Shakespeare’sPerjuredEye:TheInventionofPoeticSubjectivityintheSonnets(Berkeley,LosAngelesandLondon:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,));theirformal,essentiallypoeticstructureandrichness(StephenBooth,AnEssayonShakespeare’sSonnets(NewHaven,CTandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,)andShakespeare’sSonnets,ed.StephenBooth(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,);andHelenVendler,TheArtofShakespeare’sSonnets(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,));orthesocial,sexualorideological‘scandal’thattheyrepresent(MargaretadeGrazia,‘TheScandalofShakespeare’sSonnets’,inShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays,ed.Schiffer,–;PeterStallybrass,‘EditingasCulturalFormation:TheSexingofShakespeare’sSonnets’,inShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays,ed.Schiffer–,andJosephPequigney,SuchIsMyLove).
Introduction:thesonnetsquestionsofpropernamesandpronouns,andthesociologicalconditionoftheplayer-poetinhisrelationtoawell-bornaddressee,arecloselyrelated.Canthemodesandconditionsofaddressindicatedbythepre-ponderanceofthesecond-personpronouninShakespeare’ssonnets(bycomparisonwithSidney,Spenser,DanielandDrayton)berelatedtothepeculiarinterdependenceofplayerandaudiencethatinformsShakespeare’sworkinbothgenres?Andhowisthisrelationshipcompli-catedorilluminatedwhenasonnet’ssituationofaddressisrepresentedonstage?Howisthesenseofthetextualor‘inward’natureofthepoemsaslyricscomplicatedbyreadingthemthroughthehistoricalembodi-mentofsonnetsintheatricalrepresentations?C.L.Barber’ssuggestionthatinShakespeare’ssonnets‘poetryis,inaspecialway,anaction,somethingdoneforandtothebeloved’bringsthepoemsclosesttotheprimarymeansofShakespeare’slivelihood.ItemphasisestheirconcernwithwhatJacquesBerthoudhasexploredasthe‘dialogicalinteraction’oftheplays.Thesonnets’performativelanguageencompassesmuchmorethanthesolitarymindoftheirlyricspeakerorisolatedreader:itarisesoutofthetriangularrelationshipofaddresser,addresseeandthecontextoreventofsuchactionthatisnotmerelyagrammaticaleffectoflanguage.Itisarelationshipembodiedinparticularlivedcir-cumstances,whichShakespeare’sdramaticworksfrequentlyre-presentinthatfullnessonthepublicstage.HoweverShakespeare’splaysandsonnetsmaybeunitedordifferenti-atedinpoeticterms,theyshareamutualinvestmentininteraction:inpro-vokingaresponse,andthemselvesrespondingtoprovocation,throughthenegotiationofrelationshipsthatareerotic,political,filialandideo-logical.Theyseekself-authorisation,justifyingthemselvesinthe‘eiesofmen’(sonnet).Whetherweapproachthemsociologicallyorinternallyviathefictionofapoetic‘persona’,thepoetofthesonnetsisclearlyaplayer-poet.Hesuffersfromthesocialandpersonalvulnerabilityofsome-onewhoseroleasapoetisalwaysinformedbyhispositionasactorandSeeMelchiori,Shakespeare’sDramaticMeditations,:Themostnotablevariationinrespectoftheothercollectionsremains...Shakespeare’suseofthesecondperson,whichisalmostasfrequentasthatofthefirst:.percentasagainst.percent,whileintheotherpoemsunderconsiderationthehighestpercentagereachedispercent...ThisbalancebetweenIandthou,thisdirectexchange,thisdialogue,isalsoanobviousdemonstrationofthedramaticandtheatricalcharacterofhis[Shakespeare’s]poeticgenius,evenwhenusingthelyricalform.C.L.Barber,‘AnEssayontheSonnets’,inElizabethanPoetry:ModernEssaysinCriticism,ed.PaulJ.Alpers(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,),–().JacquesBerthoud,IntroductiontoTitusAndronicus,TheNewPenguinShakespeare(Harmondsworth:Penguin,).
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysplaywright.Atthesametime,thesurenessofhispoeticartarisesoutofthepracticeofthetheatre.Hemightconsequentlybesaidtobeplayingatbeingapoetproperinpurelysociological,thoughnotaesthetic,terms,pretendingthroughthewritingtothesuperiorpoeticandsocialstatusofaSidney,aGrevilleoraSurrey.Thatwenowconsiderhimthegreatestpoetoftheagedoesnotchangethewaysinwhichhispoetryisinformedbyasenseofhisowninferiorsocialstation–asindelible,byhisownad-mission,asthestainuponthedyer’shand.Shakespeare’sroleasamanofthetheatrethusconditionshissonnetsinbothasociologicalandanaestheticsense.Theyaretheproductsofapowerfulhandsteepedintheaestheticpracticeofthestage,buttheyarealsomarkedbytheperceivedsocialinferiorityofthatpractice.AlthoughitmightseemobviousthatShakespeare’splaysrepresenttothehighestdegreethe‘interactivedialogue’bywhich‘individualsmaybeimaginedtoexistinsociety’,thesonnetsarenolessembroiledinsuchformsofsocialinteractionanddialogue(Berthoud,Introduction,TitusAndronicus,).Suchdialoguerepresentsthesingularityofeachspeakingpositionanditsplaceinawidersocialcontext;butitdoesnotreducetheonetotheother.‘Insofarastheyarethecentreoftheirownlives,’Berthoudremarks,‘individualsbelongtothemselves;butinsofarastheyaremembersofacommunity,withitshistory,itsinstitutions,anditssocialandculturaldivisions,theybelongtoothers’().Viewingtheseintenselyindividualpoemsthroughtheglassoftheplaysenablesustoseehowthesonnetsenact,‘atthemomentofitsoperation’(),thedegreetowhichpeoplebelongbothtothemselvesandtoothers.Thevoicethatspeaksinthesonnetsisneitherwholly‘solitary’norentirelypublic.Itisboththecentreofasingularmanifoldoffeelings,attitudesandpassions,andatthesametimecontinuallydisplacedbyitsnecessaryacknowledgementofaworldofothers.ReadingShakespeare’ssonnetsinthecontextofhisplaysrendersmorevisiblethecircumstancesthatmakespeechactsintelligibleandmakepossiblethelanguageofinteriority.Suchcontextsofembodimentandaddress,oftenobscuredinthecaseofthelyric,areinescapableonthestage.InchapterIaskwhathappenstoourreadingofthesonnetswhenwetakesuchembodimentseriouslyastheverycondition,notonlyofthetheatre,butalsoofthesonnet’saddress.ToasksuchaPaulRamsey,TheFickleGlass:AStudyofShakespeare’sSonnets(NewYork:AMSPress,),,remindsusoftheactor-poetofthesonnets’intensefeelingofinsecurityandvulnerabilitybeforeagreaterpoet’sverse:‘therivalpoet’ssonnetsareatoncelaudatory,evenalittleawe-struck,andsatiric:alittlemocking,butalsomorethanalittlefrightened’.
Introduction:thesonnetsquestionistocomplicatethesignifiedwiththereferent–intheformofembodiedaddresseeandaddresserandtheactualcircumstancesoftheaddress,includingunequalsocialrelations–andtoleaventheconceptofsubjectivitywiththepublicrealityofanaudience.ItalsoreopensquestionsregardingthedisembodyingforceofPetrarchismitself,andtheasymmetricalnatureofthevoicedandthesilencedinthepoems.InchapterIexploremostfullywhatitmeanstoreadthesonnetsasaprimarilyperformativeart,using‘performative’inthetechnicalsenseinstantiatedbythephilosophyofspeechacts.Indevelopingmyargu-mentIuseasmyfoilthecriticaltextthathashadanunsurpassedimpactinthefield:JoelFineman’sShakespeare’sPerjuredEye:TheInventionofPoeticSubjectivityintheSonnets.ChannelledthroughtheworkofLacanandDerrida,Fineman’sthesisisdeeplyinformedbyacontrary,Saussureanpictureoflanguage.Itdependsupontheassumptionthatthetraditionofsonnetwriting,ofwhichShakespeare’ssonnetsareabelatedandtransfor-mativepart,isprimarilyconcernedwithdescription,withmatchingwhatthepenwritestowhattheeyeseesthroughan‘idealizinglanguage’thatisessentially‘visionary’(Shakespeare’sPerjuredEye,).Topraisesomeoneinthistraditionisessentiallytotrytodescribethem.ThusShakespeare’spoemstothe‘darklady’aresaidtotransformthespeculardescrip-tivenessofepideixisbydiscovering,beforethefact,theneo-Saussureanprinciplethatthereisanessentialandunbridgeabledisjunctionbetweenlanguageandtheworld:‘becausetheyareadiscourseofthetongueratherthanoftheeye,becausetheyare“linguistic”,Shakespeare’sverbalwordsare,incomparisontotheimago,essentiallyorontologicallyatoddswithwhattheyspeakabout’().Theself-reflexiverecognitionofthison-tologicaldisjunctionconstitutesthedecisivelymodernpoeticsubjectivitythatFinemanattributestoShakespeare’ssonnets.Theyinventamod-ernsubjectivitybyrecognisingwhathasalwaysbeenontologicallytrueaboutlanguageanditsrelationto(orratherdisjunctionfrom)anyob-jectintheworld.MymajorargumentagainsttheFinemanthesisisthatShakespeare’ssonnetsofferverylittledescriptionatall.TheyarenotprimarilyconcernedwithpresentingwhatFinemancallstheimago.Itisnaturaltoassumethatthesonnetsmakegoodtheirpromisetotheyoungmantomakehimliveintheirlinesbymakinghisimageoutlastthehardiestofhumanmonuments.Howelse,wemayask,canthispromiseFineman’sbookremainsthemostreferred-totextinacollectionofmostlynewessayspublishedaslateas.SeeShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays,ed.Schiffer.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysbemadegood,especiallyintheabsenceofthebeloved’sname?Withouteithernameorimage,whatcansurvive?Acloseexaminationofthefirstsonnets,traditionallyassumedtobeaddressestothe‘fairfriend’,revealsverylittlebywayofportraiture.Doweknowwhatthefriendlookedlike?Well,weliketothinkweknow:blondhair,blueeyes,young,beautiful.RatherthanbeingaproductofanythingthatShakespeareactuallytellsusabouthim(seesonnet),suchaportraitisthenegativeimageofthe‘womencollouredil’(sonnet).Wearecertainthatheisblond;butthatisbecausethepo-emscallhim‘fair’.Thetwowordsarenotsynonymous.Rosaline,inLove’sLabour’sLostiscalled‘fair’,yethereyesandhairareas‘ravenblack’asthedarkbeautyofthesonnets.Beatrice(MuchAdoAboutNothing),Cressida(TroilusandCressida),Julia(TheTwoGentlemenofVerona)andHermia(AMidsummerNight’sDream)arealsocalled‘fair’,sometimesrepeatedlyandobsessively,andyettheyvariouslyfallshortoftheblondeideal.Itisoneofthewell-knownparadoxesofthesonnetsthatthereisnonaturalsynonymybetweencolouringandbeautyorbetweenphysicalfairnessandspirituallight.Sowhydoweassumethatthe‘fairfriend’hasblondhair?Dothepoemstellusthis;dotheydescribehimashavingblondhair?Weassumetoohastilythat,becauseheistwinnedwithawoman‘collouredil’,theyoungmancannothavedarkhair.Thereisliterallyverylittleexplicitportraitureinthesonnetstosupportthisassumption.TheQuartoiscuriouslyreticentaboutindulginginthePetrarchanblazon,despiteitsrepeatedinvocationoftheimageofthebeloved.Apartfromthecounter-discursivesonnet(‘Mymistreseyesarenothinglikethesun’)–ananti-blazon–theonlypoemthatcomesclosetosuchanatomyistheplayfulsonnet:eforwardvioletthusdidIchide,SweettheefewhencedidstthoustealethysweetthatsmelsIfnotfrommylouesbreath,thepurplepride,Whichonthysoftcheekeforcomplexiondwells?Inmylouesveinesthouhasttoogroselydied,TheLillieIcondemnedforthyhand,Andbudsofmarieromhadstolnethyhaire,TheRosesfearefullyonthornesdidstand,Ourblushingshame,anotherwhitedispaire:Athirdnorred,norwhite,hadstolneofboth,LysanderaddressesHermiaas‘fairlove’(..),yetsheisenoughofabrunetteforhimlatertocallheran‘Ethiope’anda‘tawnytartar’(..and).AllquotationsfromthesonnetsaretakenfromthereproductionoftheQuartoShakespeare’sSonnets,ed.StephenBooth,withthenecessarytranscriptions.
Introduction:thesonnetsAndtohisrobbryhadannextthybreath,ButforhistheftinprideofallhisgrowthAvengfullcankereatehimvptodeath.MoreflowersInoted,yetInonecouldsee,Butsweet,orcullerithadstolnefromthee.Quirkyintoneandattitudeasmuchasforitsextraline,thispoemgesturestowardstheidealsofcolouringtraditionallyexpectedof(orprojectedonto)anEnglish,Petrarchanbeloved.Butsuchgesturesareteasinglygrotesque.‘Rosesdamaskt,redandwhite’(sonnet)arefairenough;‘purplepride’‘toogroselydied’uponthebeloved’scheek(evenifweread‘purple’as‘red’),alittleoverthetop.Theroses‘blushshame’andstandin‘whitedispaire’,notbecausetheyreflecthiscolouring,butbecausetheyhavebeencaughtred-handed,stealingthebeloved’sbeauty.Thatistosay,theircolouringispresentedasthetemporaryresultoftheplayer-poet’scensure;theyarenottheeternalmirrorsofhisfeatures.Suchepithetsare,however,readilytransferabletothebelovedhimselfbyanyonewhoisdeterminedtoseehimasaninstanceof‘rosesdamaskt’.AlthoughJohnKerriganquotesJohnGerard’sTheHerbal()totheeffectthatmarjoramwasawhitishherb,G.BlakemoreEvansnotesthatitremainsunclearwhetherthecomparisonismeanttoinvokethecolour,textureorfragranceoftheyoungman’shair.Thepoemasawholeislessconcernedwithadescriptionofthebelovedthaninelaboratingaseriesofmischievousreprimands,wherebytheplayer-poetisabletoprojectthebelovedasthesourceofallbeautythroughspeechactsthatarenotprimarilydescriptions.Althoughnotasblatantassonnet,thispoemisasmuchaparodyofhyperbolicdescription,anditsplacewithinaclusterofpoemscentrallyconcernedwithimaginativeprojectionfurthercallsintoquestionanystatuswemightbetemptedtogiveitasanexerciseinpresentinganimago.Evenifwegrant,onthestrengthofonesenseoftheword‘fair’andthesupposedwhitenessoftheherbtowhichhishairiscomparedinsonnet,thattheyoungmanisblond,theothersonnetsofferscantinformationonwhichtobaseanidentikit.Ifanything,theycoylyplaywiththeideaofhispicturewithoutofferinganythingconcrete.Infacttheimageofthebelovedisinvokedvariouslyastheobjectofcontentionbetweentheplayer-poet’seyeandheart(sonnets,,),orasthehaunting‘shadow’ofhisabsentdreams(sonnets,,,,,),JohnKerrigan(ed.),TheSonnetsandALover’sComplaint,TheNewPenguinShakespeare(Harmondsworth:Penguin,);G.BlakemoreEvans(ed.),TheSonnets,TheNewCambridgeShakespeare(CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,),.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysorassomethingquitebeyonddescription(sonnets,,,,,,,).Sonnet,forexample,speaksconditionallyofitsownpoeticpower,suggestingthatevenifitcouldofferanaccurateimageofthebeloved,itwouldbescornedastheinventionofa‘poet’srage/AndstretchedmiterofanAntiquesong’.Andtheclusterofpoemsrespond-ingtotherivalpoetfamously(andstrategically)claimthatanyattempttodescribetheyouththatgoesfurtherthantautology(‘youareyou’)insultshim.Theonlyimagethatisinvokedasatrueandpossiblereflectionofthebelovedisthatofhisownimaginedoffspring,andheishimselfconsideredtobeanexactreflectionofhismother,butthepoemsofferdescriptionsofneither.Thesonnetsspeakofofferingimages,ofdrawingpictures,ofmakingthebelovedliveonintheirown‘blacklines’.Buttospeakofpicturesisnottodrawthem,tousetheword‘images’,evenrepeatedly,isnottopresentone.Thegesturesofdescriptionorportrai-turethroughouttheQuartoareaseriesofelaboratefeints;thereisnoshadowsoshadowyintheirlinesasthefiguretowhichtheypromiseeternallife.Withoutthegroundingpresuppositionthatitisthefundamentalaimofthesepoemstorenderinwordswhattheeyesees,Fineman’sclaim–thatShakespeare’ssonnetsmaketherevolutionarydiscoverythatwordscannevermatchtheworld–isempty.Ifthesonnetsweretryingtodosomethingotherthandescribe,thentheirsupposedfailuretomatchinsufficientwordtoineffable,idealobjectwouldbelessmomentous,indeeditwouldnotmatteratall.Thepoemsareperformativeratherthanconstative.Thisisinternallyapparentfromtheirspeechacts.Butthepre-eminenceofrhetoricintheearlymodernperiodalsoshowsthatlanguagewasprincipallyappreciatedasaforceworkingintheworldratherthanasa(always-alreadyfailed)reflectionofit.ThomasWilson,forexample,opensthededicationofhisArtofRhetoric()withataleaboutthepowerofwordstoachievewhatweaponscouldnot.GeorgePuttenham’sTheArteofEnglishPoesie()isinformedthroughoutbyanawarenessofpoeticlanguageasapowerthatimprintsitselfuponthereceivingconsciousness:it‘cariethhisopinionthiswayandthat,whethersoevertheheartbyimpressionoftheeareshalbemostaffectionatelybentanddirected’.Thesonnettraditionoftheperiodformspartofageneralinterestinlanguageasaformofaction.DavidParkerrecognisesthisThomasWilson,TheArtofRhetoric(),ed.PeterE.Medine(UniversityPark,PA:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,),.GeorgePuttenham,TheArteofEnglishPoesie(London:),ScholarPressFacsimile(Menston,England:TheScholarPress,),iiij.
Introduction:thesonnetswhenhereadsthesonnetsasexamplesofaparticularlywell-controlledanddirectedpersuasiverhetoric,arguingthattheapparentlyindicativemoodofmanyofthesonnetsobscuresmoredynamic,complexandinteractiveusesoflanguage.‘Theheartofeloquence’,hewrites,‘isnotassertion,theexpressionoffact,butdemand,theexpressionofwillinsuchawaythatthepersonaddressedresponds,oratleastfeelsguiltyaboutnotresponding.’WhatappearsatfirstglancetobeaseriesofindicativemoodsinShakespeare’ssonnetsareinfact‘elaboratedisguisesoftheimperativemood’(Parker,‘VerbalMoods’,)andmanyothermodesoftheperformative.TakingParker’sspecificobservationstoamoregeneral,philosophicallevel,wenoteWittgensteinandAustin’schallengetotheviewthattheindicativeistheprimarymodeloflanguage.Wittgensteinbasedhisrev-olutionarycritiqueonpainstakingremindersofthemyriadoflanguagegamesinwhichpeopleengageinthespeechthatactuallyconstitutestheirlives,ratherthanthearcanearchetypesofphilosophicalenquiry.Austintakesthisre-evaluationfurtherwithhistrenchantquestionsconcerninghowwedothingswithwords.Bothphilosophersrefinedtheancientno-tionthatlanguagecanbeusedtoeffectandaffectthingsintheworldbydifferentiatingthekindsoflogicthatinformthesameformalstruc-turesacrossdifferentinstancesofuse.Parkertreatsthecomplexplayof‘moods’inthesonnetsinpurelyaffectiveterms–thatistosay,aspurelyrhetoricalproceduresthatattempttoworkonthefeelingsandattitudesoftheiraddressees.Austin’sanalysisofthewaysinwhichanutterancethatlooksasifitismerelystatingsomethingisactuallyperformingsomething(andisthusa‘performative’),drawsacrucialandproductivedistinctionbetweendifferentkindsofperformative,namely,between‘perlocutionary’and‘illocutionary’force.Theformerisrhetoricalinthetraditionalsenseoftheword,whilethelatteristransformativebyaninternalconvention.Idiscussthisdistinctionmorefullyinchapter.Itrendersmorepreciseandconcretetheotherwiserathervaguenotionofthe‘poweroflanguagetomakeandunmaketheworld’anditenablesustoseethatpoweroperating,notinacontingentwayuponanexternaladdresseewhomayormaynotbemovedinavarietyofwaysbyason-net’srhetoricalforce,butinternally,intermsofthesociallyunderwrittenlogicofparticularlanguagegamesorspeechacts.Parker,‘VerbalMoodsinShakespeare’sSonnets’,–.StephenGreenblatt,IntroductiontoRomeoandJuliet,TheNortonShakespeare,ed.StephenGreenblatt,WalterCohen,JeanE.HowardandKatherineEisamanMaus(LondonandNewYork:W.W.Norton,),.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysManyofShakespeare’ssonnetstotheyoungmanattempttonegoti-atetheunequalpoliticalandsocialrelationshipbetweenactor-poetandaristocraticpatronviasuchperformativeusesoflanguage,bywhichtheactor-poetseeks,sometimesinvain,lesstopersuadecarelessnobilitythantotransformthetermsoftherelationshiporsituationintheperformanceofthespeechact.Negotiationsbetweenpowerandweakness,author-ityandsubordinationinthesonnetsareboundupwithperformativeorillocutionaryratherthandescriptiveorevenrhetoricalorperlocu-tionaryusesoflanguage,andtheplayer-poetusessuchperformativestonegotiateapoliticsofself-authorisation.Theillocutionaryforceoftheperformativeconstitutesamajorpartofthat‘dynamic,unendingslippagebetweenpowerandpowerlessnessandbetweentheirprincipalsources,successandfailure’thatHeatherDubrowhascharacterisedasbeingtypicallyPetrarchan.EvenifShakespearewasnotacquaintedwithAustin,hispoeticpracticerevealsasubtleunderstandingofthewaysinwhichthenecessarylogicoftheillocutionaryact,asopposedtothemerelycontingentforceofaperlocutionaryorrhetoricalutter-ance,maytransformtherelationshipbetweenaddresserandaddressee.InShakespeare’ssonnets,languageismobilisednotmerelytosaythatthingsareso,ortomoveanaudiencethroughrhetoricalskill,buttotransformasituation,tomakesomethingsomerelyinsayingsomething.Thisisapoliticalprocess.Itattemptstorewritethealreadyscriptedsocialrelationsofpowerandinequalitythroughaforcethatliesnotsomuchintherhetoricalrulesofeffectivepersuasionasthepubliclyavail-ablelogicoftheperformative.Thislogicoperatesasatransformativepowerwithincertainutterancesorspeechacts:intheforceofpromising,blaming,swearing,commanding,pleading,upbraiding,questioning,re-pudiatingorforeswearing.Whilesuchaforceisnotasuncertaininitsoperationasitsperlocutionarycousin,itdoesnotactindependentlyofhowthingsareintheworld,especiallytheworldofsocialrelations.Theremaybecircumstancesinwhichparticularspeechactssuchascommand-ingorevenblamingsomeonefail,becausetherelationshipbetweenthepeopleinvolvedinthespeechactisinappropriatebysocialconvention.Apoetcannotcommandaqueen,forexample,althoughwhetherheorshecanblameherisamorecomplexmatter.Shakespeare’ssonnets,withtheirsituationsofdeepinequality,offerequallycomplexnegotiationsofsuchdiscursiveandsocialintricaciesviaillocutionaryusesoflanguage.HeatherDubrow,EchoesofDesire:EnglishPetrarchismanditsCounterdiscourses(Ithaca,NYandLondon:CornellUniversityPress,),.
Introduction:thesonnetsTheydosobydeliberatelyexploitingtheformalambiguitiesoflanguagewhichhaveflummoxedphilosophersforsolong:thatwhatlookslikeastatementmayinfactbedoingsomethingotherthanstating.Equally,whatlookslikeamerelyrhetoricalappealmaytransformarelationshipinitsveryutterance.Thepublicqualityofthisprocessisespeciallyimportant,foritop-eratesinthe‘eiesofmen’.Thatistosay,beingindependentofanycontingentlypersonalaffect,unlikerhetoricalorperlocutionaryforce,theillocutionaryforceofanutteranceisessentiallypublic:itissharedand,giventheappropriateconstitutivecircumstances,ittakeseffectatonce,independentlyofthe‘private’statesofmindoftheparticipants.Itis,inthisbroadestsense,interactive.Thisfacttransformsanotherdebatethathasbeenragingrecently:thevexedquestionofprivacyorinteriority.Theissuehasmanytangledstrands.Twowillconcernmehere:theques-tionofwhetherShakespeare’ssonnets,aslyrics,areessentially,byvirtueofthe‘normativity’oftheirgenre,solitaryorprivateinthesensethattheyeschewallsocialdeterminations;andthehistoricaldebateaboutwhetherElizabethanshadaccesstoaconceptofinteriorityatall.Idealwiththeseissuesmorefullyinchapter.Forthemoment,IremarkonthetendencytostripfromShakespeare’ssonnetstheircharacteraspublicdocuments,circulated,perhapsonpa-per,butalsoperhapsthroughrecital,withinaspecificsocialworld.HelenVendler’smagisterialTheArtofShakespeare’sSonnetsarguesthatthelyricisintrinsicallyasocial:Contemporaryemphasisontheparticipationofliteratureinasocialmatrixbalksatacknowledginghowlyric,thoughitmayrefertothesocial,remainsthegenrethatdirectsitsmimesistowardtheperformanceofthemindinsolitaryspeech.Becauselyricisintendedtobevoicablebyanyonereadingit,initsnormativeformitdeliberatelystripsawaymostsocialspecification(age,regionallocation,sex,class,evenrace).Asocialreadingisbetterdirectedatanoveloraplay;theabstractiondesiredbythewriterof,andthewillingreaderof,normativelyricfrustratesthemindthatwantssocialfictionsorbiographicalrevelations.Vendlerclaimsanessentialgenericdifferencebetweenthelyricandothersupposedlymoresociallydirectedgenres,suchasthenovelanddrama.Thesegenres,byimplication,doparticipateinthe‘socialmatrix’.SeeWilliamNelson,‘From“ListenLordings”to“DearReader”’,UTQ,(–),–;RogerChartier,‘LeisureandSociability:ReadingAloudinModernEurope’,trans.CarolMoss-man,inUrbanLifeintheRenaissance,ed.SusanZimmermanandRobertE.Weissman(Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress,),–.Vendler,TheArtofShakespeare’sSonnets,–.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysLyricdoesnot.Therefore,toapplythemethodsofreadingtheformertothelatteristomakeacategorymistakethatmisrepresentsthenatureoflyricpoetry.Takenasastrictlyphenomenologicalproject,Vendler’sreductionofthe‘voice’ofthelyricbystrippingawayalltheempiricalqualitiesofitshistoricalmomentmakessense.Ifthe‘voice’withwhicheachreaderreadsalyricisalwayshisorherown,thenthe‘socialspecification’ofthepoemwillindeedsufferaphenomenologicalreduction,leavingthesolitaryreadingconsciousness–completelyremovedfromtheorig-inatingsocialmatrix–asitsonlyintentionalobject.The‘abstraction’thatVendlerquestionablyattributestothenormativelytranshistoricalintentionalityofallpoets,however,produces,notanenrichedlyricalvoice,untrammelledbytheextraneousdrossofsocialspecification,butratherasolipsisticshadowofwhoeverhappenstobereadingthepoematanytime.Thatvoice,ratherthanbeinganunbiasedglassinwhichthe‘performanceofthemindinsolitaryspeech’isfaithfullyreflected,willy-nillycarriesitsown‘socialspecifications’intothepoem,chargingitarbitrarilywithitsownsociallyshapedconsciousness.Thisdevouringself-centrednessmaywellbethefunctionofVendler’sownbeliefthat,despitetheirappropriationsbythousandsofothers,thesonnetsareinfactvirginalcriticalterritory,andthatnovoicecapturestheirtoneanddi-rectionsowellasherown.Itcannot,however,belegitimatelyprojectedasalawinscribedinthegenre.EquallyquestionableistheimpersonalintentionalitythatVendlerattributestothegenreassuch.Sheneedstoofferahistoricalargumenttolocateandjustifysuch‘normativity’.Isuspectthat,givensuchhistoricalconsideration,Shakespeare’ssonnetsmayturnoutnottobelyricsinVendler’ssenseatall.Orrather,theirattemptstomovefrompublicdeclarationtothesolitaryreadingthatsheregardsastheessenceofthelyricendinfailure.Whentheplayer-poetcries,attheendofsonnet,‘Olearnetoreadwhatsilentlouehathwrit’,heisindeedtryingtoreduceatrammelling,embodied,socialcon-textexemplifiedbypublicspeechtotheprivacyofthewrittenpage.Butthisisaparticular,historicallyconditionedstrategy,notauniversaltruthaboutthelyric.Historicisingcriticismshowsthatthenormativitythatsheassertsasintrinsictothegenreisnottranscendentalbutproducedhistorically,andthat‘solitaryspeech’isasmarkedbysocialspecificationasanyother.SeeHelenVendler,‘Reading,StagebyStage:Shakespeare’sSonnets’,inShakespeareReread:TheTextsinNewContexts,ed.RussMcDonald(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,),–.
Introduction:thesonnetsThatisnottosaythatVendler’saversiontoacertainkindofhistori-cisingcriticismisgroundless.‘Theory’,whichalltoooftenignoresthesyntacticalplayoflanguagegamesandspeechactsinparticularpoemsinfavourofbroad,theoreticallydrivenorhistoricallyderivedabstrac-tions,hasinmanycaseshadadebilitatingeffectonoursenseofthepoemspreciselyashistoricallyspecificartefacts.Thisisaparadox,con-sideringhistoricism’sdesiretorestoretothesetextsthesenseof‘socialspecification’thatVendlereschews.Oneofthemajordrawbacksofacer-tainstyleofhistoricismisitstendencytotreatconceptsassigns:asplacemarkersinacode,ignoringthewayinwhichtheyareengenderedinthemeetingplaceofsyntaxandsocialpractice.Suchsignsaretreatedasalreadyhavingameaningbeforethesyntacticalmovementsofutteranceandspeechact.Theyareossifiedasideological‘structures’orproductsofhistorical‘discourses’whicharethenprojectedintothetextregard-lessoftheirparticularusesinthetext.IfWittgensteinisrightthatthemeaningsofwordsliesintheiruse,thenthispoetics,whichmaintainsadebilitatinglinktostructuralismnomatterhowfaritthinksittran-scendedthatdoctrine,cannothopetocastmorethananobfuscatingshadowoverthetextsthatitpretendstoilluminate.Vendler’sreadingofShakespeare’ssonnetsasspeechactsratherthanasdescriptionsthusmarksanaffinitywithmyownproject,howevermuchwedisagreeaboutthesocialnatureofthelyric.Toseethelan-guageofthesonnetsas‘situationallymotivatedspeech-acts’(Vendler,TheArtofShakespeare’sSonnets,)–formsoflinguisticaction,performa-tiveorillocutionaryforce–ratherthanmerelyacollectionofmetaphors,images,propositionsoracollectionofrhetoricaldevices,istorecognisethedynamicqualityofinteractionandresponseinthepoems.Theydonotmerelydescribeorstate;theyenquire,respond,boast,deny,beg,apologise,promise,complain,scorn,decry,argueandinsult.Infact,themostproductiveanalyticalandphilosophicalinsightsofVendler’sapproachtothesonnetsasspeechactscontradictherdogmaticeschewalofthesocialandthecontextual.WittgensteinandAustindemonstratethatanalysismustoccurattheleveloftheutterance,withallitsirreduciblereferencesto‘socialspecification’andcircumstance,ratherthanattheForanexpansionofmyargument,seeDavidSchalkwyk,‘TheChroniclesofWastedTime’?Shakespeare’sSonnetsRevisited’,TheEnglishAcademyReview,(),–.Asimilarten-dencytoimposepreordainedideologicalnotionsderivedfromtheorymarsPaulInnes’sShakespeareandtheEnglishRenaissanceSonnet:VersesofFeigningLove(NewYork:St.Martin’sPressandLondon:Macmillan,),otherwisethemostsustainedattempttoofferamaterialistreadingofthesonnets.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysgrammaticalabstractionofthesentence.Bycuttingthelyricofffromitsreferencetothesurroundingsocialcircumstances–society,history,class,gender,age,regionallocationandrace–Vendlervitiatesthephilo-sophicalpowerofthespeechact.Herclaimthatthesonnets’statusaslyricsnecessarilyexcludethe‘social’arisesfromafailuretoseethatthesocialdoesnotlieoutsidetheirdiscourse,inthewaythatthereferentdif-fersfromitssign,butinhabitsthemthroughtheirverysingularity.Eventhemostprivateorinteriorofdiscourses–wheneachofusfeelsmostsecurelyatthecentreofourownlives–isinformedbythesocialworld,whichisinturncentraltoeachofus.The‘performanceofthemindinsolitaryspeech’requiresthesettingofa‘public’stage.Thestrippingawayof‘mostsocialspecifications’fromsuchaperformanceleaves,notaleaner,deeperormoreessentialrepresentation,butonethathasbeendivestedoftheverymeansofperformanceitself.Themodernformalistdisembodimentofpoetryfromitscontextoforiginalreadersandsocialaction,inwhichitwasa‘kindofsocialcur-rency’,was,however,alreadyoccurringintheearlymoderndissemina-tionofsonnetsinprintedanthologies.Theretheyweresetadriftfromtheiroriginalcontext‘inasystemoftransactionswithinpoliteoredu-catedcircles’.Theirdisembodiedappearanceinprintleaveslittleornotraceoftheiroriginalcontexts–social,politicalorerotic.ButmarksofsuchinteractionalcontextsdoremainintherepresentationsofthesonnetinShakespeare’splays,especiallyintheformofembodiedread-ingsorrecitals.Iexplorethedifferenteffectsofdecontextualisationandembodimentinchapter,butforthemomentIwishmerelytoregisteramoregeneralpoint.Myconcernistheoreticalandinterpretativeratherthanempiricalorscholarly.EvenArthurMarotti’ssubsequentbook-lengthstudyofthemanuscriptcirculationofearlymodernpoetryhasmaddeninglylittletosayaboutShakespeare’ssonnets.StephenMay’sextensivetreatmentofcourtierpoetsexcludesthecommonplayer-poetbydefinition,whileMarottiandMichaelBristol’srecentcollection,Print,ManuscriptandPerformance,includesShakespearetheplaywrightbutig-noresthesonneteer.IhavenofurtherevidencetoofferconcerningtheactualbodiesorrelationshipsthatsubtendedthesequenceofsonnetsthatThorpepublishedin,norhaveIbeenabletofindanyempiricaldocumentationtoexpandonMeres’sinsinuationaboutShakespeare’sThisconcernwiththeactive,socialnatureoftheutterancealsomarksM.M.Bakhtin’swork.ArthurMarotti,JohnDonne:CoteriePoet(Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,),–.StephenMay,TheElizabethanCourtierPoets:ThePoemsandtheirContexts(ColumbiaandLondon:UniversityofMissouriPress,).
Introduction:thesonnets‘sugredSonnetsamonghisprivatefriends’(Meres,PalladisTamia,quotedinTheSonnets,ed.KatherineDuncan-Jones,).Thereare,ofcourse,dif-ferencesbetweentherepresentationofasonnet’sformsofreceptioninaplayandthemorecomplexrelationsofdisseminationthroughprint.Iwanttoarguethatthenecessaryembodimentthatisinescapableinthetheatremayrecallthesimilarlyembodiedoriginalcontextsofthesonnets.Whatever‘innervoice’,‘silentspeech’or‘performanceofthemindinsolitaryspeech’Shakespeare’ssonnetsenact,suchinteriorityarisesoutofanacutelyfeltengagementinapublicworldwhichtouchesthe‘private’worldofthepoemineveryway.Thesonnetsgiveusaccesstothewaysinwhicheachindividualisthecentreofhisorherownlife.Butthatveryaccessrevealstheconstitutivetiesofthatselftoothersinembodiedsituations.Thesubjectwhoselifeisatthecentreofthesonnetshaselicitedmorecontroversythananyotherinthesemuch-disputedpoems.Afteraperiodinwhichbiographicalquestsovershadowedallothers,therehasforsometimenowbeenadecisiveturningawayfrombiographyinanyform.Partofthisreactionstemmedfromaformalistturninliterarystudies.Thisturnwasfollowedbyaninterestinthepolitical,culturalorideologicallifeoftextsthat–underthecontinuedinfluenceofanti-humanistthe-ory–hasbeenmoreinterestedinsubjectpositionsthaninindividualsubjects,conditionsofrepresentationratherthantheconditionoftherepresenter.IfPeterStallybrass’sclaimiscorrectthatthescholarwhorestoredtheintegrityoftheQuartowasalsoresponsibleforthemodern‘constructionofaunifiedcharacterattributedtoShakespeare’(‘EditingasCulturalFormation’,),thenthat‘character’hascontinuedtoexerciseastrangelypowerfulswayevenwiththerepeatedproclama-tionofthe‘deathoftheauthor’.ThewidespreadpolemicalimpactofRolandBarthes’sessayhastendedtoobscureMichelFoucault’salmostcontemporaneousandsimilar-sounding‘WhatIsanAuthor?’,whichneverthelessdealswiththeissuedifferently,notleastbecauseFoucaultposesitasaquestion.InitsWittgenstein-likeexaminationoftheuseoftheterm‘author’andtheSeeforexample,Innes,whoseaversiontoformalismisneverthelessmatchedbyaneschewalofanythingthatsmacksofbiographicalcriticism.RolandBarthes,‘TheDeathoftheAuthor’,inTheRustleofLanguage,trans.RichardHoward(Oxford:Blackwell,),–;MichelFoucault,‘WhatIsanAuthor?’,inLanguage–Countermemory–Practice,ed.DonaldF.Bouchard,trans.DonaldF.BouchardandSheerySimon(Oxford:Blackwell,).
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplayslanguagegamesinwhichitisused,Foucault’sessaymaybeseenasaresponsetoBarthes’smoredogmaticpolemic:Itisobviouslyinsufficienttorepeatemptyslogans:theauthorhasdisappeared;Godandmandiedacommondeath.Rather,weshouldreexaminetheemptyspaceleftbytheauthor’sdisappearance...wecanbrieflyconsidertheproblemsthatariseintheuseofanauthor’sname.Whatisthenameofanauthor?Howdoesitfunction?Farfromofferingasolution,Iwillattempttoindicatesomeofthedifficultiesrelatedtothesequestions.Thenameofanauthorposesalltheproblemsrelatedtothecategoryofthepropername.(Foucault,‘WhatIsanAuthor?’,)Withthelaststatement,Foucaultindicatesthathisinterestliesinthegrammaticalandlogicalrolesofpropernames,andmorespecifically,withtheactualuseofthepeculiarspeciesofpropernamethatwecallthe‘author’,notwithatheoryoftheauthor.ItisthereforenotsurprisingthatheshoulduseJohnSearle’sworkonpropernamesashisstartingpoint.FoucaulthighlightsinSearle’sworkpreciselywhatSaulKripkewassubsequentlytosubjecttotheseverestcriticism:theideathatapropernameisanabbreviatedsetofdescriptions.Accordingtothe‘descriptiontheory’,‘Shakespeare’(forexample)standsforaconglomerationofpropositions:‘ThemanborninStratfordin’,‘TheauthorofShakespeare’ssonnets’,‘AshareholderinamajortheatrecompanyinLondon’,‘ThehusbandofAnneHathaway’,andsoon.Oneormoreofthesemayturnout,onfurtherresearch,tobewrong.ButSearlemain-tainsthatsomeofthemwouldhavetobetrueoftheirobjectinordertosecurethesamenessofidentitywithoutwhichapropernamewouldceasetopickoutanyuniqueobjectatall.NowitispreciselyonthispointthatFoucaultindicatesanimportantlogicaldifferencebetweenthefunctioningofthepropernameasthenameofanauthorandthatofanyoneelse.Anamecontinuestodesignateaparticularhumanbeing(sayElizabethTudor)inthesamewayevenifweshoulddiscoverthatmany–or,asKripkewillargue,all–ofthedescriptionsusuallythoughttobetrueofthatpersonwerefalse.ThisisalsotrueofWilliamShakespeare.ItwouldmakenodifferencetothedesignationofthenametodiscoverthathewasnotinfactborninStratford.But,asFoucaultappositelypointsout,ifweweretofindoutthathewasnottheauthorofthesonnetsthenthenameasauthorwouldfunctioninasignificantlydifferentway(‘WhatIsanAuthor?’,).Thatistosay,thenameofanauthoristiedJohnR.Searle,SpeechActs:AnEssayinthePhilosophyofLanguage(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,),ff.
Introduction:thesonnetstoanetworkofwrittentextsinwaysinwhichnon-authorialnamesarenot.Thisispreciselywhatmakesitthenameofanauthor:‘thenameofanauthorisnotpreciselyapropernameamongothers’().ThelogicaldifferencethatFoucaultindicatesbetweenthetwokindsofpropernamemaybetakenintwodirections.One,exemplifiedbytheanti-humaniststanceofthecriticaltheoryofthepastthreedecades,woulddivorcethetwofunctionsofthepropername.Itwouldabandonthenameasitdesignatesapersonwithaparticularpersonalhistoryandexperienceinfavourofthenameasadesignatingpointthatmerelytiescertainwrittentextstogether.Theotherapproachholdsthatwhereasthepropername‘WilliamShakespeare’doesindeedfunctiondifferentlywithregardtothehistoricalhumanbeingandtheauthorofthatname,thislogicaldifferencecannotberaisedtoanabsoluteopposition.Woulditreallymakenodifferencetothefunctionoftheauthor’snameifweweretodiscoverthatWilliamShakespearewasnotborninStratford,orthathewasnotamemberoftheKing’sMen,orthathehadnoconnectionwhatsoeverwiththeLondonplayhouses?Thediscoveryofthesefactsaboutthemanwouldinvariouswaysaffectthewayinwhichthenameoftheauthorfunctions‘atthecontoursoftexts’,asFoucaultputsit(‘WhatIsanAuthor?’,).Thechallengeistoacknowledgethelogicaldifferencesbetweenthetwousesofthepropernamewhilerecognisingthateveniftheauthor’snameisindeed‘notthefunctionofaman’scivilstatus’,that‘civilstatus’mustbetakenintoaccountifwearetocomprehendthe‘statusofthediscoursewithinasocietyandculture’alongthecontoursofwhichtheauthor’snamemoves().Shakespeare’ssonnetsexemplifythecomplexrelationshipbetweenthetwofunctionsofthenameoftheauthorandthenameoftheman.Attentiontotheircriticismwillshowthatdespitethecurrentrevulsionfrombiographytheycontinuetoinvitethemostpowerfulofbiographicalinterests,evenamongcriticswhowouldusuallyeschewsuchquestionsaltogether.Tracingtheinterplayofpronounsinthesonnets,BruceR.Smithwarnsagainstthecommonidentificationofreaderswiththecentral‘I’inthesequence,sincesuchanidentificationisliabletooverwhelmthesin-gularityofthehistoricalpersonaanditsrelationshipstothe‘you/thou’,‘she’,‘they’and‘we’ofthepoemswiththepreoccupationsofadifferenttimeandplace.Smitharguesthatifreadersfeelable,ina‘liberal’age,toconcedethattheplaysexpresshomoeroticdesire,thatisonlyBruceR.Smith,‘I,You,He,She,andWe:OntheSexualPoliticsofShakespeare’sSonnets’,inShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays,ed.Schiffer,–.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysbecausetheycandistancethemselvesfromthecharactersintheplaysasremoved,third-personentities.Theyrefusethepossibilityofsuchdesireinthesonnets,however,becausetheytooreadilyidentifyandhazardtheirownidentitiesinthename,asitwere,ofthecentral‘I’ofthepo-ems.Inthistendencyarecombinedtheworstaspectsofbiographicalcriticismandformalism:the‘I’whoissopowerfullyatthecentreofthelifeofthesonnetstakesupresidenceatthecentreofthereader’slife.Butitisthenoverwhelmedbytheaveragereader’shistoricallyconditionednotionsof‘normality’.Smith’sanalysisisrelatedtoPeterStallybrass’shistoricalargumentthatthecharacterof‘Shakespeare’has,sincetheMalone/Steevensdebate,beenaretroactivecreationfromthepriorchargeofsodomylevelledatthewriterofthesonnetsbyreaderssuchasSteevens.Theperson‘Shakespeare’astheessenceof‘normality’inWesternculturethusarisesfromthesonnetsratherthantheplays.Butthiscreatureisalsodependentuponthedenialofthe‘abnormality’foundinthepoemsinthefirstplace,whichistied,nottoapoeticpersona,buttotheman,WilliamShakespeare,asheismediatedthroughpowerfulculturalrepresentationsanddesires.Stallybrass’sandSmith’sargumentsimplicitlyattesttoawidespreadreadingofthesonnetsasautobiography,eventhoughtheymayevalu-atethatreadingdifferently.InSuchIsMyLove,aforcefulargumentforthebisexualcharacterofthesonnets,JosephPequigneytakescaretoseparatethequestionofthesexualityofthesonnets,ortheirpersonaefromthatofShakespearehimself,preciselybecausethedenialoftheir‘questionable’sexualityhasbeenpredicatedupontheidentificationoftheirsexualityandthatoftheirauthor.Separatetheauthorfromthepersona,andperhapsreaderswillmorereadilyacknowledgetheirpos-siblehomo-orbisexualityasafictionalexplorationofthemeaningofsexualitymoregenerally.ThatPequigneyhasbeensosystematicallyandunjustlyaccusedofreturningtoautobiographyshowshowpreva-lenttheidentificationcontinuestobe.Inalateressay,however,afterreiteratinganddefendinghisearlierdistinctionbetweenpoetandper-sona,hereturnstothequestionofautobiography,andespeciallytothequestionofthepropername.HeclaimsthatthepoemsthemselvesandthelayoutoftheQuartostronglysuggestanidentificationbetweenthe‘Will’thatistheirspeakerandthenamethatfiguressoThisisstrikinglylikeAstrophil’spleatoStellatotreathimasafictionalentity:‘IamnotI:pitiethetaleofme’(sonnet).JosephPequigney,‘Sonnets–:TextsandContexts’,inShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays,ed.Schiffer,–.
Introduction:thesonnetsprominentlyandrepeatedlyintheirtitle:‘-’.BothPequigneyandKatherineDuncan-Jonesarguethatthistitle,highlyunusualinitsexplicitidentificationofthesonnetswiththeirauthor,attheveryleastsuggeststhatthepoemswerenotonlywrittenbyShakespeare,butthattheyarealsoabouthim.Thetitlemaysignalanunusuallycloserelationshipbetweenthenameoftheauthorandthenameoftheman,especiallyconsideringtheriseofthe‘embodiedtext’thatBrustertraces(‘StructuralTransformation’).TheanswertothequestionofwhetherShakespeare’ssonnetsareorarenotautobiographicalhasbeenconsistentlyelusivewhenapproachedempirically.Itmay,however,beapproached(ifitcanbeansweredatall)bylookingatinternal,logicalevidence.Beingaquestionaboutaname,itmaybenegotiatedalongthepathsofferedbythepresence(orabsence)ofnamesinthesonnets.(Theabsenceofnames,likethedogthatdidnotbarkintheSherlockHolmesstory,isasimportant,asIshallshow,astheirpresence.)Bydrawingourattentiontotherolethatthetitle,withitsambiguoussignificationofthepossessive,playsintheQuartoitself,Pequigneyturnsthetitleintoapartofthetext,drawingitintothebodyofShakespeare’ssonnets.‘WhoeverreadstheSonnets“NeverbeforeImprinted”–asitsaysonQ’stitlepage’heremindsus,‘willseetheauthor’snameinblockcapitalsoneachandeveryleft-handpage’(‘Sonnets–’,).ThispresenceofShakespeare’sname‘oneachandeveryleft-handpage’isbalancedbytheabsenceofhisnameinthepoemsthemselves.Yetinthesonnetsthe‘I’whospeaksrefersto‘myname’sixtimes,includingtheintriguingclaimthatthepoemsthemselvesconstitutetheauthor’ssignature:‘Thateueryworddothalmosttelmyname/Shewingtheirbirth,andwheretheydidproceed’(Sonnet).Pequigneypointsoutthattheallusionsto‘myname’inthesonnetsneedapointofreferencetomakesense.Towhomdotheyrefer?Anyonepursuingastrictlyanti-autobiographicallinewouldhavetoexcludeanythingthatcouldnotstrictlybegleanedfromthepersonaalone.Thatistosay,noevidencefrombeyondthewordsonthepagewouldbeallowed.Butdoingthatwouldrenderthesereferenceswhollyopaque.Whose‘name’dotheverses‘tell’?Well,thepersona’s?Andwhatisthat?Don’tknow,wearen’ttold...Replace‘thepersona’sname’with‘WilliamShakespeare’,however,andawholehistoryofcriticismisbothforetoldandvindicated.Pequigneyfurthermoreremindsusthattheotherreferences,inwhich‘myname’issaidtoreceive‘abrand’,orthebelovedistoldto‘letmyBruster,‘TheStructuralTransformationofPrintinLateElizabethanEngland’.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysnamebeburiedwheremybodyis’(sonnet),becauseofthesocialdisgracethatthatnamerepresents,areintelligibleonlyifwebringtothemthebiographicalcontextofWilliamShakespeareaswhatIhavecalledplayer-poet.Theyremainopaqueifwerestrictthemtothepersonaofthetextalone.TheproblemwiththepersonaasheisusuallyprojectedintoShakespeare’ssonnetsisthatitistoothinadesignationtosustainafictionalnarrative.AnyonewhowishestomakesenseofthesepoemstogetherratherthansinglyneedstogobeyondtheirtexttoaworldthatisindicatedbythehistoricalrealityofWilliamShakespeare,manofthetheatre.Commentatorsonthesonnetsdothisallthetime,eventhemostanti-autobiographicalofthem,stealinginformationaboutWilliamShakespearewhilepretendingtorestrictthemselvestothemerepersonainordertofleshouttheircriticalnarratives.Thequestionisthusnotwhetherweshouldsuccumbtothetemptationsofbiography,butwhetherwecaneverforeswearthemaltogether.Heretheabsenceofnames–otherthanthatoftheauthor–fromthetextofthesonnetsisasdecisiveasitisunusual.What’sinaname?Eachofthefollowingtitlescontainsquestionsaboutthenatureofthename,especiallythe‘proper’name:RomeoandJuliet,TroilusandCressida,‘-’.Buttheworksforwhichthesetitlesstandthemselvesalsosubjecttheproblemofnamestoscrutinyinapeculiarlyself-consciousway.Thetwoplaysannouncetheinsepara-bilityofboththeirexistenceandtheirnominationfromtheeponymouscharactersthatallowthemtobeartheirnames.Inotherwords,theplaysdepend,inthemostinescapableway,uponpropernames.With-outnamestheycouldnotexist.Popebelieveddifferently.InthePrefacetohiseditionofShakespeare’sWorks,heclaimsthat‘hadallthespeechesbeenprintedwithouttheverynamesofthePersons,Ibelieveonemighthaveapply’dthemwithcertaintytoeveryspeaker’.SuchconfidencearisesfromanextremebeliefintheindividualityofeachofShakespeare’scharacters.Eachoftheirnamesisassumedtobeinscribedinthesingularityoftheirspeech:itisasifShakespeare’ssentimentabouthissonnetsexpressedinsonnetwereapplicabletoeverywordintheplays.ForPopetheactualnamesaresuperfluousbecausethespeechesthemselvesactasnames,astagsofidentification.ScepticalofPope’sconfidence,whichdoesnotinfactcontradictmycentralpointthataRandomCloud,‘“Theverynamesofpersons”:EditingandtheInventionofDramaticChar-acter’,inStagingtheRenaissance:ReinterpretationsofElizabethanandJacobeanDrama,ed.DavidScottKastanandPeterStallybrass(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,),–().
Introduction:thesonnetsShakespeareplayrequiresspeechestobeindividuatedbysomethingthatactsasaname,InowaskwhyatextliketheQuartooftheSonnetscandowithoutsuchtags.ToclaimthatpropernamesareindispensableforShakespeare’sdra-matictextsisnottosaythatthesenamesarenot,intheusualsense,arbitrary.RomeoandJulietmighthavebeencalledAPairofStar-CrossedLoversorTragedyinVerona;TroilusandCressidacouldhavebeenTheTrojanWarorLoveBetrayed.Thattheybearthenamesoftheirprotagonistsiswhollyconventionalbutnotlogicallyinevitable.Whatislogicallynec-essaryisthattheirtextsshouldbewovenoutofnames:RomeoandJuliet,butalsoEscalus,Montague,FriarJohn,Peter,Nurseandsoon;notmerelyTroilusandCressida,butalsoHelen,Hector,Achilles,AjaxandThersites.Fictionaltextsaretissuesofpropernames.Orrather,namesaretheindispensableloomaroundwhichfictionalnarrativeorspeechactsarewoven.Propernamesare,asSaulKripkeputsit,‘rigiddesignators’.Theyarethestill,logicalpointsthatallowforamanifoldofcontingentdescriptionanddesignation.Infictionaltextstheyarethetagsoutofwhichwhatwecall‘characters’areconstructed.Withoutpropernamesthesetextswouldbealoosebundleofunconnectedspeechacts.BothTroilusandCressidaandRomeoandJulietsubmittothenecessityofthepropername.Butatthesametimetheysubjectthatnecessitytocriticalanalysis.Chapterexaminestheiranalysisofthisnecessityandtheirsubjectiontoit.Juliet’ssolitaryruminationontheburdenofthepropername(‘Romeo,Romeo!WhereforeartthouRomeo?/Denythyfatherandrefusethyname!’(..–))ismatchedbythemorepublicdeclarationbyTroilus,CressidaandPandarusofthehistoricaldefinitionofparadigmaticbehaviourthroughthename(‘Ifeveryouprovefalsetooneanother...letallpitifulgoers-betweenbecalled...aftermyname;callthemallpanders.LetallconstantmenbeTroiluses,allfalsewomenCressids,andallbrokers-betweenpanders.Say,“Amen”’(..–)).Theythereforeseemtodifferfromatextthatannouncesthatdiffer-enceinitsownname:‘-’.Itspropernameisdifferentnotmerelyforgenericreasons.Othersonnetsequencesbearnamesthatareclosertotheplays,suchasAstrophilandStella,orDelia,orPamphiliatoAmphilanthus.KatherineDuncan-Jonesremindsusthatthegeneric(inthegrammaticalsense)formofShakespeare’stitleis,withSaulKripke,NamingandNecessity(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,).Jean-Fran¸coisLyotard,TheDifferend:PhrasesinDispute,trans.GeorgesvanDenAbbeele(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,).
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysoneexception,uniqueinElizabethansonnetsequences.Isthistitleapropernameoradescription?Isitbothatonce?Asadescription,thephrasepicksoutpoemsofacertainkindasbeingmerelywrittenbyanauthorcalledShakespeare.Asanameitdesignatesthepoemsasbeingmuchmorecloselyboundtowhoeveritisthat‘Shakespeare’designates:asif‘Shakespeare’,like‘Romeo’or‘Juliet’or‘Hamlet’,werethechiefprotagonistofthesepoems.InthissensethesonnetsaretextualembodimentsofShakespearetheman.Thecollectionofpoemsoriginallyentitled‘-’containsnopropernames.Onemightquibbleabout‘Will’,butthatnameishardlyadesignatorlike‘Romeo’and‘Cressida’.Ifanything,itunderlinesthegenericcouplingoftheauthor’snametothesequenceitself,thoughnotbeforepunninglyopeningthepropername–which,Kripkeinsists,hasnosignified,sense,connotationormeaning–toavarietyofsemanticfields,therebyrenderingit‘improper’or‘common’.WhydoShakespeare’ssonnetscontainnopropernames?Moreimpor-tant,howisitthattheycancontainnopropernamesotherthanthedirectreferencetotheirauthorinthetitleandtheobliquereferencestohis(shortened)firstnameinthepoemsthemselves,especiallyif,asIhavejustclaimed,playssuchasRomeoandJulietandTroilusandCressidadependonpropernamesfortheircoherenceasdramatictexts?Shakespeare’ssonnetscandowithoutpropernamesbecause,inadelimitedsense,thetextdesignatedbythisnameisnotfictional.Itcangetawaywithalmostpuredeixis,indicatingperson,place,eventortimeentirelythroughtheuseof‘shifters’:‘this’,‘there’,‘that’,‘now’,‘then’,‘before’,‘after’,‘later’;‘you’,‘he’,‘she’,‘they’,‘I’.Itcandosobecauseofitsoriginalrootednessinspace,time,eventandsocialpurview.Thismeansthatitassumesacontemporary,sharedknowledgeofitsphysical,historicalandhumanreferents.Itdoesnothavetonamenames,certainlynotinthewayinwhichafictionalworldhastocallitselfintobeingthroughnominationanddenomination.The(inevitable)lossofitsoriginal,sharedpurview,whichmadethesystematicrecoursetothedeixispossible,ispreciselywhathasmadeShakespeare’ssonnetssofrustratinglyopaque.ReadingthesonnetsisliketryingtomakesenseofaplaysuchasRomeoandJulietfromwhichthespeechtagshavebeenremovedandinwhichallreferencestoothercharactersareentirelypronominal.KatherineDuncan-Jones(ed.),Shakespeare’sSonnets,TheNewArdenShakespeare(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,),.KatherineDuncan-Jones,inibid.,makesasimilarpoint.
Introduction:thesonnetsThesearchforpropernamesinthesonnets(whichistraditionallycon-ceivedbiographicalscholarshipbyanothername),isthusentirelyun-derstandable,butitisalsocuriouslymisguided.Biographicalcriticismhasbeendisparagedbyaformofcriticismthatwishestoinsistupontheliteraryorfictionalnatureofthesonnets.Paradoxically,attemptstoreplacetheirpronounswithpropernames,theirpurelydeicticindica-tionsoftimewithdatesandtheirgesturestowardseventsthatexistedinasharedpurviewbetweenaddresserandaddresseewithhappeningsmarkedonanhistoriographicalgrid,failtoacknowledgetherootednessofthesewritingsinanactualplaceandtime.TheyseektoimposeuponthesonnetsamatrixofdenominationthatbelongstoShakespeare’sfic-tionaltexts.Theylookforthepreciselyplottedco-ordinatesofpropernamesinfictionwherethereareonlydeictic,autobiographicalrefer-encestothehereandnow.ItisthuspreciselythemaddeningcasualnesswithwhichShakespeare’ssonnetscandispensewithpropernamesthatmarkstheirdifferencefrompurefiction:itmarkstheirstatusas‘pure’autobiography.ThenarrativethatMaloneimposeduponthesonnetshasprovedtobesoenduringbecauseitsolvesinparttheproblemoftheirapho-risticnature.Theyarediscretetextsheldtogetheronlylooselybytheirorderandunsystematicdeicticreferencestopeopleandevents.Theylacktherigiddesignationofpropernames,timesorplacesthatmarkShakespeare’sfictionalwork.Inhisedition,Bensonconfirmedthataphoristicstatusbyrearrangingthemtoformdifferentnarrativepat-terns:hechangedtheoddpronoun,disregardedthediscretenessofthequatorzainbyrunninganumberofsonnetstogetherandprovidedtitleswhichsuggestednarrativesituations.WhyBensonshouldhavebeensovilifiedinanagethatisproperlyscepticaloftheself-integrityofform,thenaturalnessofcertainkindsofinterpretationandtheholinessandauthor-ityoftheliterarytext,ispuzzling.Benson’sarrangementsdographicallywhatmostcriticsdointerpretatively.InquestioningtheintereststhatareservedbytheMalonenarrative,HeatherDubrowremindsusoftheten-sionbetweennarrativeandlyric.Sheclaimsthatthenarrativeimpulsetoseelinearordersinthesonnetsismisplaced.Readingthesonnetsislikefindingacollectionofsketchesorsnapshotsratherthanwatchingamovie.Theyarethedisparaterecordsofrepeatedtraversalsofthesameterrain,oftenapproachedfromdifferentangles.ThefiguresinthemcanHeatherDubrow,‘“Incertaintiesnowcrownthemselvesassured”’,inShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays,ed.Schiffer,–.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysoftenbediscernedbutnotidentified.Sometimeswethinkwerecognisethemfrompreviousphotographs.Sometimestheterrainandthepeopleseemfamiliartous.Butatothertimestheyarewhollystrange.Thisisafunctionoftheirperformativenature,ofthefactthatitisnottheirprimarybusinesseithertoofferpicturesordescriptionsortofailtooffersuchpictures,butrathertoengageinday-to-dayinteractionwithothers.Wedonotknowiftheorderinwhichwefoundthemistheorderinwhichtheyweretaken.Wecantrytofindsomesenseinthegivenorder,orwecanrearrangethem,lookingforotherpossibleconnectionsanddifferences.Theorderinwhichtheyweretakenismoreovernottheironlyornaturalorder.Arrangingtheirsyntaxindifferentways,asinacollage,bringsoutdifferentaspects,someofthemmoreorlessstriking,puzzlingorsatisfying.Sincewearenotthepeopleinthesnapshots,orthepersonwhotookthem,wehavenobroadercontextinwhichtheywouldmakesenseasatotalnarrativeorsetofexperiences.Wedonotevenknowforcertainthatthesamepersontookthem,althoughthisseemslikely.Becausetheyarediscreteaphorismsratherthanparagraphsinanovel,thesonnetscanbeputtogetherdifferentlyunderheadingsandcirculated,asBensondid.Theycanbekeptintheorderinwhichtheywerefoundandareasonablycoherentstoryofferedabouttheeventsandthecharactersthattheyseemtodepict.Thatordercanbechangedinordertotrytofindthe‘real’formofcompositionthatwillfitsomeothernarrativegleanedpartlyfromtheirdiscreteshardsandpartlyfromourowninterests.Or,wecanrearrangethemaccordingtointerpretativeschemata,connectingtheonesthatseemtobelongtogetherintermsoftheme,imagery,situation,characterorattitude.Noristhereanythingtostopusfromabandoningthemodeofautobiographicalorsinglepoeticpersonaaltogetherandseeingthemastheexpressionsofdifferentvoices.The‘youngman’andthe‘darklady’might‘writeback’asitwere,asStelladoesinthesongsofAstrophilandStellaor,ifwefollowJonathanCrewe’sreading,insonnetofthatsequence.Isitunimaginablethatsonnet,forexample,mightbewritteninthevoiceofeithertheirdarklordorwoman?Theverylackofinternalcoherence,ofdenominationandcontext,speaksverystronglyfortheideathatthesonnetsarenotworksoffictionintheusualsenseoftheword.Likeaseriesofsnapshots,theyarisefrom,respondandrefertoaworldthattheymakenoattempttorecover,JonathanCrew,HiddenDesigns:TheCriticalProfessionandRenaissanceLiterature(NewYorkandLondon:Methuen,),ff.
Introduction:thesonnetsbecausethatworldwasself-evidenttothepeoplewhoappearinthepho-tographsandtothepersonwhotookthem.Itcanonlybeglimpsedinthediscreteshardsofthepoems.Byanironicparadox,then,therootednessofthesonnetsinrealexperiencesandrelationshipsleavesthemespe-ciallyabstractedandopentosubsequentappropriationandprojection:topreciselythe‘deathoftheauthor’thatistheconsequenceof‘thebirthofthereader’asBarthescelebratesit.Thisfactisexemplifiedgrammat-icallybythereferentialemptinessoftheirpronouns,whichcanbefilled(asSmithlaments)byvariousreadersinwhicheverwaystheywish.Indrawingattentiontothesonnets’statusascollageoraphorism,Iamnotrejectingtheimpositionofanarrativestructureuponthem.Ifwearetotreatthemasabodyofpoemsratherthansingly,thensuchanimpositioninsomeformorotherisinevitable.ThesamesonnetsfromtheQuartotendtobeanthologisedoverandoveragain.Thisisnotmerelybecause,since,wehavegraduallyreachedaconsensusaboutthoseofoutstandingaestheticmerit.Itisbecausethemajorityofthemmakelittlesenseoutsideanarrativethatgivesthemalivingcontext.Mostofthemdefytheveryideaoftheanthology.Itwaspossiblytheircontextualinscrutability–incontrastwithmorehighlyfictionalisedse-quencessuchasAstrophilandStellaorthenarrativeunityofShakespeare’slongerpoems–thatpreventedthemfrombeingreprinted,untilBensonwasboldenoughtofashionafictionalframeworkforthem.Bensonwasrespondingasdeeplyasanyonetotheproblemofthesonnets,namelytheirnon-fictionalmode.ThatproblemhasbeenaddressedinavarietyofwayssinceBenson,butithasalwaysinvolvedattemptstosupplementthefun-damentallackthattheydisplayasautobiographicalworks.Bysurround-ingthemwithdifferentkindsofcriticalfictionscriticshopedtogetthemtomakecoherentsense.RepeatedattemptstofixtheQuartoorderbyarguingthatitwasindeedauthorisedbyitsauthor(albeitinsomehastetoescapetheplague,wearetold)offernonewfactualevidence,butmerelyrearrangeoldfictionsinpredictableways.Suchscholarshipisfurther-morepressedintotheserviceofpriorcommitmentstoparticularnarra-tivesthatholdthepoemstogether,inanattempttofillinthegapsthatarethemarksoftheirautobiographicalorigin.TheclaimthatShakespeareauthorisedtheirorderappearstoforestallargumentssuchasDubrow’sbyendorsingtheMalonenarrativeasauthorialratherthanexter-nallyimposed.ButeveniftheorderaswehaveitwereShakespeare’s,thatwouldnotoverridetheaphoristicorsnapshotcharacterofthepoemsinrelationtoeachother.Norcouldwerelyonsuchimputedauthorialintentionality,howeverattenuated,asifthephilosophicalcomplication
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysoftheverynotionofauthorisationoverthepastfourdecadeshadnotoccurred.Otherattemptstofillthegapsthattheynecessarilycontainasnon-fictionwithhistoricalfacthavefailednotoriously:theseweredesper-ateandcomicalattempts,fromforgerytowish-fulfilment,tosupplythemissingpropernames,datesandeventsinanefforttosolvetheirscan-dalous‘problem’onceandforall.Theunnoticedscandalofthesonnetsliesintheirrefusaltobehaveinthewayinwhichrealistfictionbehaves,withitsorderingcharactersanddates,eventsandrelationships,beginnings,developmentsanddenouements,whethercosyorcathartic.Everythinghangsonthisrefusal.Itcan,paradoxically,benegotiatednotthroughfactbutthroughfurtherfiction.Thisbookattemptstomakesenseofthesesonnets’remarkableen-gagementwithaworldthatisnowirrecoverablebysurroundingthemwithadifferentkindoffiction:Shakespeare’sown–hisplays.Thismoveremainstruetotheirhistoricalcontextbecauseitusestheirauthor’sownworktoilluminatethem.Furthermore,whilepressingthedemandsofacertain,inescapablekindofbiographicalcriticism,iteschewsthebi-ographicalwild-goosechasebystickingtofictionalrelationshipswithintheplays,ratherthantryingtoindulgeintenuousspeculation.Finally,itpreserveshistoricalintegritybyusingasitsexplanatoryframeworktextsfromthesameperiodandbythesameauthorasthesonnets.Thisapproach,Iwillclaim,allowsustoappreciatethepoemsastheywereoriginallyconceived,performedandread:asformsofsocialactionandinteraction,asthetheatreinwhichindividualsubjectandsocietyengage.
Performatives:thesonnets,AntonyandCleopatraandAsYouLikeItIntheIntroductionIarguedthatitisnotfruitfultoassumethattherhetoricalaimsofShakespeare’ssonnetsinparticular,andearlymodernPetrarchanpoetryingeneral,areprimarilyepistemological.Commen-tators’assumptionsaboutwhatthelanguageofthesonnetsisdoingleadthemtooverlookthewaysinwhichtheconditionsofaddressofthesonnetareembodiedinparticularsocialandpoliticalcontextsofperformance.Inowdevelopthisargumentbyshiftingattentionfromthegenerallytheatricalnotionofperformancetothemorephilosophi-callytechnicalconceptoftheperformativeasaparticulartrans-genericuseoflanguage.Shakespeare’ssonnetsuselanguageasformsofsocialaction,inaseriesofperformativesthroughwhichthepowerrelationsbetween‘you’and‘I’arenegotiated.TheCratyliticidentityofwordandobject(encompassedbythepoeticsof‘truevision’),whichJoelFinemanseesasthehistoricalessenceofepideixis,isneitherthecentralconcernofShakespeare’ssonnetsnoradominantviewoflanguageintheearlymodernperiod.Boththesonnetstotheyoungman(which,inFineman’sview,strivetoachieveanepistemologicalcorrespondencebetweenwordandobject)andthosetothedarkwoman(inwhichheseestheenact-mentofaSaussureandifferencebetweentongueandsight)areconcernedwiththeexigenciesofperformanceandtheperformative,ratherthantheformalandtheoreticalsemioticsofdifference.‘Ornament’asFinemanexplainsitisa‘discourseofspecialvividness’,whichnonethelessremainssubservienttotheidealofsimilitude:praiseisconventionallyunderstoodtobeareferentialdiscoursethatamplifiesitsreferentbymeansofornamentaltrope...traditionalpoeticandepideictictheorytendregularlytodescribebothmimesisandmetaphorintermsoftheJoelFineman,Shakespeare’sPerjuredEye:TheInventionofPoeticSubjectivityintheSonnets(Berkeley,LosAngelesandLondon:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,),.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplayssamenotionoflikeness:verisimilarlikenessorresemblanceinthefirstcase,thelikenessoffiguralcomparisonandsimilitudeinthesecond.(Shakespeare’sPerjuredEye,)Histhesisdependsuponthis‘traditional’poetics,foritallowshimtoargueforShakespeare’sbreakthroughintoanewdimensionofthe(post)moderndeconstructionofboththespeakingselfandtherela-tionshipbetweenwordsandtheirobjectsviatheessentialdiscrepancybetweenlanguageandsight:‘Shakespeare’ssonnets“givethelietomytruesight”becausetheytrulyspeakagainstastrongtradition,notonlypoetic,oflinguisticidealizationforwhichwordsinsomesensearethethingsofwhichtheyspeak’(Fineman,Shakespeare’sPerjuredEye,).ButtheinescapabilityofdifferencewillgiverisetoanguishoverthedivisionofsubjectfromobjectandwordfromrealityonlyifaCratyliticmatchbetweenwordandobjectistheoverridingaimofallkindsofpraise.C.L.BarberclaimsthatinShakespeare’ssonnets‘poetryis,inaspecialway,anaction,somethingdoneforandtothebeloved’.Viewingthemasdifferentsortsofmateriallyandsociallysituatedlinguisticperformance–always,asLarsEngleputsit,‘participatinginacovertstruggleforthevocabularyinwhichsocialvaluesarenegotiated’–mayenableustoavoidanoverlytheoreticalcharacterisationoftheirdifferences.GeorgePuttenham’svernaculartranslationsofclassicaltermsofrhetoricconveytheactivityoflanguageinuseratherthanthestasisoflanguageasimage.Hewritesofpoetryasforceandactionratherthanpictureandtruth.Specifically,‘ornament’isnotameredeco-rativesupplementtosomethingthatisalreadyessentiallycomplete,orevena‘heightening’ofagivenobject,butratheraconditionofbeing:thefunctionoftime,socialplaceandaction.The‘greatMadamesofhonour’whoarePuttenham’sexemplarsofornamentdonotobscuretheir‘true’selvesbeneaththeir‘silkesortyssewes&costlyembroideries’butratheractoutarolethat‘customeandcivilitiehave[properly]or-dained’.Whenhespeaksoffigureastheornamentofpoeticlanguagehedoessointermsoftheforceorpoweroflanguagetomoveorpersuade,C.L.Barber,‘AnEssayontheSonnets’,inElizabethanPoetry:ModernEssaysinCriticism,ed.PaulJ.Alpers(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,),–().LarsEngle,ShakespeareanPragmatism:MarketofHisTime(ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress,),.SeeespeciallyHeatherDubrow,CaptiveVictors:Shakespeare’sNarrativePoemsandSonnets(Ithaca,NYandLondon:CornellUniversityPress,)foranaccountofthesonnetsintermsofPuttenham’srhetoricalcategories.GeorgePuttenham,TheArteofEnglishPoesie,ed.G.D.WillcockandA.Walker(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,;reprinted),.
Performativesnotthecorrespondencebetweenwordandobject.Poetryis,likealllan-guageforPuttenham,aformofsocialaction;ornamentisnecessary,bothtomaintainproperdecorumwithinasociallyandeconomicallydeter-minedsocialcontext,andalsobecauseitworksas‘Energiaoregon...withastrongandvertuousoperation’(TheArteofEnglishPoesie(facsimileedi-tion),).WhenPuttenhamwritesofsimilitude,heisthusnotusingtheconceptasthesingle,metaphysicalgoaloflanguageintheformofamatchbetweenwordandobject,butratherasaperformativemeanstoarhetoricalend.‘Similitude’isbutonefigureamongmany:‘AswellastoagoodmakerandPoetastoanexcellentperswaderinprose,thefigureofSimilitudeisverynecessary,bywhichwenotonlybewtifieourtale,butalsoverymuchinforceandenlargeit.Isayinforcebecausenoonethingmoreprevailethwithalltheordinaryjugementsthanperswasionbysimilitude’(TheArteofEnglishPoesie(facsimileedition),).Puttenham’saccountofsimilitudeispragmatic.Heoffersadescriptiveelucidationofvarietiesoflanguageinuse,whichdoesnotoverlookitsembeddednessinsocialandmaterialcircumstancesandrelationships.Shakespearedoesattimesentertainanepistemologicalsolutiontotheproblemsofsocial,eroticandepistemologicaldifference,butsuchattemptsarefinallyaban-donedinfavourofwhatwemightcallthepoeticsofperformanceandtheperformative.ThisleadstoaconclusionthatistheexactreverseofFineman’s.Whereaspoliticalandsocialdifferenceprecludesanykindofepistemologicalorrepresentationalsolutiontothegapbetweenwordandobject,itisonlythroughtheperformativeinsomeofthesonnetstothedarkwomanthatasolution–temporary,contingent,farfromideal,butnonetheworseforthat–maybefound.InHowToDoThingsWithWordsJohnAustinbreakswiththenotionthatpropositionsarethefundamentalmodelofalllanguage,claiminginsteadthatthereareotherusesoflanguageinwhichthecorrespondenceofwordtoobjectplaysnofundamentalrole.Hecallstheseuses‘performatives’.Aperformativespeechacttransformsasituation,relationshiporobjectintheworld.Providedthattheconventionexistsandthecircumstancesareappropriate,thesayingitselfconstitutestheactionorperformance.Itactsuponthesituationorobjectinquestion;itdoesnotreflectorfailtoreflectit.Thereisnogapbetweensayingandcircumstance,wordandobject.TheperformancemayberenderedinvalidbyotherfactorsJ.L.Austin,HowToDoThingsWithWords(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,),.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysinthesituation,buttheyareaproductofcontextandsocialagreementordisagreement.Theyarenotmetaphysicallyinscribedintolanguageitself.ThisAustiniannotionofaperformativeasanillucutionaryactdif-fersfromtheperformativeeffectsofrhetoric,whichareperlocutionary.Byagreedandinstitutionalisedconvention,toperformanillocution-aryactisatoneandthesametimetodosomething,totransformasituationinpredeterminedways.Tosay‘IpromiseyouIshallloveyouforever’doesnotdescribeanythingintheworld:inthesayingitperformstheactofpromisingandplacesthespeakerunderanethicalobligation.Perlocutionaryacts,ontheotherhand,arerhetoricalacts.Thereisnodirect,conventionalorinternal,linkbetweenthespeechactandits‘external’consequences.ByperformingtheillocutionaryactofpromisingIshallloveyouforeverImayperformperlocutionaryactsasdivergentaswinningyourloveinreturn,provokingyoureternalscorn,orevokingundyingadmirationfromanaudiencewhichreadsmyson-nets.Imayequallybeabletoachieveanyoftheseperlocutionaryeffectsthroughaconstativeutterancesuchas‘Mymistress’eyesarenothinglikethesun’.Whereasthereisnogapbetweensayingandperformanceinthecaseofillocutionaryacts,perlocutionaryactsaremediatedbyev-erykindofcontingent,materialcircumstance.Theireffectsmayrangefromtheintentionaltothepurelyaccidental.Sucheffects,however,areneverenactedbyconventioninthemakingoftheutterance.AsAustinpointsout:‘Clearlyany,oralmostany,perlocutionaryactisliabletobebroughtoff,insufficientlyspecialcircumstances,bytheissuing,withorwithoutcalculation,ofanyutterancewhatsoever,andinparticularbyastraightforwardconstativeutterance(ifthereissuchananimal)’(HowToDoThingsWithWords,).Astatementordescriptionmayhavediver-gentperlocutionaryeffects(itmaywarn,surprise,alarm,seduce,shockandsoon).Theconsequencesofsuchanactarethereforecontingentratherthanconventional.StanleyFishwarnsthatifweignorethedis-tinctionbetweentheillocutionaryandtheperlocutionaryinageneralviewoflanguage-as-performanceweextinguishtheilluminatingforceofthephilosophyofspeechacts.Thetechnicalterm‘performative’appliestoillocutionaryacts,nottotherhetoricaleffectforperlocutionaryforce.Thisistrue,butthepowerofAustin’sdistinctionsalsoliesintheircapacitytorevealnotonlythedifferencesbetweenconstative,illocutionaryandStanleyFish,‘HowToDoThingswithAustinandSearle’,inIsThereaTextinthisClass(Cambridge,MA,HarvardUniversityPress,),–.
Performativesperlocutionaryacts,butalsotherelationshipsamongthem.IfAustin’snotionoftheillocutionaryactshowsushow‘sayingmakesthingsso’(HowToDoThingsWithWords,),Shakespeare’splaysandsonnetsenableustoseethematrixofrelationsthatbothjoinandkeepapartthecom-plex,contextuallybound,processesofrepresentation,performanceandperformatives.Theplayer-poetofthesonnetsandplaysseeks,throughtheinstitutionalised,conventionalperformativeorquasi-performative,tocreatewhathecallsinsonneta‘marriageoftrueminds’.AndasEnglearguessoconvincingly,thesonnetsthemselvesrevealthatsuchamarriageispartofthecontext-boundpragmaticsofsocialexistenceandchange(ShakespeareanPragmatism).ManyofShakespeare’ssonnetstotheyoungmanattempttonego-tiatetheunequalpoliticalandsocialrelationshipbetweenplayer-poetandaristocraticpatronviaperformativeusesoflanguage,bywhichtheplayer-poetseekslesstopersuadecarelessnobilitythroughrhetoricthantobringaboutsomethinginthesayingofit.Negotiationsbetweenpowerandweakness,authorityandsubordinationinthesonnetsareboundupwithillocutionaryratherthanconstativeusesoflanguage,andsuchper-formativesarethemeansbywhichtheplayer-poetnegotiatesapoliticsofself-authorization.Throughtheirovertstagingoftheperformative–theirperformanceoftheperformative–AntonyandCleopatraandAsYouLikeItrendermoreexplicitthenatureofspeechactsinthepoems.Thereisamemorablemoment,inActFiveofAntonyandCleopatra,whenboththehistoricalQueenofEgyptandtheboyactorrepresentingherappear,impossibly,likeaduck-rabbitfigureglimpsedforamomentinbothaspectssimultaneously:Nay,’tismostcertain,Iras.SaucylictorsWillcatchatuslikestrumpets,andscaldrhymersBalladusouto’tune.ThequickcomediansExtemporallywillstageus,andpresentOurAlexandrianrevels.AntonyShallbebroughtdrunkenforth,andIshallseeSomesqueakingCleopatraboymygreatnessI’th’postureofawhore.(..–)The‘impossible’perceptionofbothaspectsatthesametimeis,incontrasttotwo-dimensionalfiguressuchastheduck-rabbitdrawing,AllreferencestoShakespeare’splaysarefromTheOxfordShakespeare,ed.StanleyWellsandGaryTaylor(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,).
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysmadepossiblebythebi-foldnatureoftheatricalperformance,inwhichembodiedactionandspokenverseprovideadoubleperspectivebywhich‘Gorgon’and‘Mars’canbepresentedtogether.Inamomentofself-reflexivity,ahistoricalcharacterrepresentedonstageentertainsthehorriblethoughtofbeingaudiencetotheunflatteringrepresenta-tionofherself.Cleopatra’shorrorstemsfromtheperceivedinevitabilityofthisevent(‘Nay,’tismostcertain’).Italsoreflectsthepowerlessnessoftherepresentedsubjectbeforetheauthorityofrepresentationandperformance,embodiedinthetransformativeshapeoftheplayer.Theself-reflexivitythatenablesustoentertainatoncethedoubleaspectofCleopatraasactor-boyandhistoricalfigure,as‘queen’and‘whore’,is,nevertheless,alsothere-markofitsownpowerfuleffect.Thecapacityofrepresentationtodisplayitsownlimitationsandprecariousnessbyreflectinguponitselfandtheconditionsofitsownpossibilityispreciselythesignofitsownmassiveauthority.ThescenecallsattentiontowhatRobertWeimanncallsthe‘bi-foldauthority’oftheatricalperformance:theauthorityoftheactortorepresent,transformandlimittheauthor-ityofaclasswhoarealsopatronsandthepre-eminentaudienceofthetheatre.Sonnetalsoembodiestheanxietyofrepresentationthroughperfor-mance,butitexpressestheothersideofthe‘bi-foldauthority’embodiedbythe‘boyed’Cleopatra.anvnperfectactoronthestage,Whowithhisfeareisputbesideshispart,Orsomefiercethingrepleatwithtoomuchrage,Whosestrengthsabondanceweakenshisowneheart;SoIforfeareoftrust,forgettosay,Theperfectceremonyoflouesright,Andinmineownelouesstrengthseemetodecay,Ore-charg’dwithburthenofmineownelouesmight:Oletmybooksbethentheeloquence,Anddombpresagersofmyspeakingbrest,Whopleadeforloue,andlookforrecompence,Morethenthattongethatmorehathmoreexprest.Olearnetoreadwhatsilentlouehathwrit,TohearewiteiesbelongstolouesfinewihtSuchanxietystemsfromdifferencesofsituationandpowerthatareen-capsulatedbytheprecarioussocialpositionoftheplayerandhismedium.RobertWeimann,‘Bi-foldAuthorityinShakespeare’sTheatre’,ShakespeareQuarterly,.(Winter),–.
PerformativesItisoneofthekeypoemsinthesub-sequencetotheyoungmanbecauseitconveyslikenootherthevulnerableinarticulatenessoftheplayer-as-poetbeforethebelovedinthepublicspaceofanaristocraticaudience.Itshowsthatthesilenceembodiedbysuchanaudienceisasourceofpowerratherthanasignofrepression,anditasksthatthereciprocityforwhichitpleadsbeallowedtobenegotiatedthroughsilence:ontheprintedpageratherthantheresoundingstage.Thenumberofsonnetsthatcontinuetobeinformedbytheplayer-poet’sacutesenseofhisso-cialinferiorityandlackofauthorityshowsthattheretreatforwhichthesonnetasksisnotgranted.Inmanyofthesepoemsheseekstoresolvematerialdifferencesofsocialrankinthecompetitionforpatronagebyappealingtoanepistemologicalargumentbasedontruthandadenigra-tionofthe‘persuasiveforce’of‘ornament’.Buthisappealstothe‘poeticsofaunifiedandunifyingeye’(Fineman,Shakespeare’sPerjuredEye,)areacoverforamuchmoreforceful,performative,rhetoric.Suchrhetoricdoesnotseekanepistemologicalcorrespondencebetweensight,wordandobjectbutratheraseriesofpragmaticallydeterminedsocialanderoticconsummations.Sonnet’sclaimthatitisthepoet’ssilentappealthroughtheearthatcansay‘morethenthattongethatmorehathmoreexprest’isprobablyanearlyreferencetotherivalrywiththeunknownpoetwhichiscon-frontedexplicitlyinthesonnetsfollowing.Itshowsthatabandoningtheuncertaineloquenceofthetheatrefortheunstaged,privatemute-nessofthebook(theconsummationforwhichsonnetpleads)doesnotavoidthe‘bi-foldauthority’ofperformanceandrepresentation.Theperformativepowerofversemaybeimitatedandevensuperseded,theprivatespacethatbindspoetandreaderinvaded,byothersmorepow-erful,morefavouredormorepersuasive.Itisthedynamicpoweroftherivalpoet’swriting–‘theproudfullsaileofhisgreatverse/Boundfortheprizeof(alltoprecious)you’()–thattheplayer-poetfears.Suchpowerisitselfaformofthe‘silentloue’thatsonnetoffers,ablenotmerelytoreflectitsaddresseeinitsmirrorofpraise,butalsotomakeitswayintohisheart.TheproblemofrepresentationandperformanceinAntonyandCleopatraarisesfromthedifficultyofrepresentingthehistorical(ormythical)beautyandallureofafigurewhoismarkedbeforehandbyanirreducibledifferencefromtheactor-on-stage.Insteadofbeingleftoutinsilence,differenceinthetheatreisalwaysondisplay,asitisinthesituationfromwhichsonnetspeaks.Thelocusclassicusofsucharepresenta-tionisEnobarbus’senrapturedandenrapturingaccountofCleopatra’s
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysseductionofAntonyontheriverCydnuswhere,significantly,Cleopatraisherselfabsentfromthesceneofrepresentation.WeshouldthusnotethesimilaritybetweenEnobarbus’saccountofCleopatra,inwhichsheisdoublyabsent,bothascharacteronthestageandasanemblazonedobjectofpraise,withsonnet,wheretheabsenceofmaterialbodyandspaceissaidtobetheconditionofsuccessfulepideixis.TheabsenceofaboyedCleopatrafromthestageatthispointisparalleledbyherabsenceasfemalesubjectofpoeticdescription.Sheisnotdescribedbutratherconveyedviathetracesofherinvisiblepower(‘astrangeinvisibleper-fumehitsthesense’..)thatinforms,movesorattractseverythingaroundit.Sheispresentednotasanemblazonedorscatteredbody,butasanineffablepotencywhichliesbeyondthepowerandlimitsofrep-resentation:‘Forherownperson,/Itbeggar’dalldescription:shedidlie/Inherpavilion.../O’er-picturingthatVenuswherewesee/Thefancyoutworknature’(..–).Whichistosaythattheonlywayinwhichshecouldbedescribedisthroughtautology:‘shewasonlyshe’.Enobarbus’sandtheplayer-poet’sencomiaarethusaslittledescriptionsasAntony’saccountoftheEgyptiancrocodile,acomicbuttellingin-stanceoftheessentialsurdityofthe‘serpentofoldNile’(..):‘Itisshap’d,sir,likeitself,anditisasbroadasithathbreadth:itisjustashighasitis,anditmoveswithitsownorgans.Itlivesbythatwhichnourishethit,andtheelementsonceoutofit,ittransmigrates’(..–).‘Willthisdescriptionsatisfyhim?’(..)Caesarasksmockinglyandincredu-lously.Butlogicallyitisnodifferentfromthedescription‘youareonlyyou’thattheplayer-poetofthesonnets–hewho‘purpose[s]nottosell’–peddlestotheyoungmanastheonlytruly‘richpraise’(sonnet)thathedeservesandshouldexpect.Thisisthekindofclear-sightedpraiseofwhich,presumably,onlytheplayer-poet’sown‘silentloue’(sonnet)iscapable.LikePuttenham,Shakespearedealswiththeproblemofsimilitudeinanunmetaphysical,flexiblystrategicway,asdifferentformsofsocialactionimpressthemselvesuponhim.Takesonnet:isitnotwithmeaswiththatMuse,Stirdbyapaintedbeautytohisverse,Whoheauenitselfeforornamentdothvse,Andeueryfairewithhisfairedothreherse,MakingacoopelmentofproudcompareWithSunneandMoone,withearthandseasrichgems:WithAprillsfirstborneflowersandallthingsrare,Thatheauensayreinthishugerondurehems,
PerformativesOletmetrueinlouebuttrulywrite,Andthenbeleeueme,myloueisasfaire,Asanymotherschilde,thoughnotsobrightAsthosegouldcandellsfixtinheauensayer:Letthemsaymorethatlikeofheare-saywell,Iwillnotpraysethatpurposenottosell.Ostensiblyanattackonmere‘ornament’,thepoemisinfactanexcuseforakindofinaction.Itspersuasiveforceappearstoarisefromitscon-ventionalstanceagainst‘paintedbeauty’(sonnet)andpaintedverse.Ostensiblyarejectionofthe‘coopelmentofproudcompare’thatmarksbothconventionalloveandverse,itpushesitsownrehearsalofsuchacomparisonasfarasitwillgowithoutactuallybecomingthethingitrejects.Furthermore,preciselyitsown‘coopelmentofproudcompare’betweenthelavishnessofothersanditsown‘truth’iswhatcarriesitsgeneraldenigrationofsimilitude.Thisisnotmerelytostressthatthepoemindulgesintheveryornamentthatitsetsoutdenigrate,butalsothatsuchdenigrationisadeliberateactionthatattemptstoaffecttheunequalpowerrelationsthatsubtendit.Thepleainthethirdquatrain–‘Oletmetrueinlouebuttrulywrite,/Andthenbeleeueme,myloueisasfaire,/Asanymotherschilde’–enjoinstheyoungmantoallowtheplayer-poettowriteinaparticularstyle(ofwhichitsself-proclaimedlackofrhetoricityconstitutesitsmostpowerfulrhetoric)astheconditionofopeninghimselftobepersuadedofthefairnessofthepoet’sloveandhisownexemplarybeauty.Moreover,itismorethansimplyanappealtotheaddresseetobeauthorisedtowritewithouttheornamentofsimilitude.Itisaquasi-performative,bywhichtheplayer-poetstrivestocreatethecon-ditionsthatwillensurebelief.Icallita‘quasi-performative’becauseitrestsonnoclear-cutconventionalformsuchaspromising,warning,crowningordeclaringwar.Neverthelessitshrinksfromabandoningtheutterancetoamerelyrhetoricalorperlocutionaryforce,sincetheeffectsofsuchforcearenotoriouslyunpredictable.Thepoliticalrequesttobeallowedtodosomethingintheappeal,‘Oletmetrueinlouebuttrulywrite’,isoverwrittenbyaconditionalwhichseekstomaketheuptakeofbeliefitsnecessary(andnotcontingent)consequence.‘IftrueinloveIcouldwritetruly’(i.e.withoutornament),itsays,‘thenyouwouldbelieveasamatterofnecessity.’Manyofthesonnetstotheyoungmanattempttonegotiatetheun-equalpoliticalandsocialrelationshipbetweenplayer-poetandwell-bornpatronviasuchquasi-performatives.Thismayaccountforthesonnetsthathaveoftenbeentakentobeunsatisfactorybecausethecoupletruns
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplayscountertothefirsttwelvelines,attenuatingblamewithacceptanceorbanishingsuspicionwithwhatappearstobegroundlessaffirmationofthebeloved’s‘truth’.Such‘turns’maynotbemirrorsofthe‘speaker’svainattemptstoresolvetheconflictsinhisownmind’(Dubrow,CaptiveVictors,),butratherattempts,fromapositionofsocialanderoticvulnerability,totransformtherelationshipthroughtheself-proclaimingpowerofthequasi-performative.Thistacticismostsuccessful,however,whenthepoetabandonstheepistemologicalargumententirely,ashedoesinsonnet,andembracestheperformativepowerofthelie–‘excellentfalsehood!’(AntonyandCleopatra,..)–toeffectamutualeconomyofaccepteduntruths.WhenAstrophelcriesout‘Whatmaywordssay,orwhatmaywordsnotsay,/Wheretruthitselfmustspeaklikeflatterie?’(AstrophilandStella,sonnet),heoverlooksthepowerofwordstotransform,ratherthanmerelytoreflect,asituation.Bettertohaveaskedwhatwordsmaydo,forthenhemighthavenegotiatedmoresuccessfully,asShakespearedoes,thedilemmabetweentruthandflattery.WemayseewhatwordsmaydoinafewkeyscenesofAntonyandCleopatrawhichbringoutboththepoweroftheself-authorisingperformativeasapublicactanditspoliticalvulnerabilityinanuncertainworld.TakethedeclarativeorperformativeauthoritywhichAntonyandCleopatraasjointrulersas-sumewhentheycrownthemselves,dividingtheEasternworldbetweenthemandtheirchildren,andintheprocesslegitimisingthechildrenthemselves:ContemningRome,hehasdoneallthisandmoreInAlexandria.Here’sthemannerof’t:I’th’marketplaceonatribunalsilvered,CleopatraandhimselfinchairsofgoldWerepubliclyenthroned.AtthefeetsatCaesarion,whomtheycallmyfather’sson,AndalltheunlawfulissuethattheirlustSincethenhathmadebetweenthem.UntoherHegavethestablishmentofEgypt;madeherOflowerSyria,Cyprus,Lydia,Absolutequeen.Thisinthepubliceye?I’th’commonshowplace,wheretheyexercise.Hissonshethereproclaimedthekingsofkings;GreatMedia,Parthia,andArmeniaHegavetoAlexander.ToPtolemyheassignedSyria,Cilicia,andPhoenicia.She
PerformativesInth’habilimentsofthegoddessIsisThatdayappeared,andoftbeforegaveaudience,As’tisreported,so.MaecenasLetRomebethusinformed.(..–)TheRomanswhorelateandlistentothisreportareaffrontedbythepublic,performativenatureofthesedeclaratives,whichannounceanddisplaytheirownself-enactedauthorityin‘thepubliceye’,‘themarketplace’and‘thecommonshow-place’.Caesar’saccountnotonlypicksoutaplethoraofillocutionaryactssuchascrowning,proclaiming,bestow-inganddividingkingdoms;italsodrawsattentiontothereflexive,andextremelyvexing,self-constitutingauthorityofsuchacts.AntonyandCleopatraconstitutetheveryframeworkinstitutionsofauthoritythatgivetheirperformativestheirpower.Theirself-authorisingproclama-tionsdenyRomanauthorityandjurisdictioninwaysthatareverydiffer-entfromAntony’searlierdismissal.‘ContemningRome’,henowpubliclyenactswithhisqueenwhatwasearlierlittlemorethanagestureofper-sonalimpatienceandinsult:‘LetRomeinTibermelt,andthewidearch/Oftherang’dempirefall’(..–).Maecenas,AgrippaandCaesarassumethatsuchself-proclaimedauthoritymaybeundercutbyappealingtothepeopleofRometowith-drawtheirauthorisationofsuchbehaviour.ButthepublicspacethatsuchadisplaycreatesexcludesorbanishesthepoliticalauthorityofRomancitizenryitself,asFishshowsinarelatedanalysisofCoriolanus:WhatCoriolanusdoesopensthewayforanyonewhofeelsconstrainedbythebondsofasocietytodeclareasocietyofhisown,tonominatehisownconventions,tostipulatehisownobligations:suddenlythereisthepossibilityofasuccessionofsplintercoalitions,eachinauguratedbythephraseCoriolanushurlsatthosewhomhehascastbehindhim:‘Thereisaworldelsewhere.’(Fish,‘HowtoDoThings’,)InhisdescriptionofthecarefullystagedseriesofAlexandriandeclara-tives,especiallythosethatlegitimisefamilyrelations,Caesarattemptstocontradictthatauthoritythroughaseriesofcounter-declaratives.TheseseektonegatethelegitimacyoftheEgyptiandisplayanddistanceCaesarhimselffromsuchcontaminatingaction.IfCaesarionbecomesJuliusCaesar’ssonthroughAntonyandCleopatra’slegitimisingdisplay,thensuchaperformativedrawsOctaviushimselfintothearenabyrelat-inghimtoCaesarionandCleopatra.Allthis,powerfullysymbolisedbyCleopatra’sself-authorisingassumptionoftheroleofthegoddessIsis,
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysmeansthattheAlexandrianpageantdoesnotmerelysaythat‘thereisaworldelsewhere’.Itconstitutessuchaworldinitsverypronouncements.Ofcourse,asCoriolanusdiscovers,suchaworldisafragilethingwith-outthemilitarypowerandthepopularsupporttomaintainit.AntonyandCleopatra’sapparentconcernwithtranscendenceinitslastscenes,likethesonnets’similarpreoccupations,shouldbeseenintermsoftheattemptsbyitsdefeatedprotagoniststomaintain,andevenextend,theshowofself-proclaimedperformativeauthorityexemplifiedinthepubliccoronationanddivisionofempire.Weturnnowtoanexplorationofthewayinwhichtheseriesofcon-ceitsupontheornamentofsimilitudeinsonnetisturnedintothethoughtthattheonlytruepraiseistobefoundintautology.Thisargu-mentrevealsadifferent,andextremelysubtle,formofself-authorisingperformativebytheplayer-poet.Obscuringthedisingenuousnessoftherepeatedclaimthatthepoethasrefrainedfrom‘painting’hisbelovedandpatron,sincehehasbeentheonlyonetoseethatheneedednosuchpainting,thesesonnetsusetheconceptof‘truetelling’asatacticwithwhichtodislodgerivalsfromtheeconomyofpatronageuponwhichtheplayer-poethimselfdepends.Theplayer-poetpretendstorevealthesuperficialityoftherelationshipofsubservienceandflatterythatpatron-ageinvolvesasmorallyreprehensible,buthedoesnottranscendthatgame.Rather,hetriestodisplacehiseloquentrivalfromthebeloved’sfavour.Theargumentisemployedbecauseitisthoughttohaveagreaterpoliticalandsocialforcethanthatoftherival,notbecauseitslanguageisepistemologically‘moretrue’.Anditproceedsasaseriesofactionsinvolvingexchange,spending,profitandloss.isitthatsayesmost,whichcansaymore,Thenthisrichpraise,thatyoualone,areyou,Inwhoseconfineimmuredisthestore,Whichshouldexamplewhereyourequallgrew,LeanepenuriewithinthatPendothdwell,Thattohissubiectlendsnotsomesmallglory,Buthethatwritesofyou,ifhecantell,Thatyouareyou,sodignifieshisstory.Lethimbutcoppywhatinyouiswrit,Notmakingworsewhatnaturemadesocleere,Andsuchacounter-partshallfamehiswit,ThomasM.Greene,‘PitifulThrivers:FailedHusbandryintheSonnets’,inShakespeareandtheQuestionofTheory,ed.PatriciaParkerandGeoffreyHartman(LondonandNewYork:Methuen,),–.
PerformativesMakinghisstileadmiredeuerywhere.Youtoyourbeautiousblessingsaddeacurse,Beingfondonpraise,whichmakesyourpraisesworse.(sonnet)Performatively,thepoemdoesnottrytodescribeauniqueobjectaccurately.Ratherittriestofindaspeechactthatwillrenderaproper,i.e.,appropriate,accountofthesocialratherthantheepistemologicalrelationshipbetweenthepraiserandthepraisedandsimultaneouslytransformitinhisfavour.Thequasi-performativenotedinsonnetisherepresentedgenerallyinthethirdperson,whereitsconditionallogicisrevealedmoreclearly:‘Buthethatwritesofyou,ifhecantell/Thatyouareyou,sodignifieshisstory./Lethimbutcoppywhatinyouiswrit,/...Andsuchacounter-partshallfamehiswit,/Makinghisstileadmiredeuerywhere.’Thereisnodescriptioninthepoem,savethetautology‘youareyou’which,asIshalldemonstrateshortly,isnodescriptionatall.Thesonnetarguesagainstthenotionthat,sincethepatronmay‘euerliueyoung’(sonnet)inthepoet’s‘gentleverse’,the‘monument’(sonnet)thatsuchpoetrycreatesisworthyoftherecompensethatcomesofpatronage:thatpoetryindeedoffersa‘world-without-end-bargain’(Love’sLabour’sLost,..).Butiftheplayer-poet’ssonnetsoffersuchabargain,socansonnetswrittenbyotherpoets.IncontrasttoclaimsmadeelsewherethatonlythroughthepowerofhispoetrywillTime‘neuercutfrommemory/Mysweetlouesbeauty’(sonnet),thissonnettriestodiminishthe‘store’containedwithinthepoet’spenbysuggestingthattheexchangeoperatesintheoppositedirection.Suchexpenseisinfactthepatron’s:YetwhatoftheethyPoetdothinuent,Herobstheeof,andpayesittheeagaine,Helendstheevertue,andhestolethatword,Fromthybehauiour,beautiedothhegiueAndfounditinthycheeke:hecanaffoordNopraisetothee,butwhatintheedothliue.Thenthankehimnotforthatwhichhedothsay,Sincewhatheowesthee,thouthyselfedoostpay,(sonnet)Theuseofthethirdpersonandthepasttensedirectsattentionawayfromthepresentwritingtowardsanothertext,alreadywritten,andsoveilsitsownpresenttheft.Themere‘copy’whichsonnetprescribesastheproperbusinessofthepoetryofpraise,invertingtheusualeconomy
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysgoverningtherelationshipbetweenpoetandpatron,finallyservestopraisethepoethimself.Itisthepatronwhoexpendshimselfbyglori-fyingthe‘wit’and‘style’ofthepoet:here,crucially,theplayer-poet’spoetic,socialandsexualcompetitor.Withinthecontextofsuchmateri-allylocatedrivalry,thesophistryofhisargumentshouldbeapparent.Itshouldwarnusagainsttakingatfacevaluetheplayer-poet’sappealtohisownepistemologicalpurityorrigour.His‘richpraise’(sonnet),bothepideicticallyandlogicallyempty,isnolessanexerciseofsocialforcethanthe‘goodwords’that‘otherswrite’(sonnet).Overwhelmedandfearfulofthepublicspaceorworldthatimposesdifferencesofrank,bloodandsocialpower,theplayer-poethopestopersuadetheyoungmantoretreattoaprivateworldinwhichpromisingfaithfulness,declar-ingloveandcommandingtrustwillnotbeinformedanddistortedbytheexigenciesofsuchdifference.Theparadoxthatonlyinitsperfectsilencecantheplayer-poet’sbreastspeaktrulyisunderstandablegiventheun-certaintiesthataccompanypublicdeclarationsoflove.Aswehaveseen,however,theretreatfromstagetopageimploredinsonnetisnotgoodenough,sinceeventhepageisinvadedbythewordsofotherscompet-ingforfavour.Theplayer-poetmakesthepainful,Derridean,discoverythatlanguageitselfisalwaysalreadymarkedbythematerialspaceandspacingofthestage,bythealways-presentpossibilityofintrusionandcitation.Thetautology‘youareyou’culminatesacomplexseriesofsocialactionswhich,despitebeingconceivedineconomicterms,infactseektoobliteratefreedomofexchangewiththesettledvaluesoffeudalrelations.Thetautologymasqueradesastheepitomeoftruthfulness.Butitisinfactadoubleperformative:itperformsbothasophisticatedformofdefinitionandaremarkablyaudaciousself-authorisationoperatingundertheguiseofhumility.Itmarksadecisivemoveawayfromtheepistemologicalargumentthatcontinuestoinformhisothersonnets.WhenShakespeare’splayer-poetclaimsthattautologyisthehighestformofpraise,thisisaperformativeutterancethatdoesnotdescribetheyoungman,butratherturnshimintotheparadigmfromwhichbeautygetsitsname.Assuchaparadigm,theyoungmanisbeyonddescription.Heisthestandardfromwhichwordssuchas‘faire’,‘kinde’and‘true’(sonnet)derivetheirmeanings.Itislogicallyandsociallyinappropriatetoapplythoseconceptstohim,sincetheyarederivedfromhim.WecanseethelogicofthisargumentmoreclearlybylookingatThisisinfactthephilosophicallessonthatDerridadrawsinhisencounterwithso-called‘SpeechActTheory.’SeeJacquesDerrida,LimitedInc,ed.GeraldGraff(Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,).
PerformativesanexamplefromWittgenstein.Thephilosophicalideaunderlyingsuchaconceptionisthatwordsaregiventhemeaningstheyhavebyvirtueofselectedparadigmsintheworldwhichthenconstitutethestandardbywhichtheconceptistobeused.ThestandardmetreinParisissuchaparadigm.Tosaythatthatpieceofmetalisametrelongisnottodescribeit,butrathertoinstituteitasarulefortheconcept‘onemetre’withinthepracticeofmeasuringlength.Ifthestandardmetreisthelengthwhichsettlesjustwhatametreisthenitisbeyondtruthorfalsity.Astherulebywhichotherlengthsaretobejudgeditcannotitselfbesaidtobeonemetrelong,forwhatstandardshouldweusetoestablishthis?Itisthereforeinalogicalsensebeyonddescriptionexceptbyapropositionthatdescribesitasaparadigm.Onecansaythatthestandardmetreisthemeasurebywhichwedecidewhatametreis,butonecannotsaythatitisonemetrelong.Shakespeare’sargumentabouttheyoungmaninthesonnetsimplicitlyinvokesthislogic.Thetautologythat‘youaloneareyou’isthusdeclaring:‘youarethestandardbywhichwemeasurewhatbeautyis,bywhichbeautygetsitsname’.Theargumentagainsttherivalpoetclaimsthatiftheyoungmanisnotanobjectthatmaybedescribed(trulyorfalsely)asbeautiful,butinfactthestandardbywhichtheconceptsoffairness,truthandbeautyareestablished,thenitmakesnosensetodescribehimassuch.Allonecandoisproclaimhim,overandoveragain,astheparadigmaticinstancefromwhichtheseconceptstaketheirmeaning:bywhichbeautygetsitsname!Althoughthisviewclosesthegapbetweenwordsandtheworld,itdoesnotmaketheobjectthemeaningoftheword.Rather,itseesobjectsintheworldasamanifoldwhich,withinthechangingcontextsofhumanpractice,canbeappropriatedindifferentwaysasrulesfortheuseofwords.Shakespeare’sargumentshowsthatthe‘ornamental’descriptionsofotherpoetsarenotonlylogicallyvacuousorredundant,theyalsodenigratetheparadigmasparadigm,reducingitfromtimelessruletojustanotherobjectamongothers.Topraisetheyoungmanbyastandardofbeautytakenfromsomeotherparadigmorstandardofreferenceemptiesthewordsofallmeaning.Itwouldbelikejudgingthatthestandardmetreisametrelongbyusingatailor’stapemeasure.Orelseitreduceshisstatusasparadigm,itinsultsanddegradeshim,bysubordinatinghimtoahigherstandard.TheelevationoftheyoungSeeLudwigWittgenstein,PhilosophicalInvestigations,trans.G.E.M.Anscombe(Oxford:Blackwell,),para..Foranextendedaccountofthisargument,seemyLiteratureandTheTouchoftheReal:WordsintheWorldandLiteraryTheory(Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress,forthcoming).
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysmantothestandardwhichgivesbeautyitsnamealsoaccountsforwhythepoemstohimaresodescriptivelyempty,why,asThomasGreenepointsout,‘thefriendasanindividualremainsa“shadow”,undescribed,voiceless,hazy’(‘PitifulThrivers’,).Theargumentisremarkableforitscapacitytodenigratethe‘ornament’ofnormalformsofpraiseonlogicalratherthanrhetoricalgrounds.SuchformsofpraisecommitwhatGilbertRylecallsacategorymistake.InthelightofthecategorymistakescommittedbyrivalpoetsitnowbecomesclearwhyShakespeare’sverseshouldbe‘sobarrenofnewpride/Sofarfromvariationorquickechange’(sonnet).Itdealsindef-initionsratherthandescriptions,inthereiterateddefinitionofconcepts–‘faire,kinde,andtrue’–withreferencetoaparadigmcase,whichbydefinitionis‘stillconstantinawondrousexcellence’(sonnet),ratherthaninthesyntacticalelaborationofmeredescription.Sonnetexem-plifiesthelogicaleconomybywhichthemeaningsofthewordsusedindescriptionsoftheyoungmanareneitherbestowedonhimnorusedinpropositionsthatcouldbetrueorfalse,butareratherderivedfromtheyoungmanhimself:YetwhatoftheethyPoetdothinuent,Herobstheeof,andpayesittheeagaine,Helendstheevertue,andhestolethatwordFromthybehauiour,beautiedothhegiueAndfounditinthycheeke.Itisaphilosophicallysubtleargument,anditwouldbehardlysurpris-ingiftheyoungmanhimselffailedtounderstandit.Itrenegotiatesbutdoesnotdisplacethecompleximbricationofperformativeandmaterialpowerintheplayer-poet’ssituation.Forthesettingupandinstitutional-isationofsomethingasauniversalparadigmisasocialact.Therehastobegeneralagreementtouseacertainpieceofmetalasthestandardruleforwhatwillcountasaparticularlength.Ithastobeinstitutionalisedbyageneralagreementthatthenauthorisesthestandardassuch.Theyoungman’splayer-poetwritesasifhisbelovedwereintrinsicallyconstitutedassuchaparadigmbytheauthoringandauthorisingpowerofnature(seesonnet).Butofcourseitishisownhuman,rhetorical,projecttoestablishtheyoungmanasuniversalstandard.Viatheper-formativeofdeterminingtheyoungmanastheuniversalrulefortheconceptofbeautyandtruth,theplayer-poetauthorisesthepowerofhisownverseoveritssubject.ThelogicofparadigmaticdefinitionsignalledGilbertRyle,‘Categories,’ProceedingsoftheAristotelianSociety,(–).
Performativesbytautologyallowsobjectsintheworldtobeappropriatedindifferentwaysasrulesfortheuseofwords.ItclosesthegapbetweenwordsandtheworldandavoidsSidney’sdilemmabetweenflatteryandtruthinasitu-ationinwhichwordsmaysayanything.Buttheappropriationofobjectsasparadigmaticinstancesisaperformativespeechactwithfar-reachingsocialimplications,sinceitraisesthequestionofauthorisation:whohastheright,orthepower,todecidethestandardsbywhichwordsgettheirmeanings?Theplayer-poetengagesinsuchappropriationfirstbyelevat-ingthebelovedtothepositionofparadigm;thenbyproclaiminghimselftheonlyonewhoproperlyrecognisesthatincomparablestatus.Thereisasleightofhandhere,sincetheself-authorisingperformativeofthefirstmoveisperformedundertheguiseofthehumbledescriptivenessofthesecond.Itistheyoungmanwhomustbepersuadedthatheisindeedtheuniversalstandardofbeauty;oncedazzledbyhisownstatushewillnotnoticethatitistheactor-turned-poet’sverse,notnature,thatinstitution-aliseshim,retrospectively,assuch:‘AndhimasforamapdothNaturestore,/ToshowfaulseArtwhatbeautywasbefore’(sonnet).Replace‘Nature’with‘Shakespeare’andonehastheproperlysecularisedagentofsuchconceptualmapping.Suchagencyhastobeauthorisedinsomecommunalway.Howdoestheplayer-poetseehisrelationshiptothatempoweringcommunity?Afterwitnessingthepoweroftheself-authorisingperformativeinthepoemswhichdealwithcourtrivalry,wethereforeneedtoexploretheplayer-poet’sauthoritativerelationshiptoabroadercommunitywhentheobjectofhisaffectionsisneithermalenorfair,butfemaleandblack.IfShakespeare’splayer-poetcandeclarehisindependenceof‘subborndInformers’(sonnet)and‘frailerspies’(sonnet)bymagisteriallyinvokingthedivinetautology‘IamthatIam’inhisownperson(sonnet),thelatersub-sequenceshowsapersonamuchlessassuredaboutthepoweroftheperformativetoforgea‘worldelsewhere’.Theopeningpoemofthesub-sequence,sonnet,beginswithacon-fidentelaborationoftheargumentsketchedaboveregarding‘beauty’sname’anditsexemplificationbysomechosenstandard.Buttherestofthesequencealmostimmediatelybeliessuchconfidence.Theopeninglines–‘Intheouldageblackewasnotcountedfair,/Orifitweareitborenotbeautiesname’–areavariationonthethemethatthemeaningsofwordsareopentochangeasandwhennewparadigmsareauthorised.Thishumanappropriationandauthorisation,whichgivesShakespeare’sargumentitssocialandpoliticaldimension,setsmyWittgensteiniananal-ysisapartfromPlatonicreadingsofthisprocess.Indaysgoneby,the
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplayspoemsuggests,evenifbeautyhadincludedblackness,blacknesswouldcertainlynothavecountedasitsparadigmaticinstance.NoonewouldhavedreamedofteachinganovicePetrarchanpoetthemeaningoftheword‘beauty’bypointingtoadarkwoman.Butthishaschanged.Since‘eachhandhathputonNaturespower,/FairingthefoulewithArt’sfaulseborrow’dface/Sweetbeautyhathnoname’.Theconceptofbeautyhasbeenemptiedofcontent,sincetherearenolongerindu-bitableparadigmcasesbywhichtoexemplifyitanditsrelationtotruth.Suchapparentparadigmsoffairnessasthereareareuntrustworthy,foritisnolongerpossibletotellwhethertheyhave‘prophan’d’ornot.Toex-emplifytheconceptofbeautyviaawomanwhoappearstobefairnowa-dayswouldbeliketryingtosettlethelengthofametrewithapieceofelastic.Thecruxofthispoem’ssubtleargumentliesinthelogicalopera-tor‘therefore’,whichmarksthetransitionfromoctavetosestet.For,takenasthereasonwhyhehaschosenadarkmistress,itconfirmstheplayer-poet’sself-authorisingpowertorevivethenameofbeautybyin-stitutinganewparadigm,thenowexemplary‘darkladyoftheSonnets’.Inthissubtlyself-aggrandisingpoem,thepoetnolongeropposesan‘otherworld’oflanguageuserswhopersistintheirownperverseusage,followingtheirownparadigmaticsamples.Instead(heimplies),heef-fectsasea-changeintheveryconceptofbeautythroughhischoiceofmistress:‘Yetsotheymournebecomingoftheirwoe,/Thateuerytoungsaysbeautyshouldlookeso’.Butsuchconfidencedoesnotlastlong.Theagreementconveyedby‘everytoung’isunusualinasequencethatfindsitselfnotonlyatoddswiththeworldatlargebutalsowithitself.Withinasonnetortwothepoetacknowledgesthathiselevationofthemistressishardlyuniversal,norishewillingtodefendhisauthorityinthematter:‘Yetingoodfaithsomesaythattheebehold,/Thyfacehathnotthepowertomakelouegrone;/TosaytheyerreIdarenotbesobold,/AlthoughIsweareittomyselfealone’(sonnet).Hisabjectpromisetodeclareher‘black’tobetheidealinstanceofbeautyifonlyshewould‘mournforme’(sonnet)ishardlythegesturebywhichtodeclarea‘worldelsewhere’.Asthesub-sequenceprogresses,thepoetinternalisesthedifferencebetweenhisunauthorisedjudgementofthemistressandaworldthatnowstands‘hugelypollitick’(sonnet)againstthemad-nessofhisprivatediscourse,viathedevice,soextensivelyanalysedbyFineman,ofthecontestbetweenhisheartandhiseyes,indeed,allhissenses,whichnowdrawbackinhorrifieddisgustfromaperverselyper-sistentperversity:‘Mythoughtsandmydiscourseasmadmensare,/At
Performativesrandomfromthetruthe,vainelyexprest,/ForIhaveswornetheefaire,andthoughttheebright,/Whoartasblackashell,asdarkeasnight’(sonnet).‘Atrandomfromthetruth,vainelyexprest’.Thisis,ofcourse,oneaspectof‘lustinaction’(sonnet).ButitcouldalsobeappliedtooneofthemostintriguingmomentsinAntonyandCleopatrawhen,inasurprisingPetrarchanmoment,thedefeatedQueensubjectsAntonytoalover’sextravagantblazon:Hisfacewasastheheav’ns,andthereinstuckAsunandmoon,whichkepttheircourseandlightedThelittleOo’th’earth.Mostsovereigncreature–Hislegsbestridtheocean;hisrearedarmCrestedtheworld.HisvoicewaspropertiedAsallthetun`edspheres,andthattofriends;Butwhenhemeanttoquailandshaketheorb,Hewasasrattlingthunder.Forhisbounty,Therewasnowinterin’t;anautumn’twas,Thatgrewthemorebyreaping.HisdelightsWeredolphin-like;theyshowedhisbackaboveTheelementtheylivedin.InhisliveryWalkedcrownsandcrownets.RealmsandislandswereAsplatesdroppedfromhispocket.Cleopatra–(..–)Dolabellacriesout,surprisedandhorrifiedatwhatheperceivestobethemadness,theeccentricityandexcessiveness,ofCleopatra’s‘thoughtsanddiscourse’.Aswesawabove,thefelicityofsuchdiscoursedependsonthewillingnessoftheaudiencetoconcurinbothitstruthandforce.DispassionatelyrejectingthefalsityofCleopatra’spraise,butalsohor-rifiedbyitsexorbitantpower,Dolabellarespondswithapityingbutfirm‘no’toherquestion:‘Thinkyoutherewas,ormightbesuchaman/AsthisIdreamtof?’(..).Asmanycriticshavepointedout,thequestion,withitssubjunctivemodification,isconcernedasmuchwiththepowersofpoetryaswiththetruthofhistory.Itreturnsusto,orrather,anticipates,Cleopatra’sconcernlaterinthescenewiththepoweroffictiontorepresentandtransformherownhistoricallyspe-cificfigureintothestuffeitherofmythorpoliticalpropaganda.ReadingCleopatra’spraiseofAntonyinthewaythattheplayer-poetreadsthe‘fullproudsaile’(sonnet)oftherivalpoet’sverse,Dolabellaflatlydeniestheveracityofherdream.Beingfalsetoitsobject,aproduct
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysofprojectionratherthantruthfuldescription,itis‘atrandomfromthetruthe’,andbecauseitisatrandomfromthetruth,itis‘vainelyexprest’.Butassooftenhappensinthisplay,withitsChinese-boxeffectsofau-diencesnestedwithinwideraudiences,wearefreetoanswerCleopatra’squestiondifferently,justaswewereable,intheopeningscene,toacceptPhilo’sinvitationto‘beholdandsee’byjudginghisjudgement:Lookwheretheycome.Takebutgoodnote,andyoushallseeinhimThetriplepillaroftheworldtransformedIntoastrumpet’sfool.Beholdandsee.(..–)Whatwe,watchingPhiloandDemetriuswatchingAntonyandCleopatra,beholdisaremarkablescenewhichgivesfullreigntotheperformativeasawayofattemptingtotransform,successfullyornot,asituationthroughthepowerofmerelysayingso.Thesceneistoolongandcomplextoanalyseinfullhere.WeshouldmerelynotethewayinwhichAntonyinstituteshimselfandCleopatraasaparadigmofthe‘noblenessoflife’itself:‘thenoblenessoflife/Istodothus:whensuchamutualpair/Andsuchatwaincandoit,inwhichIbind,/Onpainofpunishment,theworldtoweet/Westanduppeerless’(..–).Butitisonethingtomakesuchadeclarationintheprivateworldofalyricpoem,asDonne,forexampledoes,anothertostageitpubliclyinone’scapacityasthe‘triple-pillaroftheworld’.Antony’stheatricaldeclarationbetrayspreciselythedifficultyofsuchself-fashioningandself-authorisingpublicshow:ifAntonyandCleopatracanturntheirsensualityintoaparadigmof‘nobleness’onlybybinding‘theworld’toacknowledgeiton‘painofpunishment’thenitfailsasaperformative.Aperformativeisnotempoweredbytheexerciseofphysicalcoercion,althoughitalwaysexistswithinamaterialworld.Ihavearguedelsewherethatifourowninvolvementinwhatwehavecommunallyinstitutedasthe‘literary’stemsatleastinpartfromitscapacitytoshowustheinstitutionandrelationshipsbetweentheconceptsofourlanguage,italsoopensthespacefortheconstitution,howeverbriefandunstable,ofanimaginaryconsensuswherebyparadigmsmaybeshifted,conceptsrenegotiated.IfitisCleopatraratherthanPhilowhopubliclyrefusesAntony’sextravagantgesture,shedoessoinapowerfullyambiguousphrase:‘excellentfalsehood!’Thisistopart-reject,part-deny,part-admireaclaimthat,ifitisostensibly‘atrandomfromthetruthe’
Performativesand‘vainelyexprest’,mayindeed,fromtheimaginaryperspectiveofthetheatreaudience,fallbeyondthelimitsoftruthaltogether.Itisacriticalcommonplacethatanambivalencetowardstruthandlying,deceitandtrust,marksAntonyandCleopatra’srelationshipthroughouttheplay,anditisneverfullysettledonewayortheother,justasitisneversettledwhetherAntonyisa‘strumpet’sfool’oraColossuswhose‘legsbestridtheocean’.Iamnotsayingthatweareeachlefttodecideforourselves,forthatwouldmeanthatwewouldfinallysettleonatruth,onewayoranother.Rather,Iwanttosuggestthat,justasperformativesarelogicallyindependentoftruthorfalsity–ofacorrespondencewithanentitythatalreadyexistsintheworld–butrathertransformtheworldorbringaboutasituationmerelyintheirsaying,AntonyandCleopatraandthesonnetsbothrepresentandperformthistransformativepoweroflanguageintheimaginaryspaceoftheatricalandpoeticproduction.IfCleopatrafearsthisprocessinherreflectionuponwhatshewillbecomeatthehandsof‘quickcomedians’inRome,shefullyindulgesinitinher‘dream’ofAntony.Thedreamisnotsimplyafiction:Butiftherebe,oreverwereonesuch,It’spastthesizeofdreaming.NaturewantsstuffToviestrangeformswithfancy;yett’imagineAnAntonywerenature’spiece’gainstfancy,Condemningshadowsquite.(..–)SuchanAntonyisnotaproductoffancy,sinceheis,liketheyoungmanofthesonnets,‘nature’spiece’gainstfancy’.Ontheotherhand,heisnotamereempiricalobjectofdescription.Rather,to‘imagine/AnAntony’istoseebothhowpaltrymerefictionsandhowdullmeremenare.CleopatraspeakshereofanAntony:notmerelythemancalledAntonybutthehistoricalfigureturnedintogenerictypeorparadigm.Thisisaphilosophyoflanguageandtheimaginarythattranscendsclassicaloppositionsbetweenfactandfiction.Lyingbetweentruthandfancy,historyandfiction–‘dolphin-like’asAntony’sdesires–suchafigureistheobjectofaperformativeuseoflanguagethatisneithertruenorfalse,butratherenactsorbringsintobeingthefigureitspeaksabout.Toreaditastheobjectofatruth-claimis,likeDolabella,tomissitsforceentirely.Buttoseeitforwhatitis,adifferentlanguagegamethatcouldbesaidtoconstituteepideixisassuch,istofind‘newheaven,newearth’(..),butwithouttranscendingtheonespresentlyinhabited.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysThisisnotatranscendentalisingreadingofeitherthesonnetsorAntonyandCleopatra.Suchalanguagegameisstillverymuchofthisearth,evenifitextendsitbeyondthelimitsdreamedofbypositivistphilosophy.WecanseeitsmundaneoperationinonefinalmomentofAct,when,re-enactingtheself-authorisingmomentintheAlexandrianmarketplacewhensheappeared‘inthehabilimentsofthegoddessIsis’(..),Cleopatraproclaimsherself,not‘whore’or‘mistress’,butAntony’swife:‘Husband,Icome’(..).WeareremindedatonceofAntony’searlierstatement‘Iamnotmarried,Caesar’(..),poisedambivalentlybetweenbeingameredescriptionofanindubitablecon-ditionandadeclarationofemotional,politicalandsexualindependence.ThemarriageceremonyisoneofAustin’sparadigmcasesoftheperfor-mative:aclear-cutcaseinwhichtosay‘Ido’and‘Ideclareyoumanandwife’,bytheappropriatepeoplewithinaproperinstitution,isnottosayofanythingthatitistrueorfalsebuttobringitintobeing,tomakeitso.MorethananyotherplaybyShakespeare,AsYouLikeItexploresthecom-plexityofmarriageasaself-initiatingorself-authorisingperformative,especiallywithregardtothepowerofwomennotonlytochooseamate,buttoorganise,throughillocutionaryactsbothimaginaryandnon-imaginary,relationshipswithinthesocietyatlarge.SusanneWofford’sexcellentessayonthisissuearguesthatRosalindrepresentstheappro-priationbymarginalised‘others’–womenasasexandthetheatreasaninstitution–ofthepowertotransformsocialrelationshipsthroughtheperformative.ThecruxisRosalind’sself-authorisedgivingofherselftobothfatherandhusband,withtheidenticallyrepeated‘ToyouIgivemyself,forIamyours’(..and).ToWofford,Rosalind’sfirstperformative,bywhichsheacknowledgesherselfassubjecttoherfather,isintensionwiththesecond,whichharksbacktoanearlier,playful‘giving’ofherselfinthenameofGanymede.AsWoffordobserves,thedoubletheatricalityofthatgivingcallsintoquestionAustin’sapparentexclusionofspeechacts‘saidbyanactoronastage’asbeing‘inapeculiarwayholloworvoid’(Austin,HowToDoThingsWithWords,).Celia’sprotest,‘Icannotsaythewords’,SusanneL.Wofford,‘“ToYouIGiveMyself,ForIAmYours”:EroticPerformanceandTheatricalPerformativesinAsYouLikeIt’,inShakespeareReread:TheTextsinNewContexts,ed.RussMcDonald(Ithaca,NJ:CornellUniversityPress,),–.Isay‘apparent’becauseitispossibletoreadAustin’slecturesasnotexcludingfictionfromhisaccountatall,butrathershowingintheendthatnosuchexclusionispossible.Theexclusiononpageisthusprovisional,asleightofhandbywhichthephilosophercovershistracks.SeemyforthcomingLiteratureandTheTouchoftheReal.
PerformativeswhenRosalindandOrlandosweepherintotheirgamebyaskingherto‘bethepriestandmarryus’(..–),maystemfromherfearofthemagicalpowerofthewordsasperformativesratherthanfromignoranceorforgetfulness.Thebeneficial‘magic’thatRosalindclaimstopossessattheendoftheplayisnomorethanthemagicoftheperformative–thetransformativemagicofwords.Celia,knowingRosalind’srealsexandherloveforOrlando,maysuddenlyfindherselfonthebrinkofconfirmingaheadlongrushintorealmarriageintheguiseofmereplay.Mindfulofthepowerof‘[m]arriageperverbadepraesenti’,which,astheArdeneditorremindsus,‘wasstillvalidinthesixteenthcentury’,shemayfindthatshecannotbringherselftousethetransformativepotencyof‘words’thatare,ineffect,deeds.F.PollockandF.W.Maitlandclaimthat‘sponsaliaperverbadepraesenti...takesplaceiftheydeclarethattheytakeeachotherashusbandandwifenow,atthisverymoment’.AgnesLathamobservesthatRosalindisscrupulousaboutobservingthisgrammaticalrequirement:sheinsiststhatOrlandoreplacethefuturetense,‘Iwill’,for‘now,asfastasshecanmarryus’(..–;Latham,Introduction,).Rosalind’sgiftofherselftoOrlandoinActhasalreadybeenprecededbytheirexchangeinAct;itthusmerelyconfirms‘Iamyours’,and,ineffect,deniestheproprietaryclaimsofherfather,whichshehas,however,justappearedtoacknowledge.Thetwosentences,lexicallyandgrammaticallyidentical,thusconstitutenotonlytwodifferent,butalsotwocontradictory,speechacts.Theidentityofformhidesthediscrepancyofillocutionaryforce,asdoestheapparentconstative‘forIamyours’,whichdeliberatelyfailstodrawattentiontothedifferentwaysinwhichRosalindmightbelongto,andmightgiveherselftoorwithholdherselffrom,husbandandfatherrespectively.Thisisreminiscentoftwoothermomentsinwhichwomenareabletomakeuseofthetransitionalpointbetweenfatherandhusbandtoforgesomekindoflimitedauthorityoftheirown:DesdemonainActSceneofOthello,andCordeliaintheopeningsceneofKingLear,bothofwhomfindspacetoopposethewishesoftheirfathersbyinvokingawoman’sdutytoherhusband.ItisamuchnarrowerspacethanthataffordedtoRosalind-as-Ganymede,anditremainscaughtbetweentheScyllaofthepatriarchandtheCharybdisofthespouse,butitdoespermitadegreeofoppositionandindependence.AgnesLatham,Introduction,AsYouLikeIt,TheArdenShakespeare(London:Methuen,),–.F.PollockandF.W.Maitland,TheHistoryofEnglishLawbeforetheTimeofEdwardI(),,ff.,quotedbyLatham,Introduction,–.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysInAsYouLikeIt,themovefromconstativetoperformativespeech,culminatinginthewoman’sappropriationoftherightto‘gobeforethepriest’bygivingherselfinmarriage,isenactedbyashiftfrommonological,Petrarchandoggerelissuedbythemale(intheformofOrlando’sverse)toagamefuldialogueofillocutionaryactscontrolledbythefemale.Orlando’sdrearypoems,whichdoatleastalerthisbelovedtohispresenceanddevotion,aresoonabandoned,notmerelyinthefaceofJacques’sandTouchstone’ssatiricalcriticism,butforthemoreengagingpastimeoferoticdialoguesoaptlycharacterisedbyStephenGreenblatt.WhenRosalindsetsthetermsofthegame,viatheputative‘cureforlove’supposedlypractisedearlieruponalove-sickyouth,shegivesanaccountofitinentirelyperformativeterms:Hewastoimaginemehislove,hismistress;andIsethimeverydaytowoome.AtwhichtimewouldI,beingbutamoonishyouth,grieve,beeffeminate,changeable,longingandliking,proud,fantastical,apish,shallow,inconstant,fulloftears,fullofsmiles;foreverypassionsomething,andfornopassiontrulyanything,asboysandwomenareforthemostpartcattleofthiscolour–wouldnowlikehim,nowloathehim;thenentertainhim,thenforswearhim;nowweepforhim,thenspitathim,thatIdravemysuitorfromhismadhumouroflovetoalivinghumourofmadness,whichwastoforswearthefullstreamoftheworldandtoliveinanookmerelymonastic.AndthusIcuredhim,andthiswaywillItakeuponmetowashyourliverascleanasasoundsheep’sheart,thatthereshallnotbeonespotoflovein’t.(..–)Thewholespeechmaybetakenvariouslyasanironicthreat,promiseorprediction,seekingthroughquasi-fictitiousperformativestodemonstratetheethicalresponsibilitiesaswellasthelight-heartedpleasuresoflovetalk.Ifatthebeginningofthesceneweareremindedthatthe‘truestpoetryisthemostfeigning’(..),thenRosalinddemonstratesthatevenplayfulillocutionaryactscarrytheburdenoftransformativeforce.Amongallthegamefulspeechactsof‘liking’,‘loathing’,‘forswearing’,‘entertaining’and‘longing’inwhichOrlandoandGanymede/Rosalindindulge,promisingcarriesaspecial,andentirelyappropriate,weight.TwiceOrlando’s‘feigning’poeticexpressionofhisloveiscalledtoac-countbeforeabrokenpromise,andRosalind’sentireprojectofbring-ingtogetherthe‘countrycopulatives’(..)inanextravagantlyself-authorisedcoupdependsuponherpriorexchangeofsolemnpromiseswitheachoftheparties:StephenGreenblatt,‘FictionandFriction’,inShakespeareanNegotiations(BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,),–.
PerformativesPatienceoncemore,whilesourcompactisurged.(totheDuke)YousayifIbringinyourRosalindYouwillbestowheronOrlandohere?ThatwouldI,hadIkingdomstogivewithher.(toOrlando)AndyousayyouwillhaveherwhenIbringher?ThatwouldI,wereIofallkingdomsking.(toPhoebe)Yousayyou’llmarrymeifIbewilling?ThatwillI,shouldIdiethehourafter.ButifyoudorefusetomarrymeYou’llgiveyourselftothismostfaithfulshepherd?Soisthebargain.(toSilvius)Yousaythatyou’llhavePhoebeifshewill?Thoughtohaveheranddeathwerebothonething.Ihavepromisedtomakeallthismattereven.Keepyouyourword,ODuke,togiveyourdaughter.Youyours,Orlando,toreceivehisdaughter.Keepyourword,Phoebe,thatyou’llmarryme,Orelserefusingmetowedthisshepherd.Keepyourword,Silvius,thatyou’llmarryherIfsherefuseme;andfromhenceIgoTomakethesedoubtsalleven.(..–)The‘boy’Rosalind‘candoallthathehaspromised’(..–)onlybyextractingpromisesfromalltheothercharactersthatshehasskilfullyinsinuatedasbeingcommensuratewiththeirdesires.Sheknowsthateachofthemwillsweartoactinwaysthatwilltoallappearancesfulfilwhattheymostdeeplywant.Shecanextractsuchpromisesfortworeasons:sheisuniquelyinapositiontoknowthewholegamutofrelateddesires,andsheisnegotiatingthecompactinthethirdpersonratherthanthefirst,asa‘boy’ratherthana‘girl’,possessedofa‘notdamnable’(..)magicinwhicheveryonedesperatelywantstobelieve.Andshedoeshavesecurecommandofacertainkindofbeneficialmagic:thetransformativemagicofspeech,intheformoftheperformative,which,inthetraditionofallspelling,canmakethingssomerelyinthesaying.Thiscannotbeachievedonone’sown,butrequires‘interactivedialogue’,arisingoutofasocietyboundtogethernotonlybycommensurablegoalsanddesires,butalsobythefactthattheytaketheillocutionaryforceofspeechactssuchaspromisingseriously.ThereisnothingtostopRosalind’slittlecastfrombreakingtheirpromises,andinacertainkindofsociety,suchasthatreflectedinTroilusandCressida,forexample,thatwouldindeedbethenorm.WeseethesameethicaldrivetotakeontheburdenofspeechasactionattheendofLove’sLabour’sLost,where
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplayspromisesarepreludestothepossibilityoferoticfulfilment.Inaplayconcernedthroughoutwith‘truth’,Rosalindshowsthatsuchtruthislessamatterofmatchingawordtoanobject(asOrlando,forexampletriestodoinhisverse),thanamodeoftransforminghumanrelationshipsthroughacertainkindofaction,ofwhichspeechisanintegral,butnotasole,part.ReturningnowtoCleopatra’surgentvocative,‘Husband,Icome’–whichnamesAntonyasheiscalledbyEgypt(..)–wemayaskifitisnotacondensedformofthemarriageceremony:aunilateraldeclarativewhichtransformsinthesayingherrelationshipwithAntony,andtherebyeffectsourjudgementofbothofthem.Itisneitheran‘excellentfalse-hood’noragestureofpuretranscendence,butanacceptancethatthetitleinvolvespubliclyaccessiblestandardsofbehaviour,standardsthatarenotself-authorisedinashowofpride,suchasisexemplifiedbyAntonyin..,butareratheranindependentmeasureofhercondition:‘Nowtothatnamemycourageprovemytitle!’(..).Cleopatra’sdeathisakindofperformativebywhichshelivesuptothattransforming‘title’,andatthesametimeeffectsatransformationofitsideologicalvalues.If,throughtheperformativepowerofhersuicide,Cleopatradoesnottran-scendthemundaneworldbutrathersubjectsherselftoitstransformativeinstitutions(ofwhichtheconcepts‘husband’and‘wife’areanirreduciblepart)shenonetheless,bysubjectingherselftosuchconcepts,transformstheideologicalthrustofthepatriarchalinstitutioninwhichtheyhavetheirlife.NotheoreticianofspeechactswouldacceptCleopatra’scryasaninstanceofthefelicitousperformanceofthemarriageceremony.Buttheplayinvitesustodoso:itasksustoaccepttheauthorityofafigurewhois‘nomorebute’enawoman,andcommanded/Bysuchpoorpassionasthemaidthatmilks’(..–),andintheabsenceofconsentinghusbandorpresidingclergyman,toclaimforherselftherightnotonlytochoosebutalsotomakeherownhusband.Shakespeare’splaythuseffectstheveryoppositekindoftransformationthatCleopatrasofearsatthehandsofcomedians,imbuingherthroughitsowntransfor-mativepowerwiththeabilityandrighttotransformherselffromwhoretoqueenandself-fashioningandself-fashionedwife.Letusreturn,finally,tothesonnets,especially:‘Whenmyloveswearesthatsheismadeoftruth,/Idobeleeveher,thoughIknowsheSeeMaryHamer,‘Cleopatra:Housewife’,TextualPractice,.(September),–,whopointsoutoneoftheculturalthreatsposedbyCleopatrainsofarassheexemplifiesthefactthatEgyptianwoman‘enjoyedonefreedomthatmadethemascandaltothemenofRome:theywerefreetochoosetheirownhusbands’().
Performativeslyes’,whichenactsitsownkindoftransformativepower.EdwardSnow’sreadingofthissonnetbothdrawsparallelswithAntonyandCleopatraandalsoseesinit‘amomentofrepose’anda‘subtlerealignmentofvalues’.AgainstthisviewNonaFeinbergproposesafeministargumentthatsuchreposeisachievedthroughthesilencingofthewoman,sothatintheend‘thesonnetcelebratesthespeaker’sverbalpoweratthecostofthelossoftheDarkLady’svoice’.InchapterIexaminethesilencingorscatteringofthebelovedthroughadiscussionofwhathappenstotheblazonwhenitisembodiedinthetheatre,especiallywhensilencemakesitselfheardthroughtheirreduciblepresenceofthesilencedbodyonthestage.Itcouldbearguedthatthesonnetisthepoeticformleastabletoaccommodateanother’svoiceinanythingbutthemostcursoryorindirectway.Butthisistoignoreapossibilitythatthetheatremakespalpable,namelyanoriginalcontextofaddressandreceptioninwhichtheresponseofthebeloved,thoughnotrecordedinthepoemitself,wouldnotonlyhavebeenpossible,butlikely.Itis,werecall,preciselytoavoidtheunwelcomeconsequencesandcircumstancesofsuchanad-dressthattheplayer-poeturgeshispatronaudienceto‘hearewiteies’(sonnet).Thepresence,andintrinsicpower,ofanaudiencetoshapethepoet’sownvoiceandstanceshouldnotbeoverlookedinadiscussionofwhethersonnetachievesatoneofrepose,smugnessorgrimseriousness.FewfeministcriticswhoacceptthegeneralnotionthatPetrarchansonnetsingeneralnecessarilyexclude,silenceordisembodythebelovedaswomancommentonthesilence–almostalwaysicilyaloof,tobesure–oftheyoungmaninShakespeare’ssub-sequence.Withthisinminditmightbeusefultocomparesonnetwiththemuchmorefamous,sincetherearedistinctivesimilaritiesofsubjectmatter,eveniftheydivergeintheirfinaltreatmentofacommonpredicament.shallIliue,supposingthouarttrue,Likeadeceiuedhusband,solouesface,Maystillseemelouetome,thoughalter’dnew:Thylookeswithme,thyheartinotherplace.Fortheircanliuenohatredinthineeye,ThereforeinthatIcannotknowthychange,Inmanieslookes,thefalceheartshistoryEdward.ASnow,‘LovesofComfortandDespair:AReadingofShakespeare’sSonnet’,ELH,(),–(and).NonaFeinberg,‘ErasingtheDarkLady:SonnetintheSequence’,Assays:CriticalApproachestoMedievalandRenaissanceTexts,(),–().
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysIswritinmoodsandfrounesandwrincklesstrange.Butheaueninthycreationdiddecree,Thatinthyfacesweetloueshouldeuerdwell,Whaterethythoughts,orthyheartsworkingsbe,Thylookesshouldnothingthence,butsweetnessetell.HowlikeEauesappledoththybeautygrow,Ifthysweetvertueanswerenotthyshow.(sonnet)Whileisaddressedtoanaudienceapartfromtheplayer-poetandwoman,sothatnotonlyherdiscoursebutalsotheaccommodationexpressedbythepoemareconveyedonlyindirectly,asaproductofthepoet-speaker’snarrativepointofview,thispoem,atleastimplicitly,hastheyoungmanhimselfasitsdirectandprimaryaudience.Onewouldexpectthistomakeitmoreintimate,achievingthe‘mutuallrender,onelymeforthee’(sonnet)thatsonnetsandattempttoeffect.Butthisisnotso:sonnetconveysasmuchalienationanduncertainty,distanceandobeisance,aswefindinthemoreovertpoemsofestrangement.Theproximityofsonnettothemuchmorewell-knownsonnetpromptsustorecognise,inthebelovedwhosefaceshowsneither‘thythoughtsorthyheartsworkings’insonnet,theenigmaticanddiscomfiting‘Lordsandownersoftheirfaces’ofsonnet.Furthermore,thesilenceofthebelovedishereandin–indeed,throughoutthesub-sequence–asourceoftheyoungman’sstrength:thealoof,judgementalandmutepowerofthespectator.Itisacrossthisdistance,then,ofbothsocialpowerandinscrutableenigma,thatthepoetdeclareshisdecisiontodowhatsonnetan-nouncesinsuchadifferentmode:to‘liue,supposingthougharttrue,/Likeadeceiuedhusband’.Thisisnolessthanaparaphraseofthefa-mousopeninglineof,andwhilethelattermaylacktheconventionalflatteryoflineslike‘Fortheircanliuenohatredinthineeye’and‘Butheaueninthycreationdiddecree,/Thatinthyfacesweetloueshouldeuerdwell,’suchflatteryisinanycasequicklyanddeftlyundercutbytheimplicationthatthisapparentlygraciousgiftofnaturemaybothbewhatputs‘fairetruthvponsofouleaface’(sonnet)byhidingthe‘falceheartshistory’(sonnet)andthesignofpromiscuityinsofarasthebelovedisunableorunwillingto‘frown’onanyone.Thatthisinscrutablybeautifulbelovedisgivennoopportunitytospeak,evenindirectly,isasignofanalmosttotalasymmetryofpower,butitactsinfavourofthebelovedratherthanthepoet,intherelationship.Thedecisionbythepoetto‘liue,supposingthougharttrue,/Likeadeceiuedhusband’is
Performativesthusmadeentirelyunilaterally,inanexasperatedandfearfulattempttoadapttoanintolerablesituationinwhichall‘mutuallrender’isexcludedaprioribothbythebeloved’simplacablesilenceandthedouble-edgedargumentthathisheartmaybeinanotherplacepreciselybecause‘theircanliuenohatredin[his]eye’.Directedasamonologuetothebeloved,thepoemengageslessindescriptionthaninwhatIhavecalledaquasi-performative:theattempttoeffectorchangeasituationsimplybysayingso.Thereisnoperlocutionaryforceintheargument,forwhatwoulditachieve?Bythepoem’sownargument,topersuadethebelovedtoachangeofheartwouldbepointless,forhowwouldheknowthatsuchachangeofhearthadtakenplace?Thereisnowayofknowing,sincethebeloved’sheartishiddenbyafacethatexasperatinglydoesnot‘alterwhenitalterationfinds’(sonnet).Sothepoetsimplyhastoconsolehimselfwiththebeliefthatthepoemitselfwillbringintobeingthestateofhomo-genyforwhichitlongs:itisanenactmentoftheadoptionofabelief,awayofliving.Butsuchanenactmentcanbenomorethanalonelytacticsolongasthelieislivedandbelievedentirelyunilaterally:‘soshallIliue,supposingthouarttrue’.Incontrast,asSnowargues,sonnetintheveryleastreports,andperhapsalsoenacts,inavarietyofnuancedwayswhichIneednotre-hearsehere,akindofmutualratherthanunilateraltransformationofarelationshipthroughtheacceptanceofadoublekindoflying.Anditisthepunon‘lie’,inwhichconsummatingactionobliteratesdifferenti-atingsimilitude,thatdoesthemostworkinthispoem.Thedifferencebetweenandliesinthefactthatinthelatterthebelovedshares(orissaidtoshare)thedecisiontoliveintermsofapairoffictionsthatfinallyconstitutetherelationshipanditsundoubted,ifimperfect,consummations.Inotherwords,theempoweringPetrarchandistance,constitutedinpartbytheabsenceofanansweringvoice,thatmarksnotonlysonnetbutthewholeofthesub-sequencetotheyoungman,isclosedbythe‘mutuallrender’oftheheterosexualcouple’slying:toandwitheachother.Toagreetoengageinthisrelationshipthroughthepowersofthelieisneithertoharpon‘whatreallyis’nortoaccepttheshadowsofmerefancy,buttobringforthasituationinthemodeofwhatwemaycallan‘excellentfalsehood’.Itisinfacttoabandontheideaofa‘simpletruth’–onetowhichsonnetstillclingsandfromwhichitderivesitspain–infavourofthesharedpoweroftheperformative,bywhich‘sayingmakesthingsso’.Tosaythisisnottobecomplacentorsmugaboutthesonnetoritspoet.Thatthewoman’svoiceisexcludedorshapedbythepoetisatruism.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysThiswouldformallybesoevenifsheweretospeaktheentirepoemindirectspeech.Whysonnetsingeneraldonotresoundwiththevoicesoftheiraddresseesisthesubjectforanother,perhapsBakhtin-directed,study.Suchsilenceisnotalwaysasignofeitherdisempowermentorevendismemberment,however.PlayssuchasAntonyandCleopatraandAsYouLikeItdisplaytheexclusions,accommodationsandenactmentsoftheperformativethatmayhavemarkedtheactual,historicallyembodied,situationsofaddress,receptionandresponseoftheoriginalperformancesofthesenowinfuriatinglysilentpoems.InowturntosuchembodiedsituationsofaddressastheyareexamplifiedinLove’sLabour’sLost,RomeoandJulietandTwelfthNight.
Embodiment:thesonnets,Love’sLabour’sLost,RomeoandJulietandTwelfthNightItisoneofthemoretellingironiesofliteraryhistorythatabodyofpoemsthatproclaimsitsowncapacitytorescueitsaddresseesfromtheobscurityandravagesoftimebyimmortalisingtheminthetranscendentallifeofitsownlanguageshouldinfacthavelefttheirnaturesandidentitiesavirtualblank.Despiteattemptsbyliterarybiographersandhistorianstofindoutwhothe‘darklady’andthe‘fairfriend’ofShakespeare’sSonnetswere,thelifethattheylead–consideredpurelythroughthepoems–isalinguisticortextualone.Whateversubjectivityorobjectivitytheyenjoyappearsatfirstsighttobemerelygrammatical,literallytheoutcomeofthelogicallawthattospeakaboutsomethingentailsnothingaboutitsexistence.ToparaphraseStephenBooth,thedarkladyandtheyoungmanwerealmostcertainlyeitheractualhistoricalpeopleorfictions;thesonnetsprovidenoexplicitevidenceonthematter.Therecenttrend,beginningwiththeNewCriticismandculminat-inginrecentpoststructuralisttheory,ofrejectingbiographicalordra-maticaccountsofthesonnetsinfavouroftheirtextuallyself-reflexiveandself-enclosednature,maybeattributedtoagrowingandincreas-inglyself-consciousobsessionwiththistruth.Thiscriticaltendencyhasemphasisednotonlythemultipleandirreduciblecomplexitiesandam-biguitiesofthelanguageofthesonnets(StephenBooth,HelenVendler),ithasalsosacrificedtheirobjectsofaddresstotheoverridingideathatthepoemsareinterestingaboveallforthewayinwhichtheyconstitutethesubjectivityoftheircreator(JoelFineman).Shakespeare’ssonnetsaretakentobelessaboutthenobleyoungmanorthemorallyduplici-tousdarkladyoftheiraddressthanaboutthegrammaticallynecessary(ratherthanhistoricallyactual)poeticsubjectoftheirwriting.Thisthe-oreticalcommongroundunderliesHeatherDubrow’ssuggestionthatthesonnetsdonotenactadramaticscenariobutrather‘exploretheirShakespeare’sSonnets,ed.StephenBooth(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,),.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysspeaker’spsyche’,AnnFerry’sclaimthattheyforthefirsttimeestab-lishan‘inwardlanguage’of‘theself’,JoelFineman’sargumentthatthroughhissonnetsShakespeare‘invented...analtogethernovelbutsubsequentlygoverningsubjectivityinourliteraryhistory’andHelenVendler’sexclusiveinterestintheirrepresentationofa‘solitarymind’atwork,despiteotherwiseprodigiousdifferencesamongthesecritics.Thehistoricallysituatedembodimentofthesonnetswithinanexusthatincludedpoet,addresseeandaudience,eachembroiledincomplexpo-litical,sexualandeconomicrelations,hastendedeithertobereducedtothespaceofthepsychologicaldramaofthepersonaorsuppressedinfavourofageneralpoeticsubjectivitythatisinfactnolessthanthesymptomaticexpressionoflanguageinitsmarchtowardsLacanandDerrida.Thischapterinterrogatesthesetofcriticalassumptionsthatdissolvethecorporealityofthereferentinasolutionoftextualityandsubjectivity,byposingquestionsabouttheembodimentofaddressee,thewriterandthesonnetitself.IuseLove’sLabour’sLost,TwelfthNightandRomeoandJuliettoexplorethesonnetformasitisliterallyincorporatedintothemate-rialspaceofthetheatre.Inthisspacethecorporealityofspeakerandaudience,ortherealcircumstanceseitherofreceiptormiscarriage,aredifficulttoignore,andperformativeusesoflanguagearesetinfullyde-velopedcontextsofinteractivedialogue.Thepeculiarlytheatricalmodeofthesonnetsandtheirself-conscioususeoflanguageasaformofsocialactiondemonstratethathowevermuchthetranscendenceoftheworldlyconditionsofdistanceandtemporalityaretobedesired,sucharemovalfromamaterialandsocialworldisimpossible.Thepoemsrehearseagainandagainnotthefutilityoremptinessoftheideal,butitsincorrigibleimbricationinthecontingent,thereal,theembodied.Theidealisal-waysacknowledgedasaninescapabledesire;itisevenpresentedasaninevitableconditionoflanguageitself.Thedistinctionbetweentwodifferentkindsofreadingsofthesonnets–betweenacontextualisedandadecontextualised,oratextualisedandHeatherDubrow,CaptiveVictors:Shakespeare’sNarrativePoemsandSonnets(Ithaca,NYandLondon:CornellUniversityPress,),.AnnFerry,The‘Inward’Language:SonnetsofWyatt,Sidney,Shakespeare,andDonne(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,).JoelFineman,‘Shakespeare’sEar’,Representations,(Fall),.Fineman’sargumentisfullydevelopedinShakespeare’sPerjuredEye:TheInventionofPoeticSubjectivityintheSonnets(Berkeley,LosAngelesandLondon:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,).HelenVendler,TheArtofShakespeare’sSonnets(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,).
Embodimentembodied,treatmentofaddress–isinfactrepresentedaspartoftheactionofLove’sLabour’sLost.InActScene,thesonnetaddressedbyBirontoRosalineandsentviaCostardispresentedtoHolofernesbyJaquenetta,who,thinkingthatitcomestoherfromDonArmado,asksthepedanttoreadit.AftermakingcharacteristicallyinflatedandpompousremarksabouttheItalianepigraph,HolofernescommandsNathanieltoreaditaloud.ThissonnetwassubsequentlypublishedinThePassionatePilgrimin.InitstheatricalcontextitexpressesBiron’sinfatuationwithRosalineandhisattempttorationalisehisbrokenpromisetofor-swearthecompanyofwomen.Nathaniel,thecurate,neveritsintendedrecipient,thusdisseminatesBiron’ssonnettoanaudienceevenfurtherremovedfromitsoriginalpathofaddress.Moreover,ifHolofernesistobebelieved,Nathaniel’sperformanceisaestheticallywanting:he‘find[s]nottheapostrophas,andsomiss[es]theaccents’(..).Holofernes’ssubsequent‘supervision’ofthe‘canzonet’revealsthathisowninterestintheversesisthatofatechnical,self-inflatingliterarycritic.Thecir-cumstancesofaddress,althoughquiteapparentfromtheletterandthesonnetitself,formnopartofthepedant’saestheticinterest.TheseareconsideredtobeamatterfortheKingandhiscourt,andJaquenettaandCostardaresummarilydispatchedtodeliverBiron’smissivetothe‘royalhand’withtheoffhandremarkthat‘itmayconcernmuch’(..).Holofernes’sownconcernsarewhatwewouldnowtermformalistones:heusesthe‘accidental’appearanceoftheversestoshowoffhisownsup-posedlearningandwitbyproclaimingthepaucityof‘elegancy,facility,andgoldencadenceofpoesy’(..)inthecourtier’snumbers.Andyet,suchanarrow,internalreadingofBiron’ssonnetextendsbeyondapurelyformalistframework.Holofernesmaynotallowanyspecificbio-graphyofaddresstoinformhisreadingofthepoem(thefactthatitcomesfromBiron,isaddressedtoRosalineandis‘anaction,somethingdoneforandtothebeloved’),buthedoesuseitsfortuitousappearancetoconfirmasenseofcommunitywhichhedelimitsfromthatofthecourt.Biron’ssonnetprovidesthecueforHolofernes’slearnedbanquet,anoccasionnotonlyfor‘prov[ing]thoseversestobeveryunlearned,neithersavouringofpoetry,wit,norinvention’(..)toacircleoflike-mindedadmirers,includingapupilandherfather,butalsoforsig-nallingthedifferencebetweenthe‘gentles’game’ofloveandhisownpedantic‘recreation’ofliterarycriticism(..).C.L.Barber,‘AnEssayontheSonnets’,inElizabethanPoetry:ModernEssaysinCriticism,ed.PaulJ.Alpers(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,),–().
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysTwoissuespresentthemselves.Thefirstisthetheoreticalpointthatasaninstanceofsocialactionasonnetalwaysfindsitselfwithinaparticularcircleofaddress.InthiscaseitisaddressedbythecourtierBirontothelady-in-waitingRosaline,withinacomplexcontextintermsofwhichhisvowofconstantloveisinthesamebreaththetransgressionofanearliercommitmenttoabstinence.Thefactthatthecircleoforiginaladdresscanalwaysbebrokendoesnotnegatethesignificanceofthatorigin.Inenactingsuchabreakingofthecircle,whether,asHolofernesremarks,‘accidentally,orbywayofprogression’(..–),thesceneunderdiscussioninfactunderlinestheimportanceandsignificanceofthatoriginalcontext.Holofernescorrectlyseesthattheversesthathavefallenintohishands‘mayconcernmuch’insocialandpoliticalterms,whichiswhyhedispatchesJacquenettatotheKingwithnofurtherado.Thewholeplotofthecomedyturnsuponthisinsight,whichostensiblyhasnothingtodowiththeaestheticnatureofthesonnet.Atthesametime,Holofernes’sownuseofthesonnettakesitoutofthatcontextandturnsitintoa‘literary’object:anaestheticproductwhichistreatedintermsofitstechnicalaccomplishments,itsdisplayofwitoritslackoflearning.Thusthedistinctionbetweenformalistandsocialcriticismisinfactmadewithintheplayitself.Nordoesthematterrestthere.ForweknowthatwhatwasoriginallyBiron’ssonnettoRosalinewasfurtherremovedfromthecontextoftheatricalembodimentandaddresswhenitappearedinThePassionatePilgrimasoneofShakespeare’s‘Sugredsonnets’(FrancisMeres,PalladisTamia,quotedinTheSonnets,ed.KatherineDuncan-Jones,).Iwillcomebacktothislater.ForthemomentIwishtounderlinethesecondpointthatseemstometobemadeinthisscene,namely,thatevenwhenthesonnetisdisembodied,formalised,aestheticisedbyHolofernes,thismovedoesnotescapeafurthercontextofembodimentorcircleofaddress.Holofernesasformalistliterarycriticusesthesonnettocementadifferentkindofsocialrelationshipfromthatenvisagedbyitsoriginalauthor(Biron):Holofernesplaceshimselfatthecentreofalearnedcircleofnonoranti-courtierswhoachievetheirsolidarityinpartthroughthedisparagementoftheliteraryeffortsofthecourt.Laughingatthe‘gentles’game’provestobetherecreationofthelearnedmiddleclasses,anenterprisewhichinfactencompassesthebroadersocialrelationsthatsubtendthewritingandperformanceofLove’sLabour’sLostitself,especiallyintheclassaspirationsofitsplaywright.Initsenactmentofthemovementofasonnetbeyonditsoriginalcontextofaddress,thisscenedistinguishesnotmerelybetweentwokindsofliteraryreceptionandeffect;italsoshowsthatthereis
Embodimentnopurelyformalistcriticism,nosimpleinteriorityoutsideacontextofaddressbywhichasonnetmayreflecteitherthepsychologicalstrugglesofitsauthororconstitutethemoment-by-momentexperiencesofitsreader.Inthisbriefscenewearethusmadeawareofthreedifferentlevelsonwhichasonnetmaybeembeddedinacontext:theoriginalcontextofaddressinwhichitispennedbyBironinordertoexpresshisloveforandexcusehisbrokenvowtoRosaline.Thisisfollowedbytheformalisttreatmentofthesonnetasanexampleofinepttechniqueandinade-quatelearningbyanaudienceforwhomitwasnotintended,butforwhomitisnonethelessembeddedasaformofclassratherthansexualrivalry.Finally,theinstancemostremovedfromits‘origin’intheplay,itispublishedbeyondthecontextsofsocialactionrepresentedanden-actedonthestage,inanElizabethananthologyasarepresentativeofShakespeare’sverse.Inthelast,mostremovedcontext,theparadoxin-vokedbythefirstline,‘Iflovemakemeforsworn,howshallIsweartolove?’,whicharisesdirectlyfromtheplotoftheplay,wouldpresumablyhaveperplexedacontemporaryreader.AsArthurMarottihasnoted,theformalistdisembodimentofpoetryfromitscontextoforiginalreadersandsocialaction,whereitwasa‘kindofsocialcurrency’,andwhichwecannowrecogniseinspecificformsofliterarycriticism,wasalreadyoccurringincontemporarydisseminationofsonnetsinprintedanthologies:‘thetextsinmanuscriptandprintedmiscellanieslosttouchwiththeiroriginalcontexts,astheveryactofan-thologizingdislodgedpoemsfromtheirplaceinasystemoftransactionswithinpoliteoreducatedcirclesandputtheminthemorefundamentally“literary”environmentofthehandwrittenortypographicalvolume’.Thisprocessofrecontextualisation,headds,‘occursinanyformalistorahistoricalreading’,oftenwiththeresultthat‘theconventionalliter-arylanguage...usedtoexpresswhatwereprobably,incontext,quitespecificpersonalresponsestosocialandpoliticalcircumstances[comes]acrosstolaterreadersaspeculiarlycontentless’(JohnDonne,).MostrecentcriticismofShakespeare’ssonnetsdoesindeedtreatthemasifthelastofthesecontexts,theirliteraryrecontextualisation,wereinfactthenorm:adisembodiedappearanceinprint,leavingnoorlittletraceoftheoriginalcircumstances–social,politicalanderotic–whichtheplayLove’sLabour’sLostdoesindeedrepresenttoitsaudience,atleastinthecaseofBiron’ssonnet.Takingourcuefromthenecessaryembodiment,ArthurF.Marotti,JohnDonne:CoteriePoet(Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,),–.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysbothphysicallyandintermsoftherepresentedsituationofpoliticalandeconomicrelationsthatisinescapableinthetheatre,wecanbegintounderstandtheinterventionofthesonnetasaformofsocialactionintheplacewhereitoriginallydiditswork.Itsnecessaryembodimentinthatcontext,constitutiveoftheaddressofonehumanbodytoanotherwithintheoriginalcircumstancesofsocialaction(eventhoughtheymayseemtohavedissolvedinthetextualityofthepurelyprintedword)andrenderedinescapablebythetheatre,ispreciselywhatisignoredinanti-biographicalandanti-dramaticreadingsofprintedsonnets.Inowturntothemostwell-knowninstanceofthesonnetembodiedonstage:the‘dialoguesonnet’inRomeoandJuliet.CriticsmaydifferintheirviewsofthedegreetowhichRomeoandJulietiscontainedbyortranscendsthePetrarchantradition,buttheydonotdoubtthatthepopulartragedybearsthestrongimprintofthisessentiallyaristocraticpoeticpastime.Itisonethingtonotethepresence,whetherasoverridingmotiformeretrace,ofadifferentliterarygenreinaplay.Itisanothertoaccountforthemutualtransformationsthatarewroughtbytheir‘differentgreeting’(RomeoandJuliet,..).Forifthesonnetliterarytraditiontosomedegreesetthetermsoftheplay’slanguageandstory,asJillLevensonargues,theplayitselfensuresthatthesonnetwillneverbethesameagainonceithaspassedthroughitsessentiallytheatricalbody.ThesingularityofShakespeare’ssonnetsisatleastinpartmadepossiblebythetransformingmodeofthetragedyanditssocialworld.RosalieColienotesthewayinwhichliterarydevicesarerenewedinShakespeare’splaysthroughthecapacityofthetheatretorenderliteralorconcretethingsthatareotherwisemerelyabstractorfigurative.Bycreatingasocialworldinwhichfamilyfeudsareanintegralpartofthepsychologicalandpoliticaldynamic,ShakespearerendersthereceivedliterarydeviceofthePetrarchanoxymoroninthemostpalpableandJillL.Levenson,‘TheDefinitionofLove:Shakespeare’sPhrasinginRomeoandJuliet’,ShakespeareStudies,(),–().Seealso‘RomeoandJuliet:Tragical-Comical-LyricalHistory’,ProceedingsofthePMRConference,AugustinianHistoricalInstitute,VillanovaUniversity,PA,.(–),–,and‘RomeoandJulietbeforeShakespeare’,StudiesinPhilology,.(Summer),–.GayleWhittierclaimsthat‘inRomeoandJuliettheinheritedPetrarchanwordbecomesEnglishfleshbydecliningfromlyricfreedomtotragicfactthroughatransactionthatsonnetizesthebody,diminishesthebodyofthesonnet,andscattersthetermsoftheblazonducorps’,‘TheSonnet’sBodyandtheBodySonnetizedinRomeoandJuliet’,ShakespeareQuarterly,(),–;reprintedinCriticalEssayson‘RomeoandJuliet’,ed.JosephA.Porter(NewYork:G.K.Hall,),–().Ishallarguethatitisamistaketodenysuchembodimenttothesonnetassuch.RosalieColie,Shakespeare’sLivingArt(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,),.
Embodimentmaterialterms.ThismayseemclosetoGayleWhittier’sargumentthatinRomeoandJuliettheessentiallydisembodied,merelyliteraryexistenceofthesonnetisfatallyincorporatedintothe‘tragicfact’representedbytheplay.Butherargumentdependsonanabsolutegenericdiffer-encebetweentragedyandlyric,‘fact’and‘freedom’,theabstractandthematerial,sothattheirmeetingonthestageinevitablyresultsinthereduction,diminutionorscatteringofthelyric.Byimplicationatleast,Whittierregardsthesonnet-as-lyricasessentiallyfreeoftheconstraints–material,political,psychological–thatmarktragedyasdramaandthe-atre.Ishallarguethattheoppositeisinfacttrue.Farfrombeingarealmoffreedom,theElizabethansonnet,asaformofsocialaction,wasasconstrainedbysocialandpoliticalfactastheatricalformsofrepresen-tation,aspublicandembodiedamediumasany‘two-hours’trafficof[the]stage’(RomeoandJuliet,Prologue,).Ratherthandiminishingorscatteringthebodyofthesonnet(andallitrepresents),RomeoandJulietrendersthatbodymoreconcretebyrestoringittoasocialworldfromwhichhistoryandcriticismhaveextractedit.Fromtheearlypoemstotheyoungmanofrank,urginghimtomarryandhaveason,throughtheidealisingattemptstonegatethespaceofsocialdifferenceinthemutualityof‘private’love,tothebitterwitofthe‘Will’poemstothedarkwoman,theplayer-poetseekstoreducethegapbetweenaddresserandaddresseethatistheveryconditionofthePetrarchanmode.IthasnotescapedcommentatorsoraudiencesthatinRomeoandJulietShakespearerepresentsamomentofreciprocityviathearchetypeofincommensurability:asonnet,uniquelysharedbyRomeoandJulietinAct.Thentherearethesonnetsthatintroducethefirsttwoactsoftheplaywhich,thoughnotindialogue,againspeakwiththesharedvoiceofthetheatreratherthanthesolitaryvoiceof‘themindinsolitaryspeech’(Vendler,TheArtofShakespeare’sSonnets,–).Allofthesesonnetsarebothcaughtinandmadepossiblebyasimultaneouslyconstrictingandsustainingwebofsocialrelations.Twohouseholds,bothalikeindignityInfairVerona,wherewelayourscene,Fromancientgrudgebreaktonewmutiny,Wherecivilbloodmakescivilhandsunclean.FromforththefatalloinsofthesetwofoesApairofstar-crossedloverstaketheirlife,WhosemisadventuredpiteousoverthrowsDothwiththeirdeathburytheirparents’strife.Thefearfulpassageoftheirdeath-markedlove
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysAndthecontinuanceoftheirparents’rage–Whichbuttheirchildren’send,naughtcouldremove–Isnowthetwo-hours’trafficofourstage;Thewhichifyouwithpatientearsattend,Whathereshallmiss,ourtoilshallstrivetomend.(RomeoandJuliet,Prologue,–)Isthisasonnet?Itlookslikeone.Itconformstoalltheformalcharacter-isticsofwhatwenowcalla‘Shakespearean’sonnet.Ithasfourteenlines,itisiniambicpentameter,itobservesthecharacteristicrhymeschemeandithasastructurethatcombinesthreequatrainsandacoupletwiththevestigial‘Petrarchan’divisionofoctaveandsestet.Shakespearewroteit.Yetincertainrespectsitisutterlyuncharacteristic.First,althoughonlyonepersonuttersit,itspeakswiththecommunalvoiceofacollectiveratherthanthesinglevoiceofalyricalsubjectivity.Itsprimarymodeisexpostulatoryornarrativeratherthanreflective.Itisthoroughlypublic,openlyaddressinganaudienceofmanyratherthanone.VendlerwouldnotconsideritaShakespeareansonnetinthepropersenseatall(TheArtofShakespeare’sSonnets,).Levensonsuggeststhattheprologueisawittymeansbywhichapoeticconventioncanreduceawell-knownstorytoitsown,moreconfineddimensions:‘theclich´eclich´ed’,assheaptlyputsit(‘TheDefinitionofLove’,).Butperhapstheplayservestoexpandthesonnet:todisplayitssocial,embodiedcharacter.LiketheQuarto,theopeningsonnetistheproductofadramatistwhoturnshishandtosonnetsratherthanasonneteerwhodabblesindrama.Inaplaythatisconcernedwiththedifficultyofdividingprivatefrompublic,thesefourteenlinesraisethequestionofthesonnetitselfandtheusetowhichitmaybeputasaformofsocialaction.Fortheyarenotmerelyadeclarativeutterance,anexerciseinsimplenarrative,oraself-consciousclich´e.Theyspeakonbehalfofajoint-stockcompanyinwhichtheactorwhouttersthemandthewriterwhowrotethemaremutualmembers.Togethertheyareinthebusinessofnegotiatingapublicrelationshipandpleadingfortheapprovalofadisparateaudience.Butthereciprocityofpleasureandfinancialrewardthatthissonnetpursuesinitstheatricalcontextisstrikinglyechoedinthemanysonnetsof,whichseekeroticconsummationinsimilarterms,treatingtheprivate,inward,psychologicalconceptsofpersonaldevotionthroughthediscourseofpublictransactions,politicaloreconomic.Thissonnetastheatrestrikinglyremindsusoftheroleofitsinforming,publicdiscourseinthetransactionsofthesonnetaslyric.
EmbodimentComingbetweenthetwoostensiblydeclarativeprologues,whosepub-licshowiscarriedontheirfaces,thelovers’sonnetisquieter,withdrawnfrompublicappraisalandshow.Maskedfromthepublicgaze,itseems,likeitsprotagonists,astillpointofpersonalcontact.Assuchitappearstobetotallydifferentfromthesonnetsthatprecedeandfollowit,eachofwhichis,ineffect,acommentaryonitsgenesisandpredicament.Thecommunalspeechofthosetwosonnetsishereremarkablysplitintoasymbolofperfectreciprocity.Thelittleroomofthesonnetis,unusually,sharedbytwoequal,interdependent,and–mostimportant–embodiedvoices(toJuliet,touchingherhand)IfIprofanewithmyunworthiesthandThisholyshrine,thegentlersinisthis:Mylips,twoblushingpilgrims,readystandTosmooththatroughtouchwithatenderkiss.Goodpilgrim,youdowrongyourhandtoomuch,Whichmannerlydevotionshowsinthis.Forsaintshavehandsthatpilgrims’handsdotouch,Andpalmtopalmisholypalmers’kiss.Havenotsaintslips,andholypalmers,too?Ay,pilgrim,lipsthattheymustuseinprayer.Othen,dearsaint,letlipsdowhathandsdo:Theypray;grantthou,lestfaithturntodespair.Saintsdonotmove,thoughgrantforprayers’sake.Thenmovenotwhilemyprayer’seffectItake.(Hekissesher)Thusfrommylips,bythinemysinispurged.Thenhavemylipsthesinthattheyhavetook.Sinfrommylips?Otrespasssweetlyurged!Givememysinagain.(Hekissesher)Youkissbyth’book.(RomeoandJuliet,..–)Thefamiliarityofthisexchange-as-sonnetshouldnotpreventusfromacknowledgingtheuniquenessofitsmoment:inwhichthePetrarchanhabitofspeakingofone’sbeloved,ortoone’sbeloved,orbehindthebackofone’sbeloved,isreplacedbythereciprocityofspeakingwithone’sbeloved.Thisis,ofcourse,obvious.Butitsveryobviousnessisliabletopreventusfromremarkingonthesubtletyofthatdialogueanditsoriginality.Compare,forinstance,thisdialogue-sonnetto,whichissimilarindesireandimage,butnotinembodiedreciprocity:
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysoftwhenthoumymusikemusikeplayst,VponthatblessedwoodwhosemotionsoundsWiththysweetfingerswhenthougentlyswayst,Thewiryconcordthatmineeareconfounds,DoIenuiethoseIackesthatnimbleleape,Tokissethetenderinwardofthyhand,Whilstmypoorelipswhichshouldthatharuestreape,Atthewoodsbouldnesbytheeblushingstand.Tobesotikledtheywouldchangetheirstate,Andsituationwiththosedancingchips,Orewhometheirfingerswalkewithgentlegate,Makingdeadwoodmoreblestthenliuinglips,SincesausieIackessohappyareinthis,Giuethemtheirfingers,methylipstokisse.Againstthemoredistancedobservationofthemalepersonainthisson-net,withitsobviouslyunrequitedyearning,anditsproposedparcellingoutoffavours,thesonnet-in-dialogueachievesthemeetingofbothfin-gersand‘liuinglips’astheconsequenceofitsspontaneouslymutualen-gagement.EverythingthatthePetrarchantraditionhasyearnedforoverthousandsofyears,whilemakingitadefiningconditionthatitshouldnotachievethatdesirewithinitsownbodyorinitsowntime,isachievedintheplay’sinterac-tion:words,touch,kiss,givenandtaken,‘thoumine,Ithine’(sonnet).Anditisachieved,notbydestroyingornegatingthePetrarchanbody,butbyinhabitingitafresh.ThevoicethatSidneybanishestothesongsofhissequence,Shakespearethedramatistincorporatesintothebodyofthesonnet,givingitthepowernotmerelytosay‘yes’,buttoconverse,ininteractivedialogue.Thesonnetisthusconstructedoutofaseriesofspeechactsinwhichtheconditional,thequestion,theresponseandthepleaarewovenintoafabricofever-closer,wittyengagement.Inhercommentaryonthismeeting,Whittiermixesacuteperceptive-nesswithadoggedinsistenceontheessentiallydisembodiednatureofthesonnetassuch.The‘encounter’sonnetmarksamoment,shecorrectlypointsout,inwhich‘voiceandfleshreciprocate’.Butsuchreciprocationishardlyanexampleof‘thesonnet’scorruptionintotheworldofsubstanceandtime’(‘TheSonnet’sBody’,).Iprefertothinkofitasanextensionofthemovement–tonallydifferent,tobesure–towardscarnalitythatMercutiorepresents:notadenialorcontaminationofthePetrarchanimpulse,butasignofitsactualengagement–initsElizabethanformsatanyrate–intimeandsubstance.ThesonnetwhichRomeoandJulietjointlycreatecallsforaction,signalledbythestagedirectionsintroducedvariouslybyalleditorssincePope,andunusuallyconsummatedbythe
Embodimentdoublekissattheend.Whittierpointsout(andShakespeareshowsonotheroccasions)thatthevoiceandthekissappeartobeincommensu-rable.Onenegatestheother,asweseeinBenedick’s‘Peace,Iwillstopyourmouth’(MuchAdoAboutNothing,..)andCressida’sambiguousinvitationtobekissedwhensheaskstobesilenced(TroilusandCressida,..).Butsuchincommensurabilityisinfactonlyapparentor,attheveryleast,paradoxical:thekissisnotsomuchthenegationofthevoiceastheculminationofitsdesiringpower;thevoiceisthepassagetothekiss.BenedickandBeatrice’skiss–thesignthatBenedickisnowa‘marriedman’–isinfactmadepossiblebytheir‘ownhandsagainst[their]hearts’(..)intheformofmutuallyreciprocatingsonnets.Thetheatreaudienceismadeprivytoatleastoneofthosesonnetsintrun-catedforminBeatrice’scomplexperformativeturnfrom‘maidenpride’to‘kindness’:Whatfireisinmineears?Canthisbetrue?StandIcondemnedforprideandscornsomuch?Contempt,farewell;andmaidenpride,adieu.Noglorylivesbehindthebackofsuch.AndBenedick,loveon.Iwillrequitethee,Tamingmywildhearttothylovinghand.Ifthoudostlove,mykindnessshallincitetheeTobindourlovesupinaholyband.Forothersaythoudostdeserve,andIBelieveitbetterthanreportingly.(MuchAdoAboutNothing,..–)BeatriceandBenedick’smutualengagementintheworldofthesonnet–despitetheirsharedironicalstancetowardsPetrarch–isdecisiveinbreakingtheirsolitaryposes.Theiralignmentofhandsandheartsre-mindsusthatthesonnetisaformofaction,somethingproducedthroughandbythebodytowardstheunionofbothbodiesandsouls.IfBeatriceandBenedickrequirethepublicationofsonnetswrittenseparatelytothebelovedtoattesttofeelingsthatneithercanfinallydeny,nopriorsonnetsarewrittenorpublishedbyRomeoorJuliet.RomeostumblesintoakindofPetrarchanmodeinthegardeninActScene,butJulietquicklycutshimshort,confirmingherloveandeschewingvowsassomethingthat,sincetheyalwayscontainthepossibilityoffalsehood,shewouldratherdowithout.Thedialogue-sonnetintheprevioussceneandtheoverheardunburdeningofJuliet’sheartfromthebalconyshort-circuitsawholeworldofconventionalnegotiations.Theconventionality
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysofsuchnegotiationsdoesnotrenderthemsuperficialornugatory,how-ever.Onthecontrary.IfJulietispleasedtobeabletocircumventthenecessarypossibilityoffalsehoodthatliesinthevowasspeechact,sheisalsodisturbedbythesuddennesswithwhichconventionalriteshavebeendispensedwith:FainwouldIdwellonform,fain,faindenyWhatIhavespoke;butfarewell,compliment.Dostthouloveme?Iknowthouwiltsay‘Ay’,AndIwilltakethyword.Yetifthouswear’stThoumaystprovefalse.Atlovers’perjuries,Theysay,Jovelaughs.OgentleRomeo,Ifthoudostlove,pronounceitfaithfully;Orifthouthink’stIamtooquicklywon,I’llfrown,andbeperverse,andsaytheenay,Sothouwiltwoo;butelse,notfortheworld....Lady,byyonderbless`edmoonIvow,Thattipswithsilverallthesefruit-treetops–Oswearnotbythemoon,th’inconstantmoonThatmonthlychangesinhercircledorb,Lestthatthyloveprovelikewisevariable.WhatshallIswearby?Donotswearatall,Orifthouwilt,swearbythygraciousself,Whichisthegodofmyidolatry,AndI’llbelievethee.Ifmyheart’sdearlove–Well,donotswear.AlthoughIjoyinthee,Ihavenojoyofthiscontracttonight.Itistoorash,toounadvised,toosudden,ToolikethelightningwhichdothceasetobeEreonecansayitlightens.(RomeoandJuliet,..–)Comingsosoonaftertheirsharedsonnet,thisexchangeconveysthealienationoftheusualprocessesoferoticnegotiationthatisrehearsedsoincessantlyinthesonnets.Caughtbetweenadesiretodwellontheformthatgivesapublicstabilitytosuch‘giddy’situationsandtherecognitionthatitistoolateforsuch‘compliment’,Julietdisplaysanunerring,ifdis-concertingforherself,understandingofthepeculiarlogicthatunderliestheperformativesofloveandthepersonalvulnerabilitywhichinformsthem.JulietdaresmakeRomeo’sanswerforhim,inparttoprecludethepossibilityofdenial,butalsotoforestalltheverypossibilityoffalsehood
Embodimentthatlieswithineveryassent,ominouslysignalledbyhisunfortunatede-cisiontoswearbythemoon.Evenhersuggestionthatheshouldswearbyhimself,thesubjectofhernewidolatry,isquicklybrushedasideintherealisationthatswearingundersuchcircumstancesisatbestredundant,whileatworstitopensupthepossibilityof‘infelicity’.WhateverRomeoandJuliethavetosaytoeachotherasloversinthebalconyscenehasalreadybeensaidattheballandhasbeensignalledbythereciprocityoftheirkisses.Thosekisses,whichfollowJuliet’sde-mureinvitation,actastheculminatingmomentofasonnetthatsheco-createsalmostwithouteffortwithhernewlover.Butthatsonnetisunablecompletelytocontaintheirsought-afterreciprocity.Desireburstsforthagain,notonlyinthesubsequentencounterinthegarden,butintheimmediatepassageofanew,butnowinterrupted,sonnet.Thesharedquatorzainintheearliersceneisthusfollowedimmediatelybytheini-tiatingquatrainofanew,dialogicalsonnet.Andinanotherconstitutiveparadox,theadmired‘littleroom’ofthesonnetisshowntobebuiltuponalack:itsperfectstructureoffourteenlinesstrivestowardsafifteenth,inwhichthesonneteermaysay,withRomeo:‘Thusfrommylips,bythinemysinispurged.’Thisquiddityofcarnalunion,denotedthroughatheatricaldeixisthatremainsoutsidethesonnet’s‘numbers’butwhichneverthelessinformsthemcompletely,iswhatbothJulietandMercutioemphasiseatothermomentsoftheplay.Butsuchquiddityishardlysufficient.Romeo’striumphisnomorethanthebeginningofanothersonnet,inwhichdesiregathersitselfuponceagain.Theancientconceitofthestolenkissis,however,turnedbyJulietintoareflectionontheresidualconventionalityofRomeo’ssolicitation.WordandfleshcometogetherinadifferentwayinJuliet’schargethathekissesbythebook.Thisisareminder,perhaps,thatthereisnokissbutbytherepresenta-tionsofthecultural.Butitisalso,inamovementof‘love’stransgression’(..),thesignofherdesireforalessbookishformofconsummation.Bothofthesenotionsareencapsulatedbythesummonsofthemotherandthenameofthefather,whichabruptlybreaksoffthesecondsonnet,justasitlooksasifitstermsaretobedeterminedbyJuliet,ratherthanRomeo:Madam,yourmothercravesawordwithyou.(Julietdepartstohermother)Whatishermother?Marry,bachelor,Hermotheristheladyofthehouse,Andagoodlady,andawiseandvirtuous.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysInursedherdaughterthatyoutalkedwithal.Itellyou,hethatcanlayholdofherShallhavethechinks.(aside)IssheaCapulet?(..–)AfterthemutualintimacyofthesonnetJulietissuddenlydistancedbythethird-personpronounandthealienatingpropername.ThetiesoftheworldhavebeenkeptatbaybecausebothRomeoandJulietaremasked,andbecauseneitherofthemknowstheother’s(divisive)propername.Theycanforgethereciprocityrepresentedbythesonnetonlyundertheplayfulanonymityofthecommonname,throughthefictionalidenti-tiesof‘pilgrim,saint,palmer’,bywhichthenetworksofrelationshipthattiethemtotheirfamilies’namesanddistancethemfromthoseofothersaresuspended.TheencounterexemplifiesastheatrebothSidney’simploringdesireforconsummationwithStellaasafictionalidentity:‘IamnotI,pitiethetaleofme’(sonnet)andthedesireinShakespeare’sSonnetstoloosenthetiesofthepropername.Idiscusstheroleofnamesinchapter.SuchalossofoneselfinafictionalworldispreciselywhatJuliet’s‘pity’inthesharedsonnetallows,althoughthemomentofreciprocatingidentitylossthattheloversachieveissoonoverwhelmedbyarealitythathasalwaysbeenlurkingontheoutskirtsoftheirprivatemeeting.TybalthasrecognisedRomeoevenbeforehemeetsJuliet(‘This,byhisvoice,shouldbeaMontague’(..)),andhisdescriptionoftheinternalconflictcausedbytheclashbetweenhisobediencetohisuncleandhisown‘wilful’angerominouslyframesthe‘differentgreeting’ofRomeoMontagueandJulietCapulet:PatienceperforcewithwilfulcholermeetingMakesmyfleshtrembleintheirdifferentgreeting.Iwillwithdraw,butthisintrusionshall,Nowseemingsweet,converttobitt’restgall.(..–)Theencountersonnet,createdequallybyRomeoandJulietinadi-alogicalfusionofvoicesanddesires,isframedbythetwoprologuesonnetswhosecommunalvoicesactratherdifferently.BythebeginningofAct,thevoiceofthecompanythatspeaksthroughthePrologueismerelyimpliedratherthanalludedtodirectlythroughtheuseoftheItneedstobenotedthat‘dialogical’isnotbeingusedinitsBakhtiniansensehere.Indeed,itssenseistheveryoppositeofwhatBakhtinmeantbytheword.Noconflictedorcompetingsocialvoices,noheteroglossia,arereleasedinthissonnet.Itspurposeistheveryopposite:tofusetwovoicesintoasinglemonologicalform.
Embodimentfirst-personplural.Thosefourteenlinesthusappeartobenomorethanaconvenientvehiclefortheredundantsummaryofanarrativethatwouldhavebeenwellknowninanycase.But,comingsosoonaftertheun-usualsonnetasvehicleofreciprocityinActScene,itsroleismorecomplex:Nowolddesiredothinhisdeathbedlie,Andyoungaffectiongapestobehisheir.Thatfairforwhichlovegroanedforandwoulddie,WithtenderJulietmatched,isnownotfair.NowRomeoisbelovedandlovesagain,Alikebewitch`edbythecharmoflooks;Buttohisfoesupposedhemustcomplain,Andshesteallove’ssweetbaitfromfearfulhooks.Beingheldafoe,hemaynothaveaccessTobreathesuchvowsasloversusetoswear,Andsheasmuchinlove,hermeansmuchlessTomeethernewbelov`edanywhere.Butpassionlendsthempower,timemeans,tomeet,Temp’ringextremitieswithextremesweet.CleverlyrepresentingthetransformationofRomeo’sdesireintermsoftheconflictsofthesocietyatlarge,includingitsgenerationaldifferences,thissonnetbothexplainstheimpossibilityofconventionalPetrarchandiscoursesinsuchasocietyandconveysinitsstructurethereciprocityachievedbyRomeoandJulietinthepreviousscene,evenasitexpressesthesocialbarrierstosuchunion.Romeo‘lovesagain’,butthistimeheisalso‘beloved’.Andifhenowhasto‘complain’tohis‘foesupposed’,sheinturnmust‘steallove’ssweetbaitfromfearfulhooks’.Juliet’ssexualde-sireandagencyhereinvertsPetrarchanstereotypesoffemalesilenceandpassivity.Whereasthesonnetsuccinctlyconveysthemutualityofthelovers’affection,italsorecognisestheunequalfreedomthatmaleandfe-malelovershavetopursuetheirdesires.TheideologicalforcesthatdenyRomeotheconventionalmeanstoexpresshislovetrapthefemale–‘asmuchinlove’–inamoreconcretekindofdomesticconfinement:‘hermeansmuchless/Tomeethernewbelov`edanywhere’.ThePetrarchanCf.JohnDonne’s‘TheBait’,andAntonyandCleopatra,..–::Givememineangle.We’lltoth’river.There,Mymusicplayingfaroff,IwillbetrayTawny-finnedfishes.MybendedhookshallpierceTheirslimyjaws,andasIdrawthemupI’llthinkthemeveryoneanAntony,Andsay‘Ahha,you’recaught!’
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysmode,of‘complaint’and‘vows’,isthusrepresentedasarealratherthanamerelyliteraryresponsetolove,caughtintheexigenciesofaparticularsocialandpoliticalcontext.Asithappens,themutualityofthelovers’nowseparateddesire–represented,letusnotforget,throughasonnet–rendersthatmodeofpreparatorynegotiationunnecessary,astheirre-ciprocating‘passionlendsthempower...tomeet’.Significant,too,isthesonnet’srepeateduseofthemostcommonepithetforreciprocal,sensualloveintheSonnets–‘sweet’–especiallyintheunionoftheclosingcoupletrhyme:‘meet/sweet’.IfthesonnetthatactsastheProloguetotheplayasawholeencapsulatesthewell-knownnarrativefromwhichthedramaisderived,thisonebothrepresentsthereciprocityoftheloversandplacesPetrarchandiscoursewithinanactive,materialandsocialcontext.Fromthestagedrepresentationofactivefemaledesireandembodiedreciprocity,Inowturntothewaysinwhichtheembodimentofthesonnetonstagemayworkagainstreciprocity,enactingtheagency,eventhroughsilence,ofthefemale‘no’.MuchrecentfeministcriticismofthePetrarchansonnettraditionhasremarkedonthedegreetowhichtheaddresseeofthesonnet,despitehertraditionidealisation–borderingattimesonidolatry–isinfactreducedbythetraditiontoasilent,passiveand,inthecaseoftheblazon,dismembered,object.NancyVickershaspersuasivelyarguedthatthePetrarchanreducesthebelovedtosilenceandfragmentsherabsentbodyinordertoconstitutethefullnessofhisownsubjectivity.‘SilencingDianaisanemblematicgesture’,Vickersargues,itsuppressesavoice,anditcastsgenerationsofwould-beLaurasinarolepredicateduponthemutenessofitsplayer.AmodernActaeonaffirminghimselfaspoetcannotpermitOvid’sangrygoddesstospeakherdispleasureanddenyhisvoice;hisspeechrequireshersilence.Similarly,hecannotallowhertodismemberhisbody;insteadherepeatedly,althoughreverently,scattersherthroughouthisscatteredrhymes.PhilipSidney’sAstrophilandStellaseemstoconfirmVickers’sargumentinsofarasthesonnetsofthesequencedoinfactassumeStella’ssilenceasaconditionforAstrophil’sconsiderablevolubility.AlthoughmanyofthesonnetsareaddressedtoStella,andherphysicalpresenceisalludedtoinsome(themostwell-knownbeingnumber,‘SoftbutheresheNancyVickers,‘DianaDescribed:ScatteredWomanandScatteredRhymes’,CriticalInquiry,(–),–().
Embodimentcomes’(line)),sheisgivenavoiceinnoneofthem,despitethefactthatthecommentsofAstrophel’scourtlydetractorsappearquitefrequentlyinbothdirectandindirectspeech(sonnet).OnoccasionStella’sremarksarealludedtoasindirectdiscourse(‘SheinwhoseeyesLove,thoughunfelt,dothshine,/SweetsaidthatItrueloveinhershouldfind’(sonnet,lines–)),andinthefamous‘grammar’sonnet()herdoublerejection‘No,no’isturnedintoasophisticaltriumphbytheconvention‘ThatinonespeechtwoNegativesaffirm’(line).Mattersaredifferentwiththesongs,however,whereStellaisgiven,comparativelyspeakingatleast,aquiteconsiderablevoiceandpresence.AlthoughitrepresentsStella’sdirectspeech,theFourthSongdoesnomorethanre-enactthetrapofsonnet.Shesaysnomorethan‘No,no,no,no,myDeare,letbe’,ninetimes,thelastofwhichistwisted,viaaturninthedirectionofAstrophil’sargument,intoanaffirmationofloveratherthanitsdenial.ThesongisinfactnomorethanamoreelaboratelycleverenactmentoftheprocessofsilencingandmanipulationtowhichVickersdrawsourattention.AsareflectionofherownautonomyStella’sparticipationservesherworsethansilencewould.ThepresenceofhervoiceintheEighthSongis,however,different.NotonlydoesStellaspeakwithauthorityandsomecompassioninthissong,butSidneyalsoembodiesherresponseastheautonomousactionsandspeechofafullyhumanagent:Therehishandsintheirspeech,faineWouldhavemadetongue’slanguageplaine;Butherhandshishandsrepelling,Gaverepulseallgraceexcelling.Thenshespake;herspeechwassuch,Asnotearesbuthartdidtouch:Whilesuchwiseshelovedenied,Asyetloveshesignified.‘Astrophil’saydshe,‘myloveCeaseintheseeffectstoprove:Nowbestill,yetstillbeleeveme,Thygriefmorethandeathwouldgrieveme.Andsoshegoeson,uninterrupted,forsixmorequatrains.NotonlydoesthisrepresentationofStella’sresponseuncharacteristicallyembodyIamignoringthepossibilitythatsonnetisinfactspokenbyStellaherself.ForanintriguingessayonthispossibilityseeJonathanCrew,HiddenDesigns:TheCriticalProfessionandRenaissanceLiterature(NewYorkandLondon:Methuen,),ff.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysherinamodeotherthanthepacifyinganddismemberingmodesofepideixis–‘herhandshishandsrepelling’ishardlythestuffofcon-ventionalblazon–butherspeechalsosilencesbothAstrophelandthepoet.Thesongendswiththepoetreflectingonbothhisandthehero’senforcedmuteness.Thissilencingiseffectedbytheactiveintervention–therepresentedaction–ofthewomanwhointentionallyabsentsherselfandbreaksbothheartandverse‘withwhatshehaddoneandspoken’:Therewithallawayshewent,Leavinghimsopassionrent,Withwhatshehaddoneandspoken,Thattherewithmysongisbroken.Stellaspeaksinonefurthersong.IntheEleventh(andlast)sheistheini-tiatorratherthantherespondentintheexchange.AsintheEighthSong,theEleventhrepresentsherasapersontrappedwithinasetofsocialandeconomicconstraintsratherthanasthedisembodiedfragmentsofapo-eticconvention.Furthermore,herinterventionbringsthesequencetoanend.ThereiteratedscatteringwhichVickersremarksastheconditionofPetrarchismknowsnoend:itisendlesslyandnecessarilyrepeatable,aslongastheaddresseeremainsmuteandaslongasherdaungerislimitedtothecoldheartascribedtoherbythepoetandasimplereported‘no’ofrejection.Petrarchismasapurelypoeticconventionknowsnoothernar-rative:itfeedsonthenecessityofaneternal‘no’.ThismonotonyisonereasonwhyMarotticansaythatapproachedpurelyformalisticallyearlymodernsonnetsappeartobepeculiarlycontentless.Butbyintroducinganembodiedresponsefromthebeloved,SidneyopensthewholecycletowhatBakhtincallsthe‘event’oftheutterance:aresponsethatbearsthetracesofacomplexsetofsocialrelationshipsandconflicts,ratherthanmerelysignallingthefragmentationofanepideicticobject.Stellaisnotmerelyallowedto‘speakherdispleasureanddenyhisvoice’.Thefactofherresponseembroilsbothherselfandtheeroticrelationshipwithinasocialcontext.Other,publiclypressingfactors–thesocialpres-suresof‘tyrantHonour’orthefamilyjealousiesof‘lowts’with‘Arguseyes’(EleventhSong)–underlieherrejection,ratherthanthenecessarybecausealways-alreadywrittenprojectionoffemininedaunger.ThefinalactofLove’sLabour’sLostembodiesonstagethesituationde-scribedinthesongsofAstrophilandStella,revealingthatonthephysicalMikhailBakhtin,SpeechGenresandOtherLateEssays,trans.VernW.McGee,ed.CarylEmersonandMichaelHolquist(Austin:UniversityofTexasPress,).
Embodimentplatformofthetheatrethesituationofaddressandreceptionofthesonnetisinescapable.Nolongerafragmentedandmutedabsence,thewomenareablenotonlytovoicetheirdispleasurebutalsotocausethedisintegrationofthesonnetitself.Theirswitchingofmasksandto-kensshowshowimportantitisforadeclarationofPetrarchanlovetofinditspropermark:itispreciselybyturningtheanonymity,theblanknessorfacelessnessthattheconventionimposesuponitsaddressee,againsttheloversinacontextofembodiedactionthatthewomenareabletoex-posethehollownessofeachcourtier’sclaimstodoteonaspecificwomanwho,bydefinition,mustsurpassallothersinbeautyanddesirability.ThePrincessandherwomenrevealandrejectintheirmaskingandswap-pingoffavourspreciselytheparadoxicallydisembodyingaffectsofthePetrarchanepideicticpraisefor‘ahand,afoot,aface,aneye,/Agait,astate,abrow,abreast,awaist,/Aleg,alimb’(..–).Theyconfrontsuchdismembermentwiththeactivecorporealityoftheirownbodies,whichareabletotrapthewritersandrecitersofsonnetsintoenactingwhathasalwaysbeentheconditionoftheirwritingandtheirpassion:asBironputsit,‘we,/Followingthesigns,woo’dbutthesignofshe’(..–).Byforcingeachofthelordstorepeattheconventionaldec-larationsofloveandpraisethatwereexpressedintheiroriginalsonnetsdirectlytoacompletelydifferentwoman,thewomenthemselvesshowtheimportanceofthesituationofaddress:theirownassumedfaceless-ness,intheformoftheirmasks,emphasisesboththesignalsignificance,indeedthereality,oftheirfacesandalsoexposesandnegatestheirtextualeffacementbyPetrarchanpraise.ThemosttellingenactmentofthepowerofthewomenliterallytobreakthesonnetagainsttheirbodiesratherthanbeincorporatedintoitsdismemberingtextualityoccurswhentheyrefusetoallowMotetosetthetermsofthecourtiers’eroticaddress.Intheactualencounterbetweenbodyandtextthewomenareable,simplybyturningtheirbacksonthemen,torenderliteral,andthusnonsensical,theabstracthyperboleoftherepresentativesonnetthatMotehasconned:Allhail,therichestbeautiesontheearth!(aside)Beautiesnoricherthanrichtaffeta.Aholyparcelofthefairestdames–(Theladiesturntheirbackstohim)Thateverturnedtheir–backstomortalviews.‘Theireyes’,villain,‘theireyes’!Thateverturnedtheireyestomortalviews.Out...
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysTrue,outindeed!Outofyourfavours,heavenlyspirits,vouchsafeNottobehold–‘Oncetobehold’,rogue!Oncetobeholdwithyoursun-beam`edeyes–Withyoursun-beam`edeyes–Theywillnotanswertothatepithet.Youwerebestcallit‘daughter-beam`ed’eyes.Theydonotmarkme,andthatbringsmeout.Isthisyourperfectness?Begone,yourogue!(..–)Theactionsofthewomeninthisencounteraremoredramaticallytellingthantheconsciouslyanti-Petrarchanstanceofsonnet.Inthesonnetthepoethastotellusthathis‘Mistreswhensheewalkestreadsontheground’.Thedramatistontheotherhandcancountontheactors’actualembodimentofsuchdown-to-earthmaterialitytonegatethepowerofthetexttocreateandcontroltheobjectandsituationofitsaddress.Despitethesonnets’celebrationoftheirowncapacity,notsimplytoperpetuatetheimageofthebelovedbeyondtheravagesoftime,butalsotoconstitutehimorherthroughtheircreativeforce,thissceneremindsusoftheothersideofthatthought,evidentintheanxietyofthesonnetstotheyoungmanofrank,thatasonnetneedstobe‘marked’forittobegrantedthepowerthatitproclaimsforitself.Thewomen’snegationofboththesonnet’sdescriptiveandperformativeforcebyturningtheirbacksonitthusenactsmoreeconomicallythananyotheractionintheplaythesuggestionthatcourtpoetrywasprimarilyaformofsocialaction,andthat‘whatdistinguishestheindividualfromthetype...arosefromthesituation,notthewords’.‘Ajest’sprosperityliesintheear/Ofhimthathearsit,neverinthetongue/Ofhimthatmakesit’(..–),RosalinepointedlyremindsBiron.Sherefersnotonlytotheverydifferentcontextofreceptionandaddresstowhichsheaskshimtocommithimselfby‘visit[ing]thespeechlesssick’(..),butalsotothewomen’srefusaltograntanyprosperitytotheKingandhiscourtiers’wooing.Thistouchesthebroaderrelationshipbetweendramatist/actorandtheatreaudience.Thepowerofthewomentodictatethetermsofaddressandrecep-tionispresentedverystrongly.TheparadoxicalrationalisationbywhichBironseekstopintheblameforhisownandhiscompanions’perjuryonthewomenthemselves(‘Therefore,ladies,/Ourlovebeingyours,theJohnStevens,MusicandPoetryintheEarlyTudorCourt(London:Methuen,),.
Embodimenterrorthatlovemakes/Islikewiseyours’(..–))isgivenshortshriftbyaPrincesswhoinsistsonthewomen’scollectivepowertodeterminethetermsofany‘world-without-endbargain’:Wehavereceivedyourlettersfulloflove,Yourfavourstheambassadorsoflove,AndinourmaidencouncilratedthemAtcourtship,pleasantjest,andcourtesy,Asbombastandasliningtothetime.ButmoredevoutthanthisinourrespectsHavewenotbeen,andthereforemetyourlovesIntheirownfashion,likeamerriment.(..–)Ifoneweretolookatthesonnetspennedbythecourtiersoutsidetheembodiedcontextofsuchexchangeandrebuttal(asonewould,forexample,ifoneencounteredBiron’ssonnetforthefirsttimeinThePassionatePilgrim),onewouldhardlyguessatthewaysinwhichtheirperformativeanddescriptiveforceisbrokenbythecorporealpresenceofthewomen–atthewayinwhichtheirconventionalblazonmaybeoutfacedbythedeliberatefacelessnessthatthewomenassumetowardsit.AsimilarprocessofoutfacingthePetrarchanaddressisenactedinTwelfthNight,intheencounterbetweenViolaasgo-betweenandOliviaasunapproachablebeloved.Thatscene,inwhichOliviadeliberatelymakesherselfindistinguishablefromhersimilarlyveiledgentlewomen–anechooftheassumedanonymityofthewomeninActofLove’sLabour’sLost–makesitclearthatasonnethastofinditsproperad-dressasaconditionofbothsuccessandsense.ThisisborneoutbytheabruptstayinViola’srecitationafteronlyoneline,asitdawnsonherthatthesentiments,thoughhackneyed,arenotmerelyconventionalortextual.Tohaveanysensetheyneedtobeaddressedtothepersonforwhomtheywerewritten.Asubstitute,asOliviapretendstobe,willnotdo:Thehonourableladyofthehouse,whichisshe?Speaktome,Ishallanswerforher.Yourwill.Mostradiant,exquisite,andunmatchablebeauty.–Iprayyou,tellmeifthisbetheladyofthehouse,forIneversawher.Iwouldbeloathtocastawaymyspeech,forbesidesthatitisexcellentlywellpenned,Ihavetakengreatpainstoconit.Goodbeauties,letmesustainnoscorn;Iamvery’countable,eventotheleastsinisterusage.(TwelfthNight,..–)
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysWhatisatstakehereistheveryconceptofloveitself.Fortheasymmetricalnatureofthepossibilityofsubstitutionindicatesthatwearemid-waybetweenapurelyimpersonalnegotiationandthefull-bloodedidealofromanticandcompanionateunion.ItisperfectlyinorderforCesariotoarticulateOrsino’sdesires,butasimilarunderstudycannotreplacethebelovedatwhomsuchdesiresaredirected.Toaddressthepetitiontoasubstitute,thesubstituteher/himselfsuggests,wouldbeto‘castaway’the‘speech’,towastebothlabourandspirit.ViolamanoeuvresOliviaintorevealingherfacetocreatetheveryconditionofpossibilityofher‘penned’and‘conned’speech.Thesituationembodiesanaporiathat,asFinemanhasdemonstratedandElizabethanpoetsconstantlyreflect,marksthelimitsofepideixis:‘Whatmaywordssay,orwhatmaywordsnotsay/Wheretruthitselfemustspeaklikeflatterie?’(Sidney,AstrophilandStella,sonnet).Intheabstractcontextofprinttheinadequacyofwordstotheirobjectisen-tirelygrammatical.Wecannottellwhetherthesignifiedsgeneratedbythepoemareorarenotadequatetotheirreferent.Atmostwemaybepersuaded,asFinemenarguesofthe‘darklady’sonnets,ofthepostmod-ernaxiomthatwordsandimagesareessentiallyincompatible,thatanyeyeisdoomedtobe‘perjured’,andthattheveryspeakingoflanguageatteststoanessentialinadequationbetweensignifierandreferent.Thereferentsimplydisappearsinthisapparatusor,asStephenBoothhasputitinadifferent,thoughrelated,theoreticalcontext,‘thegrammati-caldominates;afterall,whatareaderbeholdsisnotthespeakerofthepoembutthepoemitself’.Butwhathappenswhenthegrammaticalisbroughtintocontactwiththereferential,intheformofbothspeakerandaddressee,ashappensinthetheatre?Orelse,ifwefollowtheinjunctionsofcriticswhowishtokeepalivethethoughtofhistoricalandphysicalcontextsofaddressandreception,inthereadingofsonnetstoanaudiencewhichincludesthebeloved?Insuchacontextthedoublereferenceofwordssuchas‘love’–bothasthefeelingexpressedbythepoetandasthebelovedtowhomthepoemisaddressed–wouldbepalpable,embodiedbeforeoureyes.Thesupposedinadequacyoftheconceptualtothereferentialcouldnotsimplybesettledinadvance.Twoissuesareatstakehere:notsimplyStephenBooth,AnEssayonShakespeare’sSonnets(NewHaven,CTandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,),.ForadiscussionofthispossibilityinrelationtoAstrophilandStella,seeClarkHulse,‘Stella’sWit:PenelopeRichasReaderofSidney’sSonnets’,inRewritingtheRenaissance:TheDiscourseofSexualDifferenceinEarlyModernEurope,ed.MargaretW.Fergusonetal.(ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress,),–.
Embodimentthephilosophicalproblemattheheartofallepideixis,namely,thenowwell-knownproblemofdifferencebetweenthatwhichisspokenandthatwhichisspokenabout,butafurtherdifference,analysedfrequentlybyRobertWeimann,betweenthepositionsofpowerandauthoritythatmarkthepersonrepresentingandthefigurerepresented.InLove’sLabour’sLosttheasymmetryofpowerrelationsisembodiedintheunequalrelationshipthatexistsbetweenplayerandaudience.BoththemasqueofRussiansperformedbytheKingofNavarreandhiscourtiersandthesorrypageantoftheNineWorthiesofferedbythelearnedbourgeoisiearedashed‘likeaChristmascomedy’(..)becauseofthesocialpowerthatliesinsuchspectatorstodenigratetheperformativeillusionandthehumandignityofthe‘comedian’.SonnetofSpenser’sAmorettiexpressesthevulnerabilityofthePetrarchanloverpreciselyintermsofsuchdifferencesofpower,bywhichthe‘ydlespectator’indifferentlyabuseshercapacitytodestroyperformanceandperformeralike:OfthisworldsTheatreinwhichwestay,MylouelyketheSpectatorydlysitsbeholdingmethatallthepageantsplay,disguysingdiuerslymytroubledwits.SometimesIioywhengladoccasionfits,andmaskinmyrthlyketoaComedy:soonafterwhenmyioytosorrowflits,IwaileandmakemywoesaTragedy.Yetshebeholdingmewithconstanteye,delightsnotinmymerthnorruesmysmart:butwhenIlaughshemocks,andwhenIcryshelaughes,andhardenseuermoreherhart.Whatthencanmoueher?ifnormerthnormone,sheisnowoman,butasencelessestone.Buttheinvocationofthestagehereispurelyconventional:itdoeslittlemorethanextendPetrarchancommonplacesinstocktheatricalterms.Itistheworkofapoetwhomerelyfindsatheatricalmetaphoruseful.Shakespeare’streatmentoftheimmensepowerofthespectatorandconversevulnerabilityoftheplayerinhissonnetscombinesanacutesocialconsciousnesswithlivedtheatricalconcreteness.Hereissonnet:SeeRobertWeimann,‘Shakespeare(De)Canonized:ConflictingUsesof“Authority”and“Representation”’,NewLiteraryHistory,.(Autumn),–‘RepresentationandPerformance:AuthorityinShakespeare’sTheater’,PMLA,.(May),–;‘Bi-foldAuthorityinShakespeare’sTheater’,ShakespeareQuarterly,.(Winter),–.ThePoeticalWorksofSpenser,ed.J.C.SmithandE.deSelincourt(London:OxfordUniversityPress,).IowethesuggestiontolookatthissonnettoMichaelSpiller.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysanvnperfectactoronthestage,Whowithhisfeareisputbesideshispart,Orsomefiercethingrepleatwithtoomuchrage,Whosestrengthsabondanceweakenshisowneheart;SoIforfeareoftrust,forgettosay,Theperfectceremonyoflouesright,Andinmineownelouesstrengthseemetodecay,Ore-charg’dwithburthenofmineownelouesmight:Oletmybooksbethentheeloquence,Anddombpresagersofmyspeakingbrest,Whopleadeforloue,andlookforrecompence,Morethenthattongethatmorehathmoreexprest.Olearnetoreadwhatsilentlouehathwrit,TohearewiteiesbelongstolouesfinewihtThenegotiationoftheunequalpowerrelationsthatShakespearein-vokesbyreferringtohimselfasan‘vnperfectactoronthestage’ismoretellingthanthestaticasymmetryofactionandresponsetowhichSpenserrefers.Farfrombeingamerelyliteraryconceit,theunequalrelationshipofspectatorandactor,Petrarchansuitorandbeloved,includesalmostinsurmountableclassandeconomicdifferences.Suchdifferencesinformatleastafifthofthepoemsaddressedtothemanofrankbythepoetandplayer.Theplayer-poet’slowlysocialpositionismorethanoncecon-veyedintermsofhisvassalageandthedisgracethathismerepresenceornamemaybringuponhisbelovedpatron.UnlikeSpenser’spoem,Shakespeare’sdisplaysnotmerelythefearormockerythatputsthedis-regardedactorbesidehispart,butalsothegrotesquenatureofhisownfeelings,whicharefelttotransgressbothproprietyandexpression:‘somefiercethingrepleatwithtoomuchrage’.Inthisstateofimpotentpower,ofeloquentsilence,negotiationwithandtothebeloved’sfacewouldprovetoomuch;itwouldbeinadequateandimpossible.Ifboththesilenceofthespectatorandhisowndumb-struckstage-frightaremarksofhisexposureandvulnerabilityitmightseemparadox-icalthattheplayer-poetseekstoresolvesuchmaterialinequalitythroughanotherkindofsilence:thesilenceofthewrittenword.Thepoliticalandculturalinequalityoftherelationshipbetweenaddresserandaddresseeisreflectedintheasymmetricalwaysinwhichsilenceandspeecharedistributedacrossplayerandaudience.Thestage-frightparadoxicallyexpressedintheopeninglinearisesfromtheplayer-poet’sacutesenseofvulnerabilityandinadequacy,bothas‘vnperfectactor’andonaccountofthesociallyinappropriatestrengthofhispassionforthesilent,distantpatron.Whereasthesilenceofstage-frightisasignoftheplayer-poet’s
Embodimentsocialinadequacy,theabsenceofthepatron’svoicefromthepoemisamuteexpressionofthelatter’soverwhelmingauthority.Thesonnetowesitsexistencetothatfactthat,asapoet,theplayer,however‘vnperfect’,isabletomakethatsilencespeak:throughthemuteeloquenceofthewrittenword.Byurgingthepatrontowithdrawtothemoreprivatespaceofthepage,andalsobyenactingsuchawithdrawalthroughthepoemitself,theplayer-poethopestobeablecreateamutualspaceinwhichthe‘injuriousdistance’(sonnet),imposedbyhisinappropriatetheatricalityandhisplaceinthetheatreassocialinstitution,maybediminished.Eloquenceis,unusually,herethesourceofimpotenceratherthanasignofaccomplishment,andthepoemitselfisaparadox-icallyeloquentpleatobeallowedto‘leaueoutdifference’(sonnet)bymovingintoaprivatespherewiththebelovedaspoetratherthanastongue-tiedplayer.Onlyviatheeloquentsilenceofwriting,whichmatchesthepowerfullysignificantsilenceofthepatron,willplayer-poetbeabletotakeupalessabjectandexposedposition.Itisinordertoachievethisconsummationthatthespeaker(whointheworldofthepoemdoesnot(yet)abandontheexposedroleofplayer)resortsratherdesperatelytoaseriesofperformatives:‘Oletmybooks....Olearnetoread’.Throughtheseillocutionaryactsthebelovedisurgedtonegatethedifferencesinrankandlove–differenceshistoricallyexemplifiedbythepublicdistanceofstageandspectator–inthesupposedlyundiffer-entiatedexchangeofwrittentexts.Thewholepoemisbuiltonaseriesofparadoxeswhichsuggestthatthe‘perfectceremonyoflouesright’liesinthewillingnessofthebeholderto‘hearewit[with]eyes’ratherthaninanyformalfeaturesofanypartic-ularaddressorbehaviour.ThisisatellinginversionofShakespeare’shabitualinvocationtohisearlyaudiences,inplaysasdiverseasAMidsummerNight’sDreamandHenryV,toseewiththeirears.Thepoeticmoveattemptstotranscendthecorporealityofthebody,negatingtheemotionalandpoliticalrealityofthesituationofaddress.Inthedeftdefinitionof‘louesfinewiht[wit]’inthefinallineitalsoconstitutesalessonbythepoettothebelovedontheartofreading.Thefinalcoupletthuspresumestoinstructthebelovedonhowtoattendtotheletter’sexpressivesilenceratherthanthesocialsituatednessofthe‘speakingbrest’which,forsocialandpoliticalreasons.thesonnetsremindus,maybyitsverypresence‘prophane’theyoungman’s‘sweetbelouedname’(sonnet).Themovefromspokenaddresstowrittenword,therefore,Iexploretherelationshipbetweenprivacyandtheatricalityinthesonnetsinthenextchapter.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysisanattempttotranscendthesociallymarkeddifferencesofvoicesandbodiesinamaterialencounter(to‘leaueoutdifference’),anditisthedaringofthissonnettosuggestthatloveconsistsinthe‘wit’that‘read[s]whatsilentlouehathwrit’andso‘heare[s]wit[with]eyes’.ReturningnowtotheencounterbetweenOliviaandViola,wecanbe-gintounderstandsomethingoftherenegotiationofpowerrelationsthatthisscenerepresents.Viola’sfearlessness,despiteherclaimthatsheis‘verycountable’,inherallottedrolebreaksthroughtheveil,literalandmetaphorical,thatOliviaerectsbetweenherselfandViola/Cesario’seroticovertures.Thefirstobstacleisbasedonbloodandclass.Thisisevidentinthereferencetoher‘sauciness’(..)andlackof‘courtesy’(..)andthedeliberatelyslightingquestion‘Areyouacomedian?’(..).Viola’sresponseisdeftlyambiguous,deflectingtheinsultingal-lusiontothelowlyprofessionoftheplayer,whileinthesamebreathallud-ingtothemysteryofthedoubletheatricalrolethatsheplaysasOrsino’sunderstudyandastheboyCesario:‘No,bymyprofoundheart:andyet,bytheveryfangsofmalice,Iswear,IamnotthatIplay’(..–).Violathusembodiesthetensionthatisevidentinsonnetbetweentheculturalanderoticvulnerabilityofsonneteeraspetitioner/player,andthepowerofthepetitionitselfoverthebeloved.Thepowerofthelatteriscompoundedinthisinstancebythepetitionerher/himselftakingonsomeofthealoofmysteryofthePetrarchanbeloved.Furthermore,un-likethesituationsinLove’sLabour’sLost,thepositionofplayer,protagonistoffeigning,isanenablingratherthanconstrainingone:‘WhatIam,andwhatIwould,areassecretasmaidenhead:toyourears,divinity;toanyother’s,profanation’(..–).Asintheearliercomedy,however,thestagingoftheencounterbe-tweenpraiserandpraisedallowsthebelovedtodeflatecommonplacePetrarchismsbyparodicallyinsistingupontheirliteralsense.Insteadof‘remainingthedescribedandinscribed,passivelysubjecttoanentireprocessthroughwhich[her]identit[y][is]re-written’,Oliviaachieves,throughtheknowing‘inventory’ofherownbeauty,adeftandwittydepreciationbothoftheargumentofthefirstseventeensonnetsandofthemoregeneralPetrarchanscatteringdiscussedabove:SeeSusanneWofford,‘“ToYouIGiveMyself,ForIAmYours”:EroticPerformanceandTheatricalPerformativesinAsYouLikeIt’,inShakespeareReread:TheTextsinNewContexts,ed.RussMcDonald(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,),–,foranexcellentaccountofthewayinwhichtheuseofperformativelanguageinthetheatremaybeseentolayaclaimfortheauthorityoftheatricalperformanceitself.R.L.Kesler,‘TheIdealizationofWomen:MorphologyandChangeinThreeRenaissanceTexts’,Mosaic,.(Spring),–().
Embodiment’Tisbeautytrulyblent,whoseredandwhiteNature’sownsweetandcunninghandlaidon.Lady,youarethecruell’stshealiveIfyouwillleadthesegracestothegraveAndleavetheworldnocopy.Osir,Iwillnotbesohard-hearted.Iwillgiveoutdiversschedulesofmybeauty.Itshallbeinventoriedandeveryparticleandutensillabelledtomywill,as,item,twolips,indifferentred;item,twogreyeyes,withlidstothem;item,oneneck,onechin,andsoforth.Wereyousenthithertopraiseme?(TwelfthNight,..–)Theaffinitywithsonnetisclearenough.Thedifferencebetweenthetwocontexts,however,liesinthefactthatonthestagetheparodyisnotmerelyacorrectiveredescriptionbyamanofhis‘mistress’inthefaceofapoeticconvention.ItisembodiedbyawomanwhoseironicalmimicryofthelanguageofsonnetsallowshertoplaywordsoffagainstthevisibleintegrityofherfacebeforeatheatreaudienceandrefusethePetrarchandisembodimentanddismembermentofthebelovedinitsscatteredrhymes.R.L.Keslersuggeststhatsonnetsdependuponthenecessaryabsenceofidealfeminineperfection,forwhichtheyactassubstitutes:Theperfectionofwomanasanidealinthesonnetisalsopartofitsruse,notonlyinthesensethatitisco-optedbyitsfragmentationandre-assemblyatthehandsofthemale,butalsointhatitisonlypointedtobythesedescriptionsandneveritselfpresented.Likethe‘representedworld’itself,itliesalwaysbeyondthesonnet,inaccessibletodirectperception.(‘TheIdealizationofWomen’,)Butsuchemphasisonthesignifiertotheexclusionofthereferentispossibleonlyinprint.TheembodimentthatcharacterisesboththestageandanactualcontextofdirectaddressrendersKesler’sargumentlesscompelling.Clearly,whatisatstakeintheexchangebetweenOliviaandCesarioisnot‘truth’ora‘representedworld’butratherkindsofsocialaction:havingdismissedOrsino’s‘feigned’textas‘heresy’,OliviaisnonethelessmovedbywhatCesariomightdo:Why,whatwouldyou?MakemeawillowcabinatyourgateAndcalluponmysoulwithinthehouse,Writeloyalcantonsofcontemn`edlove,Andsingthemloudeveninthedeadofnight;Hallooyournametothereverberatehills,AndmakethebabblinggossipoftheairCryout‘Olivia!’O,youshouldnotrest
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysBetweentheelementsofairandearthButyoushouldpityme.Youmightdomuch.(..–)Nowherecouldtheaffinityoflanguageandactionbeclearer:makingawillowcabinatOlivia’sgateisnotdifferentinkindfromceaselesslyre-echoinghername–‘spendingagainwhatisalreadyspent’(sonnet)–and,asitturnsout,thisveryspeechisactionenoughtomoveOlivia’sheart,informedasitisbyViolaaswoman’ssuddenopportunitytoexpresshersuppressedfeelingsforOrsino.Thesceneendswiththeinvocationoftheveryeconomyuponwhichthesonnetsdwellsoinsistently.ThemoneythatOliviaofferstoCesarioinrecompensefor‘herpains’isnotastraightforwardcancellationofdebtbutratheritsdisplacement:itisofferedtobespentforherself,anex-emplarycaseof‘increasingstorewithloss,andlosswithstore’(‘Ithankyouforyourpains.Spendthisforme’)(..).Byrefusingthesym-bolicalobligationsthatsuchspendingwouldincur,Cesarioholdsherselfalooffromthesystemoferoticandeconomicexchange,butwithoutrecognisingthatherself-proclaimedblazonofparentageanddisguiseinfacttrapsherwithinit:‘Iamnofee’dpost,lady.Keepyourpurse./Mymaster,notmyself,lacksrecompense’(lines–).ThesceneendswithacuriousreinscriptionofPetrarchismasOlivia,havingoriginallyoutfaceditspowerthroughherparodicself-blazoning,herselffallspreytoit:‘Whatisyourparentage?’‘Abovemyfortunes,yetmystateiswell.Iamagentleman.’I’llbeswornthouart.Thytongue,thyface,thylimbs,actions,andspiritDogivetheefive-foldblazon.(lines–)Thestagedscenethusmakescleartowhatdegreetheblazonof‘perfection’isconditionaluponthatofblood:itispresumablyonlytheconditionofCesario’sbloodandbirththatallowsOliviato‘reasonthuswithreasonfetter’andgiveherlove‘unsought’(..–).InanearlierpartofthischapterIsuggestedthatthenecessaryem-bodimentofaddresserandaddresseeinthetheatreforestallsboththedismembermentandthesilencingoftheaddressee.IhavelookedattwoscenesfromLove’sLabour’sLostandTwelfthNightinwhichwomeninthepositionofaddresseeliterallyoutfacethescatteringandsilencingblazon.Aswemovemoredeeplyintothelatterplay,however,suchembodiment
EmbodimentiscomplicatedinwaysthatbegintoapproximatethefraughttriangularrelationshipbetweenShakespeare,theyoungmanandthedarkmistress.DespiteFineman’sclaimofa‘lustymisogyny’(Shakespeare’sPerjuredEye,)inthesonnetsthatissaidtobe‘recognizablyShakespearian’,itissig-nificantthatinthecomediesitisuniversallywomenwhofindthem-selveswronged,‘tongue-tied’andrenderedvulnerablebythearroganceandduplicityofmen.IfLove’sLabour’sLostshowsusanything,itisthatthewomenwhomockwhenthemenlaugh,laughwhentheycryandgenerallyhardentheirheartstothesuitor’sadvancesareanythingbuthard-heartedorsenseless.TheaffinitybetweenHeleninAll’sWellThatEndsWellandthepoetofthesonnetshasoftenbeennoted,andisthesubjectofanalysisinchap-ter,below.Fewercommentatorshaveseenthesimilaritiesbetweentheplayer-poetandViola.Herdisguiseasamanevokesanandrogynythatisconstantlyinplayinthesonnets.Shealsocombinestheparadoxicalpowerandvulnerabilityoftheplayer-poetinthesonnets.Unliketheself-composedaristocraticwomenofLove’sLabour’sLost,orevenOliviainTwelfthNight,Violaoccupiesaliminalposition,bothsociallyanderot-ically,whichisnotatallunlikethatoftheman,newlydivorcedfromhomeandfamily,whoattemptstonegotiateapoliticalandsexualpathbetweenabeautifulyoungpatronandthesupposedlyduplicitous‘darkwoman’.Isay‘supposedly’here,becauseitstrikesmeasoddthatcriticshavealmostuniversallytakenShakespeareathiswordonthispoint.Whydoweinvokethemoralweightoftheword‘whore’(duplicitousinitsownway)tothedarkwoman,butfailtouseanythinglikethatlanguageoftheyoungmanofrankortheplayer-poethimself?Isitpos-sibly,asNonaFeinberghassuggested,that,unlikeSidney,Shakespeareinhissonnetsdoesnotsimplydisallowthewoman’sspeech:hesilencesthesilencesthemselves,obscuringtheviolenceandsignificanceoftherepression?Itisaprocessofsilencing,moreover,thatpersiststothepresentday,notonlyincriticism,butinthefabricofoursociallife.Thatiswhyweshouldperhapsinterrogatethedogmaticrefusal,nowingrainedinallcriticismandscholarshipthatwishestoavoiduniversalprofessionalderision,toaddressthebiographicalproblemoftheiden-tityofthedarkwoman.Issuchreticencemerelyanobjectivelyscientificdesiretoventurenofurtherthantheempiricalevidenceallows?Ordoestheaversiontobiographyofsomuchcontemporarycriticismobscurearevulsion,signalledbysonnetamongstothers,attheembodimentofthiswomanspecificallyandwomaningeneral?Fortoconfinethe‘darklady’tothelimitsofShakespeare’stextistorefusetohearhervoice,
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaystoneglecttoimbueherwithahumanitythatwouldbelieherstatusasameresignof‘otherness’orsymbolofduplicity.SamuelSchoenbaum,forexample,arguesthat‘“theoppositionbetweenFairYouthandDarkLady”needsnoreferencetoaparticularwomantoexplicateit...foritis“perfectlycomprehensibleintermsofmoralandpoeticsymbolism”’.HethusdismissesA.L.Rowse’squestionableclaimthatthe‘darklady’isEmiliaLanyerwiththecommentthattherewereinanycaseplentyofotherpromiscuouswomeninElizabethanLondon.IhavenoquarrelwithSchoenbaum’sdeflationofRowse’shistoricalclaims.Butshouldwenotweighuptheideologicalimplicationsofacommitmenttoa‘systemofmoralandpoeticsymbolism’inwhichoneoftheelementscansimplybereducedtoawhore(oneamongstmany)againstRowse’sattemptstorestoreahistoricalembodimentandhumanitytoawomanwhowouldotherwisebeamerecipher?AsLornaHutsonremindsus,‘a“moralandpoeticsymbolism”thatis“perfectlycomprehensible”isonewhichisstillworking,stillcreatinganevaluativelanguageinwhichtoarticulateexperienceandauthorizedesire’(‘WhytheLady’sEyes’,).Itissignificantthatinhisearlyaccountof‘whothedarkladywas’,Rowseprojectsuponherallthequalitiesthatwefindinsonnets–,therebysimplyendorsingthemoralandpoeticsymbolismthathefindsinShakespeare’sverseasawhole:WesoonlearnthattheDarkLadyisaveryequivocallady;sheis,infact,abadlot,asShakespeareknowsverywell...Wearetoldthatbesidesbeingfalseintongue,sheisproudandwilful,tyrannisingoverbothShakespeareandtheyoungerman...sheisacalculatingwoman–Shakespearereferstoheras‘cunning’...Hehadfoundnoconstancyortrustinher,butduplicityandbreachoffaith;shewastemperamentalandspoilt...Allinall,withhischaracteristiccandourandopenness,hehastolduseverythingabouttheDarkLady,excepthername.ButhasShakespearetoldus‘everything’abouther?Thisisanexampleoftheexcessestowhichbiographicalcriticismcanlead,intheformofapetitioprincipibywhichanassumptionaboutShakespeare’scharacterpredeterminestheassumedtruthandcompletenessofhistexts.Letuslookatanothercrossedlovertellingus‘everything’abouthis‘darklady’:SamuelSchoenbaum,‘Shakespeare,DrFormanandDrRowse’,inShakespeareandOthers(London:ScholarPress,),,quotedinLornaHutson,‘WhytheLady’sEyesareNothingLiketheSun’,inNewFeministDiscourses:CriticalEssaysonTheoriesandTexts,ed.IsobelArmstrong(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,),–().Seealso,SamuelSchoenbaum,Shakespeare’sLives,newedition(Oxford:ClarendonPress,),–,–,and–.A.L.Rowse,Shakespeare’sSonnets:TheProblemsSolved(London:Macmillan,),xxx–xxxiii.
EmbodimentWhat?Ilove,Isue,Iseekawife?–Awoman,thatislikeaGermanclock,Stilla-repairing,everoutofframe,Andnevergoingaright,beingawatch,Butbeingwatchedthatitmaystillgoright.Nay,tobeperjured,whichisworstofall,Andamongthreetolovetheworstofall–Awhitelywantonwithavelvetbrow,Withtwopitch-ballsstuckinherfaceforeyes–Ay,and,byheaven,onethatwilldothedeedThoughArguswerehereunuchandherguard.AndItosighforher,towatchforher,Toprayforher–goto,itisaplagueThatCupidwillimposeformyneglectOfhisalmightydreadfullittlemight.Well,Iwilllove,write,sigh,pray,sue,groan:Somemenmustlovemylady,andsomeJoan.(Love’sLabour’sLost,..–)SettingasidethedifferenceintonebetweenBiron’smeditationhereandthesonnetsaboutWill’sdark-eyedbeloved,wecanrecognizesimilarobsessions:withtheperversityofdesiringthe‘worst’ofwomen,butalsowiththeassumedsexualvoracityofallwomen,here,asinthesonnetsandinplayssuchasOthelloandAntonyandCleopatra,conceivedasbeingbothattractiveandrepulsivelyfearsome.Mostimportant,however,isthefactthatthedramaticcontextmakesitclearthatthesearenomorethanwildobsessions.Theyareprojectionsforwhichthereisnotmerelynoevidence,butwhichtheplayitselfrevealsasafeatureofthemenratherthewomen.Ifthereareany‘Germanclocks...everoutofframe’theyaretheKingandhiscourtiersratherthanRosalineandhercompanions.IhavenointentionofwhitewashingShakespeare’sdarkwoman.Iwishrathertomakeatheoreticalrequestthatweallowtheembodiedcontextandactionofthetheatretofleshouttheobfuscationsandimposedsilencesthatacertainreadingofthesonnetsencourages.WhenRowseencountersthevoiceofthe‘darklady’hehaspurportedlydiscovered–inthepoemsofEmiliaLanyer–hequicklyabandonsthe‘facts’providedbyShakespeare’s‘characteristiccandourandopenness’.Heseesinsteadawomanwho,thoughnomorechasteorfaithfulthanthefigureinthesonnets,isnowsympatheticallyembodiedinstrugglesandformsofsocialactionwhicharenotlimitedto‘doingthedeed’withpoorWillandeverybodyelse.Frombeingonemore‘whore’amongmany,shebecomes‘anexceptional,dominatingpersonality’.Sheisthenextbest‘woman
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplayspoetoftheage,secondtoMary,CountessofPembroke’,whoshows‘anaturalaptitudeforpentameterandrhyme...highlyeducated,wellreadintheBibleandthoseclassicstotheforeintheRenaissance’.HerstruggletoimproveherstatusthroughherintellectualsuperioritydifferslittlefromShakespeare’sownefforts,andRowseextolsherfeminismasaproductofwomen’sgeneraloppressionatthetime:‘Herstatuswasbeneathwhatsheconsideredherdue;itwasmaddeningtobesomuchmoreintelligentandtohavegotnowherewithit.Butthiswasthelotofwomen,dependentonmenfortheirstatus.Thismadeherafeministunexampledinthatage...shestandsupsquarelyforhersex’(DiscoveringShakespeare,–).Inadditiontomakingherpoetryavailable,Rowseallowshertoexpressherownpersonalandideologicalcondemnationofthecrueltyandduplicityofmen:‘Womendeservenottobeblamed’,theyshouldnotcondemneachother,butleavethatto‘evil-disposedmenwho–forgettingtheywerebornofwomen,nourishedofwomen,andthatifitwerenotbythemeansofwomentheywouldbequiteextinguishedoutoftheworldandafinalendtothemall–dolikeVipersdefacethewombswhereintheywerebred’.(DiscoveringShakespeare,–)‘Weknownow’,Rowseconcludes,glancingatwhathehadpreviouslysupposedShakespearehadtoldusofher,‘whataveryremarkablewomanshewas,apowerfulpersonality.Nodoubt,whenyoungandbeautiful,musical,withaforeignflavourabouther,andwiththatbackground,distinguishedifequivocal,withherprideandspirit,shemusthavebeenravishing,ifnotalwaysravishable’(DiscoveringShakespeare,).IquoteextensivelyfromRowsenotbecauseIendorsehisspecificclaimsaboutthebiographicalidentityofthe‘darklady’,buttorevealhowhumanlyandideologicallyconfinedandconfiningthecriticismisthatrefusestointerrogateormovebeyondwhatisconceivedastheinternal‘moralandpoeticsymbolism’ofthetextsconceivedinadisembodiedway.WithhisdiscoveryofEmiliaLanyer’spoetry–withthediscoveryofhervoiceandherlife–RowseturnstheduplicitouswhoreofShakespeare’ssonnetsintoa‘veryremarkablewoman’,andhedoessowithoutrevisinghissenseofhermoralorsexualbehaviour.ItshouldbeclearthatwhenIquestiontherecentrevulsionfrombiog-raphyIamnotproposingareturntotheRomantictendencytoregardthetextaslittlemorethanawindowontotheuniqueconsciousnessA.L.Rowse,DiscoveringShakespeare(London:WeidenfeldandNicholson,),–.
Embodimentbehindit.Onthecontrary,Iwishtoquestionthemeredisplacementofsuchconcerns,whichmaybeseeninthemovefromauniquepersonalconsciousnesstothestructuralinteriorityofferedbyrecentconcernswith‘poeticsubjectivity’.Inproposingthatwemovefromtextualitytoem-bodimentIamattemptingtoreincorporatethesonnetswithinasetofsocialpracticesinwhichsilenceis,asfeminismandgaystudieshaveshownus,apalpableindicatorofthepowerrelationsthatsubtendthewritinganddisseminationofpoetry.InitsconcernwiththepossibilitiesofhumanpracticemyargumentisinkeepingwiththelogicaltruthtowhichIalludeintheopeningparagraphofthischapter.Evenifthedarkwomanandtheyoungmanwerefictions,myconcernwithem-bodiment,demonstratedbyanappealtothefictionsofShakespeare’sdramaticcharacters,wouldstillhold.Inotherwords,Iamsuggestingthatbiographicalcriticismisamatterofgrammar(intheWittgensteiniansense)ratherthanfact,amodeofreadingandwritingratherthanaRomanticsearchforpersonaldetail.By‘grammar’,Wittgensteinmeansthesumofthelanguagegames,theirrulesandtheformsoflifefromwhichtheyspringinwhichaconceptorarelatedgroupofconceptshavetheiruse.IamarguingthattheWittgensteinian‘grammar’oftheconceptofapersonaorcharacternecessitatesthekindofembodimentthatRowseengagesinhislaterexplorationofthesonnets’mistressasEmiliaLanyer,evenifshewasnotactuallyEmiliaLanyer.Askedwhatthehistoryofthe‘darklady’isinconventionalaccountsofthesonnetswhichpaynoheedtothisbiographicalgrammar,wewouldhavetoreplyinthewordsofViola/Cesario:‘Ablank...shenevertoldherlove’(..).Itiseitherignoredcompletely,orshehasittoldforher.Ihavearguedthatthenecessaryembodimentofaddressandrecep-tiononthestageprecludesthesilencingandscatteringofthewomanSeeMargaretadeGrazia,ShakespeareVerbatim:TheReproductionofAuthenticityandtheApparatus(Oxford:ClarendonPress,),foranaccountoftheshifttowardsseeingtheplaysandpoemsasanexpressionofShakespeare’suniqueandauthenticconsciousness.MichaelSpiller,inTheDevelopmentoftheSonnet:AnIntroduction(London:Routledge,)isasmuchagainstthe‘biographical’viewasanybody:‘Ifthereisacriticalbias[inhisbook],itisagainsttheviewofthesonnetasapieceoflyricalautobiography–ifthatviewneedsopposing’(x).Hearguesverydeftlyandconvincingly,however,that‘thesituationandfeelingpresentedinthesonnetscomefromShakespeare’sownlife’(),byadducinginternalevidencefromthemodesofrepresentationinthesonnetsthemselves.Hisargumentrestsonthefactthattheyofferverylittleofthecircumstantialinformationthatwouldhavebeenknownonlytoanactual,specificaddressee,andwhichfictionalmimesisnecessarilyfillsinforanaudience.Themodeofthisargumentabouttheimportanceofthecircumstancesofdiscursivepracticesisclosetomyown.SeeHans-JohannGlock,AWittgensteinDictionary(Oxford:Blackwell,),–.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysthatwemayfindinPetrarchanverse.WehaveseenoccasionsinbothLove’sLabour’sLostandTwelfthNightonwhichtheembodiedspeechofwomen–theirabilitytocontrasttheforceofaddressself-reflexivelywiththepresenceoftheirownbodies–literallyoutfacesthePetrarchanad-dress.Moreimportant,perhaps,mutenessonstagespeaksitselfassuch:itrevealsitselfassilence,showingalsotheexerciseofpowerthathasenforcedit.Ifthepresentvoicesofwomenonstageoutfacethespeechofmen,wearefacedbytheenforcedsilenceofsomeonesuchasHelen,ViolaorCatherineinthefinalactofHenryV.InowtracesomeofthecomplexpatternsofsilenceandaddressthatmarkthetriangularrelationshipsamongOrsino,OliviaandViola/Cesario,markingthewaysinwhichtheyreflectonasimilarlyfraughttriangularrelationshipamongShakespeare,theyoungmanandthedarkwomanofthesonnets.Therecanbenostraightforwardcorrelationbetweenanyofthesefigures:bothgenderandthedirectionofdesirearecom-plexlydifferent.Thusifthemale,middle-classplayer-poetfeelshimselfmarginalisedbythesocialsuperiorityofthebeautifularistocraticmaleandthemoralduplicityofawomanwhoseunconventionalbeautydidnotprecludeherfromengaginginarivalsexualrelationshipwiththewell-bornyouth,itisinfactCesario/Violawhosuffersthatsplittingandmarginalisation.SheisthehopelessandsilentsuitortoOrsino,‘prickedout’byherenforceddisguiseforOlivia’spleasure,whilemutelypledgingalovethatshecanrevealonlybybetrayingherself.ThedramaticsituationinwhichViola/Cesarioiscaughtthusrepro-ducessomeoftheprecariousnessofShakespeare’sownposition.ShedoublesthedifferencesufferedbyHeleninAll’sWell,forsheaddstoitthepeculiar‘defeat’workedbydotingnatureandlamentedinsonnet.TheperformingpracticesoftheElizabethanstagefurthermoreallowtheandrogynousbeautyofsonnettobeembodiedinthedoublycross-dressedfigureofaboyactorplayingViolaplayingtheboyCesario.ComparethesonnetwithaselectionofOrsino’sremarks,bothonthenatureofwomen’sbeautyingeneralandtheattractivenessofCesarioinparticular:SeeDavidSchalkwyk,‘Shakespeare’sTalkingBodies’,Textus:EnglishStudiesinItaly,(),–.Foradiscussionofcross-dressing,seeJeanE.Howard,‘Cross-Dressing,theTheatre,andGenderStruggleinEarlyModernEngland’,ShakespeareQuarterly,.(),–andStephenOrgel,Impersonations:ThePerformanceofGenderinShakespeare’sEngland(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,).
Embodimentomansfacewithnaturesownehandpainted,HastethoutheMasterMistrisofmypassion,AwomansgentlehartbutnotacquaintedWithshiftingchangeasisfalsewomensfashion,Aneyemorebrightthentheirs,lessefalseinrowling:Gildingtheobiectwhere-vponitgazeth,AmaninhewallHewsinhiscontrowling,Whichstealesmenseyesandwomenssoulesamaseth.Andforawomanwertthoufirstcreated,Tillnatureasshewroughttheefelladotinge,Andbyadditionmeoftheedefeated,Byaddingonethingtomypurposenothing.Butsincesheprickttheeoutforwomenspleasure,Minebethyloueandthylouesvsetheirtreasure.Fortheyshallyetbeliethyhappyyears,Thatsaythouartaman.Diana’slipIsnotmoresmoothandrubious;thysmallpipeIsasthemaiden’sorgan,shrillandsound,Andallissemblativeawoman’spart.(TwelfthNight,..–)Thereisnowoman’ssidesCanbidethebeatingofsostrongapassionAslovedothgivemyheart;nowoman’sheartSobig,toholdsomuch.Theylackretention.Alas,theirlovemaybecalledappetite,Nomotionoftheliver,butthepalate,Thatsuffersurfeit,cloyment,andrevolt.Butmineisallashungryasthesea,Andcandigestasmuch.MakenocompareBetweenthatloveawomancanbearmeAndthatIoweOlivia.(TwelfthNight,..–)Likemostcritics,FinemantakesShakespeare’saccountofthedarklady’sessentialduplicityatfacevalue.Indeed,histhesisdependsuponthemo-mentoushistoricalnecessityofwomanasoverridingfigureortropeofdifferenceandduplicity:‘Withher“insufficiency”andwithher“unkind-ness”theladyintroducesafundamentalheterogeneityintothetraditionofhomogeneity...insexualterms,theladystandsforanalienatinghet-erosexualitythat,inthecontextofthepoet’srelationtotheyoungman,intrudesuponandinterruptsthepoet’shomosexualideal’(Shakespeare’sPerjuredEye,).Thiscrucialheterogeneityismarkednotonlybythe
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplays‘nothing’thatdistinguishesherfromthosewho,likeShakespeareandtheyoungman,havethe‘onething’thatpricksthemoutfor‘womenspleasure’,itisalsoapparentinanessentialduplicitythatisexpressedinherconductandwrittenalloverherface:inthe‘fairness’thatisatthesametime‘thebadgeofHell’(Love’sLabour’sLost,..).Finemanarguesthattheessentialduplicityorparadoxthatthedarkladyexpressesinthesonnetsgivesrisetowhathecallsa‘Shakespearian’(butalsoaLacanian)desire:‘Desirenolongeroriginatesinasourceoutsidetheself...thepoet’sdesireisnowdeterminedasaneffectoccasionedbythelanguagethathespeaks’(Shakespeare’sPerjuredEye,).Thecombi-nationofmoralduplicityandsexualdifference(‘Thyblackeisfairestinmyjudgementsplace’(sonnet))inthedesiredwoman(alldesiredwomen?)isinfactnomorethanthefigureofaparticularspeciesofdesirediscoveredbyShakespeare,onewhichispredicatedupontheessentialreturnofloss:‘Suchdesirehasthepowertogenerateitsowndesire,forlustisalwayslustingafterthelovethatlusthaslost,inaccordwithastructureofcontinuouseroticnostalgiawhoseyearningiscontinuallyrefeedingitselfbecause“consum’dwiththatwhichitwasnourish’dby”’(Shakespeare’sPerjuredEye,).SuchdesireisrepresentedinTwelfthNightasbeingparticularlyOrsinian,notuniversal.Fineman’sanalysisrejuvenatesthetiredcriti-calclich´ethatOrsinoisinlovewithlove,byshowinghowsuchadesirefeedsuponaprojecteddifferencebetweenmenandwomen,whichtheembodiedeventsoftheplayinfactcontradict.Thedesirewhichclaimstobe‘allashungryasthesea,/Andcandigestasmuch’(..–),isbydefinitionbothinsatiableandself-sustaining,anddoesindeed,asFinemanarguesandsonnetproclaims,discoveritselfthroughthedisparagementoftheduplicitousother,thefairfoul,ofwoman.ButtheembodimentofViolaasboyonstagecontradictsthelogicofOrsino’sdesire.Itrevealsthatwomenarenotnecessarilyduplicitousandshifting,andsodeniesthisvital,projecteddifferenceuponwhichbothOrsinoandFinemaninsist.Italsoshows,likesonnet,thatdifferenceandiden-tityarenotmonolithiccategories.BothsonnetandViola-in-disguisesuggestthatsexualdifferenceneednotblockthefulfilmentofdesire.Itmaybeanenablingcondition:Andforawomanwertthoufirstcreated,Tillnatureasshewroughttheefelladotinge,Andbyadditionmeoftheedefeated,Byaddingonethingtomypurposenothing.
EmbodimentInthelightofOrsino’s–andtheplayer-poet’s–disparagementofthe‘shiftingchange[which]isfalsewomen’sfashion’astheconditionofamaledesire‘ashungryasthesea’,weshouldaskwhythecomediesgivethelietothisdogmaoftheconstancyofmaledesire.Theysystematicallyshow,asOrsinoputsitelsewhere,how‘Noughtentersthere,/Ofwhatvalidityandpitchsoe’er,/Butfallsintoabatementandlowprice/Eveninaminute’(..–).Whydoonlywomendisplaytheconstancythatthesonnetsproclaimastheessenceofmasculinelove?Ifthedifferencethatthesonnetsrequireinordertoestablish‘thesubjectivityeffectre-quiredbyapostidealistliterariness’(Fineman,Shakespeare’sPerjuredEye,)canbecontradictedonthestage,howseriouslycanwetakeclaimsaboutthehistoricalandphilosophicalinescapabilityofsuchdifference?Noeasyanswerpresentsitselftothesequestions.Theembodiedrep-resentationofsocialrelationsonstage,however,precludesthetranscen-denceofthepolitical–of‘policy’and‘accident’–thattheplayer-poetattemptstoachieveinthesonnets.The‘difference’thattheplayer-poetclaimstoleaveoutofhis‘hugelypollitick’(sonnet)verse–‘toconstan-cieconfin’d’(sonnet)–referstohisrhetoricalanderoticintegrity.Butitalsoencompassesinequalitiesofsocialclassandrank.Inthetheatresuchdifferencecannotbediscursively‘leftout’inthenameofanide-alisedlovethatwilladmitnoimpedimenttothemarriageoftrueminds.AsLeonardTennenhousepointsout:‘Onstage...[asinreallife]thedressofvariouscandidates...wouldhaveindicatedallthedistinctionsofrankandthematchingandmismatchingpartnersinavisuallypolit-icalgame.’WehavealreadyseenhowinthefirstencounterbetweenCesarioandOliviathesamenessofbloodandclassistheconditionofpossibilityofanyrelationshipwhatsoever:Olivia’sdesireforCesarioiswhollyconsequentuponherreadingcorrectlythesubmergedblazonof‘nobleblood’inCesario’scarriageandbearing.TheeasewithwhichSebastiantakesCesario’splaceconfirmstheoverridingsignificanceofthedifference(andsameness)signalledbyparentage.Withinsuchacontextthereislittleideologicalspaceforamantotallybeyondthepaleofbloodtoapproachthealreadyunattainablearisto-craticwomanorman.TheonlycharacterinShakespeare’splayswhomanagestoachievethatisBottom–inadream,astheunknowinginstru-mentinthebattleofthesexesbetweenthekingandqueenofthefairies.Malvolioflauntssuchafantasy,buthesuffersridicule,grossindignityLeonardTennenhouse,PoweronDisplay:ThePoliticsofShakespeare’sGenres(London:Methuen,),.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysandmentaltortureasaresult.ThereisnoabsolutegapbetweentheimaginingsofMalvolioandtheprojectedillusionsconsideredinsonnet(‘Orwhetherdothmymindebeingcrown’dwithyou/Drinkevpthemonarksplaguethisflattery?’).Norshouldweaccepttherepeatedproclamationinthesonnetsthattheplayer-poet’slovetranscendsallworldlyconcernsanymorereadilythanOliviaacceptsOrsino’ssimilarprotestations:Oncemore,Cesario,Gettheetoyonsamesovereigncruelty.Tellhermylove,morenoblethantheworld,Prizesnotquantityofdirtylands.ThepartsthatfortunehathbestoweduponherTellherIholdasgiddilyasfortune;But’tisthatmiracleandqueenofgemsThatnaturepranksherinattractsmysoul.(..–)WhenShakespearewishestoconvey‘howhardtruesorrowhits’(sonnet)inlovewomenarealmostalwaysthevictims,trappedinthewebofsocialanderoticdifferencesthatthesonnetswouldliketo,butfinallycannot,leaveout.Viola’svulnerabilityinhercrossedloveforOrsinodiffersfromtheplayer-poet’sfortheyoungmanbecausethelattercanspeakhislove,whereasViolaiscommittedtoremainingsilentabouthers.Butherembodimentinthetheatremakesthatsilencespeak....MakenocompareBetweenthatloveawomancanbearmeAndthatIoweOlivia.Ay,butIknow–Whatdostthouknow?Toowellwhatlovewomentomenmayowe.Infaith,theyareastrueofheartaswe.MyfatherhadadaughterlovedamanAsitmightbe,perhaps,wereIawomanIshouldyourlordship.Andwhat’sherhistory?Ablank,mylord.Shenevertoldherlove,Butletconcealment,likeawormi’th’bud,Feedonherdamaskcheek.Shepinedinthought,AndwithagreenandyellowmelancholyShesatlikepatienceonamonument,Smilingatgrief.Wasnotthisloveindeed?Wemenmaysaymore,swearmore,butindeed
EmbodimentOurshowsaremorethanwill;forstillweproveMuchinourvows,butlittleinourlove.Butdiedthysisterofherlove,myboy?Iamallthedaughtersofmyfather’shouse,Andallthebrotherstoo;andyetIknownot.(..–)Forcednotonlytosuggestherownlovethroughtheindirectionofa‘sister’whoisinfactherselfaspersona,butalsotodefendallofhersexagainstOrsino’smisogynistslander,Viola-as-Cesariocanspeakonlyfromapositionofalienation:asanotherbothmaskedandrevealedbythetruth/falsityofherself-as-man.Weseeaclassicdoublebindhere.Asboy,Cesariocanknownothingofthetruthofwomen’s,love;aswoman,Violacouldonlylieaboutit.AndthetruthofViola’s‘sister’s’lovecanspeakonlythroughherdeath.ThistaleisrecountedinLove’sLabour’sLost,whenthestoryofKatherine’ssister’sdeaththroughloveprovidesatellingpreludetothecollectivedecisionbythewomentoexposethemen’s‘shows’forbeing‘morethanwill’.Butitisespeciallyeffectivehere.ForViola’sembodimentofherenforcedsilenceexposesthetrapthatotherwisewouldremainconcealedandthusalltooeffective.Theplayer-poetdeclares:‘enmyloueswearesthatsheismadeoftruth,/IdobeleeueherthoughIknowshelyes.’Doeshehaveachoice?Isthisparadoxnotaself-inflictedconditionofthedogmawhichholdsthat,asHutsonhassotellinglyputit,nowoman’seyescaneverbelikethesuniftobelikethesunistohavethepoliticalandmetaphysicalpowerto‘Flatterthemountainetopswithsoueraigneeie...Guildingpalestreamswithheauenlyalcumy’(sonnet)?Orthatthestoryofwomanis‘stillallone,euerthesame’(sonnet),namely,‘FairingthefoulewithArtsfaulseborrow’dface’and‘SlandringCreationwithafalseesteeme’(sonnet)?Ofcourse,thedifferencebetweenthe‘flattering’and‘guilding’ofthe‘soueraigneeie’and‘heauenlyalcumy’andthe‘slandring’of‘Creation’with‘Artsfaulseborrow’dface’istenuous.Thegapbetweenthemasmaleandfemaleprinciples,hardlycapableofbe-ingsustainedacrossthesequenceasawhole,isseverelyquestionedonthecomicstage.Thisinterrogationiseffectedpreciselybytheembodiedandrogynyofthecomicheroine,forcedthroughpoliticalandsexualvul-nerabilitytoadoptthemaskofayoungman.InTwelfthNight,specifically,Viola/Cesarioseemstorearticulatesubjectpositionsandrelationshipsthataresocomplexlynegotiatedinthesonnetsbetweentheyoungman,thedarkwomanandthepoethimself.For,combiningthepoliticalvul-nerabilityandtheeroticabjectnessofthedesiringsubjectinthesonnets,
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplayss/henonethelessembodiesasactor/charactertheandrogynousobjectofdesireofsonnet.ThesplitsubjectthatcriticshavenoticedinthepoetofthesonnetsisthuscombinedinthetheatricallyembodiedfigureofViola/Cesario.AttheendoftheexchangebetweenCesario/ViolaandOrsino,theformertellinglyleavesthequestionabouther‘sister’s’(andthusherown)deathopen.Thishiatusisalmostfilledinthefinalact,whenitappearsforamomentthatOrsinowillkillCesario,bothtopunishhimforhiseroticrivalryandtospitethewomanwho,inpursuingthe‘boy’servant,hasinsultinglyrejectedhim.Thisisamomentofcrucialtransference,asintheprocessofthreateningtokillOliviaifhecannothaveher,Orsinodiscoversthatherunderstudyandhissupposedrivalisinfactthe‘thingheloves’:WhyshouldInot,hadIthehearttodoit,Liketoth’Egyptianthief,atpointofdeathKillwhatIlove–asavagejealousyThatsometimesavoursnobly.Buthearmethis:Sinceyoutonon-regardancecastmyfaith,AndthatIpartlyknowtheinstrumentThatscrewsmefrommytrueplaceinyourfavour,Liveyouthemarble-breastedtyrantstill.Butthisyourminion,whomIknowyoulove,Andwhom,byheavenIswear,Itenderdearly,HimwillItearoutofthatcrueleyeWherehesitscrown`edinhismaster’sspite.(ToViola)Come,boy,withme.Mythoughtsareripeinmischief.I’llsacrificethelambthatIdoloveTospitearaven’sheartwithinadove.AndImostjocund,apt,andwillinglyTodoyourestathousanddeathswoulddie(..–)Theconvictionofwomanas‘cruel’(..),‘perverse’and‘uncivil’(..)tyrantisabandoned‘eveninaminute’(..)forthemalerivalinlove,inagesturethatcombinesviolencewithlust.Dowenotrecognisethisreiterationofthedanceofdifferenceandsameness,ofselfandother,inallthosehalf-bitter,half-abjectsonnetsthatproclaimboththeirattraction-in-disillusionmentandtheirreadinessto‘make[his]loue’so‘engrafted’tothe‘store’(sonnet)ofthebelovedthatthepoetishappytobeobliterated,engulfedorevenkilledbyit,‘consum’dwiththatwhichitwasnourish’dby’(sonnet)?Therearemanysonnetsin
Embodimentthisvein.Sonnet,thedoublepairofsonnets,and,andand,andthesequenceto,springtomind.TheyexpresstheattitudeofViolatoher‘master’s’‘cruellove’,‘happytohavethylove,happytodie!’(sonnet).Butaboveall,thesceneresonatestotheparadoxicalthoughtinsonnet,that‘desireisdeath’.Petrarchanrolesareatoncedisplacedas,foramoment,thedirectionofdesirefromabjectmaletocruelfemaleswitchesthrougharelayofhomosocialrivalry,whichisrevealedtobetherealcircuitoferoticde-sire,betweenOrsinoandthe‘master(’s)mistress’,Cesario/Viola(sonnetand..).ParticularlyapparentonstageisthesustainedsexualambivalenceoftheCesario/Violafigurewho,despitebeingtransferredfromtheblockedhomosexualrelationshipwithOliviatotheallowedheterosexualonewithOrsino,remainsembodiedinallsensesasthe‘MasterMistris’ofsonnet:Cesario,come–Forsoyoushallbewhileyouareaman;Butwheninotherhabitsyouareseen,Orsino’smistressandhisfancy’squeen.(..–)Thetheatreisabletoenact,inwaysthatareimpossibleinthepoems,thematerialsplittingofconfusedidentity(themastermistressofpassion)intotwodiscretefigureswhich,nomatterhowalike,areabletotransformdifferencesintosameness:intheformofapairofrelationshipsthatarematchedintermsofbloodandsex.ThisiswhyFinemancontraststhemovementof‘presentation’orrecoveryoflossinthecomedieswiththecontinualre-enactment,astheveryconditionofrepresentationanddesire,ofthelossoftheselfinthesonnets:theprincipalfiguresofShakespeareancomedytendratherregularly,andnotonlyinthefestivecomedies,tofindwhatevertheymayhavelostinthecourseoftheirmisadventures...itisreasonabletocharacterizeShakespeareancom-edyasadramaofpresentation,adramainwhich,asacorrespondingcon-sequence,charactersarriveatakindofpersonalandinterpersonal‘oneness’.(Shakespeare’sPerjuredEye,)MyowndiscussionoftheembodimentofthesituationofPetrarchanreceptionandaddressinLove’sLabour’sLostandTwelfthNighthasinter-rogatedboththetendencytopositamonolithicandall-encompassingclosureinthecomediesandtheemphasisupon‘principal’characters.For,asIhaveshown,thematerialembodimentofacharacteronthestagenotonlymakesaresponsenecessarilypossible,italsoforcesusto
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysreadorhearsilencesassuchandenquireabouttheconditionsoftheirenforcement,ratherthanpassovertheminsilence.Inonesense,neitherthedarkwomannorthebeautifulyoungmanare‘principalcharacters’inthesonnets:theyaretoosilent,eveniftheyareimmenselypowerful.AttheendofTwelfthNightthereisatechnicalproblemwhichisalmostboundtogounnoticedatthelevelofthesignifierorsignified,butwhichhastobeaddressedbyactoranddirectorattheleveloftheembodiedreferent.IusuallybringthisproblemtotheattentionofmystudentsbyaskingthemtodescribeinprecisedetailhowtheywouldgeteverybodyoffthestageforFeste’sfinalsongiftheyweretodirecttheplay.Theythenbecomeawareofasilent,unnoticed,butphysicallypresentfigurewhohastobemadetodisappear,butwhosedisappearanceisallthemorenoticeablebecauseheismarginalandmuteandcannot,withoutstrain,besweptoffinamˆel´eeoflike-mindedcharacters.IamofcoursereferringtothecharacterthatLeslieFiedlerdrewtoourattentioninTheStrangerinShakespeare:Antonio,whosecombinationofselflessdevotionandbitternessathissocialandsexualalienationandrejectionareechoedtimeandtimeagainbytheplayer-poetofthesonnets:HislifeIgavehim,anddidtheretoaddMylovewithoutretentionorrestraint,Allhisindedication.ForhissakeDidIexposemyself,pureforhislove,Intothedangerofthisadversetown,Drewtodefendhimwhenhewasbeset,Wherebeingapprehended,hisfalsecunning–Notmeaningtopartakewithmeindanger–Taughthimtofacemeoutofhisacquaintance,Andgrewatwentyyears’remov`edthingWhileonewouldwink,deniedmemineownpurse,WhichIhadrecommendedtohisuseNothalfanhourbefore.(TwelfthNight,..–)‘HislifeIgavehim’–thismaybesaidofShakespeare’srelationshiptotheyoungmanwhonowlivesonlythroughthe‘blackelines’(sonnet)ofthesonnets.Ofcourse,Antonioismistakenintheparticularsub-stanceofhisaccusation,butingeneraltermshisaccountistrueenough.UponbeingseducedintoOlivia’sarmsandbed,Sebastiandoesindeed‘[grow]atwentyyear.../Whileonewouldwink’,echoingOrsino’searlierreflectionsonthecapacityoflovetoconsumeandnegateev-erything(..–).Furthermore,theeffortlesssubstitutionbywhichCesariocanbeexchangedforSebastianisforbothsexualandsocial
EmbodimentreasonsnotavailabletoAntonio.Afterthebitternessofbetrayal,allthatisleftAntonioistowonderandbesilent,thejoyofdiscoveryandreunionturningintothebewildermentoflossanduncertainty‘eveninaminute’:Sebastianareyou?Fear’stthouthat,Antonio?Howhaveyoumadeadivisionofyourself?Anapple,cleftintwo,isnotmoretwinThanthesetwocreatures.WhichisSebastian?(..–)ThesearethelastwordsthatAntoniospeaks.Theyremindusofsonnet:‘TwolouesIhaueofcomfortanddispaire/Whichliketwospiritsdosugiestmestill.’Wemaywellask‘WhichisAntonio?’consideringtheinvestmentthathehasmadeinalovesuddenlymultipliedandalienatedthrough‘use’.Anddoeshereallynotknow‘WhichisSebastian?’afterhavingspokentohim?OrhasSebastianbecomethesignifierofaloveconfinedtosilence,ratherthananobjectofloss?Whateverthecase,heismutefromnowontotheplay’ssupposedlyfestiveclosure.Itisamutenesswhich,becauseheisabodyandnotaword,thetheatreforcestospeakitsownsilenceastheprintedpagedoesnot.Therearetwothingsthatonemightsayinconclusion.Thefirst,whichemphasisestheaffinitybetweenAntonioandthepoetofthesonnets,isthatthesonnetsarethemselves,perhaps,adisplayofmuteness,anat-tempttoexpress,astheparadoxesofsonnet(‘Asanvnperfectactoronthestage’)dosowell,that‘whereofonecannotspeak’.Thesecondpoint,whichtakesupthefraught,unspeakablesituationofsocialandpersonalpowerlessnessinasituationofoverwhelminglypowerfulpas-sion,isthat,ifAntonioistherealstrangerinTwelfthNight,thestrangerinthesonnetsistheplayer-poethimself,whoeverthatselfmightsignify.LudwigWittgenstein,TractatusLogico-Philosophicus,trans.C.K.Ogden(London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,),section.
Interiority:thesonnets,HamletandKingLearThelastchapterclosedbyraisingtwoissues:‘thatwhereofonecannotspeak’andthequestionofthe‘self’inthesonnets.Bothhavetendedtobediscussedincontextsthatareverydifferentfrom–indeedofteninoppositionto–theconditionsofembodimentuponwhichIhavebeenfocusing.Commentatorshaveoftenconceivedofthatwhichmustbepassedoverinsilenceastheproductorpossessionofan‘inner’being,itselfregardedastherealorauthentic‘self’incontradistinctiontowhat-ever‘actionsthatamanmightplay’(Hamlet,..).Thiscontrastbe-tween‘privacy’and‘theatricality’hasbeencentraltocriticaldiscussionofRenaissanceliteratureforsometime.Inconjunctionwithacognatepair,theinteriorandthepublicselves,theyhaveformedthecruxofanin-tensedebate.MargaretadeGrazianotedoveradecadeagothatHamletandShakespeare’ssonnetshaveoccupiedacentralplaceinthecriti-calmovementtowardsdiscoveringaproperlyconceived‘interior’self.Almosttenyearsbeforethat,AnneFerrysawinHamletandthesonnetstheculminationofasenseofan‘innerlife’or‘realself’thatisonlyhalf-wroughtinthepoetryofWyattandSidney.Ferry’sargumentwascounteredbymaterialistcriticssuchasFrancisBarker,CatherineBelseyanddeGraziaherself,whoinsistedthatsuchconstructionof‘subjectivityasthe(imaginary)propertyofinnerselfhood’isananachronisticprojec-tionofalater,properlybourgeoisandthoroughlyideological,sensibility.Morerecently,KatherineEisamanMaushasstruckback.InInwardnessandtheTheatreoftheEnglishRenaissancesheadduceshistoricalevidencetotheeffectthatthedistinctionbetweentheouterandtheinnerselveswasMargaretadeGrazia,‘TheMotiveforInteriority:Shakespeare’sSonnetsandHamlet’,Style,.(Fall),–.ThesephrasesareemphasisedinthetitleofAnnFerry’sIntroduction:‘Theinnerlife,therealself,andHamlet’,inThe‘Inward’Language:SonnetsofWyatt,Sidney,Shakespeare,andDonne(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,).FrancisBarker,TheTremulousPrivateBody:EssaysonSubjection(LondonandNewYork:Methuen,),.
Interioritynotonlyavailableintheearlymodernperiod,butwasalsoapervasiveandvexedissueintheculture,especiallyinitsreligiouspolitics.Morere-centlystill,RamieTargoffhasarguedthat‘non-conformistopponentsofthetheatreandthehighlyconformistecclesiasticsoftheEnglishchurch’shareda‘profoundconvictioninthetransformativepowerofpublicperformance’.Thatistosay,bothgroupsbelievednotsomuchintheseparationofanunknowableinnerfromapublicouterself,asMausargues,asintheefficacyofpublicperformancetoshapetheinnerselfinitsownimage.TheEnglishchurchdefendedpublicprayerandthenon-conformistsattackedthetheatreonthesamegrounds:outofasharedbeliefthatperformanceinevitablybecomesthemanorwoman.Theissueofinwardnessandperformance,orprivacyandtheatrical-ity,isthesubjectoftwokindsofcriticalconflict,then.Ontheonehand,thereisadebate,evenwithinmaterialistandhistoricistcriticism,aboutthehistoricalstatusoftheconcepts.Thequestioniswhethertheearlymodernperiodhadaccesstoatheoryofsubjectivitybasedonaninteriorself,orwhetherthisismerelyananachronisticprojectionoflatercriti-cism.Earlymaterialistcriticshadaconsiderableideologicalinvestmentintheargumentagainstinteriority.Itenabledthemtopositadecisivehistoricalbreakbetweentheearlymodernperiodandtheeraofbour-geoissubjectivityproper,andatthesametimetooffertheirownreadingsoftheperiodbasedonthetheoreticalcentralityofpubliclife.Ontheotherhand,manyfeministcriticsinvestedheavilyintheexistenceofaproperlyfemaleinterioritythatcouldbesaidtohavebeeninventedbywomenwriters,bothasabulwarkagainstahegemonicallypatriarchalpublicworldandasameansofauthenticfemaleexpressionwithwhichcontemporaryreaderscouldidentify.Bothformsofcriticismclaimtobehistorical,buteachseesevidencethatservesitspresentneeds.Thisisinitselfnogreatcrime.Butitleavestheclaimtobedoinghistoricalcriticisminapeculiarposition.Whatisthesearchforevidencefororagainstthe-oriesofinwardnessorinteriorityintheperiodmeanttoachieve?Whatrelationshipexistsbetweentheecclesiasticalnotionofthetransformativeperformanceofprayerorthetheatre,forexample,andthemeaningofKatherineEisamanMaus,InwardnessandtheTheatreoftheEnglishRenaissance(ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress,).RamieTargoff,‘ThePerformanceofPrayer:SincerityandTheatricalityinEarlyModernEngland,’Representations,(Fall),–().AnearlieressayinwhichMausoutlinesherargument(againstBelseyandBarker)thatthedistinctionbetweenprivateandpublicselveswasprevalentintheearlymodernperiodis,forexample,includedinarecentcollectionrepresentativeofmaterialistreadingsofShakespeare:MaterialistShakespeare,ed.IvoKamps(LondonandNewYork:Verso,),–.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysHamlet?AndhowdotheoriesofthepublicandtheprivateimpactupontheworkingsofShakespeare’ssonnets?Alltheparticipantsinthedebateacknowledgeevidencecontrarytotheirownpositions,buttheydifferintheweighttheyaccordit.So,BarkerdoesnotdenythatHamletclaimstohave‘thatwithinwhichpassethshow’(Hamlet,..).Hedownplaysitasamerelyprototypi-calanticipationofalaterphilosophicalandideologicalmoment.WhatFerryandMausregardasasignalhistoricalmomentBarkerdismissesasanaberration.Mausseesthedistinctionbetweentheinwardandtheperformativeselfmaintainedbypersecutedanddisempoweredgroupsasasignofthecurrencyoftheprivateintheearlymodernperiod.Targoffinterpretsthesameevidenceasanexceptionthatprovesthecontraryrule‘thatthemainstreamEnglishpopulationincreasinglyclungtothereliabilityofvisibleappearances’(‘ThePerformanceofPrayer’,).Thisisinitselfacuriousclaim.ButitisalsodifficulttoseehowitissupposedtoswayourviewofcomplexsymbolicartefactssuchasHamletortheson-nets.Assumingforthemomentthatthe‘mainstreamEnglishpopulation’(whateverthatmightbe)wereanxiouslysteadfastinthisbelief,doesthatmeanthatShakespeare’splayautomaticallyreflectsthisorthodoxy?Isuspectthatwhateverreasonstheorthodoxclergyhadforendorsingtheperformativeaspectsofprayer,likeanyoneelsetheirbeliefinthereliabil-ityofoutwardappearancesineverydaylifewasnotheldasadogma,butvariedpragmaticallyfromoccasiontooccasion.Sometimesonetrustedwhatonesaw,atothertimesonedidnot.Andoneadjustedone’sbe-haviouraccordingly.Thereisandwasnothingmetaphysicalaboutthis.Thisisnottosaythatpeopledidnothavemetaphysicaltheories.Theissueistoaccordthemtheirproperplacebothwithinthedailylivesofpeoplelivingincomplexrelationswithoneanotherandtheworld,andinwhatusedtobecalledthe‘literarysystem’.Maushasobservedthatthedebateisconfusedbyatendencytocon-flatetwoquitedifferentthings:aphilosophicalargument,derivedfromadistinctlymodernandpostmodernbodyofwriting,whichregardstheselfasanessentiallysocialproduct,andahistoricalargumentthatdeniesearlymoderninwardnessinordertoavoidanachronism.Thelatterdoesnotfollowfromtheformer.Itisafundamentalmistaketobelievethatthephilosophicaldependenceoftheconceptofinwardnessuponsocialorpublicformsoflifeandexpressionmeansthat‘inwardnesssimplyvapor-izes,liketheWickedWitchoftheWestunderDorothy’sbucketofwater’(Inwardness,).Thetaskistoseehowtheconceptofinwardnessisusedintheperiod,whatworkitdoesandhowpreciselyitisarticulatedwith
Interioritycomplementary,publicconcepts.Mauschoosestoexaminetheconceptasitisemployedinforensicandreligiousdiscourses:asonepoleofthedistinctionbetweentheknowable,butsuperficialanddeceptive,‘outer’personandtheunknowable,butdeeplytrue,‘inner’being.Shemakesaconvincingcaseforthewide-rangingdeploymentofthisdistinctionforhistoricallyspecificpolitical,religiousandlegalends,especiallyincaseswherethepressuresofinterrogationandpersecutionrenderedthedifferencebetweenwhattheheartfeelsandthetonguespeaksuseful,ifnotindispensable.Theproblemofinwardnessintheperiodisthusinherviewtheproblemof‘otherminds’,butnotintheradicallyscepticalforminwhichtheveryexistenceofothermindsisputindoubt.Rather,itiswhathappensinthoseminds,whattheycontain,thatisforeversecret,essentiallyunknowable(Inwardness,).Inamorerecent,lesstheoreticallyvexed,essaycalled‘TheSilentSpeechofShakespeare’sSonnets’,GeorgeT.Wrightpursuestheques-tionof‘inwardness’inrelationnottotheforensicproblemofdiscoveringtheinnerself,buttothedevelopmentoftheresourcesof‘innerspeech’inShakespeare’ssonnetsandplays.Takingalinethatisverydifferentfrommyownemphasisontheembodimentofthesonnet’svoiceviatheplays,Wrightseesinthesonnetsanessentially(orperhapsonlypredominantly)silentvoice:onedisembodied,spokeninandspeakingaboutabsence,withoutsound,aboveall,unperformed.Itis‘speechwithoutspeech’or,perhapsmoreaccurately,speechinsidespeech.ThedifferencesuponwhichWrightdwellsinhisattemptstodistinguishthetwodifferentkindsofspeechareabsenceanddisembodiment.Theunsoundedspeechofthesonnetsissolitary,rehearsedonly‘asif’thewriterwerepresenttotheaddressee.Becauseunsounded,itis‘notreallyavoice;itdoesnotspeak,itmakesnosound,itdoesnotsharewithactualvoices(orevenwhispers)thephysicalcharacteristicsofpitch,volume,timbre,andaccent;itisunheard’(‘SilentSpeech’,).Wright’sessayismostsuggestivewhenheclaimsadeep,internalcon-nectionbetweenthesilentspeechofthesonnetsandthe‘inward’speechofsuchfiguresinShakespeare’splaysinwhomwerecognisean(oftentroubled,sometimesevil)interiority:Hamlet,RichardIII,PrinceHal,HenryIV,Cassius,Brutus.Exploringanotentirelyuntravelledcriti-calpaththattakesusthroughthesonnetstotheplays,WrightsuggeststhatShakespearefashionsfromthepoems’commandofsilent,internalGeorgeT.Wright,‘TheSilentSpeechofShakespeare’sSonnets’,inShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays,ed.JamesSchiffer(NewYork:Garland,),–.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysspeechthesenseofdeepinwardnessthatcharacteriseshisdramaticcharacters:‘anauthenticinnervoicebecomesavailableafterorsotomanyofShakespeare’scharacters,whospeakthisprivateorinti-matelanguagefromthestageasnoonehadeverdonebefore’(‘SilentSpeech’,).Iftheinnerspeechofthesonnetsis,inWright’sfelicitousphrase,a‘playwithoutaplay’,thentheaddedcontextoftheplayit-selfmayindeedchangecertainmaterialaspects–sound,accent,pitch,volume,asWrightpointsout–butitcannotchangeitaslanguage,asspeech.Inotherwords,Wright’shistoricistargumentthatthesonnetsaretheworkshopforthefashioningofan‘innerspeech’thatrendersstagecharactersmore‘authentic’–certainlymorecapableofrepresentingstatesofmind,feelingsandacontinuousinternalformofconscious-ness–meansthat‘innerspeech’cannotbearadicallydifferentlanguagefromsounded,publicortheatricalspeech.Ifthehistoricalconnectionbetweenthemistobesustained,thenthesilentlanguageofinteriorityinthesonnetscannotdifferaslanguagefromthesoundeddiscourseofintimateinwardnessonthestage.Inthisrespect,Saussureisright:theperceptionoflanguageassuchisindependentofitsmaterialaspects.Furthermore,forthesilentspeechofthesonnetstocarrytheweightoflanguageasspeechact–andnotmerelytohoverasempty,ghostlyforms–the‘innerear’mustbeableto‘hear’tone,volume,timbre,pitch,evenaccent.Thesedonothavetobesoundedtoregister:theyarethetracesofexterioritythatareborneintheverysilentlisteningofthedeepestinwardness.Mostimportant,theconventionalforceoftheperformative,derivedfromtheworldofpublicdiscourse,shouldinprin-ciplebealiveinallinnerspeech.Unsoundedornot,theperformativesofpromising,threatening,imploring,declaringandsoonmustbecapableofbeingreproducedwhenIspeaktomyself,orwhenIimaginemyselfspeakingtoanabsentperson,orwhenIrehearseanabsentperson’simaginedspeechtosomeonefaraway.Itshouldbeclearthatthe‘inwardness’thatWrightwishestotracethro-ughthe‘silentspeech’ofthesonnets,andtheforensic‘interiority’thatMauscorrectlyemphasisesinherhistoriciststudy,aredifferent,thoughperhapsrelated,concepts.Theformerisnot–oronlytangentially–concernedwithwhatishidden,secretorunknowable.Onthecon-trary,Wright’sdoubleemphasisonthepassageofsuchspeechintoForaclassicstatementofthisargument,seeV.N.Voloshinov,MarxismandthePhilosophyofLanguage,trans.LadislawMatejkaandI.R.Titunik(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,).ButseealsoJacquesDerrida,SpeechandPhenomena(Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,)foradifferentformoftheargument.
Interioritytheplays,andhisemphasisonitsrecognisablenature,eveninitsmostin-tensely‘private’moments,suggeststhatwhileweareindeeddealingwitharealmthatisdistinctfromwhatis‘outside’,itishardlyunknowableorevenanindexoftheunknowable.Inotherwords,Wrightsuggeststhattheprivateandthepublicaredistinctconcepts,buttheyarenotseparatedbyradicallydifferentlanguages.Thesamelanguageinhabitsboth.Thismeansthat,whileMausisrightininsistingthatearlymoderninwardnesscannotbedissolvedinasolutionofpostmodernphilosophyandhistoricism,herownforaysintotheradicalunknowabilityoftheinteriorselfcastlittlelightonthelanguageofinwardnessattributedtothesonnetsandplayssuchasHamlet.Iamarguingthatthereissomethingmisleadingaboutahistoricismthatseekstodeterminethemeaningsofliterarytextsonthebasisoftheo-riesthatmayormaynothavebeenheldbythe‘mainstreampopulation’ofthetime.ThescholarshipofferedbythemonographsandessaysthatIhavecitedsofarundeniablycontributestothehistoryofideas.Butasaseriesofmovesindeterminingwhatplaysandsonnetscanorcannotmeanitishardlydecisive.Participantsinthedebateconflatethehistoryofsubjectivitywiththehistoryofitsrepresentation.Theyassumethatifsomethingisnotrepresentedintheliteratureoftheperiodthenitsim-plydidnotexist:literatureistakentobesymptomaticofhumanlifeingeneral,indeed,completelymimeticofit(despitethecurrentrevulsionfrommimesis).Ifwetakesubjectivityas,notsomething‘within’which‘passethshow’,butamanifoldofspeechactsorlanguagegamesthataparticularcultureneedstoconductthecomplexproceduresandinter-actionsofitssociallife,itbecomesmorequestionabletoattributethistoourselvesorthe‘modern’periodbuttodenyitofothersonsupposedlyhistoricalgrounds.Humansubjectivitydoesnotbelongtoanyonecul-tureorperiod;itdoesnotariseatanydiscerniblehistoricalmoment;itisbornwithlanguageitself.Weshouldnotbemisledbytheundeniablehistoricalcasethattechniquesfortherepresentationofsuchspeechactsdodevelophistorically,butitisamistaketobelievethatthisrepresentsthedevelopmentofhumansubjectivityitself.Todosoistoattributeaconsiderablyreducedintellectual,emotionalandspirituallifetoany-bodybeyondthenarrowconfinesoftheEuropeanEnlightenmentanditspostmodernmanifestations.IamtalkinghereaboutwhatWittgensteincallsthe‘formsoflife’thatinformthelanguagegamesavailabletoagrouporacultureintheirdailypractices,notanytheorythattheymightholdaboutthesubjectiv-itythattheirlinguisticpracticesmakeavailabletothem.Suchtheories
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysdochange,develop,regress,buttheyareinastrictsensebesidethepointregardingtheavailabilityofhumansubjectivityassuch.Iwanttosuggest,therefore(beforeIgoontodiscussShakespeare’sHamletandhissonnets),thatwhatevertheoriestheEnglishpopulation–ofwhateverstreamortrib-utary–held,areirrelevant.HereisWittgensteinonthebestwayofillus-tratingthemeaningofaparticularspeech:‘Thecontextsofasentencearebestportrayedinaplay.Thereforethebestexampleforasentencewithaparticularmeaningisaquotationinaplay.Andwhoeverasksapersoninaplaywhathe’sexperiencingwhenhe’sspeaking?’Whenthephilosophertriestodemonstratethenonsensicalnatureofawidespreadandapparentlyphilosophicallyrigorousandcommonsensicalbeliefthatthemeaningofawordisthethingforwhichitstands,heincludeswithinhisdemonstrationconceptsthatpertaintoinwardnessorinteriority.Thetheorytowhichheisopposedholdsthatjustastheword‘table’standsfor(andthereforederivesitsmeaningfrom)theobjectintheworldtowhichitcorresponds,sotheword‘pain’meanswhatitdoesthroughitscorrespon-dencewithaninnerstateorfeeling.Indeed,thecorrespondencetheorysooncollapsestherelationsbetweenwordsandmaterialobjectsintoan‘interior’relationshipestablishedthroughaninnerprocesscalled‘mean-ing’or‘intention’.Thewordisconnectedtothethingviamy‘meaning’itinaparticularway.IntermsofthispictureIammostsecurewhenImeanbyawordaninnerstatethatonlyIcanknow.Wittgensteinarguesthatthisisafundamentallymistakennotionofhowlanguageworks.IfwhatIshallcall‘conceptsofinwardness’gettheirmeaningfromwhateverinteriorstateapersonhappenstobeexperiencing,Wittgensteinargues,thiswouldbelikesomeonewhohasaboxwhich,s/heclaims,containsabeetlewhichonlys/hecansee.Themomentanyoneelsetriestoinspectthisbeetletheboxshutsquicklyandfirmly.Insuchcircumstancesthebeetlewouldinfactberedundant.Itwouldnotmatteronewayortheotherwhethertherewasorwasnotabeetleinthebox.Allwehavetoworkwithistheboxitself,withorwithoutitsbeetle.Thisisnottodenythatthereisabeetleinthebox:wedonotknow,anditdoesnotmatter.Byanalogywehaveonlythewordsinpubliccirculationtoworkwith.Anyinterior‘beetle’thatissupposedtogivethemlifeormeaning,butwhichishiddenfromtheviewofallbutasingleperson,isredundant.Wordsworkwithoutinteriorstatestobackthemup.AndtobringthisLudwigWittgenstein,LastWritings,vol.,ed.G.H.vonWrightandHeikkiNyman,trans.C.G.LuckhardtandMaximilianA.E.Aue(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,),.LudwigWittgenstein,PhilosophicalInvestigations,trans.G.E.M.Anscombe(Oxford:Blackwell,),.
Interiorityout,Wittgensteinsuggeststhattheparadigmcaseforexplanationofameaningofawordisitsuseinasentenceinaplay.Becauseofthedistancebetweenactorandcharacter,noappealto‘inwardstates’inthespeaker(actor)canbeinvokedtoaccountforthemeaningofthewordorsentence.Whateverinteriorstatetheactorisexperiencingisirrelevanttowhats/heissaying:‘whoeverasksapersoninaplaywhathe’sexperiencingwhenhe’sspeaking?’Andweunderstandutterancesinplaysperfectlywell,eventhosethatexpressorspeakof‘interiorstates’thattheactorispalpablynotexperiencing.Thisargumentunderscorestheclaimmadeabove,namely,that‘inner’and‘outer’speech,whatevertheirmaterialdifferences,arenotdifferentlanguages.Thereisthereforeapassagefromonetotheother,exemplifiedhistoricallyinavarietyofShakespeare’stexts,sothatitmakesperfectsensetosaythatthelanguageofinwardnessisconstitutedbypubliclife.Themeaningsofthewordsusedofinwardstatesarenotthosestatesthemselves,butratherpubliclyderivedrulesanduses.Thatdoesnot,however,meanthatinwardnessdisappears:thedistinctionbetweentheinteriorandtheexteriorhasauseinthelanguage,howevermuchofasocialproductlanguagemaybe.Consequently,itisinvalidtocollapseinwardnessintooutwardness,theprivateintothepublic,onthegroundsthatlanguageissocial.Inshort,weshouldtakecarenottodenytheconceptualdistinctionbetweenthesedifferentconcepts.Inthelightofthisargument,thesystematicchoiceofaplay,Hamlet,aseithertheepitomeor,attheveryleast,theanticipatoryinstance,ofmoderninteriorityshouldstrikeusasbeingespeciallyinteresting.Forwhateverinterioritytheplaycarriesispurelyconceptual.Thatistosay,wecannotattributesuchinterioritytoanythinghiddenwithintheac-torspeaking,asHamlethimselfappearstodowhenheclaimstohave‘thatwithinwhichpassethshow’.WhateverHamlet‘haswithin’,inthismetaphysicalsenseofbeinghidden,islikethebeetleinthebox:irrel-evant,redundant.Interiorityisafunctionoflinguisticuseinpubliclyaccessiblecontexts,asourunderstandingoftheplayitselfdemonstrates.Butthatisnottosaythatinteriorityasaconcept‘vaporises’.FerryclaimsthatinHamletandhissonnetsShakespearelearned,viaSidney,topositaninteriorthatwasnotsimplyobscuredby‘outwardshow’.SheMaus’sworkisusefulindemonstratingthatsuchauseisnotconfinedtoapost-Enlightenmentage,butisaliveinthegeneraldiscoursesoftheearlymodernperiod.SeealsoLynneMagnusson,ShakespeareandSocialDiscourse:DramaticLanguageandElizabethanLetters(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,),‘Toemphasizetheoutwarddeterminationorthesocialorientationofutterancesneednotbetodenythemanyrelationtoinwardstatesorindividualpsychology’().
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysclaimsthatShakespeareassertsaradicaldifferencebywhichtheheartis‘unknowable,inexpressible,andthatthereforeitmaydefyjudgement’(The‘Inward’Language,).Thisinner,hiddenself,whichineffectcan-notbe‘unpacked’becauseitisbeyondlanguageandjudgement,istheinventionofwhat,inthemodernworldproper,Ferryclaims,cametoberegardedasthe‘real’self.Iamclaiming,onthecontrary,thatHamletquaplaydemonstratesthatinteriorityisamatterofthemeaning(thepublicuse)ofconcepts.WhateverElizabethans,jointlyorseverally,mayormaynothavebelievedabouttheinnerandtheoutermanis,strictlyspeaking,irrelevanttotheplayofconceptsinthedrama.FollowingWittgenstein’ssuggestion,wecanseethattheatricalitymay,infact,bestenableustoseetheproperplaceandoperationsofinteriority.Iwanttotakethissuggestionfurtherbyclaimingthatthesameistrueofthelyric.Thelyricmayappeartobedifferentfromthetheatre.There,surely,thebeetleisundeniable;thelyricisthepureexpressionofin-wardness,thevehiclewherebyone‘unpacks’one’sheart.Butasfarasthemeaningsofwordsareconcerned,HamletonthestageandShakespearewritingsonnetsareinexactlythesameposition:theparadigmcase,evenforasintimateathingastheheart,isthetheatre.Thisclaimrequiresfurtherelaborationandcarefulqualification,foritisclearthatthelyricandthetheatrearenotthesamethings.ForthemomentIwishmerelytoregistertheWittgensteinianpointthatthetheatreisthemodelcaseforinvestigatingconceptsofinteriority,forinitwearelesslikelytolookforthemeaningsofwords(evenonespertainingtointeriority)intheemo-tionalstatesofthespeakers.ThisargumentcontradictsFerryandMaus,whoholdthatthe‘inwardnesstopos’prevalentintheearlymodernpe-riodaffirmsaradicalinterioritywhich‘escapestheatricalrepresentation’(Maus,Inwardness,).Itis,however,consistentwithWright’ssuggestionthattheplaysandsonnetsshareacommonlanguageof‘innerspeech’,andevenwithhisclaimthatShakespeare’smasteryoftherepresentationofinteriorityistheproductofaparticularhistoricalmoment.Toinventapoeticsubjectivityisnotthesamethingasinventinghumansubjectivity.Shakespeareisremarkableforshowingus,boththeatricallyandpoetically,therichdramaofbothpublicandprivatelifeasitisenactedandembodiedinthelanguagegamesandspeechactsthatcon-stitutelanguageinitsrelationtolivedexperience.Inaspecialsense,then,interiorityisnotopposedtotheatricality:itisinextricablyimbricatedinit.The‘interiority’ascribedtoHamletandthespeaker(s)ofthesonnetsshouldnotbesoughtinanysupposedlynewtheoryaboutthedifference
Interioritybetweenaninnerandanouterself.Itresidesinthewayinwhichtheplayandthepoemsrepresentorenactacomplexplayofspeechacts,publicorprivate:inthelinguisticrepresentationof‘thought’,conveyedinaseriesofrelatedandconflictingjudgements,propositions,questions,es-timations,expressionsoffeeling,exclamationsandsoon.Shakespeare’smasteryoftherepresentationofthemanifoldofspeechactsandtheirrelationshipsthatmakeuphumandiscourseandthoughtmakescertainofhisspeakersappeartoconveywhatwenowliketothinkofasaprop-erlyinteriorself:whatFerrymisleadinglycallsa‘realself’.Itisentirelyplausiblethatpeopleremovedfromushistoricallyshouldnothavehadthisorthattheory,oreventhattheyshouldhavehaddifferentconcepts.Butthatisnottosaythattheywereincapableofformingjudgements,makingpromises,engaginginintellectualexploration,expressingfeel-ings,andperformingamyriadofspeechactswhichmakeupthetextureoflanguageinuse.ThereisnomomentintheShakespeareancanoninwhichtherelation-shipbetweenwordsandtheheartismoreconsequentialthanintheopeningsceneofKingLear.Lear’sunwaveringconfidenceintheabsolutepowerofhispublicperformativestocommandandremaketheworld–ashedemandsdemonstrationsoflove,dividesandalienateshiskingdomwithaseriesofsweepinggestures,warns,chastisesand,finally,disin-heritsandbanishes–ismatchedbyhisuncomplicatedbeliefthatlovemaybeexpressedandweighedinthearenaofpubliccontest.EveryoneknowsthatwhereasGonerilandReganarepreparedtoindulgeintheKing’scharade,Cordeliafeelsthattheexpressionoffiliallovere-quiresadifferentlanguagegame,anotherkindofspeechact.Justwhatthatlanguagegameis,isnotmadeclearinthisscene(thoughitisinthecourseoftheplay).Thisuncertaintyleadstotheunderstandablecon-clusionthatloveisessentiallyinexpressible,irreduciblyprivate,certainlybeyondmerewords.Butinsteadofstandinginoppositiontothespeechactbywhichloveisostensiblyexpressed,thebeliefinthefundamentalinadequacyoflanguageismostpowerfullypresentintheveryrhetoricbywhich(false)lovestrainstomakeitselfheard.HereisGoneril:Sir,Idoloveyoumorethanwordscanwieldthematter;Dearerthaneyesight,space,orliberty;Beyondwhatcanbevalued,richorrare;Nolessthanlife;withgrace,health,beauty,honour;Asmuchaschilde’erloved,orfather,friend;
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysAlovethatmakesbreathpoorandspeechunable.BeyondallmannerofsomuchIloveyou.(KingLear(Quarto),..–)‘Alovethatmakesbreathpoorandspeechunable’ispreciselythestatethatinformstheexpressivemutenessofsonnet,wheretheplayer-poet,likeLear’sdaughter,isexposedtotheagonisticdisplayofapublicarena.Inthefaceofhersister’sprecedentandherfather’sdemand,Cordeliafeelsthatshecansaynothing(thoughshecandomuch,merelybyremainingsilent–seethediscussioninthepreviouschapter).Thedifferencebetweenspeechandactionisbroughtoutbyatellingequivo-cationbetweentheQuartoandtheFoliotexts:‘WhatshallCordeliado?’(..)sheasksintheformer;‘WhatshallCordeliaspeak?’(..)inthelatter.IfCordeliaquiteliterallyspeaks‘nothing’,hersilenceisitselfaformofaction,aperformativethatrejectsthelanguagegamethattheKinginsistsonplayingasinappropriate.Cordeliaconsequentlyresolvestosaynothing,butalsotocarryondoingwhatshehasalwaysdone:to‘loveandbesilent’(..).Cordeliamayseemtorepresentaparadigmcaseofunknowableorunspeakableinwardness.Thisappearstobesignalledbyheraside,‘Iamsuremylove’s/Moreponderous[richer–Quarto]thanmytongue’(..–)andbythemoreopendeclarationtoherfatherandtheas-sembledcourt:‘Icannotheave/Myheartintomymouth’(..–).Butsheisnotentirelytruetoherword.Sheresponds,notwithcompletesilence,butinthelanguagegameofpublic,socialobligation–alanguagegamethatisappropriatetothecontext:IloveyourmajestyAccordingtomybond,normorenorless.(..–)Ifalargeraudiencethanmerelyherfatherhasreadinthismeticulousstatementacertainaloofness,evenacalculatedhard-heartedness,itisbecausetheymissthewayinwhichitexposestheinappropriatenesstotheoccasionofthekindofspeechactthattheKingdemands,andinwhichhersistersarealltoowillingtoindulge.Deprivedfromthebegin-ningofeventherhetoricwherebywordsmaybedeclaredinadequatetolove(sincethatrhetoricisalreadypartofhersisters’declarations),butunabletoremaincompletelysilent,Cordeliaspeakspubliclyofloveinpublicterms:ofduty,bondsandobligations.Doesthismeanthatthereisanotherkindoflove,adeeper,moreintimateandprivatekind,whichis,ifnotunknowable,thencertainlybeyondlanguage?No.Itmerely
Interioritymeansthatwithinacontextofpubliccompetitionnolanguagegameisavailableorappropriateinwhichtospeakofsuchlove.KentdoesnotdoubtCordelia’slove.Nordowe.Nor,indeed,dowedoubtKent’sown(different)loveforLear.Withinthiscontext,torefusetospeakisitselfadeclarationoflove,althoughthatinitselfisnotsufficient.Throughthecombinationofsubsequentspeechandactiontheplaysubsequentlyconfirmsourinitialimpressionsoftheirrespectiveloves,andLearhim-selfcomestorecognisetheirloveindifferent,moreintimatecontextsofspeechandaction.OneofthethingsthatLearlearnswhenhisspeechactsnolongerhavethepowertotransformtheworldintohisownim-ageofit,arethelanguagegamesandtheirsurroundingsthatmakespeakingofloveandappreciatingitpossible.Despiteappearances,then,Cordelia’sinabilityto‘heaveherheartintohermouth’doesnotsignalherpossessionofadeepinwardnessimpervioustolanguageorshow.Itdemonstrateshersensitivitytothesurroundingsthatmakeormarlovetalk.Thatsensitivityconfirmsmyargumentthatwhereasthepublicandtheprivatearedistinctconcepts,theyaredistinguishedbydifferencesinlanguagegames(whichincludebehaviourandcontext)ratherthantheincompatibilitiesofspeechandsilence,outwardnessandinwardness.ThepressuresofCordelia’ssituationareinstantlyrecognisableinthelikestrugglesoftheplayer-poettonegotiatetheoften-incompatiblede-mandsofloveanddutyinasimilarlycompetitive,publicshow.Takesonnet,fromthe‘rivalpoet’sequence:toung-tideMuseinmannersholdsherstill,Whilecommentsofyourpraiserichlycompil’d,ReseruetheirCharacterwithgouldenquill,AndpreciousphrasebyalltheMusesfil’d.Ithinkegoodthoughts,whilstotherswritegoodwordes,AndlikevnletteredclarkestillcrieAmen,ToeueryHimnethatablespiritaffords,Inpolishtformeofwellrefinedpen.Hearingyoupraisd,Isay’tisso,’tistrue,Andtothemostofpraiseaddesome-thingmore,Butthatisinmythought,whoselouetoyou(Thoughwordscomehind-most)holdshisrankebefore,Thenothers,forthebreathofwordsrespect,Meformydombethoughts,speakingineffect.Theparadoxoftheplayer-poetasan‘vnletteredclarke’repeatsitselfmoregenerallythroughoutthepoem,whichiswrittenpreciselytodeclare:‘Ithinkegoodthoughts,whilstotherswritegoodwordes’.The
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplayssonnetoffersaglimpseofthepublicnatureofthecomplimentagainstwhichitsubtlyalignsitsownmoreinwardappreciation.Evenifthe‘richlycompil’d’and‘preciousphrase’oftherivalpoetryisconceivedasbeingwritten,itextendsbeyondtheintimatespacebetweenaddresserandaddressee.Itcirculatesmorewidely,eitheronthepageor,asthesonnetitselfsuggests,itisreadoutaloudinacompanyofwhichtheplayer-poetisamember.Heisexpectedattheveryleasttoaddhisownvoicetothesentimentsexpressed:‘Hearingyoupraisd,Isay’tisso,’tistrue.’Withthisself-quotation,likethe‘Amen’earlier,offeredasdirectspeech,thesonnetdrawsanimplieddistinctionbetweentheenforced,voicedspeechofthepublicoccasionandthesilentthoughtsofamorepersonaldevotion.Ratherthanbeingentirelyinternalandunvoiced,however,suchloveoccupiesaparadoxical,liminalrelationshipbetween‘dombethoughts’andthe‘breathofwords’–intheformofthemoreintimate,lesspublickindofwritingexemplifiedbythepoemitself.Thereticentstrainsofhispublicvoice,soundedasamereendorsementofthepraiseofothers,arecontrastedwiththeelaboratelogicofthesonnetitself,whichannouncesitselfasaprivatedocument:the‘speakingineffect’oftheplayer-poet’s‘dombethoughts’intheirwrittenform.Thepoemthuspresentsaperfectlycogentdistinctionbetweenthepublicandtheprivate.Butdespitethelanguageofsilentinteriority,itsveryperformancerepudiatestheideathattheprivateissomethingfundamentallyinexpressibleorunknowable.Thepoemseekspreciselytomake‘dombethoughts’speak‘ineffect’,butwithoutnegotiatingthedebilitatingworldofpublicself-display.Likesonnet,itshowsthatwordsmaybesavedfrommerebreathinessintheproperlyprivate(butnotunknowable)languageofwriting.Andlikethatsonnetitisalesson,anattempttoteachtheyoungmanofrankhowtoaccommodatehimselftosuchalanguage.Hamletishardlyrecognisedasaplayinwhichsonnetsfigurepromi-nently.Itdoes,however,containaprominentsonneteer.LikeBenedickbeforehim,Hamlettrieshishandatrhymetoexpresshisadmirationanddesireforthe‘mostbeautifiedOphelia’(..),admittingopenly,ifambiguously,thatheis‘illatthesenumbers’(..).OpheliaspeaksofHamlet’smany‘tendersofaffection’(..),underscoredby‘allthevowsofheaven’(..),andintheirpainfulencounterin.,sheexpressesher(enforced)desiretoreturnhis‘remembrances’(..)orig-inallyaccompaniedby‘wordsofsosweetbreathcomposed/Asmadethethingsmorerich’(..–).IfHamletisindeed,assheputsit,
Interioritythe‘glassoffashionandthesoulofform’(..),displaying,amongstotherthings,the‘courtier’s...tongue’(..),thenitisprobablysafetoassumethat‘themusicofhishoneyvows’,whichsheadmitstohave‘sucked’(..),wouldhavearrivedintheshapeofasonnetor,indeed,anumberofsonnets.LikethesonnetsinLove’sLabour’sLost,Hamlet’sversedoesnotremainwithintheprivatespacebetweenhimselfandhisbeloved.Itismonitoredbyherfather,alienatedandredistributedtotheKingandQueen,whereitisreadoutinthepublicspaceofthecourt,subjectedtoPolonius’s‘literary’criticism,turnedintotheobjectofforensicenquiryand,pre-sumably,finallyreturnedtohimbyOpheliaatherfather’sbehest.Itisinthepublicdomain.Yetitisalsoindubitablyprivate,itsprivacyasviolatedasOpheliamustfeelherstobewhenHamlet,uninvited,en-tersherclosetinhisownsilentlyeloquentdumb-show,his‘doubletallunbraced/...hisstockingsfouled,/Ungartered,anddown-gyvedtohisankle’(..–).Hamletassonneteeristhusasembroiledasanysonneteerintheproblemofwhatwordsmaysayinasocietynotmerelygivenovertoflatteryandlies,butinwhichthegeneralencroachmentofthepublicupontheprivateworldrendersthelatterextremelyprecarious.Suchencroachmentismaterial.Itistheproductofaparticularsocialworld,nottheresultofanymetaphysicalorphilosophicaltruth.Anynumberofconfusions,notleastthetheoreticalreductionoftheprivatetothepublic,areliabletoarisefromafailuretoobservethedistinctionbetweenwhatIshallcallmetaphysicalandmaterialanti-theatricality.Forclarification,letusturntothelocusclassicusofearlymodern‘interiority’,Hamlet’sresponsetohismother’sinjunctiontoabandonhismourningdisposition:GoodHamlet,castthynightlycolouroff,AndletthineeyelooklikeafriendonDenmark.Donotforeverwiththyvail`edlidsSeekforthynoblefatherinthedust.Thouknow’st’tiscommon–allthatlivesmustdie,Passingthroughnaturetoeternity.Ay,madam,itiscommon.Ifitbe,Whyseemsitsoparticularwiththee?Seems,madam?Nay,itis.Iknownot‘seems’.’Tisnotalonemyinkycloak,good-mother,Norcustomarysuitsofsolemnblack,Norwindysuspirationofforcedbreath,No,northefruitfulriverintheeye,
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysNorthedejectedhaviourofthevisage,Togetherwithallforms,moods,showsofgriefThatcandenotemetruly.Theseindeed‘seem’,Fortheyareactionsthatamanmightplay;ButIhavethatwithinwhichpassethshow–Thesebutthetrappingsandthesuitsofwoe.(..–)Citedmostfrequentlyasasignalhistoricalmomentintheassertionofahiddeninterioritybeyondtheatricalrepresentation,Hamlet’sresponseishardlysimple.Whatontologicalrealitydoesheaffirminthecurt‘Seems,madam?Nay,itis’?Letmesuggestthatitisnotprimarilyanineffableinwardness,butratherhissingularity.Iflosingfathersiscommon,thenHamletassertstheuncommonnessofhispersistentgriefincontrasttothosearoundhimthathavebeenhappytoturnfromdeathtolife,from‘funeralbakedmeats’to‘marriagetables’(..–).Hethusreiterates,inwordsthistime,whatall‘outwardshow’–hisclothing,demeanour,actions–proclaimsfromthemomentheenters:hisdifferencefromthesocietyaroundhim.Havingdonethat,Hamletdoesindeedwishtosignalafurtherdiffer-ence:agrief,aninwardness,thatliesbeyondwhatDerridahascalled‘iterability’,orrepresentationitself.Hecandothisonlythroughwords,andsuchwords,paradoxically,canbenomorethangestures.Itisasifhefeelsthatanyactionthatcanberepeatedbysomeoneelse(includinghimself)istoogross,ortoopromiscuous,to‘denote[him]truly’(Hamlet,..).Glimpsingthismetaphysical‘revulsionfromrepresentation’,FerryandMausindifferentwaysattributeanotionofsomethingwithinthat–whateversuchathingis–isbydefinitioninexpressible.Assuch,itliesbeyondanythingthatcanbearmeaning.Itmay,inthissensethen,bemeaningless:abeetleinabox.Ofcourse,suchathingdoesnotliewithintheplayerthatplaysHamlet.ButletusentertaintheideathatitlieswithinthecharacterHamlet.Itissomethingtowardswhichthecharactercanonlygesture,momentarily,mutely.Theplayer,inturn,representsthatattemptatrepresentation,inagestureofagesture:lyingbeyondimitationitisnomorethanaglimmer,ananti-concept.ButitalsosinglesHamletout,signallingmorethananythinghisdifferencefromtheworldofDenmark.AssuchitparadoxicallysignifiesitsotherJacquesDerrida,LimitedInc,ed.GeraldGraff(Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,).RobertWeimann,‘Shakespeare(De)Canonized:ConflictingUsesof“Authority”and“Repre-sentation”’,NewLiteraryHistory,.(Autumn),.
Interiorityside:notaninwardnessthatismetaphysicallyunknowable,butonethat,likeCordelia’sloveforherfatherandtheplayer-poet’sdevotiontohisfriend,cannotbeexpressedbecausenocontextisappropriateforitsex-pression.Suchinwardnessisaneffect,notof‘consideringtoocuriously’(Hamlet,..)(thatistosay,metaphysically),butoffeelingoneselfatoddsinandwithone’ssociety.Inshort,Hamletthinksthathisinabilitytoexpresshisinnermostfeel-ingssignalsthemetaphysicalineffabilityofsuchastate,butwecanseethatitisaproductofhismaterialcircumstances.Heiscaughtinasocietythathasrobbedthelanguagegamesthatmaketheexpressionofinward-nesspossible,oftheirefficacy.Bothsensesofaninexpressibleinwardnesstradeonakindofanti-theatricality,butweshouldbecarefultokeepthemapart.Metaphysicalanti-theatricalityrecoilsfromsignificationit-self:fromwhateveriscapableofbeingduplicated,rehearsed,repeated.Itclingstothenotionof‘presence’whichDerridadeconstructs.Itthinksitlivesinthe‘privatelanguage’thatWittgensteinshowstobelogicallyimpossible(PhilosophicalInvestigations,ff.).Materialanti-theatricalityisverydifferent.Itstargetisnotrepresentationassuch,butratherthepossi-bleeffectsoftheatricalityasamodeofbehaviourinaparticularsituation.Inacontextinwhichpeoplearesystematicallyanddishonestlyosten-tatiousaboutfeelingsthattheydonothave,oraboutrolestheydonotdeserve,suchananti-theatricalpositionpreferstokeepitsowncounsel,todownplaythe‘actionsthatamanmightplay’andrefusetobe‘playedon’asapipe(Hamlet,..).Initsquestforpersonalintegrityitrefusesto‘heaveitsheartintoitsmouth’.Itssilenceisperformative,notempty.Iflanguagegamessignifyproperlyonlyinthesurroundingsthatmakethempossible,thenintheabsenceofsuchsurroundingsthewordsandgesturesbywhichtheyareusuallyplayedwillbeempty,assoundingbrass.Inasocietyinwhicheverygestureispotentiallyhollowthemodesofpersonalintegritywillbesilenceratherthanspeech,substanceratherthanform,plainnessratherthanornament.Butsuchchoicesaremadeintheordinaryworld:theyarethemselves‘actions’,‘forms’or‘moods’,andarethusnotpredicateduponanessentiallyunknowableandinexpressi-ble‘inside’.Theremaycomeatimewhenthesocietyissocorruptthatoneisatalosstosayordoanything,sinceitspoliticsormoralityhasde-generatedtothepointwherethefaceofintegrityisindistinguishablefromeveryother.Buttohavetomakeone’swayinsuchasociety(asHamlet,Cordelia,andtheplayer-poetofthesonnets,intheirdifferentways,do)isnottobeconfrontedbythe‘problemofotherminds’,asMausputsit(Inwardness,).Insuchasituationoneisnotfacedwiththephilosophical
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysproblemofwhetheranythingexistsoutsideone’sownmind,orwhetherthereisaninterior‘something’thatisliterallyunrepresentablebecauseitismetaphysicallynotamenabletore-presentation.Itistheproblemoffindingadequatewaysoflivingamongpeoplewhoarenotsomuchintrinsicallyunknowable(merelybyvirtueofbeingotherminds),butareratheralltootransparentlyshallowandduplicitous.Hamletandtheplayer-poetofthesonnetsmightseemtoentertainmetaphysicalformsofanti-theatricalityfromtimetotime.Theyare,however,attemptingtonegotiatewhatIhavecalledthematerialproblemofinwardness,eveniftheysometimesmisrecogniseitasametaphysicalone.JonasBarishremindsusthattheconceptoftheatricalitycarriespejo-rativeovertoneseventoday,andtheyarealmostinvariablycontrastedwiththoseofinteriority.Tobetheatricalistobanishprivacy–theinner,thepersonal,theprotected,thesecret,thedeep,theintimate,thecertain–infavourof‘show’–theouter,thepublic,thevulnerable,theexposed,thesuperficial,thecommonandtheduplicitous.Betweenthesetwositeslanguageitselfisinananomalousposition.Preserveroftheprivate,itisalsothemediumofthetheatrical.Inthemostanti-theatricalmomentssilencemustbedeclaredtheonlytruesignoftruth.Theparadoxthatsuchadeclarationentailsisobvious.Hamlettheplayspeaksineverywayagainstthephilosophicalanti-theatricalitythatintheviewofsomecriticsitsprotagonistexpresses.ThetragedyasawholedemonstratestheirreducibilityofalltheconceptsthatIhavealignedabovewiththeatricalitytothatwhich‘passethshow’.Orrather,theplaydemonstratesthatprivacyisinextricablyimbricatedintheforms,moodsandshowsofpubliclife,butalso(andthisisimportant)thatitisnotreducible,asaconcept,tothepublic.CriticswhoregardHamlet’sdisavowalofthat‘whichpassethshow’asthesignofamomentousaffirmationofunknowableinwardnessseldomconsiderhisintimaterelationshiptorepresentation,show,theatreandtheatricalityintherestoftheplay.Theyseldomaskwhetherthetheoryofinwardnessthattheyfindinhisearlyspeechisinfactsustainedbytheplayasawhole.Thereareatleastfourmajormomentsinwhichtheissueoftheatricalityanditsdiscontentsisrevisitedindetail:thearrivaloftheplayersinJonasBarish,TheAnti-TheatricalPrejudice(BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,),.SeeBarker,TheTremulousPrivateBody.JeffreyMastendiscussesthisissue,drawingasomewhatdifferentconclusionfrommyown,in‘Circulation,Gender,andSubjectivityinWroth’sSonnets’,inReadingMaryWroth:RepresentingAlternativesinEarlyModernEngland,ed.NaomiJ.MillerandGaryWaller(Knoxville:UniversityofTennesseePress,),.
InteriorityActScene;Hamlet’sencounterwithOpheliainthefollowingscene;Claudius’sprayersceneinActScene;andHamlet’sexcoriationofhismotherascenelater.Noneofthesescenesoffersahomogenoustheoryofinwardnessandtheatricality,althougheachexplorestheirconceptualrelationshipsanddifferences.InActScene,theatricalityisnotmerelyametaphororvehicleforthedistinctionbetweenoutwardnessandinwardness;furthermore,inwardnessitselfisconsiderablylessinscrutablethanHamlet’sopeninglinesmightsuggest.IfHamlet’searlyoppositionto‘actionsthatamanmightplay’stemsfromwhatIhavecalleda‘metaphysical’aversiontoperformance(andthisisnotsettled),heisbynomeansdismissiveofthemenwhoplaysuchactions.Infact,hegreetstheirarrivalwithconsider-ableenthusiasm,hedisplaysanintimateknowledgeofthepoliticsandsociologyofthetheatreandtreatstheplayersthemselveswithaneasyfamiliaritycombinedwithsingularrespect.Theatricalityispresentednotasaphilosophicalideabutasasetofmaterialsocialconditions,actionsandtechniques.Hamletismoreconcernedwiththepoliticsofthetheatrewars,thepressuresofaudienceexpectationsandthepracticalproblemsofaboyplayer’svoicebreakingtoosoonthanwiththeproblemsofscepticismthatarisefrom‘consideringtooclosely’thediscrepanciesbetweenthe‘exterior’andthe‘inwardman’(..).Later,beforetheper-formance,heiscertainlyconcernedwiththeatricalpractice–withtheappropriateuseofgestureandwordtoconveyarealisticsenseofhumanbehaviourandpassion–butthisisamatteroftechnique.Itcarriesnointrinsicsenseoftheinscrutabilityof‘thatwithinwhichpassethshow’.Ifanything,Hamletassumesthatonecanconveypassionadequately,pro-videdoneadjustsandcontrolsone’sbodyproperly:‘suit[ing]theactiontotheword,thewordtotheaction’and‘o’erstep[ping]notthemodestyofnature’(..–).EspeciallystrikingareHamlet’sthoroughknowledgeofandinterestinthetheatre,theeasygoingwarmthofhisrelationshipwiththecom-monplayersandtherespectwithwhichhetreatsthemandcommandsotherstotreatthem.Theroyalendorsementoftheplayersbothasmenandasthe‘abstractsandthebriefchroniclesofthetime’(..–)differsmarkedlyfromthesuperciliouscontemptthatthearistocratsinthecourtofTheseusdisplaytowardstheplayersinAMidsummerNight’sDream,whentheyusetheperformanceasavehiclefortheirownsu-periorityandwit.BothHamletandTheseusinsistthat,asanoble-man,treatinglesserpeoplewithrespectenhances‘yourownhonouranddignity’(Hamlet,..).OnlyHamletsuitstheactiontotheword.But
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysHamletdoesmorethanhonourtheplayerswithhisgrace:upontheirarrivalherelaxesforthefirsttime,pursuingmattersofwhatwemightcall‘ordinarylife’inwhichhehasarich,detailedinterest.ForthefirsttimeDenmarkseemsmorethanaprison.Hisdiscoursewithhissup-posedfriends,RosencrantzandGuildenstern,changes,uponthearrivaloftheplayers,fromguardedaccusationandenigmaticaphorismtoun-selfconsciousenquiryandgenuinelywarmbanter.Itisclearthattheplayersdodelighthim;everythinghedoesandsaysintheircompanyspeaksofadifferentman,onewhosuddenlynolonger‘seem[s]mostaloneingreatestcompany’.OnesuspectsthatHamletisabletorelaxamongtheplayerspreciselybecausetheyarenot‘politicians’:theyarehonestmentryingtheirbesttosustainadifficultandthanklesstradeinthefaceofthevicissitudesofpoliticsandfashion.IfthisseemslikespecialpleadingonthepartofShakespearetheplayer-dramatist,itshouldalsobeconsideredspecialpleadingbyWill,theplayer-poetofthesonnets.Therelationshipbetweenthepersonaofthesonnetsandtheprotagonistofthetragedylieslessinthemutualexpressionofaninexpressibleinwardnessthanintheinescapabilityofacertainkindoftheatricalityineachtext.Atonelevel,theplayer-poetofthesonnetsispleadingtobe‘used’afteraproperlynoblesenseof‘honouranddignity’.The‘oblacion,poorebutfree’(sonnet)thatheofferstotheyoungmanisthehonestgiftofamanwhoisliketheplayersinHamlet.Theyareatoncecontrastedto‘pittifulthrivors’(sonnet)suchasRosencrantzandGuildensternorPolonius.BothHamlet’sconsciouslyfriendlyrespectfortheplayersandhisunusualeaseintheircompanybespeaksShakespeareasplayer-poet’sdesiretopromotehisowncompanyasmorallyandpersonallysuperiorto‘otherswho’,inthepoet’sabsence,are‘alltooneere’(sonnet)hisowndarklord.ActScenepresentsHamletasadoublefigure:anidealmodelfortheyoungnoblemanofthesonnetsandasanexpressionoftheplayer-poet’sownstrugglewiththeproblemoftheatricalityin‘theselastsobad’days(sonnet).Thisconflationofthenobleprinceandcommonplayershouldcomeasnosurprise,consideringthesonnets’tensionbetweena‘mutuallren-der’(sonnet)which‘leauesoutdifference’(sonnet)andtheiracuteandpainfulacknowledgementofthesocialdistancebetweenloverandbeloved.Inthisrespect,Hamlet’swishtohearaplay–‘neveracted,or,ifPhilipSidney,AstrophilandStella,inThePoemsofSirPhilipSidney,ed.WilliamA.RinglerJr.(Oxford:Clarendon,),sonnet.
Interiorityitwas,notaboveonce...caviartothegeneral’andwhich‘pleasednotthemillion’becauseofitsquality(‘anexcellentplay’(..–))–alignshimmorewiththecreatorsofsuchmaterialthanwithacourtier,suchasPolonius,whois‘forajigorataleofbawdry,orhesleeps’(..–).TheinclusionofPoloniusamongthosewhowouldnotappreciateaplay‘verymuchmorehandsomethanfine’(–)complicateswhatappearatfirsttobeHamlet’sscornfulreflectionsonclass.Despitehispreten-sionstoliterarytaste,Poloniusanddoubtlessmanyothersofhisclassareincludedamongthe‘million’whosetastefor‘sallets’andostentatiousdisplaywouldconfineaplaysuchasHamletdescribestoasingleper-formance.Sotoo,perhaps,istheyoungmanofthesonnets,whoselovefor‘affectation’rendershimblindtothe‘honesty’thathisplayer-poetclaimsforhisownwork.Therearebothmetaphysicalandmaterialsensestotheatricalityinthisscene.Hamlet’sinteractionwiththeplayersinvitesustocontrasttheirbasichonestywiththesocialduplicityofthemembersofthecourtthatsurroundhim.Butatthesametime,theplayer’spassioninhisdeliveryoftheHecubaspeechdoesraisetheissueoftherelationshipordiscrep-ancyamongpassion,actionandwordthatisencapsulatedbyconsideringperformanceinmetaphysicalterms.Hamletisamazedbyneithertheplayer’sduplicitynorhisinscrutability,butratherbyhisuncannyabilitytomovehimselfandothersintheabsenceofanyimmediate,personalcause:‘What’sHecubatohim,orhetoHecuba/Thatheshouldweepforher?’(..–).Thisistheenergeiaofwhichtheanti-theatricalistsweresosuspicious,butofwhichbothPuttenhamandSidneywritewithundisguisedapproval.Hamlet’sreflectiononthemarveloftheplayer’scapacitytomake‘hiswholefunction[suit]/Withformstohisconceit’(..–)offersacontraryperspectiveonhisearlierinsistenceontheemptinessof‘outwardforms’andtheirincapacitytoexpressthe‘some-thing’intheheart.AsbothWittgensteinandHamlet,intheirdifferentways,remindus,theplayerhas‘nothing’intheheart(..);or,toputitmoreaccurately,theplayerneedfeelnoinwardpassionwhatsoeverforhisorherwordstobeimbuedwiththemostpowerfulforceandmeaning.Weshouldnotunderestimatehow‘monstrous’(..)thisinsightseemstothosewhoarecommittedtotheopposingmetaphysics,bywhichwordsareessentiallyinnerthings.Hamlet’sownlanguagebeginstobreakdownwhenhethinkstoonicelyonthis‘monstrosity’.ItseemstohimNoteSidney’scommentonthelackofenergeiaincontemporarypoets.Doeshemeanthattheylackrealpassions,orthattheirlanguagedoesnotmovethereader?
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysthatiftheplayerhadthe‘motiveandthecueforpassion’thathehas,theplayerwoulddrownthestagewithtears,Andcleavethegeneralearwithhorridspeech,Makemadtheguiltyandappalthefree,Confoundtheignorant,andamazeindeedTheveryfacultyofeyesandears.(..–)Butthisismerelyaninstanceoftheover-actingthathehimselfprohibitsbeforetheperformance.Iftheplayercouldbesomovedandsomovingwithoutanypersonalorinteriorstakeintheevent,thenaproperlyinte-riorpassionshouldsurelyintensifytheforceofthespeech.ButHamlethimselfknowsthatthisisfalsereasoning.Theplayerissomovingbecausehejustlycapturestheforceofhumanpassionbysuitingactiontoword–nothingelse.Whateverpassionhehimselfexperiencesisirrelevanttotheforceandmeaningofwhatheissaying.Hemayfeelnothing,yetstillrenderthespeechwiththemostpowerfulpassionandpersuasion.WhenthePrinceconsidershisowninadequacyitisperceivedintermsofhisincapacityforspeechratherthanaction:YetI,Adullandmuddy-mettledrascal,peakLikeJohn-a-dreams,unpregnantofmycause,Andcansaynothing–(..–;emphasisadded)Strange.WhenHamletdoesmanageinduecoursetoworkhimselfintoavituperativeragehesoonrealisesbothitsfutilityandemptiness:Bloody,bawdyvillain!Remorseless,treacherous,lecherous,kindlessvillain!O,vengeance!–Why,whatanassamI?Ay,sure,thisismostbrave,ThatI...Must,likeawhore,unpackmyheartwithwordsAndfalla-cursinglikeaverydrab,Ascullion!(..–)ThisisHamletfinally‘unpack[ing][his]heart’underthepressureofaproperlyinwardpassion.Buthiswordsringasemptilyasanyhamactor’s.Theinteriorityclaimedearlierishereshowntobeasvacantasthemonstrousfictionor‘nothing’oftheplayerwhoperformstheHecubaspeech.Onceherecovershimself,Hamletturnsonceagainto
Interioritythetheatreastheidealvehicleforhispurposes,butnotbeforehehasbrandedtheunpackingoftheheartasapeculiarly(andcontemptibly)femalepreoccupation.ThereislittleinActScene,then,toendorsetheclaimtounrepre-sentableinterioritythatHamletmakesinActScene.Ifanything,theencounterwiththeplayersandreflectionsonperformanceundercutitconsiderably,showingthatunpackingtheheartproduces‘nothing’:hol-lowwords.Hamlet’swords,theemptinessofwhichhehimselfacknowl-edges,butwhicharesupposedtoarisefromthefullnessofaninwardpassion,areinfactlessforcefulthanthe‘monstrous’fictionalityoftheplayerwhohasnothingwithinthatpassesshow.Nordoestherestofthescenecontradictthisfact.ClaudiussendsforRosencrantzandGuilden-sternbecausehebelievesthattheymightdiscoverwhatiswrongwithHamlet.Buthedoesnottalkofahiddeninterioritythatfailstomatchamanifestexterior.Heisconfidentonthebasisofwhathecanseethat‘notth’exteriornortheinwardman/Resemblesthatitwas’(..–).Furthermore,Hamlet’ssorrypairoffriendsareverybadatconcealingtheirrealpurpose.Heseesthroughthemimmediately:‘Youweresentfor,andthereisakindofconfessioninyourlookswhichyourmodestieshavenotcraftenoughtocolour.IknowthegoodKingandQueenhavesentforyou’(..–).Wittgensteincautionsagainstthescepticaldis-position,whichwantstogeneralisethefactthatwefindsomepeopleinscrutableintoauniversal,metaphysicalcondition,byremindingusofthedifferencebetweenindividualcases:‘Wealsosayofsomepeoplethattheyaretransparenttous.Itis,however,importantasregardsthisobservationthatonehumanbeingcanbeacompleteenigmatoanother’(PhilosophicalInvestigations,).Thatistosay,thefactthatsomepeoplefinditeasyto‘smileandmurderwhile[they]smile’(HenryVI,..)cannotbeextrapolatedacrossallcasesintoageneralscepticalprinciple.ForHamlet,theideaisunusualenoughtowarrantimmediaterecordinginhis‘tables’:‘Mytables,/Mytables–meetitisIsetitdown/Thatonemaysmileandsmileandbeavillain’(..–).Wittgensteinarguesthatwhetherornotwefindpeopleenigmaticwillbeconnectedwithde-greesnotonlyofpersonalbutalsoculturalandsocialfamiliarity.Thisisnot,hesays,‘becauseofnotknowingwhattheyaresayingtothemselves’butbecause‘wecannotfindourfeetwiththem’(PhilosophicalInvestiga-tions,).Hamlet’soft-remarkedabilitytoseethroughothers(Targoff,‘ThePerformanceofPrayer’,)isnotmerelyaproductofcharacterbutofsocialsituation;justas,Ishallargueshortly,theplayer-poetofthesonnetsencountershisdarklordasanenigmathroughtheinequalities
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysofpowerthatmarktheirrelationship.ThatHamletfailsinhisreadingofClaudiusatprayerdoes,perhapsasTargoffsuggests,‘reflectnegativelyuponthetransformativeforceofboththeatricalanddevotionalpractice’().Butwhatevertheoryitmayormaynotendorse,itreflectsthediffer-encesbetweenthelanguagegamesinwhichconceptsofinterioritygettheirmeanings.Suchdifferencestendtobeoverlookedinthesearchforwhatevergeneraltheoryprevailsinaspecificplay,authororthecultureasawhole.Itistheproductofalanguagegame,Wittgensteinargues,thatonecanhearGodspeakingonlytooneselfandnottoothers.Inotherwords,God’sspeechisaconceptdifferentfromyetrelatedtohumanspeech.WhenHamlet,seeingClaudiusatprayer,assumes(mistakenly)thatheisinastateoftruedevotion,herevealsadifferencebetweenlanguagegamesorconcepts;hedoesnotendorseanytheoryabouttheessentialinscrutabilityofhumaninteriority.Recentcriticismhassoughttorenderinterioritybothmoremate-rialandmaterialistbytranslatingpsychicintomaterialspace:intheformofthesemioticsignificanceandday-to-dayrolesoftheclosetasthemostprivateand‘inward’ofroomsinthearistocratichouseintheearlymodernperiod.Isitsignificantthataplaysupposedlysoconcernedwithitsprotagonist’sinteriorityshouldneverwithdrawhimintothismostprivateofspaces,evenforhismostintimatespeeches,butratherrepresenthimastheviolatorofothers’closets,thoseofhismotherandhislover,Ophelia?InthisplayitiswomenwhoareprecludedfromretiringintowhatTheEnglishSecretoriecalls‘aroomproperandpeculieronelytoourselves’.Privacyisaspacesystem-aticallydeniedthem.ThisisapparentinthesystematiccontrolthatOphelia’sbrotherandfatherexerciseoverheraffections.Theyren-derherrelationshipwiththePrinceinbrutallypublicterms.Evenindeath,Opheliaissubjectedtograveyardgossip,religiouscontroversyandtheindignityofLaertes’sandHamlet’shistrionicswithinherverygrave.LikeCordeliaintheopeningsceneofKingLear,Opheliaisforcedtoenacthermostintimatefeelingsinthepubliceye,intermsoflanguagegamesthatareeithercompletelyinappropriateorsurroundedSeeAlanStewart,‘TheEarlyModernClosetDiscovered’,Representations,(Spring),–;PatriciaFumerton,CulturalAesthetics:RenaissanceLiteratureandthePracticeofSocialOrnament(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,);andRobertGirouard,LifeintheEnglishCountryHouse:ASocialandArchitecturalHistory(NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,).AngelDay,TheEnglishSecretorie(London:),;quotedinStewart,‘TheEarlyModernClosetDiscovered’,.
Interioritybycontextsthatrenderthemmeaningless.She,too,finallyresortstorelativelyimpersonalandpublicdiscourses–themodesofperformance,songandfolklore–to‘unpackherheart’.Initsenigmaticdistraction,Ophelia’sdiscourse,thoughconsidered‘nothing’,istakenseriouslyforthefirsttime.Itbecomestheobjectofintenseinterpretiveeffortandanxiety:Herspeechisnothing,Yettheunshap`eduseofitdothmoveThehearerstocollection.Theyaimatit,Andbotchthewordsupfittotheirownthoughts,Which,asherwinksandnodsandgesturesyieldthem,Indeedwouldmakeonethinktheremightbethought,Thoughnothingsure,yetmuchunhappily.’Tweregoodshewerespokenwith,forshemaystrewDangerousconjecturesinill-breedingminds.Lethercomein.(..–)LikeHamlet’ssimilarlycarnivalesqueuseofaphorismandpopularsaw,Opheliaforoncerendersherselfincapableofbeing‘spokento’,evenbyroyalcommand.Popularsongsandballadsallowheradiscursivespacefreeofherusualgenderedconstraintswithinthefamilyandthecourt.ItisasifCordeliaweretooccupytheplaceofLear’sFool.UnlikeHamlet,ClaudiusorevenGertrude,Opheliaisallowednolanguageforanin-teriorselfthatisnotatthesametimewhollypublicandthusamenabletohavingthe‘heartof[its]mystery’‘pluckedout’(..).Ifsheisherselfunabletospeakexceptinthemostindirectwaysaboutthiscondition,itisbrutallyandpainfullyanatomisedbyafemalesonneteerwritingsometwodecadesafterHamletwasfirstperformed:Ifeverlovehadforceinhumainebrest?IfeverhecouldmoveinpensivehartOrifthatheesuchpowrecouldbutimpartTobreedthoseflameswhoseheatbringsjoysunrest.Thenlookeonme;thatametothesadrest,I,amethesoulethatfeelesthegreatestsmart;I,amthathartlestrunkofhartsdepartSee,forexample,inthisveryscene:Tomysicksoul,assin’struenatureis,Eachtoyseemsprologuetosomegreatamiss.Sofullofartlessjealousyisguilt,Itspillsitselfinfearingtobespilt.(..–)
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysAndI,thatone,bylove,andgriefoprest;NoneeverfeltthetruthoflovesgreatmissOfeyes,tillIdeprivedwasofbliss;Forhadheseene,heemusthavepittyshow’d;IshouldnotthavebinmadethisstageofwoeWheresaddisastershavetheyreopenshoweOnoe,morepittyheehadsurelybeestow’d.OphelialacksPamphilia’slaceratedself-awarenessoftheimpossibilityofprivacyinhersocialanderoticworld,butwecanseeinherpublicdisplayasimilarlytorturedconditionwhichdrawsattentiontoitsdeepprivationsthroughapeculiarkindofhistrionics.Suchhistrionicsmanagestospeakdumbly,ifshockingly,throughgestureandsong:(Sings)ByGis,andbySaintCharity,Alack,andfieforshame!Youngmenwilldo’tiftheycometo’t,ByCock,theyaretoblame.Quothshe‘Beforeyoutumbledme,Youpromisedmetowed.’SowouldI’a’done,byyondersun,Anthouhadstnotcometomybed.(Hamlet,..–)Theissueisnotsimplythattheprivateissubsumedbythepublic,orthattheprivateoffersadeep,inexpressiblesenseofselfbeyondthesocial,butratherthatasocietyinwhichtheprivateisalwaysinvadedbythepublicispathological–asHamletputsit–‘rotten’.MaryWrothstagingherselfastheexemplumofabuse,Opheliashowingthather‘nothing’smorethanmatter’throughthedisplayofherabuse(..),Hamletthinkingthatthe‘play’sthething’inwhichhe’ll‘catchtheconscienceoftheking’(..–)andtheplayer-poetofthesonnetsstrugglingtoforgetheintimatespaceofwritingthroughthepublicdiscoursesofhispoems,areallstrugglingindifferentbutrelatedwaysagainstthatpathology.OnlyinapubliclifeinwhichbehaviourandvaluesrunsoviolentlyathwarthisowncanthePrinceofDenmarkfeelsointenselytheim-possibilityofallexpression,thecorruptvacuityofallshow.Thissenseextendstohisowncapacityforrepresentation,whichhefeelstobeat-tenuated,ifnotdiminishedentirely.ItalsoblockshiscapacitytoallowOpheliatheveryhumanitythatissystematicallydeniedhimonhisre-turnfromWittenberg.Thisaccordswiththepositionoftheplayer-poetSonnet,inThePoemsofLadyMaryWroth,ed.JosephineA.Roberts(BatonRougeandLondon:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,).
InteriorityinShakespeare’ssonnets,whoseanti-theatricalityisclosetoHamlet’s,andwhosestancetowardswomenissimilarlyproblematic.Oneofthechiefcounter-discoursesofPetrarchisminvolvesthevi-olentdisavowaloftheatricality,butitissimultaneouslyintrinsictothediscourse.Petrarchanpoetsarecaughtinthetrapofhavingtodisavow,throughthenecessarilypublic,theatrical‘show’oftheirverse,thesuper-ficialityofmeredisplay.Suchdislikeofhistrionicostentationparadoxi-callymarksHamlet’sownpeculiarhistrionicsoverOphelia’sgrave.HisexorbitantparodyofLaertes’sPetrarch-likedisplayisatthesametimeadesperateefforttodisplaywhathehasbeenforcedtosuppress:Why,IwillfightwithhimuponthisthemeUntilmyeyelidswillnolongerwag.Omyson,whattheme?IlovedOphelia.FortythousandbrothersCouldnot,withalltheirquantityoflove,Makeupmysum.–Whatwiltthoudoforher?O,heismad,Laertes.(toLaertes)ForloveofGod,forbearhim.(toLaertes)’Swounds,showmewhatthou’ltdo.Wootweep,wootfight,wootfast,woottearthyself,Wootdrinkupeisel,eatacrocodile?I’lldo’t.Dostthoucomeheretowhine,Tooutfacemewithleapinginhergrave?Beburiedquickwithher,andsowillI.Andifthouprateofmountains,letthemthrowMillionsofacresonus,tillourground,Singeinghispateagainsttheburningzone,MakeOssalikeawart.Nay,anthou’ltmouth,I’llrantaswellasthou.(toLaertes)Thisismeremadness.(..–)IfOpheliacangiveexpressiontoherpositiononly‘byindirection’,HamletaddressesLaertesdirectly,buttheeffectofhisaddressisanythingbutdirect.OstensiblyaparodyofLaertes’soverblownrhetoric,Hamlet’sinterventionistheactionofonewhocannolongercontainthatwhich‘passethshow’.Declarationofloveorparodyofsuchdeclaration?Hisutterancesandactionsperformbothatthesametime,justasThepsychoanalyticalstudieswhichattributethe‘problem’intheplaytoHamlet’sincapacitytocopewithhismother’ssexuality(andbyextensionthatofallwomen,includingOphelia)shouldbewellknown.See,amongothers,JacquelineRose,‘Hamlet–theMonaLisaofLiterature’,CriticalQuarterly,(),–andJanetAdelman,SuffocatingMothers:FantasiesofMaternalOrigininShakespeare’sPlays(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,).
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysShakespeare’ssupposedlyanti-Petrarchansonnetsremaintwinnedwiththeveryconventionsthattheyparody.ItispreciselytheconventionalityofLaertes’sexpressionofgriefthatfreesHamlettoengageinwhatisessentiallyadialogicalappropriationofthatexpression,throughwhichhecandeclare,inaparodicthirdvoice,anaspectofhimselfrepressedbyhisoverwhelminglypublicexistenceatElsinore.Ofcourse,weareleftfreetojudgetheadequacyofHamlet’sperformative.His‘love’forOpheliaisnotsomethingthatlieswithinHamlet;itissomethingmadeevidentorobscuredbyhisbehaviouratothermomentsintheplay.Perhapsthebestconclusion–onewhichIshallpursueinthediscussiontofollowofthesonnets–isthat‘love’,atleastinoneofitsaspects,isrenderedimpossiblebythematerialdissolutionoftheprivatebythepublic.Sonnet(‘Asanvnperfectplayeronthestage’)mightberegardedasoneofthecentraltextsinthesub-sequencetotheyoungmanofrank.Itsanti-theatricalitydiffersfromHamlet’sinsofarasitspeaksfromthepositionofacommonplayerwhofindshimselfexposedandvulnerable,indeedoverwhelmed,bytheoccasionofhavingtospeakbeforeanaudiencewhosetaciturngazereduceshimtosilence.Thatthistongue-tiedplayerhas‘thatwithinthatpassethshow’isatmostsubmergedinthesonnet.Theplayer-poet’sproblemisnotanessentiallyinexpressibleinwardness,butrathertheunbearablesocialpressureoftheoccasionwhichmakeshimforgethislines,reducinghim,asplayer,tonothing.LikeHamlet’santi-theatricalhistrionics,theanti-theatricalstanceentertainedbytheplayer-poetstemsfromhispositionwithinaparticularsociety:asamanofthetheatre.Hisentertainedantipathytothetheatreparadoxicallytakesthetheatricalformofforgingaspaceinwhichhecanactthepartofapoet.Therenunciationofthetheatricalinsonnetisthusmaterial,notmetaphysical,eventhoughwediscoverthattheplayerispleadingtobeallowedtoreplacespeechandgesturewithwrittenverseasthe‘dombpresagersof[his]speakingbreast’.Theplayer’slowlysocialstatuscombineswiththeexposedpublicityofhisplaceonthestagetomakeany‘mutuallrender’betweenhimselfandthegazingmanofrankimpossible.Acutelyawareofmoreassuredrivalswhoaremuchmoreathomethanheonthedifferent,aristocraticstageofcourtlycompliment,Foranaccountofthesocialstrugglesoftheprofessionalpoet,especiallyonefromthetheatre,whoattemptstobreakintotheamateurworldofcourtlypatronage,seeAlvinKernan,ThePlaywrightasMagician:Shakespeare’sImageofthePoetintheEnglishPublicTheatre(NewHaven,CTandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,).
Interiorityhethusaskstobeallowedtoplayadifferentrole,thatofthelessexposed,lesspublic,poet,whosesilentwordsmay,inthemoreintimate,privatespaceofreading,speakmoreeloquently:‘Olearnetoreadwhatsilentlouehathwrit;/Tohearewiteiesbelongstolouesfinewiht.’The‘difference’whichthissonnetwishesto‘leaueout’isthusnotthedifferencebetweenfeelingandlanguage,theinnerandtheouter,butthematerialdifferenceofrankthatisproclaimedall-too-clearlybyhispositioninthepublictheatreandinthestageyspaceofEnglishPetrarchism.Thatspaceshouldremindusofthecomplexitiesofaudience.AsidefromFrancisMeres’sintriguingcommentaboutShakespeare’s‘sugar’dsonnets’amonghis‘privatefriends’,andMarotti’sspecula-tionsaboutmanuscriptcirculation(whichismaddeninglysilentaboutShakespeare),wedonotknowtheconditionsunderwhichShake-speare’ssonnetscirculated.Weretheypassedononlytoclosefriends(thecoterie)inmanuscript?Weretheypresenteddirectlytotheyoungman?Orwereatleastsomeofthemalsoreadorrecitedaloud,incom-pany,perhapsinthepresenceofthebeloved,inatheatricalenactmentoftheconditionsofaddressdescribedinsonnet?Andwhatdoesacoterieaudienceentail?Itisoftenassumedtohavebeenagroupoffriendsessentiallysympathetictothepoet.Butmightsuchagroupnotbemorefractured,lessharmonious,ordiscrepant,asissuggestedinsomeofSidneyandWyatt’ssonnets?Orwerethepoemsvariouslycircu-latedunderdifferentconditionsofaudienceandaddress?Ineachcasethepresenceofothers(asauditors)wouldmakeadifferencetotheforceofthesonnet:retroactively,uponthespeakerwhomightfeeluncomfort-ablyvulnerableinthepublicglareoftheaddress(‘Asanvnperfectactoronthestage’(sonnet));tangentially,uponanaudienceofco-auditorswhomayinfactbethechieftargetsofapoemostensiblydirectedatsomeoneelse(‘Hence,thousubborndInformer!’(sonnet));ordirectly,atanaddresseesignalledoutrhetoricallybythepoemitself(‘Whydidstthoupromisesuchabeautiousday?’(sonnet)).Thesonnetmightworktangentiallyindifferentdirections,complicatinganapparentlydi-rectorsimpleaddressbythemerefactthatothersareprivytoit.Hamlet,again,providesausefulinstanceofsuchlayeredaudienceeffects:inbothClaudius’sandHamlet’sawareness,throughouttheplay,butespeciallyinActScene,ofbeingtheobjectofothers’gazes,andinthemulti-plescenesofstagedoverhearing,spying,rivalryandscrutinyinvolvingArthurF.Marotti,Manuscript,Print,andtheEnglishRenaissanceLyric(Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,).
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysOphelia,Polonius,Hamlet,Gertrude,Horatio,theplayersandLaertes.Thoughapparentlytrivialandtangential,Polonius’spretensionstoliter-arycriticism,combiningbothpaternalandaestheticdisapprovalinthecaseofHamlet’sown‘sonnet’toOpheliaandtheplayers’performance,andHamlet’scounter-criticism,shouldnotbeoverlooked.Poetryandtheatrearenotmerelypleasantadjunctstothisworldoferoticandpo-liticalmachination,butpartsofit.Theoppressive,intrigue-riddencourtofDenmark,whichseemssolikeaprisontoHamletbutnottohisschoolfriends,isnotunliketheworldofthesonnets.Thesepoemspresentnotmerelylyricalpersonae,butasocialworldglimpsedbothinperipheralandfocusedvision.Ihavealreadyexploredwaysinwhichonemaygleanboththesonnet’spowerandweaknessasaformofsocialactionviaplaysinwhichsonneteeringisanintegralpartoftheaction,suchasLove’sLabour’sLostandTwelfthNight.Thesonnets’relationtoHamletopensoureyestothedarkworldinwhichtheyaresoself-consciouslysituatedandtotheequallydarklordthatinhabitsitsoluminously,‘likeaiewell(hungeingastlynight)’(sonnet).Thesonnets’relationshiptoHamletdoesnotresideintheirsharedinventionofanessentiallyprivatemoderninteriority,orevenintheirundoubteddemonstrationsthatsuchinwardnesshasaninextricablestakeinthepublicworld.Itliesratherintheirrepresentationsofthedebilitatingeffectsofaworldinwhichthepersonalortheprivatecanfindnospaceforitselfwithinthepublicorsocialworld.Thisrelationshipallowsustoreviewbothformalistideasofthelyricasanessentiallyprivaterehearsalof‘solitaryspeech’,which‘deliberatelystripsawaymostsocialspecifications’,andthehistoricistconvictionthattheprivatesimplyisthesocial.WhatVendlerregardsastheessenceofthelyricingeneralisinfactmerelyastrategythatthepoemsentertainbutultimatelycannotsustain.Farfromendorsingtheopposing,materialistposition,however,thatfailuredemonstratesthedebilitatingconsequencesofthereductionofthepersonaltothesocial.Ihavesuggestedthatsonnetseekstoremoveitselffromthepublicgazebymovingawayfromthetheatricalspaceofopenaddress:away,precisely,fromapublicworld.Itseekstopersuadethebelovedtoretreattothesafer,moresecludedworldofwritingwhere,itishoped,arela-tionshipmightbeestablishedthatisuntrammelledbysocialdistanceorvulnerabledisplay.Thepoemsthatfollowsonnetbothseektoestab-lishthisremovedbutsharedspacewherea‘mutuallrender,onelymeHelenVendler,TheArtofShakespeare’sSonnets(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,),.
Interiorityforthee’canbeachieved,andalsotoregistertheimpossibilityofsuchashrinkingofdistancebetweenplayer-poetandaristocraticbeloved.Sonnetisanexampleoftheformer.Itaffirmsthedesirabilityofatotalwithdrawalfromaworldinwhichpeoplewhoboastof‘publichonoursandproudtitles’riskatthesametimeanequally‘publike’fall,painfullyvulnerabletothe‘frowne’throughwhich‘theyintheirglorydie’:tthosewhoareinfauorwiththeirstars,Ofpublikehonourandproudtitlesbost,WhilstIwhomefortuneofsuchtryumphbarsVnlooktforioyinthatIhonourmost;GreatPrincesfauoritestheirfaireleauesspread,ButastheMarygoldatthesunseye,Andinthem-seluestheirprideliesburied,Foratafrownetheyintheirglorydie.Thepainefullwarrierfamosedforworth,Afterathousandvictoriesoncefoild,Isfromthebookeofhonourrasedquite,Andalltherestforgotforwhichhetoild:ThenhappyIthatloueandambelouedWhereImaynotremoue,norberemoued.Inanefforttoescapethevulnerabilityofsuchapubliclife–inwhichthe‘Thepainefullwarrierfamosedforworth’caninaninstantbe‘fromthebookeofhonourrasedquite’–thecoupletproclaimstheplayer-poet’sownstatictranscendenceofsuchpoliticalvicissitudes:‘ThenhappyIthatloueandambeloued/WhereImaynotremoue,norberemoued.’Butthepoemnowhereshowshowsuchanintimateandmutualstillpointmightbeachieved.Inoppositiontotheworldofactionevokedinthebodyofthepoem,thepassivevoiceofthecoupletunconvincinglyremovesthepoet(and,byimplication,thebeloved)fromtherealmsofhumanvolitionandagency.Theagencythattheplayer-poetattributestohimself(‘happyIthatloue’and‘WhereImaynotremove’)isemptysinceinpoliticaltermsitispowerless.Thepoemdoesnotshowhowthecapricious‘stars’ofthefirstlineorthemoreearthlypurveyorsofthe‘frownes’inlinearetobeavoided.Thebelovedispresentonlyastheframeofthepoem–its‘absentcause’asitwere.Andyetheisalsoatthecentreoftheshiftingpowerplayofaristocraticlifethatthepoemwishestoavoid.Inthefaceoftheuncertaineffectsofpoliticalagency,sonnetelidesboththepoetandthebeloved’sagencyinitsaffirmationofapassive
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysmutuality.Inotherpoems,lessconcernedtowithdrawfromthetheatreofpoliticalserviceandambition,thelover’sdespairatthemaligninflu-enceofhisstarsandthepainofthebeloved’sfrownsisalltooevident.Comingsosoonafter,isaparadoxicallyeloquentaddresstotheaudienceoftheearlierpoemwhichnowaffirmshiswithdrawalintotheprivacyforwhichtheearlierpoemdoesnomorethanwish.Butsuchpubliceloquencedefeatsthepurposeofthewithdrawal:itacknowledgesthepersistentpressureofaworldthatthepoemproclaimstobewelllost,andwhichitcontinuestoinhabitandfear.Sonnetsandthusshareadoubleaudience:therivalswhoenjoyagreaterpoliticalstatusthantheplayer-poet,butwhoalsosufferthepotentialofstillgreaterdisappoint-ment,andtowhomisdirectedasachildishboast,andthebelovedtowhomthepoemisobliquelyaddressedasthequasi-performativeofawished-forstate,ratherthan(asitappearsgrammaticallytobe),adescriptionofanachievedone.Sonnet,‘thefirstepistolarysonnet’asVendlerputsit(TheArtofShakespeare’sSonnets,),self-consciouslyusesitsepistolaryform,nottoendorsetheanti-theatrical,intimateprivacysoughtattheendofsonnet,buttoacknowledgeandaffirmpreciselythepressuresofthepublicworldthattheprevioussonnetseekstodisclaim:rdofmyloue,towhomeinvassalageThymerrithathmydutiestronglyknit;TotheeIsendthiswrittenambassageTowitnesseduty,nottoshewmywit.Dutysogreat,whichwitsopooreasmineMaymakeseemebare,inwantingwordstoshewit;ButthatIhopesomegoodconceiptofthineInthysoulesthought(allnaked)willbestowit:Tilwhatsoeuerstarthatguidesmymouing,Pointsonmegratiouslywithfaireaspect,Andputsapparrellonmytotteredlouing,Toshowmeworthyoftheirsweetrespect,ThenmayIdaretoboasthowIdoelouethee,Tilthen,notshowmyheadwherethoumaistprouemeTheaddress,‘Lordofmyloue’,isself-consciouslyformalanddeferential.Itconfirmsthesocial‘vassalage’imposeduponthelowlyaddresserbythesocial‘merrit’ofthenobleman,andexpressestheplayer-poet’sopenacknowledgementoftheobligationto‘witnesseduty’tosuchrank.Theanadiplosisintherepetitionof‘duty’acrossquatrainsandstressesthe
Interiorityinescapabilityofpublic,courtlyvalueshere,incontrasttobothsonnetandsonnet.Thepoemisaddressedasmuchtoanaudiencethatis‘infauorwiththeirstars’astothepotent‘Lord’.Vendlerremarksquiterightlythatsonnetisanextendedapology.Butwhatisitapologisingfor?Ifwetakethepoem’sproximitytoassignificant,ratherthanarbitrary,thenitmaybeseenasanappropriatelyapologeticresponsetonobledispleasureatthehubrisof.Havingbeenchastisedforhisearlierpresumption,theplayer-poetnowshowsthathecanbeaselo-quentlyservileastheworst,andaffirmshisproperplaceinthepublicorderofthings.The‘stars’thataredismissedintheopeninggestureofsonnetarehereembraced,indeedtheyareimploredto‘pointonmegratiouslywithfaireaspect’,sothathemaydaretodisplayhimselfandhisloveforthewell-bornbelovedinpublic:‘thenmayIdaretoboasthowIdoelouethee,/Tilthen,notshowmyheadwherethoumaistproueme’.Thissonnet–aspeechactofextended,publicapology–retractstheclaimsofhappymutualityandrecklesstranscendencemadeinthecoupletofthepreviouspoem.Toloveinthispoliticalworldistobeallowedtolove.Thepressuresof‘duty’and‘merrit’mustbeacknowl-edged,butnotwithoutapropershowofcivicdecorum.Suchdecorummayitselfdemandthemutingofpublicdisplay,especiallyconsideringtheaddresser’sacutesenseoftheimbricationofdressandaddress:ofthedis-gracefuldisplayofhisown‘totteredlouing’or‘bare’duty,inadequatelyclothed.TheextensivecommentarybyNewHistoricistandmaterialistcriticsonthesocialandpoliticalsignificanceofclothing,andtherelationshipbetweentheatricaldisplayofcostumeandthesemioticsofapparelun-derlyingtheSumptuaryLaws,shoulddrawourattentiontothewayinwhichsonnetrehearses,ifunwillingly,theessentiallytheatricaldis-playofpubliclove,proclaimingthroughitsconcernwiththesemioticsofdressitsaddressee’sowndisgracefulsocialoriginsandprofession.Andyet,paradoxically,intheveryimagery(whichisinthispoemmorecon-creteandmaterialthanmereimagery)ofdressandundress,awistfuldesirefortranscendenceremains.Why,inapoemsoawareofthepub-licsignificanceoffullcostuming,shouldtheyoungaristocrat’s‘soulesthought’be‘allnaked’:‘Inthysoulesthought(allnaked)willbestowit’?Theparenthesesemphasisethe‘bareness’ofthisaspectofanotherwiseproperlyattirednobleman.KatherineDuncan-Jonessuggeststhatthisisa‘paradoxicalsuggestionthatwhatisnakedinthefriend–hismostinti-mateandunvarnishedimpulseandthought–hasthecapacitytoclothe,
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysenrichandadornhisfriend’sunvarnishedduty’.Yes.Buttheparadoxhasachieflyideologicalsignificance:itaskstheyoungman(onceagain)todisregardandabandonthesumptuarysemioticsthatmarkshimastheunattainablemanofrankbesidetheplayer-poet’s‘tattered’lowliness.Such‘nakedness’,liketheintimatespaceofwritingattheendofson-net,suggeststhepossibilityofarelationshipuntrammelledbypublicconditionsandsigns,inwhich‘merrit’maybemorethanmerehighrankand‘duty’disrobedtorevealunadornedlove.Intheveryacknowl-edgementofthenecessityofsumptuaryhierarchy,theplayer-poetwishestocreateaspacefor‘nakedness’,inwhichthedifferencesbetweenhis‘tattered’lovingandtheyoungman’ssumptuousfriendshipmaybesetaside.ThereisthuswhatVendlerusefullycallsa‘shadow’poematworkinsonnet,whichconsiderablycomplicatesthesonnet’sostensibleattitudetopublicdisplay.Ontheonehand,itentertainsthehopeofa‘consummationdevoutlytobewished’(Hamlet,..–)byhinting(viathenobleman’s‘all-naked’thought)ataHamlet-likedissatisfactionwithsumptuaryexhibitioninfavourof‘thatwithin,whichpassethshow’.Ontheother,itopenlyconfirmsthatitisimpossibletoescapethesystemofsocialhierarchyinwhichclothingisacentralsymbol.Itisnotsufficientforthepoettofeelthathislovecomesfromthe‘heart’,asaninterior‘truth’.Such‘love’(orisit‘duty’?)hastotakeitsplace,orberepudiated,inaworldofpublicvalues,‘ineiesofmen’(sonnet).Ifitismere‘duty’thenithasanecessarilypublicshape;ifitissomethingmorethanthatthenthenecessarypublicityofitsaddressalwaysthreatensitsinceitisineverywaytransgressive.Thenakednesstowhichthepoemappealsmayappeartobearepudiationofthetheatricaltenorofpubliclife.However,theparadoxthatDuncan-Jonespointsoutre-affirmstheneedforthetattered(‘tottered’)player-poettobe‘apparelled’,especiallysinceitevokesthecommonpracticeofaristocratstohandtheirsecond-handclothingdowntotheplayers.Thegraciousnessoftheyoungmanequipsthepetitionertoplaytheroleoflover,butdespitetheplayer-poet’sbestefforts,thatrolecontinuestobeconceivedintheatricalterms.Vendlerclaimsthattheinvocationofslaveryandvassalageinsonnetssuchas,andisanindulgentandexaggeratedmetaphor:‘hisappropriationofthetermslaveleadsuslesstopityhimthantoresistKatherineDuncan-Jones(ed.),TheSonnets,TheNewArdenShakespeare(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,),.
Interiorityhisequationbetweenrealslaveryandhisowninfatuation’(TheArtofShakespeare’sSonnets,).Itiscertainlyexaggerated.ButShakespeare’sself-consciouslyinferiorpositionenableshimtoliteralisetheconven-tionalPetrarchanimageof‘slavery’aseroticinfatuation.Thesonnetsexplore,inwaysthatSidney’sdonotbecauseoftheirdifferencesinbothclassandaudience,thecomplexentanglementsof‘love’and‘duty’.Toseetheimbricationofthesetwoconcepts,ratherthantheirseparation,aswenowtendtodo,istoseethatbeingbothinloveandindutyisnotaninteriorstatebutaliminalsocialcondition.Itisanamalgamofthepublicandtheprivatethathastonegotiateafreshpassageacrossalinguisticterrainofpubliclysettledhistoricalmeanings.Shakespeare’ssonnetsarestrikingpreciselyfortheirpioneeringchartingofthisterritory.Whensonnetdeclaresbitterly,‘ThatGodforbid,thatmademefirstyourslaue,/Ishouldinthoughtcontrouleyourtimesofpleasure’,‘God’isnotmerelyCupid.Thepoem’sresentment,conveyedmoreforcefullyifwereadtheselinesasanoath,arisesfromtheplayer-poet’sfrustratedsenseofhelplessnessathisinferiorsocialstatus,ironicallyinvokedaspartofasocialrealityordainedbyGod.Thedoublepossibilityofread-ing‘God’asboththeJudeo-ChristianAlmightyandtheGreco-Romaneroticdeityexemplifiesthesonnet’swrackedtensionbetween‘love’and‘duty’.Howdoesonecombinethefeudalsenseof‘love’or‘duty’whichpervadesthispoem,asitdoessomanyothers,withafriendship(eroticorotherwise)inwhichpowerisnottheabsoluteprerogativeofonlyoneperson?Howdoesoneassertamoralrighttoconsiderationandrespect,andtoexpressone’sdispleasureatthebehaviourofthebeloved,whenthepoliticalinscriptionsoflovemakesuchbehaviourscandalous?Howdoesonereconciletwocompetingconceptsofloveinthesameideo-logicalworldandpersuadeone’smorepowerfulbelovedtoacceptthatreconciliation?Viewedmorebroadly,thisdilemmaisafeatureofthehistoricaltensionbetweencompetingconceptionsofmaritalrelationships.WecanglimpseitscomplicationsbyimaginingtheworkingoutofthemerelysuggestedrelationshipbetweenBeatriceandDonPedroinMuchAdoAboutNothing.WouldBeatricebeabletoretainthesharp-wittedindependencethatsheshowstowardsBenedick,orwouldher‘shrewdness’betransformedintoVendlerfollowsmosteditorsinreducingtheuppercase‘God’oftheQuartotolowercase,althoughtherearenocompellingreasonstodoso.Thisisnotamajorcrux,althoughitisaninterpretativeone,andthetraditionmerelyconfirmsthetendencytoignorethefullsocialandpoliticaldimensionsofthesepoems.SeeVendler’scommentaryonsonnet,TheArtofShakespeare’sSonnets,–.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysKate’s‘shrewishness’inTheTamingoftheShrew?Whatevertheoutcome,IamsuggestingthatBeatricewouldhavetoberepresentedasnegotiatingsomethinglikethepassagebetweenloveanddutythattheplayer-poetforgesinthesonnets.Shewouldbeasconstrainedastheplayer-poetinwhatshecouldsayandhowshecouldsayit.Thatisperhapswhythedramatist,inametaphorappositetothepresentdiscussion,makesherdemurralinvokesartorialinappropriateness:No,mylord,unlessImighthaveanotherforworkingdays.Yourgraceistoocostlytoweareveryday.ButIbeseechyourgrace,pardonme.Iwasborntospeakallmirthandnomatter.(MuchAdoAboutNothing,..–)Beatrice’sproclivityforspeaking‘allmirthandnomatter’wouldbeavailabletotheplayer-poetofthesonnetsonlyiftherelationshipinvolvedaloverwhoexercisednopoliticalpoweroverhim.ThesonnetsofMuchAdoaretheundeniablepublicsignsofanalreadyagreedcommitment–‘Amiracle!Here’sourownhandsagainstourhearts’(..–)–buttheyarenotthemeansbywhichloveisforged.Thatistheworkoftheatre.Sonnetmanagestheremarkablefeatofsimultaneouslyofferinganapologyandlevellinganaccusation.Itisanoutburstofangerandfrustrationthattriestoexcuseitsexcessasitgrowsmoreexcessive.Thepoemrewritessonnetandrepudiates,inapainful,Hamlet-likere-hearsaloftheimpotenceofspeechactswhentheyaredeprivedofthepropercontextsofsocialauthoritythatgivethemtheirforce.ItsmostpainfulmomentcomesintheJob-like‘Ohletmesuffer/...Withoutaccusingyouofinjury’.Thepaincomesnotsomuchfromthesufferingitselfasfromtheperceivedobligationtosufferinsilence.Itsforceliesinitsparadoxicallyhelplessoccupatio.Pleadingtobeallowed(ortobegiventhestrength)tobearitsburdenwithoutcomplaint,likesomanyofthepoemstothedarkyoungmanofrankitdevelopsanexquisitepoeticsofblame.Theprivatehavenof‘silentloue’projectedinsonnet,andthewithdrawnpatienceproclaimedinthecoupletofsonnet,nowconsti-tuteanunbearableconstraint.Whatconceptualresourcesareavailabletosomeonewhohaspubliclyacknowledgedthe‘principleofabsolutefeudalsovereignty’(Vendler,TheArtofShakespeare’sSonnets,)inarelationshipfromwhichheatleastexpectsboththemutualityofrecip-rocatedloveandthemoralrighttocircumscribethebeloved’s‘liberty’?SeeJeanHoward,‘RenaissanceAntitheatricalityandthePoliticsofGenderandRankinMuchAdoAboutNothing’,inShakespeareReproduced,ed.JeanHowardandMarionF.O’Connor(NewYork:Routledge,),–.
InteriorityTheeroticandthepoliticalareagainfused:thesexuallibertythattheyounglordassumesisderivedfromapoliticalfreedomdeniedhispetit-bourgeoisloverinanordersupposedlyordainedbyGod.Ifthereisashadowpoemwithinsonnet,itinterrogatesthebi-foldconceptoflove-as-duty.Givenyourabsolutepower,bothpoliticalanderotic,giventhefactthatyouhaveremovedyourselfcompletelyfromtheambitofmyblame,itasks,canwecallthislove?Thethirdquatrain,inwhichtheyounglord’sfreereignisgranted,reinforcesthepoem’sbifocalexplorationoflove:Bewhereyoulist,yourcharterissostrong,ThatyouyourselfemaypriuiledgeyourtimeTowhatyouwill,toyouitdothbelong,Yourselfetopardonofself-doingcrime.Ontheonehand,thestrengthofhispolitical‘charter’endowshimwiththeprivilegeofdoingashelikesandgrantshimthesoleprerogativeofblameandforgivenessforhisownbehaviour.Inthestrictestsense,thebestowingperformativeof‘Bewhereyoulist’ishollow,sincethepoemisitselfacutelyawareofthespeaker’slackofauthoritytograntsuchaprivilege.Unusually,thisisadescriptivemasqueradingasaperformative.Inotherpoems,therighttoaccuseisattributedtoothers,morenearlytheyoungman’sequals,whoperceivethroughhisdeedsthathe‘doestcommongrow’(sonnet).Thismoveallowsthelowlyplayer-poetatleastindirectlyto‘accuse’theyoungmanof‘injury’,butitremainswithinasphereofpublic,politicaldiscourseandprivilege.Initsothersense,the‘priuiledge’thatthequatrainattributestotheyoungmanismorelimited,moreintimate.Heisnotgrantedunlimitedpowertodoashepleasesandthentopardonhisownwrongdoing.Rather,theclaimsandrightsthatstemfromdutyandthosethatariseoutofloveshouldbedifferentiated.Theyoungman’ssocialpositiongiveshimtherighttodoashewishesvis-`a-vishisfriend,buttoclaimthatright,includingtheprivilegeofbeingabovecriticismandblame,istoofferatravestyoflove.Thepoetisthereforeto‘wait’intwodifferentsenses:inthesenseofaservantattendinguponalord,andinthesenseofafriendhopefulofaresponsewhichacknowledgesthemoral,andnotmerelythefeudal,qualitiesoftherighttoloveandbeloved.Thepoemsuggeststhatthesetwosensesare,strictlyspeaking,incommensurable,justasinsonnetpublicspeakingseemstobeincompatiblewiththeproperexpressionoflove.But,likePamphilia,itcanfindnowayoutof‘love’s’labyrinth.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysThetensionbetweenmetaphysicalandmaterialprivacyisnegotiatedintheearlysonnetsonabsence,wherethedesiretofuseloverandbelovedinanessentiallyuntheatricalspaceisconstantlyundercutbytheneces-sityofsocialandphysicaldistance.Sonnet,forexample,attemptstoconceptualisetheuntheatrical‘nakedness’invokedinsonnetbyusingatraditionalconceitoftwoloverslookingattheirreflectionsintheother’seyes.Thepoemappearstocontractthephysicaldistancefeltsoacutelyinsonnettothetiniestgap,whilesimultaneouslyexpressingaspontaneousmutuality.Butasittriestoexemplifysuchcommunity,itabruptlycomesupshortagainstthesocialdistanceanddifferenceoftheyoungman.Suchdifferenceisexemplifiedbythesun’sasymmetricalaffinitywiththedarklordofthepoet’sdreams,which,paradoxically,makeshimopaque:Nowseewhatgood-turneseyesforeieshauedone,Mineeyeshauedrawnethyshape,andthineformeArewindowestomybrest,where-throughtheSunDelightstopeepe,togazethereinonthee...Theperfectmutualityofeyesmirroringtheirsharedreflectionsisabruptlyunsettledbytheveryimageinwhichthepoetseekstobask.Thesun,peepingthroughtheeyestogazeupontheyoungmanlodgedwithinthepoet’sbreast,remindsthepoetthatnosunshinesonhisownimagelodgedwithinthedarklord’sbreast.Oratleast,hehasnoaccesstosuchanimage:YeteyesthiscunningwanttogracetheirartTheydrawbutwhattheysee,knownotthehart.Thedarklord’sopacityisunlikeHamlet’sinscrutableinteriorityinsofarastheplayer-poetisperfectlyabletoshowhisowninwardness,intheformofthebrightlyilluminatedimageoftheyoungmanwithinhisownbreast.The‘cunning’thateyes‘want’remainsmetaphysical,though,insofarasthelastlinereassertsthetraditionalhiddennessoftheinterior–the‘hart’–oftheother.Thecompanionpoemtothissonnet,,seekstosolvetheproblemsimplybysharingoutthe‘spoils’oftheyoungman’ssightintermsofthetraditionallymetaphysicalseparationofinnerandouter,asthedomainsofheartandeye,respectively:Asthus,mineeyesdueisthyoutwardpart,Andmyheartsright,theirinwardloueofheart.
InteriorityButthisismerefantasy.Vendlernotesthattheconsummationthattheplayer-poetseeksisinfactthe‘image’oftheyoungman.Onewayofregainingthemutualitysoughtinsonnet–torecapturetheyoungmanasapresence–istoreducetheyoungmanphenomenologically:tohisimage,eitherasheappearstothedreamingpoet,orasthepicturelodgedinhisheartandprojectedthroughhiswakefuleyes:‘Soeitherbythypictureormyloue,/Thyselfeaway,arepresentstillwithme’(sonnet).Thismovehastwoconsequences,however.Byaprocessofmetaphoricalcontamination,thefairfriendistransformedintoadarklord:onewhoseproperelementis‘darknes’(sonnet)and‘gastlynight’(sonnet).Heis‘darkelybright...brightindarkedirected’(sonnet),a‘shadow’(sonnet),a‘faireimperfectshade’(sonnet)whocan‘eueryshadowlend’(sonnet),andaroundwhosestrange‘substance’‘millionsofstrangeshadowes...tend’(sonnet);heisalsoa‘graue’(sonnet),thereceptacleof‘preciousfriendshidindeathsdatelesnight’(sonnet).Asimaginedpresence,then,theyoungmanistransformedintoacreaturewhosedarkestinteriorityisnothiddenfromsight,butrevealedasdarknessitself.Whatismore,aseveryphe-nomenologistknows,thereductionoftheobjecttoamerelyinternalimage,necessitatedbythedesireforitspurepresenceinconsciousness,bracketsoutthephysicalandthematerial.Theirphysicalpresence,however,istherealobjectofdesireinthesesonnets.Theonlyplacewheretheplayer-poetcanpossessthebelovedisintherecollectionofthedreamortheprojectionofimagination:in‘thought’.But‘thought’,whichpromisestodeliverthepoetfromtheconditionofabsence,induecourse‘bringsinhisrevenges’(TwelfthNight,..).Sonnet,forexample,openswithayearningdesiretotransformfleshintothoughtinordertoovercometheabsentingeffectsdistanceandspace:‘Ifthedullsubstanceofmyfleshwerethought,/Iniuriousdistanceshouldnotstopmyway.’Buttheplayer-poetissoonbroughtupbytherealisationthatthepresencepromisedbyreductionofspaceandtimeto‘thought’isnomorethana‘shadow’,whichrendersthespatialconditionofabsenceandtheheavyweightoftimeevenlessbearable:Butah,thoughtkillsmethatIamnotthoughtToleapelargelengthsofmileswhenthouartgone,Butthatsomuchofearthandwaterwrought,SeeEdmundHusserl,Ideas:AnIntroductiontoPurePhenomenology,trans.W.R.BoyceGibson(London:GeorgeAllenandUnwin,).
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysImustattend,timesleisurewithmymone,ReceiuingnaughtsbyelementssosloeButheauietears,badgesofeitherswoe.(Emphasisadded)Thealternativestrategyavailabletotheplayer-poetliesintheconven-tionalthoughtthatloverandbelovedareinfactone.Thisthoughtisvariouslyentertainedintheconceitthatthepoet,inpraisingtheyoungman,isactuallypraisinghimself,orinthestrainedideathatthetrian-gulardistancebetweenpoet,darklordanddarkwomanissomehowreducedbytheircommunalpromiscuity:‘Buthere’stheioy,myfriendandIareone/Sweeteflattery,thenshelouesbutmealone’(sonnet).Suchstrainedconceitsarisefromacravingformutualitythatfindsthespacingoftheatricalityimpossibletoendure.Alove-objectwhocontains‘all’withinhimorherselfisanobjectofdesire(or‘will’)thatshrinksthedistancebetweenloverandbeloved,interiorandexterior,knownandunknowable,to‘nothing’.Butthedoublemeaningsofwordssuchas‘all’,‘will’and‘nothing’pointtoseparationratherthanunion,makingthedistinctionbetween‘loue’and‘louesuse’especiallyproblematic.Thepoemsthatentertainthepossibilitythatdarklordandpoetare‘one’–ifonlybecausethelordsomehowencompassesalltheworld–repeat,inadifferentkey,thesonnetsthaturgethedarkwomantoaccommodatethepoet’s‘will’inherown‘spaciouswill’,onthegroundsthathis‘one’canbeaccounted‘nothing’.Idiscussthelattermorefullyinchapterbelow.Thelaterpoemsprovideanexcuseforthedisplayofwitthroughwriting,butthesamesubjectintheearlierpoemsthreatenswritingaltogetherwithanotherkindof‘nothing’:silence.Sonnetattemptstoreducethedistancebetweenloverandbelovedthrough‘thought’,butsonnetshowswhythisisbothmetaphysicallyandmateriallyundesirable:whythereisanecessaryseparationbetween(writing)desireand(written)objectinbothaphilosophicalandasocialsense:howthyworthwithmannersmayIsinge,Whenthouartallthebetterpartofme?Whatcanmineownepraisetomineowneselfebring;Andwhatis’tbutmineownewhenIpraisethee,Euenforthis,letvsdeuidedliue,Andourdeareloueloosenameofsingleone,ThatbythisseperationImaygiue:Thatduetotheewhichthoudeseru’stalone:Ohabsencewhatatormentwouldstthouproue,Wereitnotthysoureleisuregauesweetleaue,
InteriorityToentertainethetimewiththoughtsofloue,VVhichtimeandthoughtssosweetlydostdeceiue.Andthatthouteachesthowtomakeonetwaine,Bypraisinghimherewhodothhenceremaine.Wehavecomefullcirclefromsonnet.Therethedistanceconstitutedbytheatricalityoverwhelmstheplayerstrivingtodeclarelovethroughtheconceptofpublicduty.Hetriestoovercomethatdistanceintheprivatespaceofpoetry.Butsuchwritingthreatenstoproducemerenarcissism,producingmorethananepideicticmomentwhich,asFinemanclaims,merelyreflectsthewriterbacktohimself.Inordertomaintaintheidealofmutualaffectionandthe‘oblacion,poorebutfree’(sonnet)ofsociallyordereddutyheisthereforeforcedtoreinstitutetheoriginal‘iniuriousdistance’.Itisnowprecisely‘thisseperation’thatallowsthepoetto‘giue:/Thatduetotheewhichthoudeseru’stalone’.Inthesonnetsthatdealdirectlywiththerivalpoet,thebourgeoisplayerinhisnewroleasquasi-courtlypoetsoondiscoversthatthereisatheatricalconditiontowritingthatincessantlyinterposesitselfbetweendesireandconsummation.Defendinghimselfagainstthe‘iniuriousdis-tance’that,asDerridaremindsus,informswritingitself,heturnstoper-hapsthemostintenselymetaphysicalanti-theatricalityofall:thePlatonicnotionoftheintrinsicgoodnessofstasis,theevilofchange.Underthisregimeconstancyinloveisconsideredtobeincompatiblewiththekindofpoeticpracticethatindulgesin‘variationorquickchange’(sonnet)andostensiveshow:loueisstrengthnedthoughmoreweakeinsee-mingIlouenotlesse,thoghlessetheshowappeare,Thatloueismarchandiz’d,whoseritchesteeming,Theownerstonguedothpublisheuerywhere.(sonnet)Theplayer-turned-poetdeprecatestheatricalityasmuchintermsofclass(‘marchandiz’d’)asintheclaimthathisownverseis‘toconstanciecon-fin’d’(sonnet).Suchconstancyisdisplayedthroughtheproclaimedstasisoftheverseitself,which,‘stillallone,euerthesame’(sonnet),‘onethingexpressing’,issaidto‘leaueoutdifference’(sonnet).Thisisavariationonanearliertheme,bywhichtheuncertainattemptstodriveawedgebetween‘love’(whichisconstant)and‘style’(whichchanges)(‘Theirsfortheirstileileread,hisforhisloue’(sonnet))assertSeeKarlPopper,TheOpenSocietyanditsEnemies,Volume,TheSpellofPlato(Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,),:‘Inbrief,Platoteachesthatchangeisevil,andthatrestisdivine.’
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysadevotionsomehowindependentofitsmeansofexpression.Differenceprovestobedoggedlypersistent,however.Ifthetheatreistheexemplarymediumofthekindofdistanceanddifferenceimposedbymimesisbetweentruthandappearance,poetrydoesnottranscendthatrepre-sentationalgap:itisembroiledinanirreducibletheatricalityofitsown.Furthermore,theveryargumentthatthebelovedistheexemplumofunchangingbeauty,whichthepoetmerelycopies,bringsitsownPlatonicsting.Thisisapparentinsonnets–,whereconstancybringswithitafurtherdebilitating,andthoroughlytheatrical,‘iniuriousdistance’:Inmanieslookes,thefalceheartshistoryIswritinmoodsandfrounesandwrincklesstrange.Butheaueninthycreationdiddecree,Thatinthyfacesweetloueshouldeuerdwell,Whaterethythoughts,orthyheartsworkingsbe,Thylookesshouldnothingthence,butsweetnessetell.HowlikeEauesappledoththybeautygrow,Ifthysweetvertueanswerenotthyshow.(sonnet)Inthisconsiderationofthe‘truth’ofthosethatarethe‘Lordsandownersoftheirfaces’(sonnet),theanti-theatricalmetaphysicsofPlatoandthediscoursesofPetrarchandeigesisreachtheirlimit,inquestionsthataresocialandpoliticalratherthanmetaphysical.Herethedirectionofthegazeinsonnetisswitched.Insonnetsandtheinscrutablearistocrat,ratherthantheplayer-poet,istheobjectofthegaze.Butthatdoesnotmeanthatrelationsofpowerhavechanged.Hisownanti-theatricalargument,whichpositsanessentialgapbetweenappearanceandreality,rendersthegazerpowerlessbeforethestony-facedobjectofhisaffection.Sonnet–usuallyconsideredtobethelastbutoneaddressedtotheyoungfriend–offersafinal,complexnegotiationoftheintricaciesofthepublicandtheprivate,renderedallthemoreinscrutablebythepoem’suncertaintiesofaddress:r’toughttomeIborethecanopy,Withmyexterntheoutwardhonoring,Orlaydgreatbasesforeternity,Whichprouesmoreshortthenwastorruining?HaueInotseenedwellersonformeandfauorLoseall,andmorebypayingtoomuchrentForcompoundsweet;Forgoingsimplesauor,
InteriorityPittifullthriuorsintheirgazingspent.Noe,letmebeobsequiousinthyheart,Andtakethoumyoblacion,poorebutfree,Whichisnotmixtwithseconds,knowsnoart,Butmutuallrenderonelymeforthee.Hence,thousubborndInformer,atrewsouleWhenmostimpeacht,standsleastinthycontroule.Towhomisthepoemaddressed?Towhatchargedoesitrespond?Underwhatcircumstanceswasitcomposedand/ordelivered?Thereareatleasttwodifferentaddressees.Ontheonehandthereistheyoungmantowhomthetworhetoricalquestionsinthefirsteightlinesareaddressed,andwhoissubsequentlyofferedtheplainexchangeofsimplereciprocity:‘mutuallrenderonelymeforthee’.Ontheotheristhe‘subborndInformer’whosesuddenlynoticedpresenceshattersthequietrequestformutuality.Theyareunlikelytobethesamefigure.Towhomwouldtheinformerpresenthisintelligenceifnottotheyoungmanfromwhomreciprocityissought?Suchanintelligencerispresumablyfearedandhatedbecausehisinformationthreatenstherelationshipthatthepoemitselftriestoforge.Ihavebeenarguingthatthesonnetsaimtoestablishaspaceforthatrelationshipoutoftheglareofthepubliceye.Suchaspaceisimaginedasawithdrawalfromstagetopage,whereto‘hearewit[with]eiesbe-longstolouesfinewiht[wit](sonnet)’.Ihavealsoarguedthatthatgoalissystematicallythwartedbytheintractablenatureofthepubliclifeinwhichtherelationshipandthesonnetsexist.Thispenultimatesonnetintheyoung-mansequenceregistersonelast-ditch,vainattempttoachieveapersonalreciprocitythathasprovedimpossiblethroughthegesturesandactionsofpubliclife,suchastheostentatiousbearingofthe‘canopy’withwhichthepoemopens.Sucha‘canopy’includes,amongotherthings,thesonnetsthemselves.Theyarepublicdocuments(‘myextern’)throughwhichtheplayer-poethas‘honoured’the‘out-ward’,andthroughwhich,ifsomeofthosepoemsaretobebelieved,hehas‘laydgreatbasesforeternity’.Istheplayer-poetrespondingtoan(implicitorotherwise)accusationbythebelovedthatwhateverhehasdonetohonourhimhasinfactbeeninformedallalongbyself-interest?Orisherespondingtoarequesttobemoreostentatiousinhis‘honouring’bycontemptuouslyrejectingthesupposedrewardsthatarepromisedforsuchbehaviour,citinghisfamiliaritywiththe‘actionsthatamanmightplay’withinaworldinwhichpersonaldevotionisrenderedimpossiblebytheexpectationof‘formeandfauor’?Giventheambiguityofthequestion,itisdifficult
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaystotell.Thesonnetis,however,clearinitsgeneralrejectionofpublicorexternalfraudinfavourofsimple,personalreciprocity.Itrejectsthepitifuleconomyofinevitablebankruptcywithpoisedcontempt,butthatpoiseisunbalancedbythefactthatitisnotsufficientmerelytoofferthegiftofprivate‘obsequiousness’or‘oblacion’:theplayer-poethastoimploretheyoungmantoacceptsuchagift:‘letmebeobsequiousinthyheart,/Andtakethoumyoblacion,poorebutfree’.Inthefeltneedtobegtheyoungmantoaccepthisgiftsofdevotionandsubmissiveness,thepoethardlyleavesbehindthepublicworldofhierarchyandrankthatconstitutesthe‘pitifulthriving’fromwhichhewishestoescape.Furthermore,althoughitmightseemasifheisalsoforgoingtheeconomyofprofitlesslossthatmarksthosewho‘loseall,andmorebypayingtoomuchrent’andthe‘wasteandruining’ofhisownformsof‘honouring’,therequestinthethirdquatrainisnotmerelyanabjectpleatobeallowedtobedevotedandservile.Itasks(followingthelanguagegameofsonnet)forsomeformof‘profit’,certainlyforanequalexchange:‘mutuallrender,onelymeforthee’.Andatthestillpointofsimplereciprocity,fromwhichtheeconomyofthepublicworldisostensiblyexcluded,thepressureofthatworldcontinuestomakeitselffeltintheshadowyformofthe‘subborndInformer’.Whoisthisinformer?Fromwhencedoeshecome?Ifweimaginethesonnetasaminiatureplay-script,thenhemakeshisentrancebetweenthefinalquatrainandthecouplet,interruptingaprivatedialoguebetweentheplayer-poetandyoungman,andforcingtheplayer-poettodeclareopenlyandpubliclyhisfreedomfrombothmoraltaintandthepublicworld.Theveryaimofthepoem,toforgeaprivate,personalspaceof‘mutuallrender’,wouldthenbenegatedbytheintrusionofafigurethatembodiestheimpossibilityofprivacy.Thesonnetseemstosuggestthatthatfigureisconjuredintoexistence–broughttomind–bysomethingthatissaidinthepoem:perhapstheclaim,contradictedbythe‘formeandfauor’ofthesonnetitself,thattheoffered‘oblacion’is‘free’,pure,and‘knowsnoart’.Butthenwhoistheaudienceofthislittlescenario?Itcannotbetheprimaryaddressee,theyoungman,forheismerelyacharacter,togetherwiththeplayer-poetandtheinformer,inthescene.Theaudienceisthusdifferentfromeitheroftheaddressees:itisathird,anonymous,entitythatcantakeinandweighupnotonlytheargumentbutalsotheswitchesofaddress.Itisthekindofaudiencethatmightwatchaplay.ToreadthepoemfromthepositionofsuchanaudiencewouldbelikewatchingHamletorCordeliaactingwithintheirrespectiveworlds.
InteriorityIf,however,weimaginetryingtoreaditasifweweretheyoungmantowhomthepoemhasbeensent–theonetowhomthepleaforprivatemutualityisaddressed–thenthesuddenintrusionoftheinformercausesconsiderabledifficulty.Thepoemdoesnotsay:‘Calloffthiswretchedinformerofyours.’Itaddressestheinformerdirectly.Isitpossiblethatthesonnetismeanttobereadoutaloud,toanassembledcompanyincludingthecharactersbothalludedtoandaddresseddirectlyinthesonnet:the‘pitifulgazers’,withtheyoungmanofrankatthecentre,thespyperhapsbeingoneoftheassembledgroup?Ifso,wehaveascenechargedwithperformativeforce.First,drawingattentiontohimselfasafigureofpublicattention,thespeakercontemptuouslydismissesthesocialeconomyofself-servingsubserviencethatconstitutestheveryoccasionofaddress.Hethenpleads,inadirectaddresstothenobleman,foraprivatespaceinwhichdutymaybepledgedandlovesharedwithoutcompromise.Butthen,inanabruptturn,hepicksoutoneofthecompany,denounceshimasaspyandpubliclydeclareshisownfreedomandintegrity.Unlikelyandmelodramaticasitmayseem,onecanimaginesuchascenariofromthestuffofthepoem.Itmakessense,certainlymoresensethanthescenarioinwhichtheyoungmanisthesolitaryaddresseeofbothutterances.LikealltheotherscenariosIhavesketched,itdisplaysadesireforaprivatespaceofpurereciprocity.Butitenacts,inthetwofolddirectionofaddressthatconstitutestheverystructureofthepoem,theimpossibilitynotonlyofseparatingthepersonalfromthepublic,butalsoofpreventingthedebilitatingencroachmentoftheoneupontheother–atrespassfiguredacutelyinthepersonofthespy.LikeHamlet’shistrionicdisavowalofhistrionics,whichisblindtohisownrefusalorincapacitytosaveOpheliafromthecorrosiveeffectsofDenmarkasprison,thesonnet’spublicdeclarationofindependenceunderminesitsownforce.Itfailstocreateaprivateorpersonalspace;rather,inthestrainedpublicityofitsdeclarationitmerelyacknowledgestheintrusionandpredominanceoftheverydomainthatitseekstoescape.Shakespeare’santi-theatricaltacticsinthesonnets,withtheircomplexinterweavingofsocialandmetaphysicalconcerns,demonstratethatthe‘iniuriousdistance’thattheatricalityinallitsformsalwaysimposescanneverbereducedtoaspaceinwhich‘dullsubstance’(sonnet)isdissolvedintothought.Bothwritingandthought,whicharesupposedtoeffectthereduction,bearconstantwitnesstotheveryoppositetruth:‘Butah,thoughtkillsmethatIamnotthought’(sonnet).Inplaceoftheanti-theatricaldesireforanintimate,privatespaceinwhichdifference
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysanddistanceareabolished,Shakespeare’ssonnetsattestnotonlytothepublic,andessentiallytheatrical,characterofverse,butalsoregisteranacceptanceoftheplayer-poet’spropersituationin‘thewideworldscommonplace’(sonnet).Atfirst‘shamedbythatwhich[he]bring[s]forth’(sonnet),heappearsintheendtoacceptnotonlythatheisindeliblymarked,ifnotexactly‘subdu’d’,likethe‘Dyershand’‘towhat[he]workesin’(sonnet).Hisacceptanceofthe‘publickmeaneswhichpublickmannersbreeds’(sonnet)isfinallyanacknowledgementoftheimpossibilityofanyreductionofthetheatricaltothepurespacelessnessofinteriority.Buttonotethesystematicfailureofboththemetaphysicalandmaterialattemptsinthesonnetstoforgeaprivatespacefreefromthepressuresofpubliclifeisneithertoreducetheprivatetothepublic,nortohankerafteranidealpersonalexistenceuntaintedbythesocial.Ifhumanexistenceisateverylevelinformedbythesocial–asindeeditis–thatdoesnotmeanthatprivacyorinterioritydoesnotexist,orthattheseconceptsaremereepiphenomenaofthesocial.BoththesonnetsandHamletdemonstratethedebilitatingeffectsupontheirmembersofsocietiesthatdonotallowthemthespaceforwhatwemightcallapersonalorprivatelife.Ifwefeelintheclosingcoupletofsonnettheplayer-poet’ssignalfailuretoachievereciprocitythroughoutthesequenceasawhole,thenweneedtoreturntoKingLeartoseehowsuchpersonalreciprocitymaybepreservedeveninthefaceofthemostbrutalpublicpressures.InAct,LearandCordeliaarecapturedbyEdmund.Cordelia,feelingthatshecouldendurethetyrannyofhersisters,butdistraughtatwhatthismightmeanforherfather,suggeststhattheyconfrontthematonce.Hedemurs,suggestingawithdrawaltoprison,whichheimaginesasasanctuaryfromtheworld:(toLear)WearenotthefirstWhowithbestmeaninghaveincurredtheworst.Forthee,oppress`edKing,Iamcastdown,Myselfcouldelseoutfrownfalsefortune’sfrown.Shallwenotseethesedaughtersandthesesisters?No,no,no,no.Come,let’sawaytoprison.Wetwoalonewillsinglikebirdsi’th’cage.Thisofcourseleavesopenthequestionofthemisogynistsonnetstothedarkwoman,wherethePlatonicdividebetweenwhattheeyeseesandwhattheheartfeelsorthetonguepronounces,returnswithavengeance.AlvinKernan,inThePlaywrightasMagician,suggeststhatthemovefromtheyoungmantothedarkwomanrepresentstheacceptanceofthetheatrical.Thiswould,however,needtobeexploredintermsofgenderpoliticsratherthanmeremetaphor.ThankstoJacquesBerthoudfordrawingthispassagetomyattentioninthecontextofmyargument.
InteriorityWhenthoudostaskmeblessing,I’llkneeldownAndaskoftheeforgiveness;sowe’lllive,Andpray,andsing,andtelloldtales,andlaughAtgildedbutterflies,andhearpoorroguesTalkofcourtnews,andwe’lltalkwiththemtoo–Wholosesandwhowins,who’sin,who’sout,Andtakeupon’sthemysteryofthingsAsifwewereGod’sspies;andwe’llwearoutInawalledprisonpacksandsectsofgreatonesThatebbandflowbyth’moon.(KingLear(Foliotext)..–)InLear’sfantasyofaliferemovedfromthepressuresofthepoliticalworldwecanrecognisestrikingelementsoftheplayer-poet’ssimilardesiresforwithdrawalwiththeobjectofhislove:intheportraitofperfectreciprocity(‘Whenthoudostaskmeblessing,I’llkneeldown/Andaskoftheeforgiveness;sowe’lllive’),inthesardonicdistancefromtheinsandoutsofcourtintrigue,intheculminatingideathattheconstancyofachievedreciprocitywill‘wearout/...packsandsectsofgreatones/Thatebbandflowbyth’moon’,andinthefantasythat,ratherthanbeingtheobjectsofspiesandinformers,theywill,as‘God’sspies’,takeuponthemselvesthe‘mysteryofthings’.Leartransformsthethoughtoftheprison,entertainedbyHamletastheepitomeofthedestructionofthepersonalbyarottenpubliclife,intotheveryspaceinwhichthepersonalmaybepreservedfrompublicintrusion.Evenwithoutthetragicknowledgeoftheplay’sclose,itisclearthatsuchafantasyisunsustainable,asunsustainableastheplayer-poet’sdreamofaroleuntouchedby‘publickmanners’.Andyet,despiteitsacknowledgementoftheimpossibilityofseveringthepersonalfromthesocial,thismomentinKingLearenacts,throughitsinteractivedialogue,thefragilebutinestimablevalueofthepersonal.Believingatthebe-ginningoftheplaythatthereisnothingoutsidethepublicdiscourseofpoliticalpower,Learthendreamsthattheremaybeaprivaterealm–exemplifiedbythehermeticspaceoftheprison–thatcanescapethatdiscourse.Heiswrongonbothcounts.Butbetweenthetwohelearnshowtotakeuponhimselfthelanguagegamesofpersonalrelations.Incontrasttotheearlylanguagegameofpublicavowal,bywhichhehadattemptedtoforceadeclarationofpersonallovefromhisdaughter,henowimaginesand–moreimportantly–embodies,anintimatediscourseofreciprocalloveandforgiveness.Asinallthehumanemomentsinthisplay,thesmallestgesturescount:therepeateduseofthefirst-personpronouninitsmostcommon,non-royal,sense,andthesimplepleasures
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysofsharedhumanintercourse:ofpraying,laughing,singing,tellingoldtales.Thepainfulvulnerabilityofsuchthingsshouldnotmakeusvaluethemless,norshoulditleadustoconcludethatthepersonalortheprivateisobliteratedbythepublic.Weseethem,enactedandembod-ied,beforeoureyes,inthisveryexchange:notmerelytalkedabout,butincarnate,performedthroughinteractivedialogue.OfallShakespeare’splays,KingLearembodiesmostacutelythecom-plexsenseforwhichIhavearguedthroughoutthischapter,thatwhiletheprivateorpersonalisinformedbythesocial,itcannotbereducedtoordissolvedintoit.HamletandShakespeare’ssonnetsofferarelated,butnotidentical,perspectiveonthisrelationship.Neitherofthemappearstobeabletotakeuponthemselves,toinhabit,thelanguagegamesofpersonalrelationsthatwesee,momentarily,inLear’sinteractionwithhisdaughter,andEdgar’swithhisfather.Hamletandtheplayer-poetarebothfinallyreducedtomonologicalhistrionics.Hamletrantshisloveoverthebodyofawomanforwhomtheyaretoolateandnotenough.Theplayer-poettriesinvaintokeepthepryingpublicatbaythroughtheemptyperformativethatconcludeshispenultimatesonnettotheyoungnobleman,orthroughthereductionofhismistress’spersontothe‘wideworldscommonplace’.Ifanysortofreciprocityisindeedachievedinthesonnets,thenitlies,notinanywithdrawalintoaspaceuntouchedbythepublic,orintheidealmatchingofwordandobject,butinthemoments,liketheonesinKingLear,inwhichfailureisrecognisedandthepersonalembodiedintheacceptanceandunderstandingofmutualfaultandforgiveness:atyouwereoncevnkindbe-friendsmeenow,Andforthatsorrow,whichIthendiddefeele,NeedesmustIvndermytransgressionbow,VnlessemyNerueswerebrasseorhammeredsteele.ForifyouwerebymyvnkindnesseshakenAsIbyyours,y’hauepastahellofTime,AndIatyranthauenoleasuretakenTowaighhowonceIsufferedinyourcrime.OthatournightofwomighthaueremembredMydeepestsence,howhardtruesorrowhits,Andsoonetoyou,asyoutomethentendredThehumblesalue,whichwoundedbosomesfits!Butthatyourtrespassenowbecomesafee,Mineransomsyours,andyoursmustransomemee.(sonnet)
InteriorityInthepreviouschaptersIexploredtheperformativedynamics,evidentinthissonnet,throughwhichwordsmayachievereciprocitythroughtheirpowernotmerelytodescribe,buttotransformhumanrelationshipsandtheworldfromwhichtheytaketheirlife.InthenextIlookattheperformativepowerofthenamesandnamingeventstofixtheconceptoftheselfexploredaboveingivennetworksofpersonalandsocialrelations.
Names:thesonnets,RomeoandJuliet,TroilusandCressidaandOthelloIhavearguedthattheconceptoftheperformative,ofwhatwordsmaydoratherthanmerelysay,transformsthenotionof‘truth’inShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysindecisiveways.Thepoweroflanguagenottore-flectbuttotransformtheworldthroughformsofsocialactionunitesthesonnetsandplayssuchasAntonyandCleopatraorAsYouLikeIt,whereconditionsofsufficientsocialorpersonalcohesionenabletheperfor-mativetodoitsproperwork.Suchworkdependsuponparticularkindsofimaginedorrealsocialworlds,worldsinwhichtherequisitespeechactsandlanguagegamesaresustainedbywhatLarsEnglehascalledthe‘thickdeeps’ofcontingentratherthantranscendentalcertainty.WecanrespondtoCleopatra’stransformationsofherselfandherlover,ortheplayer-poet’selevationoftheyoungmanintotheparadigminstanceof‘truth’,ortheaccommodationsofmutualfalsehoodinthedark-womanpoems,becausethetextsthemselvesworkwithinvitalframe-worksofconsensuallinguisticpractice.Theseconstitutetheperformativepoweroftheirspeechacts,evenwhensuchactsempowercertainkindsofwithdrawalorescapefromawidersocialorpoliticalrealm.Manyactsofthiskindareself-authorising.TheydonotmerelyconformtothesettledconventionsandsanctionedcapacitiesthatareconstitutiveoftheperformativeasitappearsinAustin’sandSearle’smorecon-servativemomentsofanalysis.Theyforgetheirownauthorityattheverymomentoflinguisticaction,renegotiatingindiscursivewayscon-ditionsofsocialorpersonaldisempowerment.Theimpotencythatistheabidingconditionofthesonnetstotheyoungmanofrankmaytosomedegreebetranscendedthroughthemobilisationofempower-ingspeechactsundertheguiseofother,lesspresumptuousformsofdiscourse.LarsEngle,ShakespeareanPragmatism:MarketofHisTime(ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress,).
NamesChapteraboveshowsthatisnotsufficientforspeechactstoconformtoparticularlinguisticforms.Totakeeffecttheyneedcontextsthat,asWittgensteinputsit,givethemtheirlife.PlayssuchasHamletandKingLeardemonstratethataparticularkindofsociety,markedbycertainkindsofpoliticalpowerorsocialpressure,mayrendercertainlanguagegamesnugatory.Theverypossibilityofa‘private’lifemaybeexcludedbyarelentlesslypublicenvironmentthatisinimicaltotheconditionsthatal-lowitsmembersthelinguisticandemotionalspacetoforgerelationshipsandidentitiesprotectedfrompublicscrutinyandinterference.Thisisnottosaythatthe‘private’isamereepiphenomenonofthe‘public’,orthatthereismetaphysicallyspeakingnosuchrealmorconceptastheprivate.Rather,acertainkindofpublicrealm–exemplifiedbytheworldsofthetwogreattragedies,andalsoreflectedinthesonnets–mayemptythediscoursesorlanguagegamesofprivatelifeofmeaning.InthefollowingpagesIbringtheargumentsdevelopedearliertogetherundertherubricofnames,both‘proper’and‘common’.Ishowfirst,inareadingofRomeoandJuliet,howpropernamestieprivatelivestopublicexistence:toin-escapablenetworksofsocialrelations.IthendiscussthewaysinwhichimaginedworldsmayofferalternativesignificationstofixednamesinTroilusandCressida.Finally,Idiscussthewaysinwhichnamingeventsthemselvesactasperformatives,fixingortransformingidentitiesandrelationshipsinthecontextofOthello.WhenJuliet,reflectingonthenameoftheroseandthenameofherlove,engagesinwhatJacquesDerridarightlycalls‘themostimplacableanalysisofthename’,sheisfacedwiththefactthatthenamesofrosesandthenamesofmenworkindisparateways.Thenamesofmen(andalsowomen)attesttoawebofirreduciblesocialrelations:Romeo,Romeo,whereforeartthouRomeo?Denythyfatherandrefusethyname...’Tisbutthynamethatismyenemy:Thouartthyself,thoughnotaMontague.What’saMontague?ItisnorhandnorfootNorarmnorfacenoranyotherpartBelongingtoaman.Obesomeothername.What’sinaname?ThatwhichwecallaroseByanyotherwordwouldsmellassweet;SoRomeowouldwerehenotRomeocall’d,JacquesDerrida,ActsofLiterature,ed.DerekAttridge(London:Routledge,),.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysRetainthatdearperfectionwhichheowesWithoutthattitle.Romeo,doffthyname,Andforthyname,whichisnopartofthee,Takeallmyself.(RomeoandJuliet,..–)Inastrangelyinvertedblazonofherlove,JulietwishestoreducethedistancerepresentedbyRomeo’snametothepresenceofimmediatedeixisbywhich,asinShakepeare’ssonnets,onecandispensewithpropernames.Beingneither‘handnorfoot/Norarmnorfacenoranyotherpart/Belongingtoaman’,Romeo’snameis,asDerridaputsit,‘inhuman’(ActsofLiterature,);‘nopartofhim,’heshouldbeabletoputitaside,substitutingforitpreciselythatwhichhisnameresists,Julietherself.Thisdesiretostriptheobjectofdenominationisrelatedtothefre-quentlyreiterated(andconventional)thoughtinthesonnetsthatlan-guagecorruptsnature:‘Ineversawthatyoudidpaintingneed,/Andthereforetoyourfairenopaintingset’(sonnet).ButIhavearguedthatpartoftheunconventionalityofShakespeare’ssonnetsliesintheirclear,self-consciousrecognitionoftheperformative,rhetoricalnatureofthisclaim.NamesdocountinthesonnetsequenceasinexorablyastheydoinRomeoandJuliet,eventhoughtheirpragmaticcontextisnowhiddenfromus,andinspiteoftheirplayer-poet’sattemptstoevadetheirideologicalweight.Whatmattersinthesonnets,asintheplay,istheuseoftherespectivenames:asmarkersofsocialdifference,matricesofideo-logicalmeaning,networksofsocialrelations.Theplayer-poetdesiresasmuchasJulietthatthebelovedshould‘doffhisname’and‘forhisname’‘takeallmyself’.Theyoungman’ssoul,‘allnaked’,wouldthenbefreeofthesocial,politicalburdenoftheplayer’sname.Itwouldtranscendthepainful‘blots’and‘guilt’that‘remaine’(sonnet)withtheplayer-poet,atleastinpartbecauseofhisownname.Forthatnameislinkedtothesonnets,bothbythegenerictitle–‘-’–thatcontainsit,andby‘thatwhich[he]bring[s]forth’(sonnet)throughhis‘publickmeaneswhichpublickmannersbreeds’(sonnet).Theabsenceofpropernamesinthesonnetshasbothalogicalandanideologicalimport.Logically,itsuggests–evenifitdoesnotprove–theirautobiographicalnature.Ideologically,itintimatesthedesireoftheplayer-poettosubstitutetheburdensomenameofthebelovedwith‘all’ofhimself.That‘all’must,however,besuitablycleansedofhisown,im-propername,which,accordingtoacertainperspective,isnopartofaman.Butagainstthewishtoreducethesocialsignificanceoftheproper
Namesname,boththesonnetsandRomeoandJulietenacttheinexorablerigidityofthepropername.Logically,Juliet’sinvocationofherloveinhisab-sence,evenifitistourgehimtoabandonhisname,demonstratesthatshehastodosoinhisname:‘Romeo’.Thisspeaksofbothanessentialseparabilityandinseparabilityofbearerandname.Onecancall(to)Romeo(oranyoneelse)inhisabsenceonlybecausethenameisnotpartofhim.Ontheotherhand,thatonecancalltohimisanindicationoftheinseparabilityofhisnamefromhimself–notashandorfootorface,butasasocialcreature.This‘inhumanity’ofthenameparadoxicallyconstitutesRomeo’sveryhumanity,foritiswhattieshimtoaparticularfamilyandsocialworld:Thisanalysisisimplacableforitannouncesordenouncestheinhumanityorahumanityofthename.Apropernamedoesnotnameanythingwhichishuman,whichbelongstothehumanbody,ahumanspirit,anessenceofman.Andyetthisrelationtotheinhumanonlybefallsman,forhim,tohim,inthenameofman.Healonegiveshimselfthisinhumanname.AndRomeowouldnotbewhatheis,astrangertohisname,withouthisname.Juliet,then,pursuesheranalysis:thenamesofthingsdonotbelongtothethingsanymorethanthenamesofmenbelongtomen,andyettheyarequitedifferentlyseparable.(Derrida,ActsofLiterature,;emphasisadded)ToadoptSaulKripke’swayofspeaking,RomeoisRomeoinallpossibleworlds,eveninaworldinwhichhehasdeniedorrenouncedhisname.ThenameoftheroseisdifferentfromthenameofRomeo,for‘Romeo’tiesitsbearertoasetofobligations,relationsandvaluesinawaythattheword‘rose’doesnottietheflower.Romeomaytrytosethimselfapartfromthoseties,evenifthelogicofthepropernamemeansthatitwilldoghimforever,likehisshadow.Romeoisthus,paradoxically,Shakespeare’scharacterwhorenounceshisname:‘Romeowouldnotbewhatheis,astrangertohisname,withouthisname.’IncontrasttoKripke,whoclaimsthatapropernamehasareferentbutnosense(or,tousedifferentterms,adenotationbutnoconnotation,areferentbutnosignified),boththetragedyandthesonnetsasserttheinescapableideologicalsignificance,senseorconnotationofthenameatthesametimeastheyaffirmKripke’sconceptionofthepropernameasa‘rigiddesignator’.RecallthatKripkearguesagainstthetraditionalviewthatapropernameisanabbreviationofasetofdescriptionsthataretrueForafullerdiscussionofthisinthecontextofcurrentphilosophicaldebates,seemy‘“What’sinaname?”:Derrida,Apartheid,andtheNameoftheRose’,LanguageSciences,.(April),–.SaulKripke,NamingandNecessity(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,).
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysofsomeoneinfavourofaconceptofrigiddesignationindependentlyofanydescriptivepropertiesinordertoallowforthepossibilitythatsuchdescriptionsmayturnouttobefalse.Thenamehastobeabletopickoutpreciselythepersonofwhomthesetofdescriptionsdoesturnouttobefalse.Itdoesso,inKripke’sview,notthroughanymeaningthatitmayhave(andwhichmightmatchitsbearerthroughthelatter’scontingentproperties),butthroughanoriginalactofbaptismandaseriesofreference-preserving,causallinksinthesubsequentuseofthename.AsShakespearerepresentsthepropername,thereisnoconsolationforJulietintheapparenttruththatchangingthenameoftherosewillnotaffectthepropertiesoftheflower.ForwhilethisisalsotrueofRomeoemblazonedasacollectionofbodyparts,itisnottrueofhimasmemberofahumancommunity,assomeoneshemayormaynotlove.TheplayshowsthatRomeowouldnotbeabletoescapethefateofhisnamebyexchanginghis‘proper’nameforthe‘common’nameofJuliet’s‘love’(‘bebutswornmylove’):‘Sheknowsit:detachableanddissociable,aphoristicthoughitmaybe,hisnameishisessence.Inseparablefromhisbeing’(Derrida,ActsofLiterature,).ThisiswhyRomeocannot‘teartheword’(..):becausehehasnotwrittenit,becausehisnamehasbeenwrittenbeforehim,isessentiallyothertohim,isinexorablysocial.Romeo’ssuddenvisionofhisnameastheperpetratorofviolenceagainstbothhisbelovedandhisenemythusconveystheplay’sinsightintothesocialandideologicalwebinwhichhe,Juliet,indeed,everymemberofthesociety,iscaught:Asifthatname,Shotfromthedeadlylevelofagun,Didmurderher;asthatthatname’scursedhandMurderedherkinsman.(RomeoandJuliet,..–)Romeo’sname,understoodbothasthecarrierofsocialidentityandasthemarkerofrigiddesignation,tieshiminexorablytothetragiceventsoftheplay.ItmakesitimpossibleforhimandJuliettoescapethewebofsocialdeterminationintoaprivateworldoflove,justastheplayer-poetofthesonnetsconsistentlyfailstotranscendthepublicworldbyreducingthedistanceofthestagetothemutualityofthepage.Romeo’spredicament(whichisequallyJuliet’s)issummedupbyLouisAlthusserwhenheclaimsofachildthatfromthemomentofconception‘itiscertaininadvancethatitwillbearitsFather’sName...Beforeitsbirththechildisalways-already...appointedasasubjectinandbythespecificfamilialideologicalconfigurationinwhichitis“expected”onceithasbeenconceived’(LeninandPhilosophyandOtherEssays,trans.D.Brewster(London:NewLeftBooks,)),.
NamesNotwithstandingitsautobiographicalcapacitytodowithoutpropernames,‘-’expressesadesire,likeJuliet’s,toobliteratethedifferencesthatpropernamesrepresent.Ihavediscussedtheplayer-poet’swishtoclosethedistanceimposedbytheideologicalsignificationofthesociallymarkednamesoftheactorandthearistocrat.CompareViola’sPetrarchanmomentinTwelfthNight,whenshemovesOliviabyentertainingtheceaselessinvocationofhername.ToOlivia’squestion,‘Whatwouldyoudo?’Violareplies:MakemeawillowcabinatyourgateAndcalluponmysoulwithinthehouse,Writeloyalcantonsofcontemn`edlove,Andsingthemloudeveninthedeadofnight;Hallooyournametothereverberatehills,AndmakethebabblinggossipoftheairCryout‘Olivia!’O,youshouldnotrestBetweentheelementsofairandearthButyoushouldpityme.(TwelfthNight,..–)Heretherepetitionofthepropernameisfundamentaltotherhetoricoferoticpersuasion.Itisaclimacticconsummationofthepreparatory‘loyalcantonsofcontemn`edlove’thataretakenupandechoedbytheel-ementsthemselvesviatheunselfconsciousself-confidenceofthespeaker.ButViola’ssocialstatusandgenderaretemporarilymaskedbyheras-sumedname,Cesario.Takeninbythelatter,butuncertainwhethertheformermightprovideabarriertoaneroticrelationship,Olivia’sveryfirstthoughtisofthe‘parentage’ofhersuppliant:Youmightdomuch.Whatisyourparentage?Abovemyfortunes,yetmystateiswell.Iamagentleman.(..–)Whentheplayer-poetofthesonnetsasks,rhetorically,‘What’sinthebrainethatInckmaycharacter/Whichhathnotfigur’dtotheemytruespirit?’(sonnet),‘parentage’maywellcometomind.Foritisoneoftheurgentfantasiesofthesonnetsthatdifferencesofclassmaybesublimatedbyconsiderationsoftheagelessnessoflove,assumedtotranscend‘outwardforme’(sonnet):What’snewtospeake,whatnowtoregister,Thatmayexpressemyloue,orthydearemerit?Nothingsweetboy,butyetlikeprayersdiuine,
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysImusteachdaysayoretheverysame,Countingnooldthingold,thoumine,Ithine,EuenaswhenfirstIhallowedthyfairename.Sothateternallloueinlouesfreshcase,Waighesnotthedustandiniuryofage,Norgiuestonecessarywrincklesplace,Butmakesantiquitieforayehispage,Findingthefirstconceitoflouetherebred,Wheretimeandoutwardformewouldshewitdead,(sonnet)Althoughtheplayer-poetlooksbackatatimewhen,inapunningechoofViola’sprojecteddevotion,‘firstIhallowedthyfairename’,hissonnetdoesnot,despiteitsconcernwithdevoutrepetition,invokethat‘fairename’evenonce.‘Hallow’and‘halloo’arecloseenoughtosuggestthatatleastoneofthethingsthattheplayer-poetmightbeexpectedto‘sayoretheverysame’aspartofalitanyofrepeatedde-votionisthebeloved’spropername.Butitisabsentfromacyclethatpointedlycelebratesitsownconstantrepetitiveness;itisabsentevenfromthissonnet,whichtantalisinglyrefersbacktotheinitialmomentinwhichthelover‘hallo(w)oed’thebeloved’snamethroughViola-likeiteration.Notwithstandingmyargumentthattheautobiographicalmodeofthesonnetsrenderspropernamespragmaticallyredundant,thecompleteabsenceofthe‘hallowedname’ofthebelovedremainsremarkable.Theperfectreciprocitysoughtandclaimedthroughthepronouns,perfectlybalancedandpaired,in‘thoumine,Ithine’cannot,itseems,beachievedthroughthepairingofpropernames.ItisasifthesingularityofthebelovedneedstobestrippedoftheveryqualitiesthatdogRomeo.Heneedstobereducedtothecommonname‘love’orthesimple,pristineadjectives,‘faire,kinde,andtrue’(sonnet).Thesealonecanbeartheconstantiterationthat‘leauesoutdifference’insonnet.Sonnetmakesitclearthatinideologicaltermstheplayer-poet’sownpropernameisincompatiblewiththatofhisbeloved.Caughtinanetworkofsocialrelations,ofwhichShakespeare’sinvolvementintheprofessionofthecommonplayerispresumablyparamount,hisnamenotonly‘receivesabrand’–hisvery‘natureissubdu’d/Towhatitworkesin,liketheDyershand’:ormysakedoeyouwish[with]fortunechide,Theguiltiegoddesseofmyharmfulldeeds,Thatdidnotbetterformylifeprouide,
NamesThenpublickmeaneswhichpublickmannersbreeds.Thencecomesitthatmynamereceiuesabrand,Andalmostthencemynatureissubdu’dTowhatitworkesin,liketheDyershand,Pittymethen,andwishIwererenu’de,WhilstlikeawillingpacientIwilldrinke,PotionsofEysellgainstmystronginfection,NobitternessethatIwillbitterthinke,Nordoublepennancetocorrectcorrection.Pittiemethendearefriend,andIassureyee,Euenthatyourpittieisenoughtocuremee.Initsquietdesperationthepoemstrugglestofindtheresolutionofhisapparentlyincorrigiblecondition.Atfirstthebelovedisasked,asinson-net,merelytoalignhimselfwiththeplayer-poet,sothatthelatterwillnothaveto‘beweepe’his‘out-caststate’‘allalone’.Themerethoughtofthebelovedisheldtobesufficienttotranscendthevicissitudesoffortuneintheearlysonnet,butitisexcludedhere.Farfrombeingaforceabovetheplayer-poet’sconditionthatcanmagicallytransformit,thebelovedisdrawnintothispoem,firstasasomeonewhocan‘chidewithfortune’andthen,moreconventionally,asaPetrarchanbelovedfromwhomatransformingcompassionmaybesought.Butitisunclearhowsuchpityshouldwipeoutstainsthatareessentiallysocialinnature–tiedtotheplayer-poet’s‘name’,andexemplifiedbythedifferencebe-tweenhis‘branded’nameandthe‘honour’thatbelongstothebeloved’sname.Thisabidingsocialdifferenceisrehearsedinothersonnets.Itisen-counteredinsonnet,wheretheplayer-poetacknowledgesthe‘shame’thathisownnamerepresents,inpublic,tothebeloved:‘Imaynoteuer-moreacknowledgethee,/Leastmybewailedguiltshoulddotheeshame,/Northouwithpublikekindnessehonourme,/Vnlessthoutakethathonourfromthyname.’Itisalsopresentinsonnetsand.Inthesepoems,theabjectplayer-poetseekstorenouncehisnamethroughthefantasyofhisowndeathandurgesthebelovedtoavoidtheinfectionofhiscontaminatedandcontaminatingname:‘Donotsomuchasmypoorenamereherse/Butletyourloueeuenwithmylifedecay./Leastthewiseworldshouldlookeintoyourmone/AndmockyouwithmeCf.sonnet:Imaynoteuer-moreacknowledgethee,Leastmybewailedguiltshoulddotheeshame,Northouwithpublikekindnessehonourme,Vnlessethoutakethathonourfromthyname.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysafterIamgone’,and‘Mynamebeburiedwheremybodyis,/Andliuenomoretoshamenorme,noryou’.Sonnet,too,acknowledgesthedisgracethatstemsfromtheplayer-poet’suseofthebeloved’sname:‘inmytongue,/Thysweetbelouednamenomoreshalldwell,/LeastI(toomuchprophane)shoulddoitwronge:/Andhaplieofouroldacquain-tancetell’.Eachofthesepoemsisapleafortherehabilitationoftheoffendingnamethroughsomeactiononthepartofthebeloved.Themerethoughtoftheyoungmanisnolongersufficient.Ifsonnetsandrepresentthetimelessrepetitionofthebeloved’snameandqualitiesasaformofappropriateworship,inwhichno‘disgrace’or‘state’canbetoobadforhimto‘hallow’thenameoftheaddressee,theotherpoemsareinformedbyamuchmoreseculargraspofsocialcontaminationthatbreakswiththespiritual,religiousstrainofPetrarchandevotion.The‘disease’ofwhichsonnetcomplainsisthusnotthePetrarchanconditionofun-requitedorirrationallove,butthe‘baseinfection’ofaninferiorsocialclassandunacceptablypublicoccupation:‘IamshamedbythatwhichIbringforth’(sonnet).Sonnetrepresentsthelimitsofspiritualsublimation.Itsconventionalpleaforcompassionfromthebelovediscontradictedbyitsownfirmsenseoftheincorrigibilityofitsinfection.Beingpartofageneralsocialconditiondecreedby‘guiltie...fortune’(sonnet),itisnotonlyimpervioustothemostbittermedicinesorformsofcorrection,itisdangerouslyinfectioustotheverypersonwhoissupposedtobetheagentofitseradication.Any‘honour’donetothenameoftheplayer-poetnecessarilysubtractsfromthe‘honour’ofthebeloved’sownname.Thepoignancyofthispoemliesinitsincapacitytofocusontheagentofeitherdisgraceorrelease,despiteitsshiftingattemptstofindtraditionallyidealist,Petrarchansolutionstoaproblemthatisessentiallymaterialandsocial.Farfrombeingthemediumofrelease,asheisconceivedtobeinsonnet,thearistocraticbelovedisanessentialpartoftheproblem,asmuchvictimof‘fortune’asanagentoferoticandsocialalienation.LikeRomeo,then,‘Will’istrappedbyapropernamethatmarkshisplacewithinasetofsocialrelationsoverwhichhehasonlylimitedcontrol.The‘pittie’forwhichSonnetpleadsismuchmorecomplexthanmerepersonalloveorliking:itinvolvesthecreationofreciprocitythroughtherepudiationofthesocialconsiderationsthatproducepublicconditionsofhierarchy,differenceandseparation.GiventhatRomeocannotrepudiatethenetworkofsocial,familialandconflictualrelations
Namesthatconstitutehisname,thistestofpersonallygivenreciprocity–ofcompassionor‘pity’–isfacedandpassedbyJuliet.Caughtforamomentintheconflictingoxymoronsproducedbyherownloyaltytoherfamily(anditsname)andherloveforherenemy,Juliet’s‘pity’obliteratesthedifferencesrepresentedbyherlover’sname:Beautifultyrant,fiendangelical!Dove-featheredraven,wolvish-raveninglamb!Despis`edsubstanceofdivinestshow!(RomeoandJuliet,..–)ThisparodyofPetrarchanoxymoronrepresentsJuliet’sstruggletocometotermswiththedisjunctionofthenames‘Romeo’and‘Tybalt’andwhattheyrepresentoverandaboveherpersonaldesires.Thesceneshowsherbearingtheconsequencesofherreciprocating‘pity’,which,farfromforgingaprivateworldinwhichnameshavebeenforgotten,hasbroughtnew,anddeeplycontradictory,publicaffiliationsdistributedinconflictingwaysacrossthenames‘Romeo’,‘Tybalt’,‘husband’and‘cousin’:Willyouspeakwellofhimthatkilledyourcousin?ShallIspeakillofhimthatismyhusband?Ah,poormylord,whattongueshallsmooththynameWhenI,thythree-hourswife,havemangledit?Butwherefore,villain,didstthoukillmycousin?Thatvillaincousinwouldhavekilledmyhusband.Back,foolishtears,backtoyournativespring!Yourtributarydropsbelongtowoe,Whichyou,mistaking,offeruptojoy.Myhusbandlives,thatTybaltwouldhaveslain;AndTybalt’sdead,thatwouldhaveslainmyhusband.(..–)Wrackedbytheseunfamiliar,contradictoryaffiliationsandfiliations,however,JulietsoonfindsinthethoughtofRomeo’sbanishmentthedeathofalltheworld,theobliterationofeverythingthathastiedhertoherfamily.The‘death’ofRomeo’snamethroughbanishmentnegatesallelse:‘Tybaltisdead,andRomeobanish`ed.’That‘banish`ed’,thatoneword‘banish`ed’HathslaintenthousandTybalts.Tybalt’sdeathWaswoeenough,ifithadendedthere;Or,ifsourwoedelightsinfellowship
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysAndneedlywillberankedwithothergriefs,Whyfollowednot,whenshesaid‘Tybalt’sdead’,‘Thyfather’,or‘thymother’,nay,orboth,Whichmodernlamentationmighthavemoved?ButwitharearwardfollowingTybalt’sdeath,‘Romeoisbanish`ed’–tospeakthatwordIsfather,mother,Tybalt,Romeo,Juliet,Allslain,alldead.‘Romeoisbanish`ed’–Thereisnoend,nolimit,measure,bound,Inthatword’sdeath.(..–)InsofarasJuliet’snewaffiliationwithRomeohasreplacedeveryotherfiliation,thefinallineofsonnetisperfectlycorrect.Nothingmoreisrequiredthanthebeloved’s‘pity’,forsuch‘pity’wouldnecessarilyinvolve,asJuliet’sdoes,thesuspensionofthesocialnetworkandthedifferencesheldbythepropernamebyarenewedembracingofthenamethroughtotalreciprocity,throughthenegationoftheworldthatDonneimaginesandcelebratessopowerfullyinhispoetry.RomeoandJulietisuniqueamongShakespeare’splaysinitsrepresentationofsuchreciprocity,evenifitsbrieflivingmomentisconfirmedmoreominouslyintheembraceofmutualdeath.Theromanticcomediesandlateromancesrepresentthepassagetosuchreciprocity–itspromiseandinsomecases,itsconsequences–withoutactuallyrepresentingitonstage.Butintheonlyothertragedywhichcelebratesamarriage,Othello,untrammelledreciprocityofeverykindisnotoriouslypostponedforever.IshalldiscussOthelloandtheimbricationsofnamesandmarriageinduecourse.Thepropernameasamarkcaughtinasupra-individual(andsomewouldsayinhumane)networkofsocialrelationshipsunderliesthetragedyofRomeoandJuliet.Itembodiesthewebofthesocial,thepublicandthepoliticalthatentwines,fromthebeginning,RomeoandJuliet’sapparentflightintotheprivateworldoferoticreciprocity.Thesonnetslessexplicitly,butnolesscogently,explorethedesiretoescape,oratleastreduce,socialtiesanddifferencesthroughtheexigenciesofthepropername,althoughtheverydifferentworldsofthepoemstothemanofrankandthecommonwomanmeanthatthepropernameisemployedindifferentways.ThefactthatitisimpossibleforbothRomeoandWillto‘teartheword’oftheirnamesdoesnotmeanthatsomedegreeofsuspensionofthepublicorsocialworldisneitherdesirablenorpossi-ble.AndthecapacityofRomeoandJulietastheatretocreateaworldinwhichbothPetrarchanandcounter-Petrarchandiscoursesarelivingmodesofsocialintercourse,ratherthanmerelyliterarydevices,offers
Namesaperspectiveontheimbricationofthepublicandprivate,thepoliticalandtheerotic,intheformofthename.LikeRomeoandJulietandthesonnets,TroilusandCressidaexplorestheburdenofthepropername,butitdoessoinadifferentmode.Thestoryiswovenaroundnamesthatbringwiththemcenturiesofaccu-mulated(andsometimescontradictory)ideologicalsignification.Butitsprimarypairofloversalsoillustratestheprocessbywhichcertainhumanfiguresmaybecometheparadigmaticordefininginstancesofthecon-ceptualorideal.‘Troilus’,‘Cressida’,‘Pandarus’arenotmerely‘rigiddesignators’ofhistoricalfigures;theypointtotheideologicalprocesswherebythesenameshavecometoepitomisetheconceptsof‘fidelity’,‘faithlessness’and‘pimp’.Theperformativequalityofthisprocessisunderlinedandironisedbythedramatist’sdecisiontomakethechar-actersthemselvesagentsoftheirfutureidealisationandde-idealisation.Ironicallyunawareofthegenericself-reflexivityofthemoment,Troilus,CressidaandPandarusturnthemselves,throughtheperformativeactionofthejussive,intothehistoricalparadigmsthatprecedeShakespeare’splayinthesignificationoftheirrespectivenames:Butalas,Iamastrueastruth’ssimplicity,Andsimplerthantheinfancyoftruth.InthatI’llwarwithyou.Ovirtuousfight,Whenrightwithrightwarswhoshallbemostright.TrueswainsinloveshallintheworldtocomeApprovetheirtruthbyTroilus.Whentheirrhymes,Fullofprotest,ofoathandbigcompare,Wantssimiles,truthtiredwithiteration–‘Astrueassteel,asplantagetothemoon,Assuntoday,asturtletohermate,Asirontoadamant,asearthtoth’centre’–Yet,afterallcomparisonsoftruth,Astruth’sauthenticauthortobecited,‘AstrueasTroilus’shallcrownuptheverseAndsanctifythenumbers.Prophetmayyoube!IfIbefalse,orswerveahairfromtruth,Whentimeisoldandhathforgotitself,WhenwaterdropshavewornthestonesofTroyAndblindoblivionswallowedcitiesup,Andmightystatescharacterlessaregrated
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysTodustynothing,yetletmemoryFromfalsetofalseamongfalsemaidsinloveUpbraidmyfalsehood.Whenthey’vesaid,‘asfalseAsair,aswater,windorsandyearth,Asfoxtolamb,orwolftoheifer’scalf,Pardtothehind,orstepdametoherson’,Yea,letthemsay,tosticktheheartoffalsehood,‘AsfalseasCressid’.Goto,abargainmade.Sealit,sealit.I’llbethewitness.HereIholdyourhand;here,mycousin’s.Ifeveryouprovefalseonetoanother,sinceIhavetakensuchpaintobringyoutogether,letallpitifulgoers-betweenbecalledtotheworld’sendaftermyname:callthemallpanders.LetallconstantmenbeTroiluses,allfalsewomenCressids,andallbrokers-betweenpanders.Say‘Amen’.Amen.Amen.Amen.(TroilusandCressida,..–)Thissceneisremarkableforitsrehearsalofthespeechactsofacer-tainkindofPetrarchanverse,andalsoforthewayinwhich,byself-consciouslyexposingpeculiarlyShakespeareanvariationsonthattheme,itrevealssomeofthebuilding-blocksoftheShakespeareansonnet.Itisitselfbuiltoutoftwosonnets,orasonnetfollowedbyanear-sonnet.Assuchitironicallyechoes,inserialform,thedialoguesonnetthatmarksRomeoandJuliet’sfirstencounter.Cressida’sspeechisacompletefour-teenlines;Troilus’samoreominousthirteen.Unliketheircounterpartsintheearliertragedy,these‘sonnets’arenotsharedinamomentofmutualdialogue.Onthecontrary,thegeneralPetrarchanperspectiveofloveaswarisgivenafreshtwistintherivalryfortruthbetweentheloversthemselves.Thebelovedtakestheplaceofthecompetinglover,ina‘virtuousfight,/Whenrightwithrightwarswhoshallbemostright’.Againstthemonologicalnatureofthesonnetwhenitisconfinedtothepage,thewomannowrivalsthemalepoet’sclaimof‘truth’inasonnetofherown.Suchexposurehasitsdisadvantages,asweshallsee.Forthemomentitisenoughmerelytonotethepublic,confidentnatureofCressida’sstance.ShestepsintotheroleofPetrarchanpoet,spurringTroilusonfromahaplessandmerelyconventionaldeclarationofhisown‘truth’,toareflectiononthewaysinwhichsuchconventionsareestablishedandtransformed.ThankstoLarsEnglefordrawingthistomyattention.Idiscussthe‘palmer’skiss’sonnetfromRomeoandJulietinchapter,above.
NamesTroilus’sclaimtorenewinhisownnamethetiredinventoryofPetrar-chancomparisonreflectsonthereinventionofpoeticlanguagethroughtheinvocationofaparticularnameasaconceptualparadigm,andthehistorical,iterativeprocessbywhichsuchfreshnessisinturnwornawayintoclich´e.MercutionotessucherosionwhenheinvokestheparadigmofbeautycentraltothestoryofTroytoridiculeRomeo’sPetrarchaninfatuation:NowisheforthenumbersthatPetrarchflowedin.Lauratohisladywasakitchenwench–marry,shehadabetterlovetoberhymeher–Didoadowdy,Cleopatraagypsy,HelenandHerohildingsandharlots,Thisbeagreyeyeorso,butnottothepurpose.SignorRomeo,bonjour.There’saFrenchsalutationtoyourFrenchslop.Yougaveusthecounterfeitfairlylastnight.(RomeoandJuliet,..–)‘Counterfeit’worksacrossbothspeechactshere,infectingthe‘numbers’imputedtoRomeo,andtherebytheveryprocessbywhich‘trueswainsinlove...Fullofprotest,ofoathandbigcompare’usesimilesderivedfromhistoricalparadigmssuchasHelen.Fashioninghimselfasjustsuchaparadigmoftruth,Troilusislookingforwardtobeingdrawnintotheinventoryoffresh‘invention’(sonnet)ratherthanabandonedasaninstanceof‘truthtiredwithiteration’(TroilusandCressida..).Butlookingbackwardfromahistoricalperspectivebywhichthename‘Troi-lus’hasitselfbecome‘tiredwithiteration’,Shakespeare’splaycanreflectonthepeculiarityofaconventionbywhichtruthisdefineddiachronically,byinvention,ratherthanthroughtheconstancyofunchangingrepeti-tion.Thisdoubleperspectiveis,asEnglehasshown,oneofthemajorpre-occupationsofthesonnets’concernwithvalue(ShakespeareanPragmatism).‘What’saught’asTroilusaskselsewhere,‘butas’tisvalued?’(..).Butconstancy–unvariedrepetition–worksagainstinvention,astheShakespeareofthesonnetsknowswellenough.To‘confine’oneself(andone’sverse)to‘constancie’(sonnet)isnotmerelytowrite‘allstillone,everthesame’(sonnet),buttoriskrunningagainstthegrainoftruthinaworldtransformedeverywherebyalteration.Nowhereisthisexpressedmoreclearlythaninsonnet,whichoffersapowerfulcounter-argumenttothemorefamoussonnetthatimmediatelyfollowsitandacounter-perspectiveontheabrasiveprocessoftimeinsonnetswhichprecedeit:linesthatIbeforehauewritdoelie,EuenthosethatsaidIcouldnotloueyoudeerer,Yetthenmyiudgementknewnoreasonwhy,Mymostfullflameshouldafterwardsburnecleerer.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysButreckeningtime,whosemilliondaccidentsCreepeintwixtvowes,andchangedecreesofKings,Tansacredbeautie,bluntthesharp’stintents,Diuertstrongmindestoth’courseofaltringthings:Alaswhyfearingoftimestiranie,MightInotthensaynowIloueyoubest,WhenIwascertaineorein-certainty,Crowningthepresent,doubtingoftherest:LoueisaBabe,thenmightInotsaysoTogiuefullgrowthtothatwhichstilldothgrow.Thesonnetopenswithanunorthodoxadmission,notthatlovegrowswithtime(Donnesaysthat),butthathisearlierclaimsofperfectlovehavenowbeenshowntobeuntrue.AfirstreadingwouldseetheopeninglinesasageneraladmissionoftheuntruthfulnessofPetrarchanclaims,butthewholequatrainunfoldsthesuggestionthattheearlierclaimshavebeenrenderedinvalidbythegrowthratherthanthefallingofforprevaricationoflove.Truthissubjecttotheprocessoftimeandchange,constitutedbytime’s‘milliondaccidents’,ratherthantranscendingthem.Tobetrue,ortoproducetruththatwilllast,istowithholdclaimsthatmightinduecourseberenderedinvalidbyaninevitableandinescapableprocessofaccident.Whereastheothersonnetsconcernedwithtimearegenerallyinvolvedintheprocessesofdecay,wearingawayandloss,thispoemisconcernedwiththewayinwhichtimeinhabitshumanjudgementandaction.Timewillalways‘tansacredbeauty’,asitdoesintheothersonnets.Butthesecondquatrainfocuseschieflyonthewayinwhichitinterposesbetweenhumanintentionandfulfilment,vowandperformance,decreeandenactment.Thatistosay,thesonnetisinterestedinthewayinwhichtimeseepsintoallhumanendeavour,notmerelydestroyingit,butlivinginandthroughit.Suchendeavourmaythereforeeitherwaxorwanewithtime;lovemaybedestroyedoritmaygrow,eventhoughwetendtoseeonlyitsdestruction.Itsinsightintotheinhabitingworkoftimeproducesacrisisregardinganystatementorvowthatmightberenderedfalsebywhatisyettocome,ratherthanwhathasalreadyhappened.Suchacrisisarisesfrombeing‘certaineorein-certainty’basedonpresentexperienceorjudgement,sincethemerefactoftimemustrenderallthingsuncertain.Onemaybewrongabouttheperfectionofone’sloveatanygivenmoment,notonlybecauseonemayfalloutoflove,butbecauseonemayfallevermoredeeplyinlove.See,forexample,‘Love’sGrowth’.
NamesTheprocessoftimesketchedbythesonnetthusworksintwodirec-tions:timeconsolidatesasmuchasitdestroys,renderinganycertaintywhich‘crownsthepresent’radicallyproblematic.Thisrobstheplayer-poetoftheonesourceofconsolationtowhichhecouldturnintheothersonnetsontime:thecertaintythathislovewillliveoninhisverse,sinceheisnowprecludedevenfrommakinganyabsoluteclaimsaboutthatlove.Itisasmuchalieto‘giuefullgrowthtothatwhichstilldothgrow’asitistovow‘newhateafternewlouebearing’(sonnet).InthevowsoftheprotagonistsinTroilusandCressidawecanseethewaysinwhichvariousdegreesofblindnesstotheanalysisoftimepre-sentedinsonnetcloudtheirattemptsto‘crownthepresent’byturningtheirnamesinto,respectively,paradigmsoftimelessdevotionandinfi-delity.Preciselybyofferinghisnameupforthefreshinvention–the‘quickechange’,‘newfoundmethods’and‘compoundsstrange’(sonnet)–thatisthebusinessofthePetrarchanpoet,Troilusundermineshisself-appointedstatusastheparadigmatic,transhistoricalinstanceoftruth.Ingeneralterms,wecanseethatthelonghistoricaltraditionofthePetrarchansonnetasitisreceivedinEnglandispreciselywhatgeneratesitsmostproductiveparadox.Thesheerhistoricalweightofitsconven-tionalitydemandsbothfidelityandrenewal:‘allinwarwithTimeforloueofyou,/Ashetakesfromyou,Iingraftyounew’(sonnet).ThehubristhatinfectsTroilusinhisclaimtobethetruerepresentativeoftruesimplicityinlovetouchesthespeakerofthesonnetstoo.Thelatter’sdefianceoftimeinsonnet,forinstance–‘No!Time,thoushaltnotboastthatIdoechange!’–iseverybitasbombasticasTroilus’sutterance.Thevowwithwhichthissonnetconcludes–‘ThyregistersandtheeIbothdefie,/..../ThisIdoevow,andthisshalleuerbe,/Iwillbetruedispightthyscyethandthee’–itshollownessindirectproportiontoitsrhetoricaleffort,standsindefectivecontrasttoJuliet’squicksuspicionoflovers’promisesandCressida’ssimilarreticence.Cressida’sownpartinthechorusofspeechactsislessconventionalbecausesheappropriatesagenderedspeechpositionthatbelongs,tradi-tionally,tothemale.Butshealsounderstands,asTroilusdoesnot,boththeobliteratingandconstitutiveeffectsoftime.Inthisrespectshe‘wars’withherloverinmorethanmerelypersonalterms.AndinShakespeare’sownconcessiontothedemandsofpoeticvariationinthetwospeeches,herinvocationofherownnameastheparadigmmarkerofsexualbetrayalrecallsboththesonnets’‘warwithtime’(sonnet)andtheirapparentgenderingoffalsehoodintheformofthe‘womancollour’dil’(sonnet):
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysWhentimeisoldandhathforgotitself,WhenwaterdropshavewornthestonesofTroyAndblindoblivionswallowedcitiesup,AndmightystatescharacterlessaregratedTodustynothing,yetletmemoryFromfalsetofalseamongfalsemaidsinloveUpbraidmyfalsehood.(TroilusandCressida,..–)Cressida’suseofherconditionalsetsherapartfromherlover.Troiluscallsuponhisnameas‘truth’sauthenticauthor’ofitsownaccord,asitwere,inanexorbitantactofself-authorisation.Hedoesnotbegintoentertainthepossibilityofchangepositedasaninevitableconsequenceofeither‘wast-fulltime’(sonnet)orthemoreinsidious‘million’daccidents’ofsonnet.Thisveryclaimtotruthfulnessimputesadeleteriousforgetting,aconspicuouslackoftruth,inhisownviewofhimself.Cressida,ontheotherhand,isfullyconsciousofthenecessityofchangeovertime.Sheisasawareastheplayer-poetoftheinescapablewearingawayofthestonesofTroy–theimmemorialerosionof‘mightystates’–andtheequallyinevitablefalsehoodof‘falsemaidsinlove’.‘IfIbefalse’–hereCressidaentertainsthethoughtofherselfasanactorinadifferentpossibleworld,aworldwhich,ofcourse,readersandaudience‘remember’(inthefuture)asthe‘true’worldof‘falseCressid’.Justastheyoungman’sbeautyissupposedtoliveoninthelinesofthesonnets,soCressida’streachery,entertainedheremerelyasapossibility,willliveon–andinfacthasalreadylivedon–inhername.Theplaycanthusembodyaprocessthatthesonnets,caughtinspeculativespeechactsthatareasyettiedtothemomentoftheirproduction,canonlypromise.But,ofcourse,thevery‘iteration’bywhichthesonnetsestablishtheir‘truth’guaranteeschange,ifonlythroughthewearingawayofinventionintoclich´e.Ihavearguedthatsonnetrepresentsamuchmoresatisfactoryaccommodationtoamutualityof‘falsehood’thanthevulnerableide-alismwhichseeks‘truth’intheinscrutableconstancyofpower.Ihavealsoquestionedthewayinwhichthe‘faire,kinde,andtrue’ofthedarklordofthesonnetsisassumedasagiven.Inotherwords,Ihavesug-gestedthattheplayer-poethasnot,paceRowse,‘withhischaracteristiccandourandopenness...tolduseverythingabouttheDarkLady,ex-cepthername’.Wehavetiedtogetherthedisparateperformativesanddescriptionsthatmakeup‘-’bysubstitut-ingourownnamesforthosemaddeningabsences:the‘poet’,the‘fairA.L.Rowse,Shakespeare’sSonnets:TheProblemsSolved(London:Macmillan,),xxxiii.
Namesfriend’,the‘darklady’.Thesearenotpropernames,however.Theyareepithets,abbreviateddescriptionsthatwehavepressedintoserviceaspropernames.Theyactideologically,attributingvalueasmuchastheymaintainconstancyofreference.Theycondensethesemantictotalofacertainselectionofspeechactsintoadesignatingphrasethatisonlyapparentlyrigid,orrather,thathastheemptyrigidityofatautology.Bypickingoutonlycertaindescriptionsandholdingthemtogetherunderatitlethatisitselfashorthanddescription,suchdesignatingepithetsrunfoulofKripke’smostimportantinsightaboutpropernamesasrigiddesignators:thattheyallowforalternativedescriptions,otherpossibleworlds,differentideologicalsignificationsfortheirreferents.Couldthe‘fairfriend’bea‘darklord’;the‘darklady’a‘sweetlove’,orthe‘poet’aseriesofshiftingspeech-actpositionssharedamongthethreeofthem,thelattersuggestedespeciallybytherichundecidabilityofthename‘Will’?Weneedtosubjectthecriticalhabitswhichprojecttheseep-ithetsuponalreadydetermined‘characters’inthesonnetstocriticalscrutiny.AsJulietanalysesitinherfamousspeechinActTwoofRomeoandJuliet,‘Romeo’isatruepropername:arigiddesignatorthatcanneitherbe‘torn’norabandoned,foritdesignatesRomeoinallpossibleworlds.‘Troilus’and‘Cressida’ontheotherhand,asthecharactersthemselvesinvoketheirnamesinthesceneunderdiscussion,areturnedintoepithets:carriersofaparticularlyideological,semanticweight:the(intrinsically)‘true’knight,the(inevitably)‘false’woman.Buttheyalso,necessarily,actintheplayasrigiddesignators.AssuchtheyallowthedramatisttoexploremodalitiesdifferentfromthoseentertainedbyTroilusandCressidathemselvesorcarriedwithinfolkmemory.Theyallowforanalternativeexplorationoftheverythingthat,inCressida’sutterance,hernamewillkeepalive‘outtotheendingdoome’(sonnet).Unlikethe‘darklady’andthe‘fairfriend’ofthesonnets,whoserespective‘fairness’and‘darkness’aremerelybundlesofcircularlyderivedpropositionscol-lectedunderideologicalsigns,the‘truth’thatTroilusappropriatestohimselfandthe‘falsehood’thatCressidaentertainsofherselfmaybeSeeHeatherDubrow,‘“Incertaintiesnowcrownthemselvesassur’d”:ThePoliticsofPlottingShakespeare’sSonnets’,ShakespeareQuarterly,(),–;reprintedinShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays,ed.JamesSchiffer(NewYork:Garland,);–.InthisessayDubrowsubjectsthecriticalandideologicalassumptionsunderlyingthereadingofthesonnetswhichregardsthemasanarrativeofmutualhomosocialorhomosexuallovedestroyedbythedarkduplicityofwomantodevastatingcriticism.Iamdeeplyindebtedtoherargumentthatthereisnoevidenceforthetraditionalascriptionofaddresseestothepoems,althoughthelogicaltermsinwhichIanalysetheissuehereareverydifferentfromhers.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysqualifiedbydifferentmodalitiesembodiedbytheplaythatbearstheirnames.Allthecharactersinthisplay,fromthepointofviewofanattend-ingaudience,arethereforetheproductsofacertainkindof‘madnessofdiscourse’,aninstabilityinthe‘ruleofunityitself’(..–).DoesCressidabeartheburdenofthisfalsehoodasinexorablyasRomeobearshisnameorthedarkladyhastraditionallybornehers?Notnecessarily.Seeninthelightofthemeditationinsonnetontheconstitutivenecessityoftime,Cressida’sfantasyismuchclosertorealitythanTroilus’sself-absorbedaffirmationofhimselfastheincarnationofabsolutetruth.Furthermore,therigiddesignationofthepropernameallowsthatnametobeusedinadifferentpossibleworld:aworldinwhichCressidadoesnotbeartheideologicalweightofhername.Itispossibletowriteaplayinwhichthenames‘Troilus’and‘Cressida’appearasrigiddesignatorsofHomer’scharacters,butinwhichtheydonotactasthedefininginstancesof(male)truthand(female)infidelity.ThetheoryofrigiddesignationexplainshowwecanentertainthepossibilitythatTroiluswasnotfaithful,Cressidanotfaithless;or,forthatmatter,thatHomerwasnotasinglepoetbutanoralcollective,orthatShakespearedidnotwrite‘Shake-speare’s’plays.ThequestionthatnamesinTroilusandCressidaraiseisnotwhetherCressidaisfalseornot,butwhetherhernameisinevitablytheepitomeoffalsehood,itsparadigmcaseoressence.ThetheatricalityofTroilusandCressidacanachievewhatthesonnetscon-sideredasmeretextonapagecannot:in‘thetwo-hourtrafficofourstage’theplayers’mediumcancombinetheembodimentofcharacterwiththephenomenologicalfusionofchangethroughtimeandspace,inor-dertopresentfigureswhosehistoricalpathsmaybecharteddifferently.AsRobertWeimannhasargued,thetheatreitselfpossessesa‘bi-foldauthority’bywhichacharacter,especiallyahistoricallyreceivedone,both‘isandisnot’himorherself.Thisdoublenessconstitutesinpartthede-idealisationthattheatreasanembodiedartentails.Ihaveemphasisedtheideathatthesonnetspresentuswithaworldeverybitasparticularasthoseoftheplays.Humanactionandbeliefcanbeunderstoodandappraisedonlywithinthecontextofaspecific,humanworld.Sincethatworldisnotfullyrecoverablefromthepoems,IhavebroughtthemintorelationwiththefulleruniversesofShakespeare’sForaclassicaccountofthe‘descriptive’theoryofnames,seeJohnR.Searle,SpeechActs:AnEssayinthePhilosophyofLanguage(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,),–.Forthecounter-theoryof‘causalreference’,seeSaulKripke,NamingandNecessity.
Namesdramaticworksinordertooffercontextsintermsofwhichwemightmakegreatersenseoftheirintenselywroughtbutincompletefragments.PlayssuchasTroilusandCressidasharethesonnets’concernwiththeproblemoftheideal,notassomethingPlatonicthattranscendstimeandpractice,butratherasanecessaryconditionoflanguageandthoughtthatisappropriatedagainandagainfromtheworldtostandasagov-erningparadigm,aruleforthemobilisationofconcepts.InTroilusandCressidaandtoadifferentdegreeinOthello,Shakespeareinvertsthepro-cessofidealisationthatIhavetracedinthesonnetsthatelevatetheyoungmantoalinguisticruleofbeauty.ThetheatricalembodimentuponwhichIhavebuiltmuchoftheargumentofearlierchaptershereservestode-idealise,turningrulebackintosample,reducingparadigmtomere‘instance’.Helenasembodiedwoman,materiallypresentonstage,cannotsustainthetimelessroleofhernameasthegoverningideaofbeauty.Thisgranddisillusionmentisre-enactedmorelocallyinthefigureofCressida,inwhomwewitnessbothpainfulidealisationandde-idealisation.TheinversionoftheprocessofidealisationinTroilusandCressidaisachievedinparticularlytheatricalways.‘Helen’asreceivedideaisnomorethanapropername:athinmarkaroundwhichase-riesofreportedeventsconglomerate.Weknowher,notoriously,asthe‘facethatlaunchedathousandships’(or,inTroilus’scommercialisingparaphrase,asthe‘pearl/Whosepricehathlaunchedathousandships’(..–)).Theplayoffersnodescriptionofthatface:liketheyoungmanandthe‘serpentofoldNile’,sheiswhosheis.Sheisthestandardbywhichotherwomenarejudged.But,asanembodiedfigureonthestage–her‘greatness’‘boyed’bya‘squeaking’youth–sheisalsoahighlycontestedstandard:hervalueisthefunctionofacertainmascu-linewilfulness,herbeauty‘painted’bythebloodofbrawlingwarriors.Inaplayinwhichstatusistheproductofperformativediscoursesasmuchasactualperformance,wearefromthebeginningacutelyawareofthequestioningironyofTroilus’sobservationofherlackofintrin-sicmerit,ofthefactofherelevationthroughcertainkindsofaction:‘Helenmustneedbefair/Whenwithyourbloodyoudailypaintherthus’(..–).InthecontextofHelenastranshistoricalideal,herem-bodimentonstageisalet-down,acounter-idealthatspeaksagainstawholetraditionofparadigmaticelevationthroughthemerequiddityofincarnation.Thestageexemplifiesher‘monstrosity’,engendered,likethe‘monsterinlove’,bythegapbetween‘infinitewill’and‘confinedexecution’(..–).ThatShakespeare’splaydeliberatelypresentsher
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysasidle,vacantandindulgentmerelyaddstoaprocessthatbeginswiththeverymaterialityoftheplayer’sbody.Suchde-idealisingoftheparadigmisasmuchaproductofembodi-ment,ofthetheatreassuch,asthestagingofwomen’ssilencediscussedinchapter.EventheepicfiguresofHector,Ulysses,Agamemnon,AchillesandPriam,whichhavehistoricallyencapsulatedtheheroicide-alsofaclassicalgoldenage,nolongercomplyintheirembodiedformswiththematchlessnamesofhistory.Ascommentatorshaverepeatedlynoted,theheroeswhocomedownthelongpathfromHomercarrytheircelebratednamesasmereciphersofqualitiesthatareequalledinneithertheirbehaviournorspeech.Eveninthemostintimatecir-cles,characterandreputationarenotinscribedontheface;idealandessencefailtoshinethrougheitherwordordeed.Inthisworld,asinthelater,fallenPetrarchanrealmsofpraiseandcompliment,worthmeansbeing‘dress[ed]...upinvoices’(..).‘Truthtiredwithiteration’sharesitsdepletionwiththesimilarlyexhausted,reiterativemodesofPetrarchism.TheembodimentofHelenonstagenecessarilyturnsidealintoinstance,conceptintoflesh.Ifaparadigmsuchas‘HelenofTroy’isahistoricalsamplenecessarilywithdrawnfromitscirculationinor-dinarypropositionaldiscourse,sothatitcanbecomethemeasurebywhichsuchlanguagegamesareplayed,thenaplaysuchasTroilusandCressidarecirculatesitwithinsuchdiscourse,reducingitsstatusasidealparadigmtolocalinstance.Ifsomethingmaybeelevatedtoidealstatus–suchastheyoungmanasthedefiningrulefor‘beauty’–itmayalsobede-idealised,re-ducedfromitsgoverningordefiningstatustoonemore‘instance’orobjectamongmany.WhereasAntonyandCleopatrarevealstheelevationofinstancetoparadigm,itisnowgenerallyheldthatTroilusandCressidatracestheoppositemovementbyregisteringadeepsenseofdisillusion-mentorde-idealisation.Suchade-idealisingmovementisclearenoughinthetrajectoryofdesireandrejectioninTroilus’sviewofCressida.Thistrajectory,whichunfoldsovertimeonthestage,iscompressedintomo-mentsofsimultaneousdesireandrevulsioninthesonnets.Theprocessofidealisationanddisillusionmentconstitutestheconceptualframeworkoftheplayitself,which,initsbelatedliterarymoment,enactsagainandThisisnottoignorethefactthatformanyElizabethans,theancientGreeksrepresentedadistinctlyunheroicsociety.SeeT.J.B.Spencer,‘“Greeks”and“Merrygreeks”:ABackgroundtoTimonofAthensandTroilusandCressida’,inEssaysonShakespeareandElizabethanDramainHonorofHardinCraig,ed.RichardHosley(Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,),–.SeeLudwigWittgenstein,OnCertainty,ed.G.E.M.AnscombeandG.H.VonWright,trans.DenisPaulandG.E.M.Anscombe(Cambridge:Blackwell,),–.
Namesagainacorrosivede-idealisationofallitssupposedlyheroiccharacters,furtherwearingawaya‘truthtiredwithiteration’throughitsownreit-erativemovementoftheatricaltime.Atthesametime,ifthat‘wearingaway’oftheidealhasbecomeacommonplaceofcriticismoftheplay,Iwanttoarguethattheplayandthesonnetsdemonstratethedoggedpersistenceoftheidealisingorgeneralisingimpulseasaconditionoflanguageitself.Thecorrosivedisillusionmentofthesetwoworksiscon-ditionalupontheircontrarymodesofidealisation,uponwhichtheynotonlytrade,butwhichtheyalsoperpetuate.Inthetheatrethebodycannotbetotallytransformedintoscriptortext:anexcessiveremainderescapessuchtextualising,providingaspacefordifferentwaysofseeingthebodyasamaterial‘instance’ratherthanasawhollyconceptualisedideal.Thetheatreneitherconfirmsnorescapesessence;itshowsthemodebywhich‘instances’shuttlebetweenbeingdistilledas‘essence’andthende-essentialisedasmultifarious‘instance’onceagain.The‘monstrosity’oflove,ofwhichCressidaremindsTroilus,liesinitsentrapmentbetweenidealandinstanceor,asTroilusputsit:‘thisisthemonstrosityoflove,lady,thatthedesireisboundlessandtheactaslavetolimit’(..–).TakenbacktoitsLatinroots,themonstrousistheinstance,theexample,thatwhichcanbepointedatorshown.Itsabnormalityasmonsterarisesfromitsoscillatinginaliminalpositionbetweentheabsoluteandtheempirical,theidealandtheinstance,thedesireandtheact.SuchmonstrousliminalityisapparentinTroilus’sferventexpectationoftheeroticdelightstocome,oftheincarnationoftheideal:Iamgiddy.Expectationwhirlsmeround.Th’imaginaryrelishissosweetThatitenchantsmysense.Whatwillitbe,Whenthatthewat’rypalatestasteindeedLove’sthrice-reputednectar?(..–)ThegiddinessthatTroilusexperiencesherecouldbesaidtobetheprecursor–theothersideofthecoin–oftheailmentthatpervadessonnetandsonnetalike:loueisasafeauerlongingstill,Forthatwhichlongernurseththedisease,Feedingonthatwhichdothpreseruetheill,Th’vncertainesicklieappetitetoplease:MyreasonthePhisitiontomyloue,Angrythathisprescriptionsarenotkept
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysHathleftme,andIdesperatenowapprooue,Desireisdeath,whichPhisickdidexcept.PastcureIam,nowReasonispastcare,Andfrantickmaddewitheuer-morevnrest,Mythoughtsandmydiscourseasmadmensare,Atrandonfromthetruthvainelyexprest.ForIhaueswornetheefaire,andthoughttheebright,Whoartasblackashell,asdarkeasnight.(sonnet)Inthemostobviousway,theself-recriminatingdisillusionment,ex-pressedintheclosingcoupletofthissonnetasakindof‘madnessofdis-course’,ismatchedbyTroilus’sdiscoveryofCressida’sunfaithfulness.ButsuchaninfectedmadnessafflictsTroilusfromtheverybeginning,when,evenbeforedisillusionmentexposesherdarkness,swearingCressidafairandthinkingherbrightitselfconstitutesthemostbrutaloftortures.Thesimpleststatementofthebeloved’sfairness–speaking‘nomorethantruth’,asPandarusputsit(..)–haspainfulperlocutionaryeffects.ThestandardPetrarchanideathattheunrequitedloveristormentedordiseasedbyhismistress’slackofpityispushedtogrotesquelimits,notunsurprisinginaplaywhichimbricatesloveateverypointwithwarandsickness.Thelover’sheart,alternativelywoundedbythebeloved’scrueltyorrupturedbythelover’sowndisease,isafesteringsore,intowhichtheemblazonedpartsofthebelovedarepoured,asintoasewer.Everyreiterationoftheblazonoffairnessconstitutesfurtherlaceration:ItelltheeIammadInCressid’slove;thouanswer’st‘Sheisfair’,PourestintheopenulcerofmyheartHereyes,herhair,hercheek,hergait,hervoice;Handlestinthydiscourse,O,thatherhand,InwhosecomparisonallwhitesareinkWritingtheirownreproach,towhosesoftseizureThecygnet’sdownisharsh,andspiritofsenseHardasthepalmofploughman.Thisthoutell’stme–Astruethoutell’stme–whenIsayIloveher.Butsayingthus,insteadofoilandbalmThoulay’stineverygashthatlovehathgivenmeTheknifethatmadeit.Ispeaknomorethantruth.Thoudostnotspeaksomuch.(..–)Troilus’scontortedsyntaxissymptomaticofthemadnesshedecries.ItreleasesfromPanadarus’ssimplecomment,‘sheisfair’,atorrentof
Namesanguishedhyperbolethattransfersthesubjectiveagencyofpraisetotheworlditselfthroughaseriesofsurprisingassociations:wepassfromCressida’shand,toink,to‘allwhites’,which‘writetheirownreproach’throughtheirnowcomparativelyinkydarkness.Farfrombeinganex-ampleoftruth’ssimplicity,Troilus’sextravagantconceitmystifiestheprocessbywhichthesought-afteridealisestablished.Thwarteddesire,unabletoacceptthelimitsoftruth(‘Thoudostnotspeaksomuch’),projectsintotheverysubstanceoftheworlditsownhyperbolicopera-tions,butnotbeforeremindingus,throughtheassociationsof‘hand’,‘ink’and‘writing’,ofCressida’sownfatefulagency.Bytheendofthescene,whenheisablemoresoberlytoentertainthelikelihoodofachiev-inghisprize,Troilusreturnstothemoresettled,thoughnonethelessunsettling,languageofcommerce,tradeandcolonialplunder:HerbedisIndia;thereshelies,apearl.BetweenourIliumandwheresheresidesLetitbecalledthewildandwand’ringflood,Ourselfthemerchant,andthissailingPandarOurdoubtfulhope,ourconvoy,andourbarque.(..–)Theeager,hyperbolicanticipationofTroilus’searlierspeechremains,buthenowpresentsadifferentworld,ofpracticalactionandadventurousmerchandising.Inhisanticipatorygiddiness,TroilusconceivesCressidaasbeingnolessthanthethrice-distilleddrinkofthegods.Tastingherwillsuppos-edlyconferimmortalityonapalatethatismortalnotonlyinits‘mouth-watering’appetite,butalsoinitslackofsubstance,inthe‘wateriness’bywhicheverythingitingests‘fallsintoabatementandlowprice/Eveninaminute’(TwelfthNight,..–),likethe‘vncertainesicklieap-petite’insonnet.HowdifferentisTroilus’sfearof‘death’,of‘losingdistinctionin[his]joys’(TroilusandCressida,..–),fromJuliet’sfear-lesssummoningof‘loving,black-browednight’,sothatRomeomightMosteditorsgloss‘watr’ypalates’as‘(mouth)-watering’,buttheliteralsensemaybethatthepalateisindeedwatery,likethe‘spiritoflove’that,asOrsinoimaginesit,Receivethasthesea,naughtentersthere,Ofwhatvalidityandpitchsoe’er,ButfallsintoabatementandlowpriceEveninaminute!SofullofshapesisfancyThatitaloneishighfantastical.(TwelfthNight,..–)
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysshineluminouslyuponher‘likefreshsnowuponaraven’sback’(RomeoandJuliet,..).WhetherthedifferencebetweenTroilus’sandJuliet’santicipatorycelebrationsofcarnalpleasurearenecessarilygenderedre-mainstobeseen.Boththesonnetandtheplaystruggletolocatetheplaceofthemadnessthattheyenact:doesitlieintheobjectofdesire,thoughtfair,butactually‘black’?Doesitlieintheperversenatureof(male?)sex-ualdesire,whichrelentlesslypursuesalife-threateningpoison,‘likeratsthatravendowntheirproperbane’(MeasureforMeasure,..),therebyproving‘desireisdeath’?Orwillitinsteadflingitselfbackinrevulsionfromthe‘hell’thatithadearliersoughtas‘heaven’?Ordoesitlieindiscourseitself,inthesinuouslydeceptivecoilsofsyntaxanddissem-inatingscatteringofsemanticswhichrenderthe‘ruleofunityitself’amerefiction?Wemight,forthemoment,suggestananswerofsortstoTroilus’snervouslyself-centredquestion–‘whatwillitbe?’(TroilusandCressida,..)–byturningtosonnet:’expenceofSpiritinawasteofshameIslustinaction,andtillaction,lustIsperiurd,murdrous,blouddyfullofblame,Sauage,extreame,rude,cruell,nottotrust,Inioydnosoonerbutdispisedstraight,Pastreasonhunted,andnosoonerhadPastreasonhatedasaswollowedbayt,Onpurposelaydtomakethetakermad.MadeInpursutandinpossessionso,Had,hauing,andinquest,tohaueextreame,Ablisseinproofeandproudandverywo,Beforeaioyproposdbehindadreame,Allthistheworldwellknowesyetnoneknoweswell,Toshuntheheauenthatleadsmentothishell.Vendlerhastaughtustoseethissonnetnotmerelyasadisgustedout-burstagainstlust,butasacomplexrecreationoftwodistinct,livedmo-ments,bothofwhicharerepresentedbyTroilusinthelesscompresseddimensionsofdrama:theforward-lookingmomentofeager,idealisinganticipation,subsequently‘corrected’bytheretrospective,disillusionedmovementofexperience(Vendler,TheArtofShakespeare’sSonnets,).InTroilusandCressidathisdisillusioningmomentisalreadyapparentontheverymorningafterTroilushastastedthe‘thrice-reputednectar’when,incontrasttotheaubadeinRomeoandJuliet,heisnotonlyalltoowillingtoleaveCressida’sbed,buthappytocolludeinheruncle’s
Namesgreasycomments.Later,Troilus’sdesperateattempttoholdanidealisedCressidatogetherinonebreathwiththewomanheseesbeforehimwithDiomedescouldbesaidtorehearsethe‘bi-foldauthority’ofthissonnet:WithinmysoultheredothconduceafightOfthisstrangenature,thatathinginseparateDividesmorewiderthantheskyandearth,AndyetthespaciousbreadthofthisdivisionAdmitsnoorifexforapointassubtleAsAriachne’sbrokenwooftoenter.(TroilusandCressida,..–)Boththispassageandthesonnetstruggletomakesenseofa‘thinginseparate’that‘dividesmorewiderthantheskyandearth’;bothseethisdivisioninthe‘ruleofunityitself’asakindofmadnessthatinfectsreason;andbothattributethismadnesstothedarkplagueofsexuality.Butthemostremarkablethingaboutsonnetisitspreoccupationwithlanguage.Itispacked,clutteredwithwords,aneffectachievednotonlybyitsrepetitivechiasmi,butbythelineswhichforgotheusual,semanticallythinwordsthatforgesyntaxforcataloguesofheapedadjectives.Thepoemdoesnotpresentmerelyasubjectiveemotion,obsessionordrivebuttheeffortoflanguagetopossesstheworld.Thatiswhyithasseemedtomanytobea‘definition’poem.Andsoitis.Butitisanextremelycomplexdefinition.Orrather,itenactsthecomplexityofdefinitionitself:themovementbywhichfleshismadeword.Thepoemisaperformanceoftheverythingofwhichitspeaks:thewayinwhich‘alllabour/Marswhatitdoes;yea,veryforceentangles/Itselfwithstrength’(AntonyandCleopatra,..–).IttracesthemovementthatcanbepredicatedofthewholeofTroilusandCressidaitself,themovementbywhichtheidealisde-idealisedandre-idealised.Thismovementisessentiallylinguistic.Itisimpossibleoutsidediscourse,andtheexcessive‘wordiness’ofthesonnetexpressesexactlythisnecessity.Itisalsowhythephenomenonofwhichthepoemdealsisnotbeastlybutirreduciblyhuman,‘entangled’notonlyinthe‘strength’of‘will’,butinthewebofmeaning,valueandtruththatlivingwithinlanguageandsocietynecessitates.IfitenactsComparetheDuke’smoralisingattemptstoreducethesexualityfromwhichPompeylivestothe‘beastly’inMeasureforMeasure:...‘FromtheirabominableandbeastlytouchesIdrink,Ieat,arraymyself,andlive.’Canstthoubelievethylivingisalife,Sostinkinglydepending?Gomend,gomend.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaystheprocessbywhichanidealmaybereducedtoaninstanceofenrageddisillusionment,itdoesnotrestthere.Whateverthesonnethastosayaboutthenatureoflust,itspursuitoftheworkingsoflanguageisunflinching.Asthepoemexpandsfromthenarrowscopeofwhatappearstobepersonalexperience(butisneverstatedassuch)toencompasswhat‘theworldwellknowes’,thesemanticforceofthelineasitmovesfrom‘heauen’to‘hell’undergoesacom-plementaryreduction.Itchangesfromtheidealisingandidealisedab-stractionoftheloveobjectas‘heauen’tothematerial‘instance’of‘hell’asthefemalegenitalia.Thismovementmightseemanti-Petrarchan,acompleteabasementofthatwholediscourseofidealisation.Butsonnetcarrieswithinittheopposite,Petrarchanmovementtowardstheidealisingof‘hell’as‘heauen’,inaceaselessoscillation.Thepoemisstrikingly‘bi-fold’insofarasitdoesnotsimplymovefromidealtode-fect,from‘spirit’to‘waste’,from‘heauen’to‘hell’.Byunderliningthecontinuousmovementfrom‘heaven’to‘hell’,thecoupletinsistsonanequallyunstoppablemotionintheoppositedirection,bywhich‘hell’iselevatedandpursuedas‘heauen’oncemore.Evenasitdecriesthecontaminatingurgencyoflust,thesonnetthusrecognisestheidealisingforcethatinformssuchcarnalpursuit.ThemodalpositionsthatTroilusandCressidarespectivelyoccupyinActSceneappeartocorrespondtothosetraditionallyassumedtobeinscribedinthesonnets:thepresumedfidelityofthe‘manrightfair’seemstomatchthe‘truth’ofTroilus,whilethepromiscuityofthe‘womancollouredil’(sonnet)isassumedtocorrespondtoCressida’sfaithlessness.AtthetimeoftheirinvocationsoftheirnamesCressidaisnotyetunfaithful.Yetsuchapossibilityisentertainedexclusivelyforher,notherlover.Thesubjectpositionsthatcanbeadoptedbymenandwomen,throughthemodalitiesofdifferentspeechacts,areclearlyrelatedtothestruggleinthesonnetswiththepossibilityoffalsehoodinthe‘fairfriend’,thecertaintyoffalsehoodinthe‘darkwoman’andtheambivalentself-recriminationofthepoetwhoisshapedbybothmodes.ThecopulatioIndeeditdoesstinkinsomesort,sir.Butyet,sir,Iwouldprove–Nay,ifthedevilhavegiventheeproofsforsin,Thouwiltprovehis.–Takehimtoprison,officer.CorrectionandinstructionmustbothworkErethisrudebeastwillprofit.(MeasureforMeasure,..–)Pompeyisdeniedtheopportunitytoputhisproof.Giventhechance,Isuspect,hewouldprove,likesonnetandpacetheDuke/Friar,thehumanityofsuch‘touches’.
NamesbywhichCressidaprojectsheranticipatedfalsehoodpositsaworldinwhichwomenarealwaysalreadyuntrustworthy:‘yetletmemory/Fromfalsetofalseamongfalsemaidsinlove/Upbraidmyfalsehood’.Cressidaisherselfawareofthewaysinwhichwomenarealwaysalreadytrappedinaninescapablecycleoffalsity–ofnecessarilybeingwhattheyarenot–throughtheexpectationthattheyareexpectedtomasktheireroticdesires.Thisawarenessisexpressedinaparticularlyclear-sightedwayintheformofasonnetwithwhichCressidabringsActScenetoaclose.Likesonnet,itisinrhymingcouplets:Words,vows,gifts,tears,andlove’sfullsacrificeHeoffersinanother’senterprise;ButmoreinTroilusthousandfoldIseeThanintheglassofPandar’spraisemaybe.YetholdIoff.Womenareangels,wooing;Thingswonaredone.Joy’ssoulliesinthedoing.Thatshebelovedknowsnaughtthatknowsnotthis:Menpricethethingungainedmorethanitis.ThatshewasneveryetthateverknewLovegotsosweetaswhendesiredidsue.ThereforethismaximoutofloveIteach:Achievementiscommand;ungained,beseech.Thenthoughmyheart’scontentsfirmlovedothbear,Nothingofthatshallfrommineeyesappear.(TroilusandCressida,..–)Thispassageisnotmerelyaconglomerationoffourteenlines.IthasthestructurethatwehavecometoexpectfromtheQuartoofsonnets:threelogicallydistinctquatrains,followedbyaconcludingcoupletthatsuccinctlyconveysCressida’sdoublecourseofactionandposition.Unusually,itpresentsthefemale,Petrarchanbelovedspeakingdirectlytoanaudiencethatexcludesherlover,inaconfessionofwhysheisadoptingthefemalePetrarchanroleofwithholdingherfavours–asifRosaline(inRomeoandJuliet),orthedarkmistressorStellaweresuddenlytobaretheirhearts.ThemessageisstrikingnotsomuchforwhatittellsusaboutCressida’sheartorcharacter,butforitsrevelationoftheroleofthePetrarchanmistress:afantasyfigureconstructedoutofthegenericnecessityofendlesslydeferreddesire.Byself-consciouslydrawingattentiontoherrequiredroleasa‘falsemaidinlove’,CressidaunfoldstheironbutunspokenlawofthePetrarchanmode:oncethebelovediswon,thePetrarchanmodeisdone.Cressidaisthereforealreadymarked,
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysbeforeshegivesuphernameastheepitomeoffalsehood,byanimposedfalsehood,whichshecarriesbyvirtueofbeingbothasexualandasocial,female,being:Fie,fieuponher!There’slanguageinhereye,hercheek,herlip;Nay,herfootspeaks.HerwantonspiritslookoutAteveryjointandmotiveofherbody.Otheseencountererssogliboftongue,Thatgiveaccostingwelcomeereitcomes,AndwideunclaspthetablesoftheirthoughtsToeveryticklishreader,setthemdownForsluttishspoilsofopportunityAnddaughtersofthegame.(..–)UnburdenedbyRomeo’sreticence,whichrefrainsfromassumingtoknowwhatthefemalebodyspeaks,ortowhomthatspeechisaddressed(‘Iamtoobold.’Tisnottomeshespeaks’(RomeoandJuliet,..)),Ulyssesarticulatesanattitudebywhichthenon-idealizedbodyhasalwaysal-readybeenturnedintotheveryideaofdisillusionment.Suchviolentinscriptionrecallsthe‘fairpaper’,the‘mostgoodlybook,/Made’,inOthello’sanguishedphrase,‘towrite“whore”upon’(Othello,..–).WhenOthellojustifieshismarriagetoDesdemonabeforetheSignoryofVenicebyreportingherresponsetothe‘storyof[his]life’:Mystorybeingdone,Shegavemeformypainsaworldofkisses[sighs–Q]....Shethankedme,Andbademe,ifIhadafriendthatlovedher,Ishouldbutteachhimhowtotellmystory,Andthatwouldwooher(Othello,..–)itfulfilsafantasyexpressedbyAstrophil:Thenthinke,mydeare,thatyouinmedoreedOfLover’sruinsomesadTragedie:IamnotI:pitiethetaleofme.(AstrophilandStella,sonnet)ItisOthello’stalethatmovesDesdemona.Shewouldfallinlovewithasubstitutewerehetotellit.Howdosuchnarrativesandtheirrelationto‘character’and‘identity’bearupontherolesofnamesinOthello?
NamesTheplay’snameshavelongbeenatopicofdiscussion.ScholarshavesoughtthephilologicaloriginsofDesdemonaandOthelloinGreekandItalian.IthasbeenarguedthatIagoandevenRodrigosuggestawebofhistoricalandideologicalconnectionstothearch-enemy,Spain,viatheirreferencestoSantiagoMatamoros,the‘Moorslayer’,andElCidCampeador,DonRodrigoDiaz,theliberatorofSpainfromMoorishrule,respectively.Ishallask,however,howsuchreferencesrelatetotheuseofnamesintheplaythroughthemultiple‘namingevents’bywhichbodiesareinscribedwiththeindeliblecharacterofimposednames.FromthequestionofthepropernameasrigiddesignatorImovetothemoreunstablerelationshipsamongpropernames,commonnamesandepithets,andtheirshiftingusebypeopleotherthanthebearerofthename.Suchusesareperformative.Theyinformandareinformedbytherelationsofpowerandvulnerability,andtheyseektoconsolidate,transformornegatethoserelationshipsthroughtheactionsofnamingandrenaming.ThetwoavenuesalongwhichthenamesinOthellohavetradition-allybeenexploredshowtwothingsaboutthepropernamethatare,ifnotcontradictory,thencertainlyintension.AttemptstodiscoverthemeaningofanamesuchasDesdemonainGreek(either‘ill-starred’or‘God-fearing’(Kahane,‘Desdemona’))followaCratyliticdesiretomakethenamematchitsbearer.Despiteourrecentattachmenttotheideaofthearbitrarinessofsigns,wederiveaspecialsatisfactionfromthematchingofnameandthefateornatureofacharacterinaliterarytext.Suchcorrespondenceatteststotheaestheticdesignoftheauthor.Thenamedesignatesanindividualinaliterarytextand,throughitsmeaning,anticipatestheplotinwhichthatindividualisinvolved.Themeaningofanamemayalsoconveydramaticirony.Thecharacterisusuallyunawareofthesignificanceofhername–thefactthatherdes-tinyisinscribed,fromthebeginning,inthehidden(toher)meaningofHenryandRen´eeKahane,‘Desdemona:AStar-CrossedName’,Names,.–(),–;F.N.Lees,‘Othello’sName’,NotesandQueries,(),–;T.Sipahigli,‘Othello’sName.OnceAgain’,NotesandQueries,(),–;RobertF.Fleissner,‘TheMoor’sNomencla-ture’,NotesandQueries,(),;SamuelL.Macey,‘TheNamingoftheProtagonistinShakespeare’sOthello’,NotesandQueries,(),–.BarbaraEverett,‘SpanishOthello:TheMakingofShakespeare’sMoor’,ShakespeareSurvey,(),–;JohnRea,‘Iago’,Names,(),–;andEricGriffin,‘Un-saintingJames:Or,Othelloandthe“SpanishSpirits”ofShakespeare’sGlobe’,Representations,(Spring),–.TheanalysisthatfollowsisdeeplyindebtedtoCarrolClarkson’ssuperbaccountofnamesinDickensin‘NamingandPersonalIdentityintheNovelsofCharlesDickens:APhilosophicalApproach’,unpublishedDPhilthesis,UniversityofYork,England(November).Seealso,CarrolClarkson,‘DickensandtheCratylus’,BritishJournalofAesthetics,.(January),–.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplayshername.Desdemonadoesnotknowthathernamesignifiesherfate,thatsheis‘ill-starred’inname.Cressida,ontheotherhand,challengesherfateinhername,therebycallingitintobeing.Weshouldthusdis-tinguishbetween‘external’and‘internal’perspectivesonacharacter’sname.Inthefirst,thematchbetweencharacterandnameiscontrolledordecidedfromoutsidetheworldoftheplay.Inthe‘internal’view,char-actersinthefictionalworldsee,changeorimposeparticularsignificanceinapropernamethroughtheiruseofit(Clarkson,NamingandPersonalIdentity).Thesignificanceormeaningofanamemaythusbeinvokedorchangedwithinthefictionalworldtoinscribeaparticularmeaninguponacharacter.TroilusandCressidaoffersoneviewofsuchinscription,wherebyadesignator,suchas‘Cressida’or‘Pandarus’,takesoncommonsignification:‘unfaithfulwoman’or‘whore’,‘go-between’or‘pimp’.TheinexorablemovetowardstragedyinOthelloismarkedbyacontinuousinscriptionofcharactersthrougheventsofun-namingandre-namingthroughwhichthepropernameisturnedintoorreplacedbyacommonnameorepithet.ThedisplacementofnamesisthusnottheleastofthemultiplesubstitutionssofrequentlynotedinOthello.Ifthephilologicalinterestincharacters’namesemphasisesthemean-ingofapropername,thegenealogicalassimilationof‘Iago’to‘SantiagoMatamoros’,forexample,atteststowaysinwhichevenapropernamewithoutanyconnotationmaycallupanetworkofsocialandhistor-icalrelations.Apartfromanymeaningthatitmayormaynothave,asthedesignatorofaspecificreferentthepropernameisthelocusofaffiliationsandfiliationsthatentanglethatindividual,partlybutcru-ciallyconstitutingheridentity.Romeocannot‘tearhisname’preciselybecauseheispowerlessasanindividualtoripthewebofsocialrela-tionsandtheirdemandsthatitentails.TheclaimthatIagoisderivedfromSantiagoMatamoroscallsattentiontohisaffiliationwiththehistori-callyhatedSpaniard.AndShakespeare’sinventionofthename‘Othello’(supposedlybyaddingtothefirstsyllableof‘Oth-oman’theItalianate‘-ello’)suggeststheconsciousandparadoxicalorironicalaffiliationofthemantotheTurksheisemployedtofight.Suchanaffiliationisenactedinthetragicending,whenOthellotheMoorexecutesjustsuch‘amalignantandaturbanedTurk’(..)bykillinghimself.Thetensionbetweenthetwoviewsofthepropername–theoneseek-inglikeCratylusanidentificationofnameassignifieranditsdesignatedForanaccountofdisplacementsthatdoesnotfocusonnames,seeMichaelNeill,‘ChangingPlacesinOthello’,ShakespeareSurvey,(),–.
Namesobject,sothatthenamebecomesadescriptionordefinitionoftheob-ject;theotheremphasisingnotthemeaningofthenamebutitsroleasaplace-holderinanetworkofrelations–appearsinthedoubledes-ignationordesignation-description:‘Othello,theMoor’.Thepropername,‘Othello’–Shakespeare’sadditiontothemoredescriptivedes-ignation,‘theMoor’,inCinthio’sHecatomithi–introducesatensionbe-tweennameasdesignationandnameasmeaning.Butthedescriptivedesignator‘Moor’isrenderedunstablethroughinteractivedialogueanditsrepeatednamingevents.Theplay’splaywithnamesrendersundecid-ablethesignificanceofthistermandcomplicatesitsfunctionasapropername.Norissuchplaymerelyformal:itinvolvestheuseofnamesinrelationsofpowerandstruggle.Interactivedialogueallowscharacterstobeabused–un-named–throughtheperformativeactofre-naming.Clarksondescribesthisprocessespeciallysuccinctly:Tocallsomeonebynameistoplacethatpersoninlinguisticrelationtooneself.Toabusethatperson’sname;wilfullytomisuseit;torefusetouseitatall–theseareallactionswithinanamingeventwhichradicallyredefinethetermsoftherelationsbetweennamerandnamed.One’spropernamethushasanegativepotentialinthatitcanbecomeavulnerablelinguisticsiteofpersonalabuseandexploitation.Butthenthisisonlyso...becauseoneofaname’smanyusesistoconstituteasenseofself.(NamingandPersonalidentity,)Othellopresentsamanifoldofsuchabusivenamingevents.Theplay’smuchnotedrepresentationsofracismturneitheronspecificcharacters’refusaltouseOthello’sproper(inallsensesoftheword)name,ortheirsubstitutionofthepropernamewithacommonnameoranepithetthatisthenusedasapropername:‘thick-lips’(..),‘blackram’(..),‘Barbaryhorse’(..–).Eachoftheseusescontaminatesthedesigna-tor‘Othello’bydisplacingitwithadescriptivephrasethatismobilisedasasupposedlypropername.Othelloisrenamed,dislocatedfromhissenseofhimself,bythenewname’smobilisationofmeaningsandassociationswhichstemfromitsplaceinanideologicallyloadeddiscourse.Inthespe-cificeventsofitsinteractivediscourse,however,theplayalsorepeatedlyrepresentsnon-racistnamingeventsthroughwhichOthello’sMoorishaffiliationsareendorsedorelevated,bycallinghim‘nobleMoor’(..;..;..),‘warlikeMoor’(..)or‘valiantMoor’(..).ThisForafinehistoricalaccountofthecomplexityandpolysemyoftheterm‘Moor’,seeMichaelNeill,‘“Mulattos”,“Blacks”,and“IndianMoors”:OthelloandEarlyModernConstructionsofHumanDifference’,ShakespeareQuarterly,.(Winter),–.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysmeansthatwhencharactersrefertoOthelloonlyas‘theMoor’,theaffil-iationsorassociationsofthenamecannotbereduced,asoftenhappensincriticism,willy-nillytoitsroleinaputativesystemofracistdiscourse.Theinflectionofthisnameisaproductoftheinteractionofindividualuseanddiscursivesystem:one’sname,asClarksonremindsus,hasapotentialthatmaybemobilisedeithernegativelyorpositively.WhenEmiliarefusestorefertoDesdemona’shusbandas‘Othello’afterthemurder,pointedlyreferringtohimsimplyas‘theMoor’(‘TheMoorhaskilledmymistress’,..),sheisinvokingaffiliationsthat(ironically)alignherwithherhusband.ForOthellohimselfattheendoftheplay,theappellation‘Moor’producesadislocationofselfthathesubsequentlyenactsthroughhissplitsuicide:Setyoudownthis,AndsaybesidesthatinAleppoonce,WhereamalignantandaturbanedTurkBeataVenetianandtraducedthestate,Itookbyth’throatthecircumcis`eddogAndsmotehimthus.(Hestabshimself)(..–)LikethetalesthatwinDesdemona’spity,Othello’shaveringuncertainlybetweentheperfecttenseofahistoricaleventandtheperformativepresentthroughwhichitisactuallyenactedinstantiatesAstrophil’scu-riousdisavowal,‘IamnotI’.AnditdoessoattheverymomentinwhichOthelloinvitesusto‘pitythetaleofme’.Theselfcanbesplitbetweentwoinstancesofthefirst-personpronounbecauseitcanbedividedbetweentwonames,‘Venetian’and‘Turk’,eachbearingamutuallyexclusivewebofaffiliationsandvalues.OurpityiselicitedpreciselybecausewerecognisetheincorrigibilitywithwhichOthelloismovedtowardsthatdissociationofselfhood(‘IamnotI’)throughthecompetingpressuresofdifferentnamingevents.ThatOthellocomestoseehimselfasbeingsplitbetweenthesenetworksisinpartatleastduetothewaysinwhichhehasbeenprogressivelyun-namedandre-namedinthespecifickindsofnarrativeinwhichIagoembroilsbothhisnameandDesdemona’s.Suchnarrativesworknotmerelydescriptivelybutperformatively,bring-ingthingsaboutinthesayingornaming,buttheyworkonlybymask-ingtheirperformativeforcebehindtheappearanceofdescription.IagoturnsOthellofromthe‘nobleMoor’tothe‘turbanedTurk’.Butsuchasplittingofselfacrosstwonamesisnotmerelydebilitating.Thenotion
Namesofhimselfas‘Venetian’ispreciselywhatallowsOthellotheagencytotakethe‘circumcis`eddog’‘byth’throat’,andtoreclaimhisaffinitywithDesdemonathroughadyingkiss,howeverdiscomfitedwemayfeelaboutthewaysinwhichsuchactionsresonateideologically.Othellothuscontainstwodifferentmodesofthepropername.Theone,inClarkson’sfelicitousexpression,isrevealedinthefactthatwhilenamesmaybearbitrarywithregardtotheirreferents,theyarenotarbitrarywithregardtoothernames(NamingandPersonalIdentity,).Theotherisrevealedintheeasewithwhichsomeone’spropernamemaybeabusedbyturningitintoordisplacingitwithacommonname,theconnotationormeaningofwhichmarksorstigmatisesitsbearer.IhavefocusedsofarontheabusesofOthello’sname,whichtransformhimintosomeoneotherthanheis.WhataboutDesdemona?TheextensivecriticalfocusonOthelloasprotagonistinearliercriticismandasracialOtherinmorerecentcommentaryhastendedtoshiftDesdemonatotheperiphery.IfOthellosuffersconflictinginscriptionsofaffiliationthroughtheabuseofhisname,Desdemonabearsthebruntoftheprocessbywhichapersonmaybestigmatisedandtransformedbythesubstitutionofherpropernamebyacommonname:indeed,bythemostcommonofnames,‘whore’.AndshesuffersthisatthehandsofOthellohimself.BeforeIembarkontheanalysisofthisprocess,inwhichthequestion‘AmIthatname?’willbeparamount,Iturnbrieflytothesonnetsforanextendedexemplificationoftheplaybetweenproperandcommonnamesinapairofpoemsthatmovebetweenthepursuitofsexualfavourandindulgenceinjealouscondemnation.Inthepoemstothedarkwomantheplayer-poetseeksreciprocity,notbyidealisingor‘hallowing’thenameofthemistress,butbythewitty,irreverentreductionofhisownpropernametothecommonestofnames.IfSidney’s‘Astrophel’proclaimsthehighlyabstractedandelevatedna-tureoftheprotagonistastheloverofastar,Shakespeare’s‘Will’isnotmerelyamoremundanepropername,itspunningrelationtoavarietyofcommonnounsallowsitspropernesstobeelidedintheparticularandsingle-mindedquestforeroticunion.SonnetsandarefurtherexercisesintheobliterationofthepropernamethatIhavetracedinthesonnetstotheyoungmanofrankandOthello,buttoaverydifferenteffectandwithinadissimilarsocialworld.Insofarastheyarerhetoricalresponsestoawomanwhorefusesthepoet’ssolicitationstheymayberegardedasPetrarchan.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysoeuerhathherwish,thouhastthyWill,AndWilltooboote,andWillinouer-plus,MorethenenoughamIthatvexetheestill,Tothysweetewillmakingadditionthus.Wiltthouwhosewillislargeandspatious,Notoncevouchsafetohidemywillinthine,Shallwillinothersseemerightgracious,Andinmywillnofaireacceptanceshine:Theseaallwater,yetreceiuesrainestill,Andinaboundanceaddethtohisstore,SothoubeeingrichinWilladdetothyWill,OnewillofminetomakethylargeWillmore.Letnovnkinde,nofairebeseecherskill,Thinkeallbutone,andmeinthatoneWill.(Sonnet)thysoulechecktheethatIcomesoneere,SwearetothyblindsoulethatIwasthyWill,Andwillthysouleknowesisadmittedthere,Thusfarreforloue,myloue-sutesweetfullfill.Will,willfulfillthetreasureofthyloue,Ifillitfullwithwils,andmywillone,Inthingsofgreatreceitwitheaseweprooue.Amonganumberoneisreckon’dnone.Theninthenumberletmepassevntold,ThoughinthystoresaccountIonemustbe,Fornothingholdme,soitpleasetheehold,Thatnothingme,asome-thingsweettothee.Makebutmynamethyloue,andlouethatstill,AndthenthoulouestmeformynameisWill.(sonnet)IfweacceptG.BlakemoreEvans’sargumentthattheitalicsoftheQuartoareauthorial,thenthedifferencebetween‘Will’and‘will’intheselinesraisesthequestionofthepropernameinadifferentkey.Thoughthepunningresonanceinthecapitalisedwordtothe‘sixsensesofwill’thathavebeendistinguishedinthesepoemsshouldnotbeignored,attentiontothemultivalenceofthepunshouldnotblindustothespecificuseofthepropernameinthiscontext.ForthemanicrepetitionofthepropernameinthefirsttwolinesofsonnetdividesandredistributesG.BlakemoreEvans(ed.),TheSonnets(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,),ff.Ibid.,.Thesixsenses,asEvanscataloguesthem,are:‘(a)wish,desire,choice,intent(inbothnounandassociatedverbforms),wilfulness...(b)carnaldesire,lust...(c)shall(expressingdefiniteintention)...(d)penis...(e)vagina...(f)theChristiannameWill[iam](i.e.WilliamShakespeareandprobablyatleastoneother)’.
Namestheexcess,whichappearsatfirsttobewhollytheattributeofthewoman,ontotheman(ormen)whoplague(s)her.(ThesonnetmayrefertothreeWills:player-poet,youngfriendandthewoman’shusband.)The‘Wills’that‘vexe’herwithoutlet(‘still’),andamongwhomthepoetregardshimselfas‘morethenenough’,areunbearablyexcessive(‘inouer-plus’).Thepoem’scontinuousslidingofproperintocommonandcommonintopropernameseffectspreciselywhatisstructurallyimpossibleinRomeoandJulietbutconstantlyattemptedinOthello–thedisplacementofthepropernameasrigiddesignatorbythecommonnameasalocusofmeaning.ThedoggedpersistenceofpropernamesinRomeoandJulietconditionstheheightenedcelebrationofsexualityasbothamoralandatragicquality.TheerasureofthedistinctionmarkedbythepropernameinsonnetsanddestroyseverythingthatRomeoandJulietsimultaneouslycelebratesandlaments:theindividualityofitsprotagonistsandtheirentrapmentinanetworkofsocialrelations.Itdissolvesthedistinguishingmarkofsubjectivity(whichisalsothedefiningconditionoflove)intothesemanticandmoralmorassoffarce,bywhich,inajokytautology,‘all’–propername,desire,future,intention,maleandfemalesexualorgans–maybe‘reckon’dnone’(or‘nothing’)(sonnet).Intoneandfeeling,sonnetcouldnotbefurtherfromJulietorOthello’stragicrelationtonames.Foritdissolves,throughthereductionofthesingular‘Will’tothecommon‘will’,theverydistinctionthatJulietupholdsincommittingherselftothedifferencebetween‘Romeo’and‘Paris’.Othelloisbroughttobelievethatthisdistinctionisdestroyedbyhiswife’ssupposedaccommodationtoCassio’s‘will’.Likeotheryoungwomenwhowilfullyrefusethewillsoftheirfathersbyinsistingonthesingularityoftheirchoice(preferring‘Lysander’above‘Demetrius’,forexample),Julietexercisesawillwhichisnottotallydifferentfromtheseldomnoticederoticresistanceofherdarksisterinthesonnets.Intheirkeennesstoemphasisethepromiscuityofthelatter,commentatorstendtooverlookthefactthatsonnets–remaindeeplyPetrarchaninsofarastheysystematicallytrytoovercomearesistingobjectofdesire.Will’swomanisbothwhollypromiscuousandmaddeninglychaste:sheis‘tyrannous’and‘cruel’(sonnet),butalsothe‘wideworld’scommonButseeCapulet’sinvitationtoParistocometotheballsothathemay...hearall,allsee,Andlikehermostwhosemeritmostshallbe,Whichonmoreviewofmany,mine,beingone,Maystandinnumber,thoughinreck’ningnone.(..–)
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysplace’(sonnet).Thepoemsthusappeartobewrittenoutofadeepsenseoffrustrationatbeingrejectedbyawomanwhosealoofnessishardlyconventional.LikeallPetrarchanmistresses,thedarkwomanofthesonnetskeepssaying‘No’,butonlytotheplayer-poethimself(orsohesays).Shakespeare’smodesofpersuasiondifferfromtraditionalPetrarchanrhetoricinsofaras,unconventionally,theobjectofdesireisperhapsjustchoosy.Themainpersuasivedeviceofsonnetsandthusnegatesthelogicalbasisforsuchdiscrimination.ItextendsTheseus’sargumentthat,sincethereisnodifferencebetweenLysanderandDemetrius,Hermiamightaswelltakethelatter,ortheNurse’ssuggestionthatParisisanunexceptionalsubstituteforRomeo.Itscarnivalesquewitandplayfulnessruncontrarytoasystemthatmakesclass,bloodandfemalechastitythedeterminingfactorsinthechoiceofsexualpartners.Indeed,thispairofsonnetsiscarnivalesqueinthenowwell-knownBakhtiniansenseoftheterm.TheirreductionofthesocialdistinctionssignifiedbythepropernametotheundiscriminatingopennessofwhatBakhtincallsthe‘grotesquebody’representsatleastanimaginativeformofreleasefromthesocialhierarchyandconstraintthatiscentraltobothPetrarchanandthepatriarchalmodesofdealinginandwithwomen.InRomeoandJulietthiscarnivalesqueimpulseisrepresentedbyMercutio,whoreducesPetrarchanidealismtothemundanematerialityofthebodyporoustotheworld–‘anopen-arse,and...popp’rin’pear’(..).Sonnetslidesfrompropernametocommonname,sothatthesingularityoftheperson(s)designatedbythenameWill,being‘reckon’dnone’,isobliteratedinanundifferentiatingseaofsexualdesireandthenamelesscopulationofgenericorgans–of‘wills’.Followingthislogicofthenegationof‘one’,onemorepenisshouldmakenodifference.Thewomanisaskedtoallowthenameofthepenistocountfornothing:todissolvethedifferentiatingparticularityofthepropername,‘Will’,intothemostcommonname,‘will’.Thisrequestis,ofcourse,apleaforreciprocity,anditbearsaperverserelationtothesimilarpleastotheyoungmanofranktodisregardthedifferencesinscribedintheplayer-poet’spropername.Butitbelongstoadifferentworld:oneinwhichthereappeartobenodifferencesofrankandblood,certainlynonethatofferanyfeltobstaclestotherelationship.Allsuchinequalitiesaremerelyinconsistenciesof‘will’,andthelinguisticcarnivalofthepoemMikhailBakhtin,RabelaisandhisWorld,trans.HeleneIswolksy(Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,).
Namesseekstoelideeventhosedifferences.Theproliferationofsensesintheexcessivepunningofthesonnets,asalways,resultsintheobliterationofdistinctions,sothatbytheendofthepoemawholeeroticworldiscontractedintothemeetingof‘wills’.Itcouldbearguedthatthesonnet’sobliterationofthepropernameintheundifferentiatedm´elangeofcommonorgansrepresentstheultimateretreatintotheprivate:intoanimpossibleworldinwhichthesocialdisappearsaltogether.Sonnet,however,reversestheargumentofbyreaffirmingthesingularityofthepropernameasrigiddesignator,andreassertingatraditionaldesireforamorelimitedreciprocity,bywhichthepoetseeks,nottheindiscriminatesexualunionofsonnet,butarelationshipinwhichbothconstancyandthesingularityofhisnecessarilysocialidentityarereasserted:‘Makebutmynamethyloue,andlouethatstill,/AndthenthoulouestmeformynameisWill.’Havingrehearsedthenegationofhissingularityviatheearlymodernconceitthat‘one’isnotanumber,thepoetnowenjoinsthewomannottoforgethisname,tolovehimforhisname,tocounthissingulardesire.Thesonnetthusre-affirmsWillasapropername,towhichthewomanisenjoinedtocommitherself(‘lovethatstill’),althoughthenamehasbynowwittilyaccumulatedassociationsthatthewomanhasbeenshowntolovewellenough.‘Will’,asthepropernamethatbothdistinguishestheplayer-poetfromhisrivalsandmarkshisrejectionbythewoman,hasbytheendofthesetwenty-eightlinesbecomeaparadigminstanceoftheirsharedsexualdesireanditsinstrumentsofconsummation.Itissupposedtocommandunstintingcommitmentfromthewomanpreciselybecauseofherpromiscuousdesires.Butbyreaffirmingitashisown,theplayer-poetcircumventstheplethoraof‘wills’(or‘Wills’)thatcompeteforher‘will’,urgingherinsteadtofixsolelyuponhimthroughtheproperdesignationofhisname.Farfrombeingtrivialexercisesinobscenityormisogyny,sonnetsandthusreveal,throughtheirplayfulmanipulationofproperandcommonname,alogicalbasisforthedistinctionbetweenloveandlust,tragedyandfarce.Theexcessthatthesetwosonnetsperformisnotthesexualvoraciousnessof‘dark’femaledesire.Itisthewilful,maleimpulsetoobliteratealldistinctionsintheheadlongpursuitofsexualgratification.Suchapursuitisrecognised(andnotonlyinsonnet)as‘had,hauing,andinquesttohaue,extreame’,anditisattached,hereatleast,tothepropernameofthemale.Atthesametime,readagainstthearistocraticallypatriarchalconceitsofsonnets–,withtheiremphasisonself-directedconservationofthemaleline–inwhich
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplayswomenarethe‘maidengardensyetvnset’or‘vn-eardwombs’readyforthe‘tillage’oftheyoungman’s‘husbandry’–thesetwosonnetsarealiberatingaffronttoparticular,patriarchalexpectationsoffemalechastityandobedience.SuchexpectationsarefloutedbyJulietinherheterodoxcommitmenttothebearerofthepropernameRomeototheexclusionofallothermales.NosuchaccommodationisavailableintheworldofOthello,however.Inthatplaymaleanxietyaboutfemalesexualityrefusestheself-deprecatoryplaywiththepropernessofitsownname.Insteaditinscribesthefemaledesignatorwithitsownprojectedmeaning,writing‘whore’where‘Desdemona’oncestood.InoneofthemostunbearablescenesofOthello,wewatchDesdemonastrugglingwithherinabilitytospeakhername.Itis,ofcourse,nothername;itistheblacknameforwhichherwhiteness–this‘fairpaper’(..)asherhusbandputsit–appearsalwaysalreadytohavebeenprepared.Theideaofwomanasfairpaperorbookevokesatoncetheinscriptionsofthesonnettraditionaswhole,inwhichwomanisgenerallywrittenasfairness,andShakespeare’ssonnetsinparticular,inwhichsheissealedasdarkness.ButreadingOthelloandShakespeare’ssonnetstogetherallowsustoseethepeculiararbitrarinessofthatdarkinscription,anarbitrarinessmadehorriblyclearinOthello’srenamingthealabasterDesdemona‘whore’.Ihaveremarkedonthereadinesswithwhichmostreaderstaketheplayer-poetathiswordregardingtheduplicityandfaithlessnessofthewomanofthesonnets.SheisassumedinbiographicalaccountstobeoneofthecountlessprostitutesofLondon.Orelseformalistcriticstakewhat-everthesonnetstellusaboutherasthesumtotalofherproperties,sincetoaskwhethersheisreallyasfaithlessastheplayer-poetclaimswouldbeasegregiousanerrorastoindulgeinspeculationaboutLadyMacbeth’schildren.Theformalapproachfixesheraswhore.Thebiographicalapproachatleastallowsforare-evaluationofherqualities.Bygivingheralocalhabitationandaname,howeverhistoricallyquestionable,intheshapeofEmeliaLanyer,A.L.RowseisatleastforcedtoreconsidertheassumptionthatShakespearehas‘tolduseverythingabouther’.Thepropername,EmiliaLanyer,designatingapersonactivewithinacomplexsetofsocialrelationships,refusesthereductiveideologicalandmoralflatteningoftheinscribedcommonname,‘whore’.Othellorecordstheflatteninganddenigrationofsuchrenaming,inwhichtheconnotation-freedesignationofthepropername,withitsmanifoldtiestoawidevarietyofhumanandsocialcharacteristicsandformsofagency,
Namesisreplacedbytheoverwhelmingsimplicityofacommonmeaningthatisalientothepersonrenamedinsuchaway.Suchsubstitutionreducesapluralsenseofpersonalidentitytoamarkthatisliterallyunbearableandunspeakablebythesubjectherself.Desdemona’sbewilderedresponsetotherepeatednamingeventsbywhichherhusbandcallsher‘whore’(..)and‘strumpet’(..)withthequestion,‘AmIthatname?’(..),testifiestothepowerfuldegreetowhichidentityisconstitutedthroughthepropername(oritsdisplacementbyacommonnoun)inmouthsotherthanthatofthebearerofthename.Thequestion,‘AmIthatname?’,thusrevealsacloserelationshipbetween‘Iam’asanexistentialandanominalproposition.BothOthelloandthesonnetsinvoketheexistentialpropositions,ineithertheirtautologicalorcontradictoryforms,inordertodistancethespeakerfromnominalties.Iago’s‘IamnotwhatIam’(..)isthuscloselyrelatedtotheplayer-poet’sinverteddecree,‘IamthatIam’(sonnet),insofarastheirsharedrefusaltoclosetheproposition‘Iam’withapropernamerenouncesthesocialbondsthatareusuallytiedtothepropername.WhenDesdemonathusasks,‘AmIthatname?’,sheisnotmerelyaskingaboutalabelbuttryingtoplumbthedepthsofherself.Iago’scrueltyismoreintenseforbeingsocasual:‘Whatname,fairlady?’heasks(..),underliningthestarknessofthedisparitybetweenhisappellation(‘fairlady’)andtheoneheinviteshertoutter(‘whore’).Butshecannotutterit.Shecandonomorethanalludetoitasadoublyremovedobjectofindirectspeech:‘SuchasshesaidmylorddidsayIwas’(..).WhycanDesdemonanotbringherselftosaythename,ifallshewouldbedoingisreportingOthello’sspeech?Becauseshesenses,inthedepthsofhersoul,thattosaythenamewouldbetodeclareitasherown.HavinghadherpropernamedisplacedbyOthello’sinsistent,performativere-namingevents–seehisinsistentrepetitionofthewords‘strumpet’and‘whore’againstherin.–shefearsthatshehasnocontrolovertheperformativeoutcomeofherownutteranceoftheword.Shefeelsthatifshesaysitoutloudshewouldnotmerelybereportingwhatsomeoneelsehassaid–merelymentioningtheword,asJohnSearlewouldsay–butratherdeclaringithername:callingoutherown,propername.LisaJardineclaimsthatthefactthatEmiliaoverhearsOthello’sslan-dertransformsitsnaturecompletely.AnaccusationthatmovedfromForadiscussionofthedifferencebetween‘use’and‘mention’pertinenttoliterarystudies,seethepolemicbetweenJacquesDerridaandJohnR.SearlecollectedinDerrida’sLimitedInc,ed.GeraldGraff(Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,).
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaystheprivatetothepublicspherewithoutbeinggainsaidinpublic,shesuggests,wastakentotransformthesubjectintoawhore:Othello’sdoubtisended,andwithithisjealousy,whenacaseofdefamationisperpetratedagainstDesdemona,andthecaseisnotanswered–‘Sheturn’dtofolly,andshewasawhore’(v.ii.).Fromthatpointonheactswithcompletecertaintyofherguilt...[D]oubthasgivenwaytocertainty...forOthello,thecertaintythatentitlesthecuckoldedhusbandtoseekretributionuponhiswife,hingesonthatsubstantialdefamation,perpetratedbyOthellohimself–who‘beingaverysuspiciousman,hathsometymeaudientlycaulde...[hiswife]“hore”’.AnticipatingJardine’sargumentthattheusesoflanguagemaychangeorgainperformativedimensionsthroughtheintroductionofapubliccontext,MadeleineDoranhasarguedfromthehistoricalperspectiveofRomanlawthataman’s‘goodname’mightbelostthroughanessentiallypublicformofinfamiaorinfamy.CrucialtoDoran’sandJardine’saccountsisthefactthatmalainfamacontaminatesthenameasthelocusofpersonalidentity,andthatitdoessoindependentlyoffact.Itisnotadescriptionthatmaymatchornotmatchitsobject,butratheraneventthattransformsthename-bearingobjectthroughtheimpositionofanothername.Doranwritesthatcounter-performativesexistedinpublicdiscoursethatcouldremoveinfamiathroughformsofrestitutio,butsheaddsthatitwasunclearwhethertheydidinfacthavecompletepowerofrestoration:Aman’sgoodname...canbetakenawayassurelybyrumourofguiltasbysuchopenlyrecognizedguiltasmightleadtoanindictmentincourt;and...restorationofit,thoughpossiblelegally,isdifficult,andmayinfactbeimpossible,sincetheopinionofamanheldbythecommunityisnotcontrollablebylaw...theideathataman’sgoodnameispropertohimbyvirtueofhisbeingaman,notmerelyanadjunctgivenhimbysociety,hastheconsequence...thattolosehisnameistolosehimself.(Doran,‘GoodNameinOthello’,)Desdemonaappearstofeelthechangefromaprivatetoapubliccon-textintensely.EmiliaisunperturbedaboutusingthenameinpublicwhenIagounsuccessfullytriestotrapDesdemonaintodoingso,butsheisequallyawareofthepublicweightofsuchacharge:‘Hecalledherwhore.Abeggarinhisdrink/CouldnothavelaidsuchtermsuponhisLisaJardine,‘“Whyshouldhecallherwhore?”:DefamationandDesdemona’sCase’,inAddress-ingFrankKermode:EssaysinCriticismandInterpretation,ed.MargaretTudeauClaytonandMartinWarner(London:Macmillan,),–().MadeleineDoran,‘GoodNameinOthello’,StudiesinEnglishLiterature–,(),–.
Namescallet’(..–).TheintenselypublicnatureofDesdemona’ssituation,togetherwithherextremevulnerability,informsherfearthatshewouldtransformherselfintothenamebyutteringit.Herinsecurereticencethusstemsfromherincapacitytoplaceherselfatthesubjectivecentreofcertainkindsofspeechact.InawonderfullyintelligentpaperKennethGrossclaimsthat‘thecharactersalwaysheareachother’swordsasiftheywerealien,uninterpretablerumours.Thegamenotonlymakesthequestionsunanswerableandthewordsambiguous,butleavesthewordsinadeepsenseunutterable,unperformable.’Tothisonewantstosayyesandno.Certainwords(orratherspeechacts)arecertainlyunutter-ableorunperformablebysomeonelikeDesdemona.Oncetheprivatespacebetweenherselfandherhusbandhasbeenreducedtonothingbyslander,shenolongerhasaccesstoanypublicspacethroughwhichshemayperformcrucialspeechacts:throughwhichshemightspeak,asBourdieuputsit,‘notonlytobeunderstoodbutalsotobebelieved,obeyed,respected,distinguished’.Slanderisnot,asGrossclaims,a‘limiting-caseoflanguage’(‘SlanderandSkepticism’,Gross,);itisitsverypossibility.AndDesdemonacan‘findnotermsinwhichtocondemnOthello’saccusations’(Gross,‘SlanderandSkepticism’,),lessthroughherpersonalweaknessorinadequacythanbecause,isolatedonthemilitaryoutpostofCyprus,sheisrobbedoftheconditionsthatwouldgivesuchspeechactslife.InsayingthisIamreiteratingtheargu-mentinchapterabovethatincertainkindsofsocietyprivatelanguagegamesarerenderedimpossible.IntherelativelyfamiliarpublicworldoftheSignoryDesdemonafindsnodifficultyinjustifyingherselfanddeflectingtheimpositionofcertainkindsofdiscourseuponher,butshecannotdosoonCyprus.ItisamistaketospeakgenerallyaboutconditionsofdiscourseinOthello,asifallwordsbendtothesamenecessity.Inthemarginalworldofthethreatenedisland,Othello’scapacitytomakecertainutterances‘perform’isinfinitelygreaterthanthatofhiswife,evenifitisincertainrespectsdwarfedbyIago’sexceptionalfacilityinmakingwordstransformKennethGross,‘SlanderandSkepticisminOthello’,ELH,.(Winter),–.PierreBourdieu,‘TheEconomicsofLinguisticExchanges’,SocialScienceInformation,(),–().Foranextendedargumenttothiseffect,seeJacquesDerrida,LimitedInc.LynneMagnusson,‘LanguageandSymbolicCapitalinOthello’,ShakespeareSurvey,(),–:‘Desdemonadoesnotentertheplayasthestereotypicalsilentandmodestwoman,butratherasanaristocraticspeakerwhosediscourseisfulloftheassuranceandself-confidenceofherclasshabitus’().IamarguingthathercapacityforspeechinthesensethatBourdieumeansitisseverelycurtailedbythechangeinpublicandprivatespaceonCyprus.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplayssituations.Inanessaythatproceedsfromadifferenttheoreticalbase,butisnonethelessveryclosetomyownproject,LynneMagnussonarguesthatitisthesocialsitefromwhichspeechactsareproduced,notthe‘essentialnature’(‘LanguageandSymbolicCapital’,)ofacharacter,thatdeterminesthepossibilityoftheirproductionandreception.Weareliabletooverlooktheshiftinguseofwordsasvariousspeechactsaremobilisedthroughactionifweinsisttoomuchonwhatlanguageasawholedoesintheplayorontheinstrinsicnatureofsignsconceivedasthingsseparatefromuse.R.W.Zandevoortsystematicallyperpetuatesthiserrorbyspeakingofsigns,first,asiftheywerefixed,codedentities,andthenclaimingthatwhentheyareusedtoavarietyofpurposesthesign‘effectivelycontradict[s]itself’,andisconsequently‘subversiveoftheconventionswhichgivecodestheirmeanings’.Signscannotcontradictthemselves;onlysignsputtouseinparticularspeechactscandoso.NorisIago’sprojectthe‘systematic...attackuponthepossibilityofsignificationatlarge’(Zandevoort,‘PuttingOuttheLight’,).Ifanything,Iagodemonstratestheenormouspowerandeffectivenessofsignificationasaperformativeact.Suchpowerbelongstoactorandruleralike.ToZandevoort’sclaimthatIago‘insinuateshimselfasaninfinitelymuta-blesignwhosewantoffixedreferentcallsintoquestiontheauthorityofallothersigns’()weshouldrespondthatitisunclearhowaper-son,orevenacharacter,couldbeasignwithoutafixedreferent.WhatZandevoortistryingtosay,Ithink,throughthemistsofSaussureansemiotics,isthatIago,liketheViceofoldandtheearlymodernplayerwhosucceededthemoralityactor,isnottiedexistentiallytotheeffectsandconsequencesofthespeechactsheadoptsanddiscards.Iagocanspeakofthecrucialcentralityofone’s‘goodname’inonecontextanditsinsignificanceinanotherbecauseheisnotinvestedinsocialdiscourseinthewaythatCassio,DesdemonaorOthelloare.Suchdetachednessgiveshimaninsuperableadvantageagainstcharacterswhounderstandablyassumethatheinvestshislanguagegameswithanormalsenseofsocialidentityandmoralresponsibility.Itishislackofaninvestedrelationtohumanlanguage–characteristicofthehistrionicirresponsibilityofoldVice–thatmakeshimsodeeplyinhuman,sodeeplyotherasacharacter.ThatiswhyitissillytotalkofOthello’s‘enormousnaivet´e’(Zandevoort,‘PuttingOuttheLight’,),orhis‘idiotmetaphysics’(Gross,‘SlanderR.W.Zandevoort,‘PuttingOuttheLight:SemanticIndeterminacyandtheDeconstitutionofSelfinOthello’,EnglishStudies,(),–().
NamesandSkepticism’,),orDesdemona’sweaknessorcomplicityinthefaceofsuchinhumanity.Iagoisafantasyimageoftheplayer-poetofthesonnets,whoishimselftooinvestedinthediscoursesofsocialinferioritytobeabletoplayfastandloosewiththem.Iagoisthefigure–acarelessplayofperformatives–thattheplayer-poetwouldliketobe.IfIagoisinvestedinanysocialfeeling,thenitistheenvyandresentmentatthewaysoftheworldbetrayedbytheplayer-poet:athisinferiorsocialposition,hisinabilityorunwillingnesstoplaythegamewherebyManyaduteousandknee-crookingknaveThat,dotingonhisownobsequiousbondage,Wearsouthistimemuchlikehismaster’sassFornaughtbutprovender,andwhenhe’sold,cashiered.Whipmesuchhonestknaves.OthersthereareWho,trimmedinformsandvisagesofduty,Keepyettheirheartsattendingonthemselves,And,throwingbutshowsofserviceontheirlords,Dowellthriveby’em,andwhentheyhavelinedtheircoats,Dothemselveshomage.(Othello,..–)Itwouldbeamistaketoidentifyeitherofthesepositionsofservicetooexactlywiththeplayer-poet.Whatwecanrecognise,however,isthereachandsharpnessofthisanalysisanddiagnosisinthosesonnetsinwhichtheplayer-poeteitherbemoanshisfateorlooksonwithcontemp-tuousdetachmentatsuch‘dwellersonformeandfauor’who‘loseall,andmorebypayingtoomuchrent’(sonnet).Othello,onecouldsay,losesall,andmore.Iago’sresentmentandanalysisofhisinferiorsocialposition,signalledinhiscontemptforCassioascourtier,hisdeepunderstandingofboththecentralityandarbitrarinessof‘goodname’and‘reputation’andhissexualresentmentsignalastructuralaffinitywiththeplayer-poetofthesonnets.InIago’sunfathomablemisogyny,too,thereismorethananechoofthedisgustedresentmentthatispro-jecteduponthemistressofthesonnets.Furthermore,Iago’sdisplace-mentofDesdemonainaquasi-eroticattachmenttoOthello,signalledespeciallyintheterribleparodyofthemarriageceremonyattheendStanleyCavellwarnsusagainstthismistake:‘I...askthatwenot,conventionallybutinsufferably,assumethatweknowmoreaboutthiswoman[Desdemona]thanthisman[Othello]knowsher–makingOthellosomekindofexotic,gorgeous,superstitiouslunkhead’,TheClaimofReason:Wittgenstein,Skepticism,Morality,andTragedy(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,),.SeeCarolThomasNeely,‘WomenandMeninOthello’,ShakespeareStudies,(),–,foradiscussionofcriticalresponsestoDesdemona.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysofAct,underlinestheplay’saffinitywiththedarklovetriangleinthesonnets:([Othello]kneels)Now,byyonmarbleheaven,IntheduereverenceofasacredvowIhereengagemywords.Donotriseyet.(Iagokneels)Witnessyouever-burninglightsabove,Youelementsthatclipusroundabout,WitnessthathereIagodothgiveupTheexecutionofhiswit,hands,heartTowrongedOthello’sservice.Lethimcommand,Andtoobeyshallbeinmeremorse,Whatbloodybusinessever.(Theyrise)Igreetthylove,Notwithvainthanks,butwithacceptancebounteous,Andwillupontheinstantputtheeto’t.WithinthesethreedaysletmeheartheesayThatCassio’snotalive.Myfriendisdead.’Tisdoneatyourrequest;butletherlive.Damnher,lewdminx!O,damnher,damnher!Come,gowithmeapart.IwillwithdrawTofurnishmewithsomeswiftmeansofdeathForthefairdevil.Nowartthoumylieutenant.Iamyourownforever.(Exeunt)(..–)Thiscatalogueofhellishperformatives–oaths,declarationsofloyaltyandlove,constancyandservice–offersadistortingglassthatreflectsthecomplexformsofrivalry,jealousy,misogynisticrage,andpowerfulhomosocialand/orhomosexualfantasiesofthemarriageofloveanddutyinShakespeare’ssonnets.IfthereisasinglesonnetthatsuggestsOthellomorethananyother,itisthepoeminwhichtriangulardesireplaysitselfoutinaremarkablysimilarsceneofdevilishtemptationanddoubt:olouesIhaueofcomfortanddispaire,Whichliketwospiritsdosugiestmestill,Thebetterangellisamanrightfaire:See,forexample,RobertMatz,‘Slander,RenaissanceDiscoursesofSodomy,andOthello’,ELH,(),–.
NamesTheworserspiritawomancollour’dil.Towinmesoonetohellmyfemalleuill,Temptethmybetterangelfrommysight,Andwouldcorruptmysainttobeadiuel:Wooinghispuritywithherfowlepride.Andwhetherthatmyangelbeturn’dfinde,SuspectImay,yetnotdirectlytell,Butbeingbothfrommebothtoeachfriend,Igesseoneangelinanothershel.YetthisshalInereknowbutliueindoubt,Tillmybadangelfiremygoodoneout.(sonnet)Thispoemrecalls(oranticipates)thetriangularrelationshipofIago,DesdemonaandOthello,butitinvertsthoserelations.Itremindsus,asStanleyCavellhasremarked,ofthe‘demon’and‘hell’thatlurkinthelasttwonames.Theplayprovidesadoubleperspectiveinwhichthewomanisnow‘comfort’,now‘dispaire’;nowthe‘betterangell’,nowthe‘worserspirit’.InthisreadingasubjectivitysuchasOthellooccupiesthepositionoftheplayer-poet,caughtbetweentwolovesthatarebothincarnationsofdoubt.Ofcourse,thepositionsdonotmatchexactly.OthelloisnottrappedbytheuncertaintyofwhetherDesdemonaisbetrayinghimwithIago,althoughhedoesthinkthatsheisdoingsowithCassio.Wemay,however,seeinthesonnetthepathologyofprojectionandrivalrythatmarkOthello’srelationshipwithhisancientandhiswife.Andtheplay’sperspectivesmayinturnalertustothepathologyofthepoemsthemselves.Othello’scollapseintogroundlessbutuncontrollablerageanddisgustatthedarkuncontrollabilityoffemalesexualityallowsustoentertainthethoughtthatsonnet–indeed,allthepoemsinwhichthemistress’ssupposedlyprofligatesexualityareexcoriated–records,notthecertaintyofbetrayal,butthelacerationsofdoubtandprojectionwherebythefemalebelovedisturnedintoa‘worserspirit’orthe‘wideworldscommonplace’(sonnet),whilethemaleremainsthe‘betterangell’toberescuedfromherfiendishconsumption.The‘marriage’betweenIagoandOthellointhepassageabove,signalledbyIago’sresoundingperformative,‘Iamyourownforever’(..),andoccasionedbyOthello’sfinalresolutiontoeradicatethe‘fairdevil’(..),providesaterrifyingparodyoftheimplicitdesireinthesonnetsfor‘mutuallrender’,uncontaminatedbysocialdifferenceortherivalryoffemalesexuality.Theplayer-poetofthesonnetsseesuglinessanddarknessbutisbe-wilderedbyhisattractiontoit;Othello,ontheotherhand,seesbeauty
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysandfairnessbutisbewilderedbythefactthatitmayinfactbeuglyanddark.ButthereiteratedpathologyofthesonnetscomestoanendintheplaybecauseOthellobelievesthatkillingthethingheloves(seeTwelfthNight,..)willforgeapathoutofthemadnessthatislivedinthedarknessofthesonnetsforthewoman:oflovingwhatyouhate,ofbeingattractedtowhatisessentiallyugly.Thisisthe‘cause’withwhichOthelloreassureshissoul:toallowDesdemonatolivewouldmeantoperpetuatethelivinghellinwhichtheplayer-poetresides,trappedbyhisdiseaseinto‘feedingonthatwhichdothpreservetheill’(sonnet).Othello,feelinghimselfprogressivelybewitchedby‘balmybreath,thatdostal-mostpersuade/Justicetobreakhersword’(..–),entrancedby‘thewhiterskinofhersthansnow,/Andsmoothasmonumentalalabaster’(..–),encapsulatesthedilemmaofsonnet:e!whateyeshathloueputinmyhead,Whichhauenocorrespondencewithtruesight,Oriftheyhaue,whereismyiudgmentfled,Thatcensuresfalselywhattheyseearight?Ifthatbefairewhereonmyfalseeyesdote,Whatmeanestheworldtosayitisnotso?Ifitbenot,thenlouedothwelldenote,Loueseyeisnotsotrueasallmens:no,Howcanit?Ohowcanloueseyebetrue,Thatissovextwithwatchingandwithteares?NomaruailethenthoughImistakemyview,Thesunneitselfeseesnot,tillheauencleeres.Ocunningloue,withtearesthoukeepstmeblinde,Leasteyeswellseeingthyfoulefaultsshouldfinde.DespitethelingeringkissesthroughwhichOthellopostponesthemurder,heultimatelyrefusestolivethedilemmathatisceaselesslyreiteratedinthesonnets.Betterto‘killthee/Andlovetheeafter’(..).‘Howcanloueseyebetrue?’sonnetasks.Cavellremindsusthat,inthemomentsbeforehekillsher,OthelloturnsDesdemonatostone(TheClaimofReason,).Iftheplayer-poetcomesclosetoturninghisdarklordtostone,orfindinghim,ultimately,‘asstone’(sonnet),hemarkshisdifferencefromthe‘loueseye’thatplaguesOthellobyrefusingtotransformhismistressinthisway.SuchholdingbackisoneofthemostremarkablethingsaboutShakespeare’ssonnets.Itenablesthepoettodelineatethetroublingrelationshipof‘loueseye’totheideaortheidealinwaysthatdonotmerelysettleoneithersimpledisillusionment
Namesoridealisation.Thetransformationstracedinthischapterthroughtheperformativepowerofnamesandnamingeventshavetendedtoworkagainsttheinterestsanddesiresofindividuals.Inowturntowaysinwhichindividualsubjects,especiallywomen,mayusetheagencyofperformativeactiontotransformthemselvesfromamerenametothethingitselfinAll’sWellthatEndsWell.SeeCavell’sclaimthatOthello‘isaplay...inwhichnotamarriagebuttheideaofmarriage,orletussayanimaginationofmarriage,isworkedout’(TheClaimofReason,).
Transformations:thesonnetsandAll’sWellthatEndsWellInthepreviouschapterItracedthewaysinwhichanamemayactasmorethanameredesignatorintheworldsofShakespeare’splaysandsonnets.FromitsactionasafocalpointofineradicablesocialrelationsandtiesinRomeoandJulietandthesonnets,throughitsidealisingandde-idealisinguseinTroilusandCressidaandthedark-womanpoems,toitstransformativepowerinthenamingandre-namingeventsofOthello,Ihavearguedthatthepropernamemaybeasmuchpartoftheper-formativedimensionsoflanguageuseasmoresyntacticallyelaborateutterances.InthischapterIpursuethequestionofnamesasonethreadwithinthebroadertextofAll’sWellthatEndsWellanditsmuchnotedrelationshiptoShakespeare’ssonnets.Helen’spredicamentrepresentsthelimitsofwhatnamescando.Beingmerely‘thenameandnotthething’(All’sWell,..),shehastoseekperformativemodesofactionbeyondlanguagethatcantransformherfrom‘name’to‘thing’.TheframinganalysisfortheroleofnamesinAll’sWellincludesanextendedre-examinationofthemuchnotedaffinitiesbetweentheplayandthesonnets,thepoliticsofgenderandclassintheplayandthepoems,andthesubjectpositionsandembodiedsituationsofaddressofthesonnetsthatarerepresentedwithinintheplay.All’sWellthatEndsWellhaslongbeenrecognisedasaplayintimatelyconnectedwiththefeltexperienceofslightedloveunderthepressuresofclassinequalityinthesonnets.G.WilsonKnightclaimsthatit‘recallstheSonnetsmorenearlythananyotherplay’.Morerecently,SusanSny-dernotesthatthereworkingoftheoriginalstoryfromBoccacciosignalsE.M.WTilyard,Shakespeare’sProblemPlays(Harmondsworth:Peregrine,),;G.WilsonKnight,TheSovereignFlower:ShakespeareasthePoetofRoyalism(London:Methuen,),–;MurielBradbrook,‘VirtueistheTrueNobility:AStudyoftheStructureofAll’sWellthatEndsWell’,ReviewofEnglishStudies,(),–();RogerWarren,‘WhyDoesItEndWell?:Helen,Bertram,andtheSonnets’,ShakespeareSurvey,(Spring),–.
Transformationsthecommonoriginofboththesonnetsandtheplayin‘Shakespeare’sownexperience’,andRichardWheelerarguesthat,while‘All’sWellim-posesarigorous,compensatory,evenvindictivedramaticstructureuponalovethatintheSonnetsrepeatedlybetraysthededicatedidealizationShakespearebringstoit’,Helen’sloveforBertramnonethelessalsoex-tendsintotheplay‘theeloquentadorationthatShakespearelavishesontheyoungfriend’.WhateveronemaythinkaboutsuchlinksitisclearthatAll’sWellandthepoemsinduceasimilar,paradoxicalsenseofadmirationandenigma,engagementanddiscomfort.All’sWellthatEndsWellopensupaworldthatisglimpsedintermittentlyinthedispersedshardsofthesonnets.Itrepresentsanintenseandexorbitanteroticdesirerenderedalmostimpossiblebytheextentofitssocialambition.Italsooffersastheunworthyobjectofthatdesireaspoilt,self-absorbedyoungaristocratwhofleesheterosexualunioninmarriageontheonehand,whileseekingabrief,lust-drivenseductionontheother.Whatthesonnetsareforcedtosuggestbyrhetoricalindirection,becauseofthewayinwhichtheirprotagonistiscaughtwithineachmomentandsituationofaddress,theplaycandisplaywithgreaterfreedomanddetachment.Shakespeare’splayer-poethastocreatetheconditionsforhisacceptanceasamemberofthesocietyofsupplicants,evenbeforeanyparticularrequesthasbeenmadeorwishgranted.Bydisplacingtheuncertaintyofresponse,whichisgenericallyandcontextuallycentraltothewritingofasonnetasameansofrealsocialaction,ontoatheatricalspaceinwhichtherepresentedaudiencecanbetakenforgrantedratherthanencounteredasaforcetobedeflected,mouldedorappropriated,Shakespearefindsadegreeoffreedomthateludeshimasasonneteer.WhenSusanSnyderclaimsthatinitsrelationtothesonnetsAll’sWellthatEndsWellis‘onegiantactofdisplacement’(‘TheKing’sNotHere’,),sheisperhapsthinkingofpreciselythefreedomofthedramatisttocreateaworldinwhichpersonalpreoccupationsorpredicamentsmaybe‘workedthrough’inwaysnotavailabletothesonneteer.Thesociallyengagedpoetlacksthepowertocontrolthecontextsofhisreception,ortorepresentmoredetachedformsofjudgementonthosecontextsintheshapeofcharactersfromwhichhecandistancehimself.SusanSnyder,‘TheKing’sNotHere:DisplacementandDeferralinAll’sWellthatEndsWell’,ShakespeareQuarterly,.(Spring),–().RichardP.Wheeler,Shakespeare’sDevelopmentandtheProblemComedies:TurnandCounter-Turn(Berkeley,LosAngelesandLondon:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,),.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysTheconnectionsbetweenAll’sWellthatEndsWellandShakespeare’ssonnetsareworthpursuingfortheirilluminationofthecomplexitiesofthecomedyasmuchasthevexedissuesofsexuality,identityandper-formativeinteractioninthepoems.Buttheyshouldnotbepursuedbyequatinganyroleinthesonnetswithanysinglecharacterintheplay.Thenotionofmultiple‘subjectpositions’offersamoreusefultoolforexplor-ingthewaysinwhichtheinteractiveworldoftheplayisinformedbytheshadowworldofthesonnets.Bertram,variouslychargedinthecourseoftheplayforhisyouthfulfailings–‘proud,scornfulboy’(..),‘rashandunbridledboy’(..)and‘foolishidleboy’(..)–isclearlyaseverelydisillusionedrewritingofthe‘sweet’and‘lovelyboy’(sonnetsand)ofthesonnets.AndHelenembodiestheself-effacinglongingforaloveobjectplacedbeyondreachbysociallyinscribedhierarchiesexpressedbytheplayer-poetofthesonnets.Andyettheparallelsdonotworkconsistently.Theunspeakablesexualdesirebrandedas‘ambitious’thatwerecogniseinHelenisdifferentlygenderedinthesonnets.Further-more,theplayer-poetsharesBertram’sdarkerattitudetowardsfemalesexuality.ToseeHelenastheembodimentofShakespeare’sunspeak-abledesireforhis‘friend’istoeroticisethat‘friendship’andtofurthercomplicatethegenderingoftheplayer-poet’sdesire.Thiscomplicationhardlyexistsintheplay.Helen’sloveisfranklyerotic.HerdotageonBertramdisplaysanurgentphysicalitythatiscertainlypresentinthesonnets,butthereitissplitbetweentheplayer-poetandhisdistinctlyunchastefemaleobjectofdesire.ItisdifficulttoequatethepoemstothedarkmistresswithanywomaninAll’sWellthatEndsWell,unlesswerecog-niseinBertram’sslanderofDianathepersistentattitudeofthelovertohismistress,perhapstoallwomen,inthesonnets.Insomerespectstheplayer-poetofShakespeare’ssonnetsresemblesBertramasmuchashedoesHelen.AndthenthereisParoles.Parolesisfrequentlydismissedforbeingthe‘villain’oftheplay,deridedbyexternalcriticandinter-nalaristocratalikeforhiswordiness,hiscowardiceand,aboveall,thetemeritywithwhichheassumestheambitiousrolesofgentlemanandfriendtoBertram.Buthebearsamorethanpassingresemblancetoourplayer-poet.HeisasonneteerandBertram’srivalinlove,andhishabitofmakinghimself‘amotleytotheview’throughhisupstartprofessionofwords,fictionsand‘borrowedflaunts’(TheWinter’sTale,..)bringspublicdisgracetohisaristocraticcompanion.IfthesubjectpositionsrepresentedandexploredinthesonnetsmaybedistributedacrossdifferentformsofinteractionandrelationshipinAll’sWellthatEndsWell,theFirstFolioitselfrepresentscharacterandrolein
Transformationsrelationalandprovisional,ratherthanmonolithicandpermanentways.All’sWellthatEndsWellinparticularworksagainstthe‘transcendentunity’ascribedbymodernmodesofthought‘tothenotionofindividual,isolatedcharacter’(Cloud,‘“TheverynamesofPersons”’,).Thishasbeenobscuredbytheeditorialpracticeofreducingthemultiplic-ityofspeechtagsintheFoliotoasingle,arbitrarilychosen,‘proper’nameorepithet.Writingofeditoriallyimposedlistsofdramatis-personae(coupledtoarbitrary,conservativedescriptions),RandomCloudstates:Theselistsimplythatcharactersaresolidentities,TheCountessthatpre-existtheirfunctionsintheplay,ratherthanillusionsnowmothernowOldCountessnowLady...builtupoutofthesimultudinousdynamicofalltheingredientsofdramaticart,ofwhichcharacterisonlyapart.‘NowmothernowOldCountessnowLady’aptlydescribesthesenseof‘character’tobegleanedfromShakespeare’ssonnets:nowcounsellor,nowlover,nowplayer;nowfriend,nowaristocrat,nowlecher;nowbeauty,nowwhore,nowmother.Ifwewishtoexplorethesecontrastingandoverlappingaspectsof‘character’,developeddifferentiallythroughinteraction,weneedtodistributethemacrosstherolesorsubjectpositionsofAll’sWellthatEndsWell.MyargumentintheIntroductionabovethattheabsenceofpropernamesfromthesonnetsisalogicalpointertotheautobiographicalna-tureofthesonnetsdoesnotdependuponanyunitaryconceptionofcharacterorexperience.NorisitvitiatedbyRandomCloud’sindicationofthechanging,relationalnatureofthenametagsinAll’sWellthatEndsWell.Myviewoftheautobiographicalmodeofthesonnetsiscompatiblewiththenotionthatthepresentationofselfanditsrelationtoothersisliabletovarythroughthatveryinteraction.Montaigne’ssenseofthedis-persalofselfthroughdifferentmomentsandperspectivesisunderscoredbythesonnets’enactmentofasimilardisjunction:RandomCloud,‘“TheverynamesofPersons”:EditingandtheInventionofDramaticCharacter’,inStagingtheRenaissance:ReinterpretationsofElizabethanandJacobeanDrama,ed.DavidScottKastanandPeterStallybrass(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,),–().Cf.SusanSnyder,‘NamingNamesinAll’sWellthatEndsWell’,ShakespeareQuarterly,.(Fall),–.Snyder’sargumentthatreaderswouldbebetterabletosustainimaginativelyaunifiedconceptionofthemaincharactersif‘characternamesofminimumimportancearenotfeaturedinthetext’()ismadeonbehalfoftheverytraditionthatRandomCloudattacks.SeeNaomiMiller,‘Playing“themother’spart”:Shakespeare’sSonnetsandEarlyModernCodesofMaternity’,inShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays,ed.JamesSchiffer(NewYork:Garland,),–.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysEvensoundauthorsarewronginstubbornlytryingtoweaveusintooneinvari-ableandsolidfabric...Anyonewhoturnshisprimeattentionontohimselfwillhardlyeverfindhimselfinthesamestatetwice.Igivemyfacethisfaceorthat,dependinguponwhichsideIlayitdownon.Ispeakaboutmyselfindiverseways:thatisbecauseIlookatmyselfindiverseways.Everysortofcontradictioncanbefoundinme,dependinguponsometwistorattribute:timid,insolent;chaste,lecherous;talkative,taciturn;tough,sickly;clever,dull;brooding,affa-ble;lying,truthful;learned,ignorant;generous,miserlyandthenprodigal–Icanseesomethingofallthatinmyself,dependingonhowIgyrate;andanyonewhostudieshimselfattentivelyfindsinhimselfandinhisveryjudgementthiswhirringaboutandthisdiscordancy.ThereisnothingIcansayaboutmyselfasawholesimplyandcompletely,withoutinterminglingandadmixture.TherearetwosonnetsinthebodyofAll’sWellthatEndsWell.Strangely,theyhavebeenpassedoverbyallofthecriticswhohaveexploredtheparallelsbetweentheplayandShakespeare’ssonnetsinthematicandpsychologicalterms.Thefirstishardlya‘good’sonnet,consideredin‘literary’terms.ComparedeventothepoorestoftheQuarto,itplods.Yetitcomesoutofaremarkablesituationofaddress:IamSaintJaques’pilgrim,thithergone.AmbitiouslovehathsoinmeoffendedThatbarefootplodIthecoldgrounduponWithsaintedvowmyfaultstohaveamended.Write,write,thatfromthebloodycourseofwarMydearestmaster,yourdearson,mayhie.Blesshimathomeinpeace,whilstIfromfarHisnamewithzealousfervoursanctify.Histakenlaboursbidhimmeforgive;I,hisdespitefulJuno,senthimforthFromcourtlyfriends,withcampingfoestolive,Wheredeathanddangerdogstheheelsofworth.Heistoogoodandfairfordeathandme;WhomImyselfembracetosethimfree.(..–)Itisanepistolarysonnet,addressedtotheCountessbyHelen.Herstewardreadsitoutpublicly,beforetheothermembersofthecourt.Unusually,itisasonnetaddressedbyawomantoanotherwoman,readaloudbyaman.Itconcernsunrequitedlove.Butitscircuitexcludestheobjectofdesireinadirectappealtothemother-in-law.Itisthereforeapublicdeclaration,notonlyoffemaledesire,butalsoofsuchdesireMichelMontaigne,TheEssaysofMicheldeMontaigne,trans.anded.M.A.Screech(Harmondsworth:Penguin,),.,‘Ontheinconsistencyofouractions’,–.
Transformationsrejectedandtransformed.Itrecalls,glancinglyandironically,thecon-fidentlyrhetoricalquestioninthesonnets:‘Andwhenawomanwoes,whatwomanssonne,/Willsourelyleauehertillhehauepreuailed?’(sonnet).Itcallsintoquestionnotonlythepredatoryviewoffe-malesexualityinthatsonnet,butalsoitsassumptionofthenaturalnessofmalelibidinousresponse,whichinsonnetatleast,deftlyconvertsfemaleagencyintomaleaction:‘tillhehauepreuailed’.Helen’ssonnetcomesclosertoPetrarchthanmanyintheQuarto.Itgivesupthephysicalbelovedinfavourofaspiritualpilgrimage,anditswishtosavethebelovedfromdeathbyrenouncingalleroticclaimsonhimrecallstheplayer-poet’sthoughtofhisowndeathinorderto‘set[thebeloved]free’fromthestigmaof‘ambitiouslove’.Itissimul-taneouslyadeclarationofachievedstatusthroughactionandaformofactioninitself,powerfullyurgingtheaddresseetoreproduceinturnitsownrhetoricalactivity.Thesonnetisalmostobsessivelyconcernedwiththeperformativeinitstransformationofhumanrelationshipsandstatus.WrittenfromapositionthatAustinwouldterm‘unhappy’,itatteststoitswriter’sbeinga‘wife’innameonly:‘thenameandnotthething’(All’sWellThatEndsWell,..).Andyet,thatisnotquitetrue.Foritpresumesuponanddrawsitspowerfromfamilyrelation-shipsthathaveindeedbeenforgedbythe(unconsummated)marriage,especiallythoseofdaughterandmother-in-law.Helenderivesherfree-domtowriteinsuchaconfidentwaytotheCountess–topresumeuponthegoodgraceofherasmother-in-law–fromtherelationshipsthathersonnetinvokesratherthanmerelyreportsordescribes.Thedoubleappellation,‘mydearestmaster,yourdearson’,tieshertotheolderwomanthroughasharedbondwithBertram.Asdescriptions,thesephrasesareredundant;butasinvocationstheyservetoplacead-dresserandaddresseeinareciprocalrelationshipwhichcombinestiesofsocialsubordinationandfamiliallove.Theopeninglineislikewiseaperformativetransformationofstatusratherthanadescription:itistheverbalactionbywhichHelentransformsherselffromdisappointedwifetopenitentpilgrim.Helenisthusacutelyawareofthepoweroftheperformative.HavingachievedBertraminnamethroughtheKing’spromise,shenowengagesinfurtherillocutionaryacts(‘bless’,‘sanctify’and‘forgive’)throughthesonnet:Blesshimathomeinpeace,whilstIfromfarHisnamewithzealousfervoursanctify.Histakenlaboursbidhimmeforgive...
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysDespitetheself-recriminatorytoneofthesonnet,Helendoesnotrelin-quishherownagency.Seekingtoundotheconsequencesofhertrans-lationofBertramintoreticenthusband,willingsoldierandsupposedstrangertohis‘courtlyfriends’,sheimposesupontheCountessalltheurgencyofherownwill.‘Write,write’,shechargeshersociallysuperioraddressee,inacommandconveyedthroughthemouthofamediatingservant.TheimmediatesuccessofthatinjunctionissignalledintheCountess’sreiterationofthecommandinallitsurgencybacktoandthroughhersubordinate:‘Write,write’,sheenjoinshersteward,‘Tothisunworthyhusbandofhiswife’(..–).ShetherebyacceptsandadoptsHelen’sperformativeagency.Thecircuitofthissonnetisthereforecircuitous.Beginningasaself-recriminatingrenunciationof‘ambitiouslove’,itisreversedviatheCountess,whore-imposestheobligationofthatloveuponarecalci-tranthusbandandwaywardson.Itisarebukethatachievestheverycontraryofwhatitappearstosay.ThewordsthatitprovokesfromtheCountess–‘Ahwhatsharpstingsareinhermildestwords!’(..)–suggestthemselvesasamottooftheplayer-poet’ssonnetstohisyoungman,similarlydistantanddesiredasanobjectof‘ambitiouslove’.Suchstingsare,ofcourse,notwrittenontheplainfaceofthepoemorthesonnets.WhydoesHelendirecthersonnettohermother-in-lawandnottoherhusband?Becauseitsperformativeappealwouldpasshimby.Hewouldnotrecogniseoracknowledgethemoralforce,thestingingirony,ofherself-abnegation.Ittakessocialpressure–apublicaudienceofsomepower–togetBertramtoacknowledgebothhisownunworthi-nessandwhatitmeanstobetold,inthefullestsenseofthewordandtherelationship,‘ofhiswife’(..).Helenisawareofthataudience,and,likehercreator,sheplaystoitsgallerywithallthetheatricalpowershecanmuster.Thatpower(whichissimultaneouslyarecognitionofherlackofpower)liesintheknowledgethatthe‘mildestwords’cancontainthe‘sharpeststings’,andinthecannywayinwhichthissonnetunderstandstheindirectionsbywhichsuchstingingwordsmustachievetheirends.Liketheplayer-poet’ssonnetstoasimilarlyuntrustworthy,aloofandintenselydesiredyoungman,Helen’ssonnetclaimsto‘sanctify’thebeloved’s‘name’whilesimultaneouslyrecognisingthatherownname(asaddresser)achieves,atleastintheeyesofsome,thecontraryeffectForanaccountofsuchindirectionsinthediscoursesofpoliteness,seeLynneMagnusson,ShakespeareandSocialDialogue:DramaticLanguageandElizabethanLetters(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,).
Transformationsthroughitscontaminatingaction.Thedifferencebetweenthesonnetsandthissonnetliesinthebroadersocietythroughwhichtheirperfor-mativesmayormaynotachievetheirgoals.Inaperhapsdeliberateactofcreativewish-fulfilment,thedramatist-poetcreatesasocialworldthatisgenerallysympathetictotheclaimsofHelen’speculiarly‘ambitiouslove’.TheQuartolacksboththemiraculouscureofthemonarchandagenerallybenevolentcourtthatmaybeseducedintosidingwiththedeservingunderdog.Thatisnottosay,however,thattheQuartosonnetscandispensewiththeengagementofanaudience–similarly,throughindirection–bywhichHelen’sletter-sonnetfindsitsmark.Hertaskistofindawayoftransformingthestatusshesuffersinthelimboofanunconsummatedmarriagethroughadifferentkindofperformative,onethatbecomesapparentonlywhenshehearsofherhusband’sdesireforDiana.Onlythencansheusetheforceofthatdesiretotransforma-tivepurposes,showinghowinBertram’slustandloathing‘veryforceentangles/Itselfwithstrength’(AntonyandCleopatra,..–).Heretheasymmetryofpowerbetweenmenandwomenisacutelynoted:ifitisinthepowerofmentotransformthemereceremonyofmarriageintothethingitselfthroughtheforceofwill,womennotoriouslylacksuchdirectpower.Tothemfalltheindirectionsofthebed-trick,bywhichtheforceofillegitimatemaledesiremaybedeflected,performatively,toturnthemfrom‘name’into‘thing’.ThesecondofthesonnetsinAll’sWellthatEndsWellisequallyintrigu-ingintermsofitssituationofaddress.IthasreceivedevenlessattentionthanHelen’s,perhapsbecause,havingonlyninelines,itdoesnotappeartobeasonnetatall.TheFirstLordDumaine,however,callsitasonnet.Thedramaticallyeffectivehiatusbetweentheopeningandsubsequentlinesindicatesthatafullsonnetisbeingsuggesteddramaticallyratherthanreplicatedtextually:Here’tis,here’sapaper.ShallIreadittoyou?Idonotknowifitbeitorno.(aside)Ourinterpreterdoesitwell.(aside)Excellently.(readstheletter)‘Dian,theCount’safool,andfullofgold.’ThatisnottheDuke’sletter,sir.ThatisanadvertisementtoapropermaidinFlorence,oneDiana,totakeheedoftheallurementofoneCountThefirstline,whichrhymeswithnothingthatfollows,suggeststhatthethreelinesthatwouldmakeupthefirstquatrainwithatraditionalababrhymeschemearenotreadoutaloud.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysRoussillon,afoolishidleboy,butforallthatveryruttish.Iprayyou,sir,putitupagain.Nay,I’llreaditfirst,byyourfavour.Mymeaningin’t,Iprotest,wasveryhonestinthebehalfofthemaid,forIknewtheyoungCounttobeadangerousandlasciviousboy,whoisawhaletovirginity,anddevoursupallthefryitfinds.(aside)Damnableboth-sidesrogue.(reads)‘Whenheswearsoaths,bidhimdropgold,andtakeit.Afterhescoresheneverpaysthescore.Half-wonismatchwellmade;match,andwellmakeit.Hene’erpaysafter-debts,takeitbefore.Andsayasoldier,Dian,toldtheethis:Menaretomellwith,boysarenottokiss.Forcountofthis,theCount’safool,Iknowit,Whopaysbefore,butnotwhenhedoesoweit.Thine,ashevowedtotheeinthineear,Paroles.’(..–)LikeHelen’s,Paroles’ssonnettakesacircuitousroute.Addressedonbe-halfofBertramtoDiana,itisreadoutpubliclytoawideraudiencebysomeoneotherthanitsauthor.Theusualdirectionsofaddressarere-versedinacomicsplittingofauthorshipandthereintegrationoftheauthorintotheaudience:bothBertramasthesupposed‘begetter’ofthesonnetandParolesastheproxyauthorarenowmembersofthesonnet’saudience.Thesonnet,asitturnsout,isneitherablazonofDiana’sbeautynorthe‘loyalcantonsofcontemn`edlove’(TwelfthNight,..)thatOrsino’sproxypromisestodeliveronhisbehalf.Itisahard-headedpieceofadvicetoBertram’sobjectofdesiretoinsistonpaymentinadvance.ButitisalsoapieceofbluntwooingbyParoles‘forhimself’.Again,likeHelen’ssonnet,Paroles’sisnotmerelydescriptive.Itwarnsaboutthedangersofinvolvingoneselfwith‘boys’,andfollowsthatwarningCf.MuchAdoAboutNothing,..–:’Tiscertainso,thePrincewoosforhimself.FriendshipisconstantinallotherthingsSaveintheofficeandaffairsoflove.Thereforeallheartsinloveusetheirowntongues.Leteveryeyenegotiateforitself,Andtrustnoagent;forbeautyisawitchAgainstwhosecharmsfaithmeltethintoblood.Thisisanaccidentofhourlyproof,WhichImistrustednot.Farewell,therefore,Hero.OrsinoisquicktoassumeasimilardegreeoftreacheryinCesario’sproxywooing.
Transformationswithafrankinsinuationofhimselfinhismaster’splace.ThatBertramshouldnowbetheprimaryaudienceofthissupposedslander,writtensimultaneouslyuponandinhisname,isbothcomicallyandmorallyappropriate.Abynoweagerwitnesstotheundoingofhiscompan-ion(‘Ourinterpreterdoesitwell’),hesuddenlyfindshimselfundonethroughthestingingrepresentationofhimselfasa‘foolishidleboy’and‘whaletovirginity’.Thisispossibleonlybecausetheoccasionispublic.Bertramasspectatorisuncomfortablypositionedintolookingathim-selfastheobjectofthepejorativegaze:theplotterhoistwithhisownpetard.WhereastheLordsDumainecanlaughattheoutlandishnessofParoles’sslandersuponthemselves–treatingthemasaseriesofen-tertainingfictions,laughableintheirextravagance–Bertramcanonlysquirmandsulkbecausethesonnetthatreflectssobadlyonhimdoessoinhisownname.TheSecondLordDumaninepointedlyasksParolesforacopyofit.LikethesonnetfoundbyHolofernesinLove’sLabour’sLostandreroutedtoanotherrecipient,Paroles’ssonnetwillrecirculatefarfromitsoriginalpointofaddressasindelibletestimonyofits‘onliebegetter’s’moralfailure.Thismovementrepresentstherecirculationofsonnetsasalienabletextsbeyondthecontroloftheirauthors.Itsuggeststhattheimportofthesonnetasaformofessentiallypublicdiscourseextendedevenbeyondthe‘privatefriends’towhomthepoetmighthavewishedtoconfinehisorherwork(seeMarotti,JohnDonne).ThereisnodirectcorrelationbetweenShakespeareandParoles.Wheeler,whohasalsonoticedastructuralsimilaritybetweenthem,remarksthat‘thehandlingofParoles...suggestsasavageparodyoftheloveexpressedfortheyoungfriendintheSonnets’(Shakespeare’sDevelop-ment,).Asamanoffictivewordsandborrowedclothes,amemberofalowlyprofessionwholivesoffayoungaristocratthroughfriendshipandflattery,Parolessuggeststheprofessionandthepositionofthewriterofthesonnets.Heisdislikedandresentedbytheyoungcount’snoblecontemporaries,accusedofdishonouringBertram’snamethroughhismereproximitytohimandofactivelyleadinghimastray.Butthereisnoevidenceintheplayitselfofthelattervice.EvenifParolesdoeslittletodiscourageBertramfromheadstrongbehaviour,theaccusationsarenomorethanaclass-consciousprojectionofBertram’slackofpropernobilityontoaconvenientscapegoat,andtheplotthatunmasksParolesturnsouttobemoredamagingtoBertram.Ifanything,Paroles’ssonnetHeisthereforehoodwinkedtwice:bythebed-trickandbythetrickplayeduponParoles.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaystoDianasuggestsbothhisclear-headedawarenessoftheshallownessofhisaristocraticcompanionandhisreadinesstoengageinsexualrivalrywithhim.Paroles’sresponsetohisgullingissimilartothosefinalsonnetsinwhichtheplayer-poetaffirmshisindependentintegrity.‘Whocannotbecrushedwithaplot?’(..),Parolesasks,aquestionthatbothuni-versaliseshisconditionandlooksironicallyforwardtoBertram’sownundoingbythebed-trick.Moresignificant,however,ishisclear-headedaffirmationofidentityandagency:CaptainI’llbenomore,ButIwilleatanddrinkandsleepassoftAscaptainshall.SimplythethingIamShallmakemelive.Whoknowshimselfabraggart,Lethimfearthis,foritwillcometopassThateverybraggartshallbefoundanass.Rust,sword;cool,blushes;andParolesliveSafestinshame;beingfooled,byfool’rythrive.There’splaceandmeansforeverymanalive.I’llafterthem.(All’sWellThatEndsWell..–;emphasisadded)Comparesonnet:bettertobevilethenvileesteemed,Whennottobe,receiuesreproachofbeing,Andtheiustpleasurelost,whichissodeemed,Notbyourfeeling,butbyothersseeing.ForwhyshouldothersfalseadulterateyesGiuesalutationtomysportiueblood?Oronmyfrailtieswhyarefrailerspies;WhichintheirwilscountbadwhatIthinkgood?Noe,IamthatIam,andtheythatleuellAtmyabuses,reckonvptheirowne,Imaybestraightthoughtheythem-seluesbebeuelBytheirranckethoughtes,mydeedesmustnotbeshownVnlessethisgeneralleuilltheymaintaine,Allmenarebadandintheirbadnesseraigne.If,insonnetssuchasand,theplayer-poetsuffersundertheclass-directedgazeofpublicopinion,andinsonnethealignshimselfwiththatgazeforhisownpurposes,sonnetmarksashiftawayfromsuchapublicworldaltogether,throughanaffirmationofpersonalindepen-denceandintegritythatisdiscernibleindramaticcharactersasdifferentasParolesandEdmund,BottomandIago,FalstaffandAchilles.Insofaras
Transformationsitisdifficulttotellwhetherthe‘sportiueblood’thatfeaturesinsonnetisanacceptedqualityoftheplayer-poetoraprojectionof‘frailerspies’,itissimilartotheequivocatinginsinuationsofsonnet.Thepointofthepoem,however,liesnotinwhetherornotthewriterisguiltyofthebehaviourattributedtohimbyaworldsteepedinintrigue,conspiracyandvice.Itliesintheclear-headedperformativethatinformsthesonnetateverylevel:itsdeclarationofindependence,which,inthewordsoftheOldTestamentdivinity,refusesjudgementinthenameofaresolutelyegalitarianprinciple.Howdifferentsonnetisfromothersonnets,suchassonnetbelow,inwhichtheworldofpublicopinionisabjured:urloueandpittiedothth’impressionfill,Whichvulgarscandallstamptvponmybrow,ForwhatcareIwhocallesmewellorill,Soyouore-greenemybad,mygoodalow?YouaremyAlltheworld,andImuststriue,Toknowmyshamesandpraisesfromyourtounge,Noneelsetome,norItononealiue,Thatmysteel’dsenceorchangesrightorwrong,InsoprofoundAbismeIthrowallcareOfothersvoyces,thatmyAdderssence,Tocryttickandtoflattererstoppedare:MarkehowwithmyneglectIdoedispence.Youaresostronglyinmypurposebred,Thatalltheworldbesidesmethinkesy’aredead.Heretheyoungmandisplaces‘alltheworld’inamovethatwerecognisefromsonnet:throughawithdrawalintoa‘private’worldofmutualloveinwhichtheloversliveasreflectionsofeachother’slight.‘Loverscanseetodotheiramorousrites/Bytheirownbeauties’(RomeoandJuliet,..–),asJulietputsit.Sonnetneitherdeclarestheinnocenceofitsspeakernorproclaimshistranscendenceofasocialexistence.‘Vulgarscandall’,whetherashisacknowledgedbadbehaviourorasaformofprojectioninscribeduponhimbytheillthoughtsofaprejudicedpub-lic,indubitablymarkstheplayer-poet’sexistencewithinasocialworld.Turninghisbackonthatworldinanaffirmationofthebeloved’sopinionisneitheradeclarationoftotal,individualindependencenoradenialofany‘shames’thatmayaccruetohim.ItmerelyshrinksthatsocialworldtoaDonne-likecouple,reaffirmingthepublicexistenceoftheindividualthroughtheotherbyturningtheconventionallover’splatitudethat‘youarealltheworldtome’intoanintensifiedrecognitionofdependency.Bycontrast,appearstogofurtherthanmerelydeclaringtheworld
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysoutsidetherelationship‘dead’aslongasthebelovedplayshisroleby‘ore-green[ing][his]bad’and‘alow[ing][his]good’.ItsJehoviantautol-ogy,eschewingtherelativismbywhichoneloverexistsasamirrortotheother,rejectsnotonlythe‘othersvoyces’thatmakeupabroaderpublicof‘cryttickand...flatterer’(sonnet),butalso,crucially,thedependencyuponthebelovedthatissostronglyaffirmedin.Forallitsdeclarativeforce,remainsapleaforreciprocity.Itaffirms‘loueandpittie’initsopeninglineinordertobringitintobeing.Sonnet,ontheotherhand,refuseseventhatreducedworldoffragiledependenceandreciprocity.ThisistherefusalthatwerecogniseinParoles’sremarkablyclear-headeddeclarationofindependence,evidentinthereliefwithwhichheacceptsalifelived‘safestinshame’andresolvesthat‘beingfool’d,byfoolerythrive’.Paroles’sfateafterthisdeclarationremindsusthatnospeechact,howeverresounding,candenyaperson’sexistenceasasocialbeing.Thefailedsocialupstartfindsanew,andattimeshumiliating,existenceforhimselfservingtheLordLafew.Thedeclarationofindependencethattheplayer-poetmakesthroughtheimplicationofthecommon,ironicallylevelling‘badness’inwhich‘allmen...raigne’mightdissolvethehumiliatingpressuresofspecificties,butlifemustgooninitsrelationtoamyriadofotherconstructiveandtrammellingsocialrelationships.Sonnet,withitscuriouslyfalling,tenuousrhymesanditsattempttorationalisethemoralturpitudeoftakingbackagiftalreadygiven,isreminiscentofthenatureoftheworldfromwhichtheplayer-poetderiveshisstrengthandscandalalike.Itconfirmstheonlypowerbywhichhe,likeParoles,couldbea‘king’inaworldthatconspirestounmaskhim:theworldofflatteringdreams:rewellthouarttoodeareformypossessing,Andlikeenoughthouknowstthyestimate,TheCharterofthyworthgiuestheereleasing:Mybondsintheearealldeterminate.ForhowdoIholdtheebutbythygranting,Andforthatritcheswhereismydeseruing?Thecauseofthisfaireguiftinmeiswanting,Andsomypattentbackagaineissweruing.Thyselfethougau’st,thyowneworththennotknowing,Ormeetowhomthougau’stit,elsemistaking,Sothygreatguiftvponmisprisiongrowing,Comeshomeagaine,onbetteriudgementmaking.ThushaueIhadtheeasadreamedothflatter,InsleepeaKing,butwakingnosuchmatter.
TransformationsThetwosonnetsfromAll’sWellsuggestdifferentthematicconnectionswithShakespeare’sQuarto.Theyalsoillustratethecircuitousroutesofcirculationthatthesonnetasaformofsocialactionmighttake,especiallywithregardtothepossibilitiesofmultipleaudiencesandthecapacityofsuchaudiencestousethesonnetinamultiplicityofrelationsofaddressanddirection.Paroles’ssonnetisakindofperformativemirror.ItshowsBertramtohimselfandtheworldatlargeviathewordsofhisclosestcompanion.ManyofShakespeare’ssonnetsdothesamething.Takesonnet:nneofselfe-louepossessethalmineeie,Andallmysoule,andalmyeuerypart;Andforthissinnethereisnoremedie,Itissogroundedinwardinmyheart.Methinkesnofacesogratiousisasmine,Noshapesotrue,notruthofsuchaccount,Andformyselfemineowneworthdodefine,AsIallotherinallworthssurmount.ButwhenmyglasseshewesmemyselfeindeedBeatedandchoptwithtandantiquitie,MineowneselfelouequitecontraryIreadSelfe,soselfelouingwereiniquity,T’isthee(myselfe)thatformyselfeIpraise,Paintingmyagewithbeautyofthydaies,Thepeculiarityofthissonnetliesinitsunusualdegreeandtypeofself-accusation.Ifself-loveisthefaultofanyoneinthesequence,itisthatoftheyoungman,whosepersistentself-absorptionliesatthecentreofthefirstseventeenpoems,isopenlycastigatedinsonnet(‘Youtoyourbeautiousblessingsaddeacurse,/Beingfondonpraise,whichmakesyourpraisesworse’)andistheoccasionforthechillingvaledictoryadmonitioninsonnet.Self-absorptionofthekindattributedtotheyoungmanandembodiedbyBertraminvolvesaperverserefusaltoseeoneselfinthesocialglassbywhichothersmight‘modestlydiscovertoyourself/Thatofyourselfwhichyouyetknownotof’(JuliusCaesar,..–).Itbetraysanincapacityforthekindofself-reflectionviaothersthatleadstoamorallyenrichingformofshame.Noreasonisevergivenfortheyoungman’srefusaltohaveachild,otherthantheenigmatichintofanaversiontoheterosexualrelationshipsSeeLarsEngle,‘“IamthatIam”:Shakespeare’sSonnetsandtheEconomyofShame’,inShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays,ed.Schiffer,–.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysinsonnet,whichcastigatesthenobleyouthforhis‘wilfulltasteofwhatthyselfrefusest’,presumablyintheformoftheplayer-poet’smistress.Inhisthwartedreluctancetomarryandhissubsequentrefusaltoconceiveachildwithhiswife,Bertramembodiestheunreflecting,youthful,upper-classarroganceofsucharefusal.Sucharroganceisimpervioustoitsownimageasitisreflectedinthepronouncedjudgementsofthesocietyatlarge.ThatiswhyParoles’ssonnet,reproducedandredistributedbytheLordDumaine,issosignificant.ItreflectsBertramtohimselfandtoothersviathepoeticwritingsofacharacterwhoisgenerallyconsideredunworthybecauseofhisinappropriatesocialambition.Thesonnetsucceedsinshamingtheyoungaristocratintheeyesoftheworld,notbecauseoftheexorbitantbehaviourofitscomposer,butbecauseofthehometruthsthatitrevealsaboutthenobleyouth.Theplayer-poetofthesonnetsadmits,shortlybeforetheendofthesequencetotheyoungaristocrat,thathisname‘receiuesabrand’fromhis‘publickmeanswhichpublickmannersbreeds’(sonnet).Further-more,hehas‘made[himself]amotleytotheview’and‘looktontruth/Asconceandstrangely’(sonnet).Butwhysuchapersonshouldaccusehimselfofblindself-absorptionisunclear.Unlessthepoemisanothermirror,aresponsetothefailureofanearlierinjunctiontotheyoungmanto‘Lookeinthyglasseandtellthefacethouvewest,/Nowisthetimethatfaceshouldformeanother’(sonnet).Inthatpoemitisnotenoughfortheyoungmanmerelytolookintohismirror.Thepoemitselfmirrorsthatlookinginordertoreflecttheyoungman’snarcissismbackuponhimself.Itturnsmerereflectionintoamoreurgentformofself-reflectionthroughitsperformativeinjunctionstothebelovedtoseemorethanmerelyhismirroredimageinhisglass:tolet‘all[his]eye’be‘possessed’(sonnet)withsomethingmorethan‘self-love’:okeinthyglasseandtellthefacethouvewest,Nowisthetimethatfaceshouldformeanother,Whosefreshrepaireifnowthounotrenewest,Thoudoo’stbeguiletheworld,vnblessesomemother.Forwhereisshesofairewhosevn-eardwombeDisdainesthetillageofthyhusbandry?Orwhoishesofondwillbethetombe,Ofhisselfelouetostopposterity?ThouartthymothersglasseandsheintheeCallsbackethelouelyAprillofherprime,Sothouthroughwindowesofthineageshaltsee,Dispightofwrinklesthisthygouldentime.Butifthouliueremembrednottobe,DiesingleandthineImagedieswiththee.
TransformationsTheyoungmanisenjoinedtoaddressthatimage,totransformitfromstaticreflectiontolivingentity.Freeindirectspeechallowsthepoettomergehisvoicewiththatoftheyoungman,fusingthe‘thou’ofhispoeticaddresswiththespeechoftheyouthtalkingtohimself.Aneditorwhofollowedthisreadingmightplacelines–inquotationmarks,tomarkthemasanimagined,displaced,exteriorisedvoiceofself-reflection,simultaneouslyenjoinedandreflectedbythepoemitself.Assuchtheywouldbereadastherepresentedspeechoftheyoungman.Butitisperhapsmoreusefultoseethetwovoicesdiverging–the‘thous’splitbetweentwodifferentreferents–inthecourseofthesecondquatrain.Eachofthetwoquestionscouldthenbereadasbeingdirectedbytwodifferentpersonae,reflectingtwodifferentmoralattitudes.Thefirst,(‘Forwhereisshesofairwhosevn-eardwombe/Disdainesthetillageofthyhusbandry?’)wouldbetheself-satisfiedcomplacencyofadoles-centarroganceaddressingitself;thesecond,theinterrupting,oldervoiceofmoralreprimand(‘Orwhoishesofondwillbethetombe/Ofhisselflouetostopposterity?’).Thisdifferentiatesthesexistassump-tionofwomenasthepassivevehicleofmale‘husbandry’inthefirstquestionfromanimplicitmoraljudgementonthatveryattitudeinthesecond.Italsogivesunqualifiedweighttotheadmirationoftheyoungman’smotherastheoriginofthebeautythathereflects:‘Thouartthymothersglasseandsheinthee/CallsbackthelouelyAprillofherprime’.Despitethepassiveimageofyoungmanasmirror,andthefemalepassivityinthesecondquatrain,theyoungman’smotherhere‘callsback’herownprime,gazingathersonasheisdirectedtogazeathimselfintheopeningofthepoem.(Takeninthissense,thenotionthatmotherhoodisa‘blessing’(line)neednotbetakenaspatronis-ing.)Themother’sproductivegazeissharedbythepoet.Hecharac-teristicallyungendersbeauty,notinasinglereflectedimage,butasachainofrelationsofreflectionandrecallproducedthroughthepoemitself.Thereisacrucialdifference,then,betweenthesterile,narcissisticreflectionoftheyoungmanintheimagethathisglassreturnstohim,andthecapacityofhismother(andotherssuchasthepoet)torecallherpristinebeautythroughhim.Thatdifferenceismarkedbythespeechactsperformedbythepoem:bythefactthattheyoungmanistoldnotmerelytoviewhimselfinthemirror,butalsotoenactbeforethatreflectedselfthelessonagainstself-absorptionthatthepoemperforms.Thepoemthusdifferentiatesbetweentwokindsofreflection.Oneistheself-indulgentreflectionofself-love.Theotherisaproductiverelationshipinwhichtheself,initiallycaughtupintheconfiningmirrorofself-love,isreleasedby
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysanawarenessoftheindividual’sdebttoothers,inthemodeof‘shame’analysedbyEngle.Seeninthislight,sonnetmaybereadasanindirectwayofmirroringtheyoungman’sself-absorptiontohimselfandtoawideraudience,asParoles’ssonnetdoes.Itattempts,throughthemimicryofthediscourseofself-love,toinhabitthevoiceoftheyoungmaninthehopethathewillrecogniseinitnotonlyhisownmoralentrapmentinhisownimage,butalsoawayoutofthatentrapmentthroughreciprocity.Thepoemre-enactstheearliermomentinsonnetbywhichthemirrorbecomesanescapefromself-absorptionthroughitsmirroringoftheselfthroughothers:‘Selfe,soselflouingwereiniquity,/’Tisthee(myselfe)thatformyselfIpraise,/Paintingmyagewithbeautyofthydaies’.Althoughtheolderplayer-poetherespeaksinhisownperson,thepoemattemptstoinduceintheyoungmanthesamesenseofreciprocity–themirroringofselfthroughtheother–intermsofwhichitrenouncesitsown‘self-love’.Itseekstoinduceintheyoungman–throughtheveryinternalisingofthepoeticspeechofwhichVendlerandWrightwrite–arecognitionofhisown‘iniquity’bymimickinghisstanceandvoice.‘Thenameandnotthething’.ThereliestherubforbothHelenandParoles.Eachmaybesaidtobethenameratherthanthethingforphilosophicallysimilar,thoughnotidentical,reasons.Parolesisasoldierinnameonlybecausehefailstoembodytheperformativeactionsthatthenameimplies.Hislossofthedrum,coupledwiththecowardiceandtreacherywithwhichhecapitulatesonbeing‘captured’,provehimnosoldieratall:thingandnamearediscrepantbecausethethingdoesnotliveuptothename.Hisbehaviourunderinterrogationstripshimofthe‘name’ofasoldier,sothathefinallyacceptshisbare‘thingness’,asitwere:‘SimplythethingIam/Shallmakemelive’.ThisdoesnotmeanthatParolesceasestobeasocialbeing,constitutedbyandsubjectto‘names’inahierarchyofdeferenceanddifferencereflectedandkeptinplacethroughlanguage.Thebriefscenethatprecedesthefinalact,inwhichParolesisforcedtoendurethedoublehumiliationofLavatch’sscatologicalhumourandhisownbeggingtoLafewforsupport,showsthesocialupstartfindinghis‘proper’place,whichisineffect,findinghis‘proper’name.Thedisjunctionbetweennamesandthings,underscoredsopoint-edlybyHeleninthescenetocome,iscomicallyemphasisedasLavatchtakesliterallywhatParolesintendstobeameremetaphorofhisdisgrace:‘Ihaveerenowbeenbetterknowntoyou,sir,whenIhaveheldfamiliarly
Transformationswithfresherclothes.ButIamnow,sir,muddiedinFortune’smood,andsmellsomewhatstrongofherstrongdispleasure’(..–).WhatParolesmeansasmerewords,Lavatchmischievouslytakestobethethingsthem-selves:Paroles’smisfortuneturnshiminto‘Fortune’sclose-stool’(..),hissocialdisgraceannouncingitselfinthestigmaofpigsty.IfLavatchdelightsintreatingwordsasthingsbytakingParoles’smetaphorliterally,heissmartenoughtounderscoreinhispartingremarkthefactthatwordscannotsubstitutefordeeds:‘Idopityhisdistressinmysimilesofcomfort,andleavehimtoyourworship’(..–).LafewfinallyoffersParolesnot‘similes’ofcomfort,butrealcompassion:‘Thoughyouareafoolandaknave,youshalleat’(..).Whatthen,dowemakeofthe‘similesofcomfort’tobefoundinoneofthemostcelebratedofShakespeare’ssonnets?enindisgracewithFortuneandmenseyes,Iallalonebeweepemyout-caststate,Andtroubledeafeheauenwithmybootlessecries,Andlookevponmyselfeandcursemyfate.Wishingmeliketoonemorerichinhope,Featur’dlikehim,likehimwithfriendspossest,Desiringthismansart,andthatmansskope,WithwhatImostinioycontentedleast,Yetinthesethoughtsmyselfealmostdespising,HaplyeIthinkeonthee,andthenmystate,(LiketotheLarkeatbreakeofdayearising)FromsullenearthsingshimnsatHeauensgate,Forthysweetloueremembredsuchwelthbrings,ThatthenIskornetochangemystatewithKings.(sonnet)Theremarkablethingaboutthissonnetisthewayinwhich,incompletecontrasttoParoles(andHelen,forthatmatter),itseemstofindsolaceintherejectionofperformativeactionasaresponsetoasocialsituation.Thefirstpartofthepoemconsistsofacatalogueoffruitlessperforma-tivesthatsignaleitherprivationorcomplaint:‘beweepe’,‘troubledeafeheauenwithmybootlessecries’,‘cursemyfate’,‘wishing’,‘desiring’,‘withwhatImostinioycontentedleast’,‘myselfealmostdespising’.Theseareabandoned,however,‘withathought’,asthepoet-player’s‘state’–apassivecondition–replaceshisformeractions.‘Arising’fromaconditionas‘sullen’ashisformerstate,itnow‘singshimnsatHeauensgate’.Butfarfromtranscendingthesocialandpoliticalworldthatostracisesandcondemnstheplayer-poetintheearlypartofthepoem,thememoryofthebeloved’saffectionmerelyenableshimtoscornall
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysthatheformerlyenvied.Thesonnetdoesnotendonthetranscendental,religiousnotesoundedbythe‘hymns’atheaven’sgate.Rather,itsfinalemphasisison‘scorn’:theperformativeboastofthesuccessfulparvenu,possiblyasemptyasthoseoftheword-spinnerofAll’sWellthatEndsWell.Thecriticalcontroversythatthispoemhaselicitedconcernspreciselythequestionwhetherits‘similesofcomfort’aredelusoryoreffective:themerename,orthethingitself.Theanswertothisquestionliesnotinreducingorelevatingoneabovetheother,butintryingtoregisterthedifferencesthateachsonnetorplaybringstothequestion.Oneoftheremarkablequalitiesofsonnetisitscapacitybothtoenactthegenuine‘comfort’thatcanliein‘thought’andtoremindus(throughthepersis-tenceofperformativessuchas‘scorn’)thatthoughtisnotdisconnectedfromthematerialforcesoftheworld:‘Butah,thoughtkillsmethatIamnotthought’(sonnet).Wemaysaythesamethingaboutthevexedquestionofthingsandnames.Shakespeareoffersnotheorythatwillsettlethismatter.Henei-therlooksforwardtoapostmoderndogmawhichholdseitherthatthereisnoconnectionbetweenthemorthatnamesconstitutethings,norishecaughtinasupposedearlymodernviewoftheidentityoflanguageandtheworld.Weneedtoremindourselves,too,thatwhileShakespeareregistersthewayinwhichwordsarecentraltomisunderstandinganddeception,hedoesnotsubscribetothegeneralmodernistdoctrineoftheessentialunreliabilityoflanguage.Heplayslanguageasitcomes,registeringitsmultipleusesindifferentcontexts,formsoflife,socialor-ganisationsandtimes.ThegibberishspokenbyParoles’s‘captors’doesnotsymbolisetheemptinessoflanguage,asmanycriticshavesupposed,butratherthecapacityofhumanbeingstotransformsoundintomeaningthroughperformanceoruse.ThereisasystematicqualitytotheFrenchsoldiers’useofnonsensethatturnsitintoakindofsense,demonstrating,notthegapbetweenwordandsense,butthepowerofactiontoconvertsoundtosignificance.ThisbringsusbacktoHelen.Inwhatsensedoesshedeclareherself‘thenameandnotthething’attheendofAll’sWellthatEndsWell?WehaveseenwaysinwhichnamescanbedivorcedfromthingsinParoles’sfailuretobehavelikeasoldier.Wehavealsoseeninstancesinwhichnamesandthingsareinseparable,inthefactthatRomeocanbereducedtoneither‘hand,norfoot,/Norarm,norface,noranyotherpart/BelongingtoSee,forexample,JohnBarrell,‘EditingOut:theDiscourseofPatronageandShakespeare’sTwenty-ninthsonnet’,inPoetry,LanguageandPolitics(Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,),–.
Transformationsaman’–thatistosay,toa‘thing’withouta‘name’–andinthesonnets’derivationofnamesfromthingsasparadigmaticexamplesinsonnetsand.Ineachcase,therelationshipbetweennameandthingisdifferent,constitutedbyuseratherthanlinguisticstructure.Itcannotbeencompassedbyanysingletheoryoflanguageornames.WhenHelendeclarespubliclythatsheisamerename,shedoessoinacontextinwhich‘riddle’isplayedoffagainst‘meaning’,‘shadow’againstwhatis‘real’,the‘letter’againstthe‘ring’:...Andnowbeholdthemeaning.(EnterHelenandtheWidow)IstherenoexorcistBeguilesthetruerofficeofmineeyes?Is’trealthatIsee?No,mygoodlord,’Tisbuttheshadowofawifeyousee,Thenameandnotthething.Both,both.O,pardon!O,mygoodlord,whenIwaslikethismaidIfoundyouwondrouskind.Thereisyourring.And,lookyou,here’syourletter.Thisitsays:‘Whenfrommyfingeryoucangetthisring,Andarebymewithchild,’etcetera.Thisisdone.Willyoubeminenowyouaredoublywon?(totheKing)Ifshe,myliege,canmakemeknowthisclearlyI’llloveherdearly,evereverdearly.(..–)Toteaseouttheserelationshipsisasdifficultastocometoadecisionaboutthequalityoflovethattheyappeartoforge.Ihopetoshowthatnamesandlovearenotunrelated.Announcedasthe‘meaning’ofDiana’sriddle,Helenrespondsatfirstbyunderscoringherstatusasamere‘shadow’.Butitisnotasaghost(thussheappearstotheKingatfirst)thatshelackssubstance:itisasawife.Andthesubstancethatdistinguishesarealpersonfromaghostisverydifferentfromthesub-stancethatembodiesarealwife.Onecantellaghostfromapersonbytouchingthem;touchingHelenwill,however,revealnothingaboutthecriticaldifferencethatsheinsistsupon,becausethedifferenceiscon-ceptualandsocialratherthanphysical.Thatisnottosaythattouchingandthephysicalareirrelevant:theyare,infact,germane,butnotinthewayinwhichtheycomeintoplayindeterminingtheputativedifferencebetweenghostsandpeople.Helenisawifeinnameonlybecauseshehasnotengagedinthetransformativeactthatwillmakeherawife.Or
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysrather,shehasdoneso,butinanothername:inthenameofDiana,ofchastity.Inherownname,therefore,sheisinakindoflimbo:thenameofathing,butnotthethingnamed.Weshouldnotethatthisappearstobeastatus(orashadow-status)thatispeculiarlygendered.Ween-counteritinAll’sWell’ssisterplay,MeasureforMeasure,whereMariana,inanidenticalposition,isreducedtolessthana‘thing’,to‘nothing’:‘Why,youarenothingthen;neithermaid,widow,norwife!’(..–).AndBertram’sownacknowledgementthathesleptwithDianasimi-larlyinduceshimtodeclarethatthatperformancehasreducedherto‘nothing’.HissupposedseductionofDianadoesnot,however,trans-formherstatusinthesameway–tobehaveashedoes,itappears,issimplytolove‘asagentlemanlovesawoman’(All’sWellthatEndsWell,..).ThelimboinwhichMarianaandHelenfindthemselvesarisesfromthefactthatcertainconceptspertainingtosocial–especiallysexual–statusrequireperformativesextendingbeyondthemeresayingofcertainwords;theyrequirethatoneshoulddosomethingnon-linguisticaswell.Itisthis(sexual)actionthatisdecisivelytransformative,turningonefromamerenameintothethingitself,orfromname(‘maid’)into‘nothing’.Anunconsummatedmarriageisstill,inAustin’sterms,an‘unhappy’event:theveryconcept‘consummation’turnstheactionintoasymbolic,notamerelyphysicalone–anunspokenillocutionaryact,asitwere.Inthissense,wivesandhusbandsarenotthingsfoundintheworld,likerocksandtrees;theyaremadethroughsocialandpersonalaction.Helenisastudyofthepossibilitiesofmakingoneselfthroughsuchaction.Thedeferralofherstatusas‘proper’wife,throughtheunwilling-nessofonepartytogothroughwiththenecessaryperformativeaction,focusesespeciallyclearlyonthetangleoftheperformativeinitsrelationtointention.Withinthistangleisembroiledtherelationshipofindivid-ualtoinstitution,agencytostructure,desiretoconventionandtheper-sonaltopower.WhensheusestheKing’spromisetogivehertheyoungnoblemanofherchoiceasameansoftransformingherlowlystatusfromhopelesslower-classlovertoaristocraticwife,ourattentionisfocusedonthetensionwithinasocialinstitutionthatisbothavehiclethroughwhichpoliticalpowerisbrokeredandanillocutionaryactbywhichpeoplede-claretheirgiftofthemselvestooneanother.UnusuallyinShakespeare,itisthemanwhoisforonceforcedtobeartheburdenofchoosinglovebyanother’seyes,andwemissthecomplexityoftheplay’sexplorationofthebroaderissuesifweremaintotallyunsympathetictoBertram’spredicament,howevermuchwemaysidewithHeleninpersonalterms:
Transformations(toBertram)IdarenotsayItakeyou,butIgiveMeandmyserviceeverwhilstIliveIntoyourguidingpower.–Thisistheman.Whythen,youngBertram,takeher,she’sthywife.Mywife,myliege?Ishallbeseechyourhighness,InsuchabusinessgivemeleavetouseThehelpofmineowneyes.Know’stthounot,Bertram,Whatshehasdoneforme?Yes,mygoodlord,ButneverhopetoknowwhyIshouldmarryher.(..–)Bertram’sobjectiontoHelenonthepoliticallyappropriategroundsthatmarriagetoherwouldbeaformofdisparagement–thathewouldbedishonouredbybeingforced,asaward,tomarrysomeoneofalowerclass–runsupagainstthedeclaredpoweroftheKingtomakeupthelackingtitleorname:‘’Tisonlytitlethoudisdain’stinher,thewhich/Icanbuildup’(..–).ButtheKinggoesfurther.Therelationshipbetweenthingsandnamesisraisedonceagaininhispronouncementontheperformativenatureof‘virtue’:thecapacityforactionto‘dignify’the‘place’.Aftermusingonthe‘mighty’distinctionthatnamesimposeuponsomethingthatisotherwiseindistinguishableinitself(asa‘thing’),namely,humanblood,hedisparaginglymocksBertram’scommitmenttotheideologicalratherthanthesubstantial:Strangeisitthatourbloods,Ofcolour,weight,andheat,pouredalltogether,Wouldquiteconfounddistinction,yetstandsoffIndifferencessomighty.IfshebeAllthatisvirtuous,savewhatthoudislik’st–‘Apoorphysician’sdaughter’–thoudislik’stOfvirtueforthename.(..–)WhatisitthatBertramdislikes?Merelythewords–‘apoorphysician’sdaughter’–orthewomanherself?Andcanthesebeseparated?TheKingtakesasurprisinglyegalitarianviewthathonourandvirtueareperformativeconcepts.Weshowourselveshonourableorvirtuousbywhatwedo,ratherthanbythenameswecarry:Fromlowestplacewhenvirtuousthingsproceed,Theplaceisdignifiedbyth’doer’sdeed.Wheregreatadditionsswell’s,andvirtuenone,Itisadropsiedhonour.Goodalone
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysIsgoodwithoutaname,vilenessisso:Thepropertybywhatitisshouldgo,Notbythetitle.(..–)Thisisnotsurprising,comingfromthepenofthepersonwhowrotesonnetsand,andwecancertainlyjoinothercommentatorsinfeelingthattheplayer-dramatistspeakshereintheappropriatednameoftheKing,ifnotexactlytotakehisrevengeonayoungaristocratwhoinhispersonalexperienceplacedtoomuchfaithintheintrinsicworthofbloodandnames,thencertainlytomakeabroaderpointabouttheasymmetricalrelationshipbetweengoodnessandnobility.Incontrasttotheplayer-poet’snecessaryindirections,theKingcanbemadetospeakwithrealauthoritybytheplayer-dramatist,notonlydeclaringthatthe‘mereword’saslave’(..),butalsodisplayinghispowertoputsuchwordstouseinsociallyandpoliticallytransformativeways:‘Ifthoucanstlikethiscreatureasamaid,/Icancreatetherest’(..–).Acontradictionorconflictinformstheattitudetonamesandthings,then.Ontheonehand,thingsaredeclaredtohaveanintrinsicqualityquiteapartfromnames,whichtendtobemisleadinglytakenforthings.Ontheother,theverypowerofroyaltyto‘createtherest’atteststothepowerofnamestotransformthings.Sotoo,itisnotmerelythename,titleorepithetbywhichHelenisknown,as‘apoorphysician’sdaughter’,thatBertram‘disdains’;itisHelenherself.Helenbyanyothername,heissaying,wouldstillbeasrepulsive.InthefaceofBertram’sobstinacy,theKing,whohasjustdeliveredadisquisitiononthemisleadingcharacterofthename‘honour’,isforcedtoactinthenameofhisownhonour–‘Myhonour’satthestake,whichtodefeat/Imustproducemypower’(..–).Heproducesawitheringdisplayofsuchpower,forcingfromBertramanacknowledgementofhisauthorityto‘drive[dis]likingtothenameoflove’(MuchAdo,..):(kneeling)Pardon,mygraciouslord,forIsubmitMyfancytoyoureyes.WhenIconsiderWhatgreatcreationandwhatdoleofhonourFlieswhereyoubidit,Ifindthatshe,whichlateWasinmynoblerthoughtsmostbase,isnowTheprais`edoftheKing;who,soennobled,Isas’twerebornso.TakeherbythehandAndtellhersheisthine;towhomIpromiseAcounterpoise,ifnottothyestateAbalancemorereplete.(rising)Itakeherhand.(..–)
TransformationsBeforewecomedowntoohardonBertramasanindividual,weshouldnotethatnoneoftheyoungnoblemenwhowerepotentiallyobjectsofHelen’schoicewouldhaveacceptedher.Aphilosopherofspeechactsgiventothinkingtoonicelyuponthisscenewouldbestruckatoncebydifficultiesthatmayhavetheiroriginsinitshistoricaldistancefromus.Akingmaywellhavethepowertoforcesomeoneintoamarriageagainsttheirwill,butdoeshehavethepower(logicallyspeaking)toforcesomeonetogivethemselvesagainsttheirwill:to‘tellhersheisthine’?How‘happy’,inotherwords,areeachofthemultipleperfor-mativesinthisscene:theKing’scommandingthreats,Bertram’ssub-missionandrequestforpardon,thetransformationofHelen’sstatusthroughthe‘breathofkings’(RichardII,..),theKing’sinjunctionthatBertramacceptHelenbytellingherthatsheishisandBertram’ssubsequenttakingofherhand?Howhappyistheperformativetowardswhichthewholescenemoves,themarriageofHelenandBertram?Towhatdegree,finally,isthisexchangesuccessfulinturningHelenintoawife,and,averydifferentquestion,towhatdegreedoesitsatisfyherdesires?Afullanswertothisquestionwouldbeimpossiblylongandcomplex.Itwouldbecomplexinpartatleastbecauseitisuncertainhowthecon-ceptof‘love’thatliesbeneathitssurfaceistobetaken.WhentheKingdeclares,inhispartingline,‘Asthoulov’sther/Thylove’stomereli-gious;else,doeserr’(..),theominousdiscourseofimposedreligiousorthodoxy,immediatelyandpointedlytakenupbyLafew’sreferencetoBertram’s‘recantation’(..),renderstheissueevenmoreopaquetoamodernsensibility.TowhatdegreedoesitlieinthepowerofaKingtoenforce‘love’,whetherofasecularorreligiouskind?Andhowwouldsuch‘love’beregistered,enacted,performed?BertrampointedlyobeysonlyoneoftheKing’scommands.HetakesHelenbythehand,buthedoesnot(withinourearshotanyway)tellherthatsheishis,asHerotellsClaudioinMuchAdo(..).Wesubse-quentlyknowthatalthoughhe(presumably)carriesoutalltheperfor-mativesthatconstituteamarriage,heresolutelyrefusestoperformthefinalactthat,conventionally,turnsamanintoahusband,awomanintoawife.Whatkindof‘love’doestheKingexpectfromadutifulBertram?Andhowdoesitdifferfromthe‘love’thatHelenexpects?Presumably,loveastheKingunderstandsitdoesnotnecessarilyextendtoactuallylikingHelen.ItisenoughthatBertramacceptsthematchasasocialarrangement,beneficialineconomictermstoeachparty,andcertainlybeneficialinsocialtermstothe‘poorphysician’sdaughter’,justastheKingishimselffulfillinganobligationincurredpreviouslyinarranging
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysthemarriage.Suchamarriage,itseems,isindeedinthepoweroftheKingtocommand.ButtheKingcouldhardlycommandBertramtoloveHeleninadifferentsense:tofallinlovewithher,orfindherat-tractive,ordesireherorenjoyhercompanionship.WhereasitisintheKing’spowertocommandloveinthesenseofasecularandreligiouscontractoflifelongpartnership,itisnotintheKing’spowertoinsistuponacompanionatemarriage.Wantinga‘companionate’marriage,oratleastonebywhichshecanlosehervirginity‘toherownliking’(..),Helensuddenlycomesupagainstthelimitsoftheperformativeasanexerciseofpower,ratherthanasagift.TheKinggivesaccordingtohisbond,andalthoughthatissufficienttovalidatehispromisetoher,itisnotenoughforher.Shefindsherselfinthelimbobetween‘name’and‘thing’,theunhappyobjectofanonlypartiallyexercisedperformativebecause,althoughBertramperformsallthatisrequiredwithinthestrictlimitsofthemarriageceremony,hedoesnotgivehimselftoher;hetakesherhandbutrefusestotellherthatsheishis.IthinkthatwecanseesomethingofHelen’sanguishinthesonnets.TheparallelsbetweenHelenandtheplayer-poetlienotmerelyintheirself-sacrificiallove,butintheirstrugglestotransformtheirstatusandtheirrelationshipswiththosetheylovethroughperformativesthatareeithernotalwayswithintheircontrolordonotextendfarenoughinperformativeforce.ItisoneofthecentralinsightsofAustin’scontextual-ismthatsocialstatusandauthorityareintrinsictotheperformabilityofspeechacts:onlyanumpiremaydeclarearulinginasportsgame,onlyajudgemaypasssentence,onlyapriestormagistratemayofficiateatawedding.Whathasbeenlessoftennoticedbyphilosophersofspeechactsisthatspeechactsaremarkedbyagenderedasymmetry.So,inMuchAdoAboutNothing,asignificantpartofBeatrice’soutrageaftertheslanderofhercousinarisesfromthefactthat,asawoman,sheisstructurallypre-cludedfromengagingintheoneperformativethatmightrescueHero’sreputation:challengingClaudiotoaduel.InHelen’scase,itisimpossi-bleforhertocompletetheperformativeactthatwillconsummatehermarriageandturnherfromnametothingwithouttheconsentofherpartner.Theoppositeisnottrue.Itisinthephysicalpowerofamantoforcetheconsummationofamarriageagainstthewishesofhiswife,andwemustsupposethatthishappenedalltoooften.Theimpersonalpower,indeed,theviolenceinsomecases,oftheperformativeiscon-veyedespeciallystarklyinsuchacase:themarriagewouldbeconsideredconsummatedwhetherornotthewifeconsented.Thequestionis,then,doestheplayer-poetsufferfromasimilarkindofasymmetry?There
Transformationsisnodoubtthathisclasspositionplacesconsiderableconstraintsuponwhathemayormaynotsay,butitisnotmerelyamatterofclass,itistheintensifiedvulnerabilitythatarisesfromalackofsocialpowerandthepositionofbeseechinglover.Furthermore,isthelovethattheplayer-poetexpressesfortheyoungmangenderedinanyway?Howcloseishe,notmerelyinclassbutingenderterms,totheopenlydesiringbutsimilarlythwartedHelen?omansfacewithnaturesownehandpainted,HastethoutheMasterMistrisofmypassion,AwomansgentlehartbutnotacquaintedWithshiftingchangeasisfalsewomensfashion,Aneyemorebrightthentheirs,lessefalseinrowling:Gildingtheobiectwhere-vponitgazeth,AmaninhewallHewsinhiscontrowling,Whichstealesmenseyesandwomenssoulesamaseth.Andforawomanwertthoufirstcreated,Tillnatureasshewroughttheefelladotinge,Andbyadditionmeoftheedefeated,Byaddingonethingtomypurposenothing.Butsincesheprickttheeoutforwomenspleasure,Minebethyloueandthylouesvsetheirtreasure.SonnetisoneofthemostcontroversialoftheQuarto.Itisoneofthemostpuzzlingintermsofgenderidentityandhasbeenregardedasthekeytothequestionofthehomosexualityof,ifnotofShakespeare,thencertainlyofthepersonaofthesonnets.Itisoftentakentobede-cisiveproofoftheplatonicnatureoftherelationshipbetweenpoetandfairfriend,especiallysinceitappearstoclosewithadecisiveseparationof‘loue’and‘louesvse’:theformerbelongingtothemalepoet;thelat-tertowomenmoregenerally.Whatismostunusualaboutthepoem,however,isthewayinwhichittriestopositiontheaestheticappreciationthatispartofsexualdesire.Developingthesuggestioninsonnetthattheyoungmanishis‘mothersglasse’,inwhichshe‘callsbackthelouelyAprillofherprime’,sonnetisitselfakindofperformativemirror.The(male)poet,lookingattheyoungman,offersthesonnetasamirrorofhisbeauty,aglassthatdoesnotmerelyreflecthisimagebacktohim,butdisplacesitastheimagethatawomanseesofherself.Inthisrelativelysimpleway,themanistheimageofawomanwhoseesherselfinhim.ButseeJosephPequigny,SuchisMyLove:AStudyofShakespeare’sSonnets(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,),foraforcefulargumenttotheeffectthattherelationshipbetweenthepoetandtheyoungmanisfullyerotic.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysMoresignificantly,thevantagepointofthepoemmovesundecidablybetweenmaleandfemaleperspectives.Intheoctave,thepoemregistersmaleadmirationanddesirethroughthemetaphoricaltransformationofmalebeautyintofemaleloveliness,therebypreservingthesexualdiffer-encebetweenobserverandobservedthatwillallowforboth‘loue’and‘louesvse’.(Tosaythisistoimportnoextraneousprejudiceabouttheappropriatenessornotofhomosexualdesire;itissimplytomovewithinthepoem’sownargument.)Themaleperspectiveisunderscoredbythemisogynisttenorofthecomparison,bywhich,paradoxically,theyoungmanisseenasaperfectwoman,withoutthemoralblemishesthataresaidtomarkfemalesassuch.Butbythesestettheadmiring(male)perspectiveofthepoetiscon-fused.Thepoemsuddenlylookswiththeeyesofadesiringwoman.Itnowoccupiesthesubjectpositionthathasbeendisparagedearlierinitsgynophobicsolidaritywiththeaddressee:werealisethatwehavebeenlookingallalongattheyouththroughthefemaleeyesofNature.Theseeyesare,likeHelen’s,themediumofanintenselydesiringfemalesexualsubjectivity.Thepoemthereforeoscillatesbetweenmaleandfemalede-sireanddesirability,inbothitspositionofrepresentationandinthepo-sitionbeingrepresented.Theobjectofdesireisbothmaleandfemale;butsoisthedesiringsubject.Onlyattheveryendofthepoemisthechiasticconfusionofsexandgender‘naturalised’throughthetransfor-mativepowerof‘doting’Nature.Same-sexdesireintheformof(female)Nature’sloveforher(female)creatureisoccupied(inthesenseofbeingappropriated,takenover),imaginedandfeltinthesonnetjustasitisinplayssuchasAsYouLikeItandTwelfthNight,whichembodythepossi-bilitiesofhomosexualattraction.Justastheclosuresofthosecomedies,wherebyCesarioistranslatedintoViolaorGanymedeintoRosalind,normalisehomosexualattraction,sonnetinventsafictionwherebyNaturecan‘naturalise’herdesirebyasimple‘addition’.The‘thing’thusaddedtransformsthe‘name’ofbeauty.Butthishappensatthecostofexcludingthedesiringpoet.Itturns‘onething’into‘nothing’forhiseroticpurposes.ThisleavesthemirroringpoetinpreciselythepositionoccupiedbyNaturebeforehertransformativeintervention:ifbeforethatadditionhecouldlegitimatelyadmiretheyouthasawoman,nowheislikedotingNaturebeforeshewasabletotransformtheobjectofherdesireintoaman.Furthermore,thetriangularsituationnowanticipatesthesexualrivalryamongtheplayer-poet,theyoungaristocratandthedarkwoman,asNatureandthepoetdoteequallyuponashared‘MasterMistris’.
TransformationsThedifferencebetweenthepoetandNaturedoesnotlieinthelegiti-macyorotherwiseoftheirdesiresorperspectives;itliesinthefactthat,unlikeNature,thepoetlacksthecapacitytotransformthebelovedintoalegitimateobjectofdesire.Thepoemappears,ononereading,toresolvetheproblemthroughtheneat,implicitlymisogynistandPlatonicbifur-cationofloveintoplatonicandcarnalforms.StephenOrgelremindsus,however,ofRandallMcLeod’sandPeterStallybrass’ssuggestionsthatsuchareadingappearstobenaturalonlyinthemodernisedtext.Unmodernised,thecouplet‘doesinfactallowforanexplicitlysexualrelationshipbetweenthepoetandtheyoungman’since‘vse’maythenbereadasaverbratherthananounand‘loues’asitspluralsubject.Moreover,liketheplaysinwhichwearedrawnintotheplayfulrepre-sentationofdesirethatisneitherwhollymalenorfemale,neitherhetero-norhomosexual,neatclosurescannotundotherepresentedexperienceortakeawaythatfeltperspective.Havingsharedthedelightfulintensityofthelove-makingbetweenGanymedeandOrlando,orthelingeringsignsofhomosexualdesireinCesario’scross-dressedidentitybeyondtheendoftheplay,wecannotsimplypretendthatthesethingsneverhappenedorthattheyareobliteratedbyorthodoxcomicclosure.Theanti-theatricalpamphleteersunderstoodonlytoowellthedynamicsofimaginativerepresentationanditslibidinousforce.Theyalsounderstoodthatlanguageisnotameresubstituteforeroticforeplay,butamajor,performativemediumofsexualexchange.Thesimilaritiesthatcriticshavenotedbetweentheplayer-poetandHelencouldthusbesaidtobeprefiguredinsonnet,wherethesubjectpositionofadesiringwomanisinhabitedalongsidethatofalibidinousman.WeseetheyoungmanthroughNature’seyesbeforethefullprogressofthatperspectiveisblockedbythetransformationwroughtbythewomanherself.Afterthispoem,onemightsay,theyoungmanisalwaysseenthroughtheeyesofawoman.ThedifferencebetweenHelenandtheplayer-poet,whichisalsowhatbindshertoNature,isthat,likeNature,shehasthepowertotransformablockeddesireintoaconsummatedmarriage:toturn‘loue’into‘louesvse’.Hereinliesthesignificanceoftheinfamous‘bed-trick’.Beforeanythingelse,thebed-trickallowsHelentoputintoeffectherownfinaltransformationinstatusfromrejectedlovertoconfirmedwife.Itisacrucialperformative.ThatBertramisnotaconsciouspartytothistransformationmerelyspeaksofthepowerofconventiontoactimpersonallythroughtheperformativedespitetheStephenOrgel,Impersonations:ThePerformanceofGenderinShakespeare’sEngland(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,),.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysactiveintentionsoftheparties.HelentransformswhattoBertramisamuteactintoasignifyingone:oneinwhichheunwittinglyfulfilstheimpossibleconditionthatheimposeduponherandbindshimselfirrevocablytowhatwemightcall,paraphrasingJuliet,‘[his]onlylovesprungfrom[his]onlyhate’.Weshouldagainnotetheasymmetryoftheperformativesignificanceofthisact.ItisonlyaccidentallytransformativeforBertram;itis,however,necessarilytransformativeforbothHelenandDiana.Forthelatteritwouldmeanthereductionofhersocialandsexualstatustothat‘nothing’–thatexcludedfourth–embodiedbythewomanwhooccupiestheriddleofbeing‘neithermaid,widow,norwife’(MeasureforMeasure,..–).ThatdoesnotstopDianafromdeclaringhimherhusband,herselfhiswife,onthestrengthofhiswordsanddeeds:(totheKing)She’snoneofmine,mylord.IfyoushallmarryYougiveawaythishand,andthatismine;Yougiveawayheaven’svows,andthosearemine;Yougiveawaymyself,whichisknownmine,ForIbyvowamsoembodiedyoursThatshewhichmarriesyoumustmarryme,Eitherbothornone.(..–)Diana’sclaimaffirmsthetransformativepoweroftheperformative.ByhisthoughtlessvowsBertramhasnotonlyturnedwhatis‘his’intowhatis‘hers’;hehas‘embodied’herashimself.Intheend,Shakespeare’scomediestendtoresolvetheriddlebyconfirmingthewomanconcernedasoneofthetripartitepossibilitiesintheequation:DianaandHeroarefinallyconfirmed‘maids’,HelenandMarianaareeachproved‘wives’.Nowhereistheexcludedfourthpositionasthoroughlyexploredasinthesonnets,where,ifthedarkwomanoccupiesnoneofthelegitimatepositions,sheisnot‘nothing’either.Thesenseofreciprocityforgedthroughtheperformativeexchangeofvows,whichisthespinthatRomeo(disingenuously)putsonhisrequestfor‘satisfaction’,iswhatthesonnetsstriveforbutcannotachieve.Inthecaseoftheyoungaristocrat,despitetheplayer-poet’srepeatedaffirma-tions,nosuchbindingvowiseverrecordedbywhichloverandbelovedThisisanissuethathasbeenmuchmisunderstoodinAustin.WhileAustinmightpositarequisiteintentionalityforthesuccessorhappinessofcertainspeechacts,heisclearthatthespeechact,notanyinwardintention,‘putsonrecordmyspiritualassumptionofaspiritualshackle...Accuracyandmoralityalikeareonthesideoftheplainsayingthatourwordisourbond’(HowToDoThingsWithWords(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,),).
Transformationsbecomeone.Inthecaseofthedarkwoman,vowshavealwaysalreadybeenforeswornowingtothepriormaritalcommitmentsofbothparties:louingtheethouknow’stIamforsworne,Butthouarttwiceforswornetomeloueswearing,Inactthybed-vowbroakeandnewfaithtorne,Invowingnewhateafternewlouebearing:ButwhyoftwoothesbreachdoeIaccusethee,WhenIbreaketwenty:Iamperiur’dmost,Forallmyvowesareothesbuttomisusethee:Andallmyhonestfaithintheeislost.ForIhaueswornedeepeothesofthydeepekindnesse:Othesofthyloue,thytruth,thyconstancie,Andtoinlightentheegaueeyestoblindnesse,Ormadethemswereagainstthethingtheysee.ForIhaueswornetheefaire:moreperiurdeeye,Toswereagainstthetruthfofoulealie.(sonnet)Therearefourteeninstancesof‘swear’anditscognatesorvariantforms(‘sworn’,‘swearing’,‘vow’,‘vows’,‘oaths’,‘forsworn’,‘bondsoflove’)inthedark-womangroupofsonnets;onlythreeinthegrouptoorabouttheyoungman.Ofthose,oneisusedgenerallyofaprevalentsocialpractice(sonnet),oneisusedratherabstractlyofthepoet’spromiseto‘vowdebate’againsthimselfandonlyonerefersobliquelytotheyoungaristocrat’slackoftruth:theplayer-poetofferstoforswearhisowntruthforhisbeloved’ssake,promisingto‘prouetheevirtuous,thoughthouartforsworne’(sonnet).Itmightbemisleadingtolookonlyatsuchinstancesinwhichpromisesorvowsareindicateddirectlythroughthewordoritscognatesratherthanindirectlythroughotherformsoftheperformative,butthesamplenonethelessindicatesare-markableasymmetrybetweenthetwopartsoftheQuarto.Thisimbalanceisevenmoreremarkableifwenotethefactthatthefirstgroup(theyoung-mangroup)isalmostfivetimeslargerthanthesecond.ItisnotcoincidentalthatpromisesorvowsareparadigmexamplesofillocutionaryactsinAustin’sanalysisoftheperformative.Theyaretheprimaryinstanceofhumaninteractioninwhichexchangeisgenuinelytransformative–inwhichtosaysomethingisnotonlytodosomething,butalsotochangesocialrelationsandindividualstatus.Sonnetpredicatesthepossibilityofhumanandsexualrelationsonamutuallie(inaparodyofthemarriagevow);sonnetstrugglesagainstthispara-doxicalstateofaffairs.But,ratherthanacceptfalsehoodasamutually
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysenablingcondition,onewhichmarksacertainkindofreciprocity,thelatersonnetmakesuseoftheself-accusatorymove,alreadyencounteredinthesonnetstotheyoungman,includingsonnet,toaccusetheotherofitsownfault.Whoismoretoblame:thewomanwhoisforswornbybreakinghermarriagevowsthroughtheveryvowsbywhichsheswearslovetoherlover,ortheloverwhoswearsherbeautifulandtruewhenbothknowthatsheisnot?Likesonnet,thissonnetispredicateduponasharedknowledgeofinfidelity.Itistemptingtoseethissonnetasachieflytheoreticalorphilosoph-icalanalysisoftheessentialdiscrepancybetweenwhatisseenandwhatcanbesaid.Itschiefstruggle,however,liesinitsattempttoforgethepossibilityofarelationshipunderconditionsinwhichpromiseshavefromthebeginningbeenbroken,avowalsalwaysalreadyundermined.Merelytolove,inthisrelationship,istobe‘forsworn’.How,then,giventhepriorconditionofinfidelity,canarelationship,ratherthanaone-nightstandsuchasBertramseeks,beforged?Bertrambelievesthathecanusevowspurelyrhetorically:asperlocutionaryactswithoutillo-cutionaryeffects.HisdisillusionmentinthefinalactofAll’sWellthatEndsWellarisesfromhisbeingforcedtofacetheillocutionarycon-sequencesofwhathethoughtweremerelyperlocutionaryacts.Likethesonneteeringvoiceofhiscreator,Bertramismorethan‘twicefor-sworne’:hebreakshis‘bed-vow’toHelenbyseducingDiana;hevows‘newhateafternewloue’byabandoningDianawhenhethinkshehassleptwithher;heis‘periur’dmost’whenhedenieshavingsleptwithheratall;and,facedbyincontrovertibleevidenceofthelatter,heuseshisoathsto‘misuse’Dianabydenouncingherasaconnivingwhore:She’simpudent,mylord,Andwasacommongamestertothecamp....CertainitisIlikedherAndboardedheri’th’wantonwayofyouth.Sheknewherdistanceanddidangleforme,Maddingmyeagernesswithherrestraint,Asallimpedimentsinfancy’scourseAremotivesofmorefancy;andinfineHerinf’nitecunningwithhermoderngraceSubduedmetoherrate.Shegotthering,AndIhadthatwhichmyinferiormightAtmarketpricehavebought.(..–;–)
TransformationsThecontemptexpressedhereforwomenasensnaringsirens,andforsexualpleasureenjoyedfleetinglyandthen‘despisedstraight’,echoesthesonnets.InBertram’sviewofthenightwithDianaheistheloserinabadbargain,thevictim,nottheperpetrator:‘Herinf’nitecunningwithhermoderngrace/Subduedmetoherrate’.Thisisthe‘lasciuiousgrace’ofsonnetwritteninadifferentlygenderedkey,nowthedarkwomanwho,inthewordsoftheplayer-poet,hasa‘powrefullmight,/Withinsufficiencymyhearttosway’(sonnet).Intheplayitispossibletoprovideadistancedviewofemotions,attitudesandposturesthatareinternaltothesensibilityofthewriterofasonnetsuchas.IntheplaytheardentvowswithwhichBertramattemptstoswayDiana’sheartarerecognisedasnomorethananechooftheemptyplatitudesofathousandyoungmen:AheavenonearthIhavewonbywooingthee.Forwhichlivelongtothankbothheavenandme.Youmaysointheend.(ExitBertram)Mymothertoldmejusthowhewouldwoo,Asifshesatin’sheart.ShesaysallmenHavethelikeoaths.HehadsworntomarrymeWhenhiswife’sdead;thereforeI’llliewithhimWhenIamburied.SinceFrenchmenaresobraid,Marrythatwill;Iliveanddieamaid.(..–)‘Asifshesatin’sheart’:thereissomethingdeliciouslyironicinthethoughtthattheplacesupposedlyreservedbythePetrarchanloverforhisbelovedturnsouttobealreadyoccupiedbyhermother,whoknowswellenoughtheemptinessofthisheartanditsdiscourse.Livinguptohername,Dianainturnvowstoavoidloveifthepossibilityofbeingforsworninlovecannotbeexcludedentirely.Helenoffersadifferentperspective,closertothatofthesonnets.HavingsethertrapforBertramwiththeparadoxicalnotionthatit‘Iswickedmeaninginalawfuldeed/Andlawfulmeaninginawickedact,/Wherebothnotsin,andyetasinfulfact’(..–),sheentertainsnoillusionsaboutthetranscendentalpurityofabsolutehonesty.Howevermuchthebed-trickisareductioadabsurdumoftheclosingcoupletofsonnet,itallowsHelenbothtoconfirmherincompletemaritalstatusthroughtheperformativedimensionsofsexualintercourse,andtoreflectonthepeculiarityofhumanpleasure,whichcanbetakenagainstthepromptingsofconsciousdesireandaversion.Bertramrunsawaytofindhisgreatestpleasure–sovaluedbeforetheactthathewillexchangehisfamily’sringforit,sodespisedafterwards,
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysthathedismissesitasthemeanestcommodity–intheverythingfromwhichhefleesindisgust:ButO,strangemen,Thatcansuchsweetusemakeofwhattheyhate,WhensaucytrustingofthecozenedthoughtsDefilesthepitchynight;solustdothplayWithwhatitloathes,forthatwhichisaway.(..–)Shakespearefrequentlydwellsonthepeculiarityofhumanpsychologytoseewhatitexpectstosee,especiallyatmomentsofspecialmoralortragicpressure.Itisamistaketotakethisasmerelyanothervariationonthattiredoldtheme,‘appearanceversusreality’,asifthesethingsaregiven.For,unlikehiscontemporarieswhotendedtocondemntheimaginationasacorruptingormisleadingfaculty,Shakespearerecog-nisesprojectionforwhatitis:aconstitutivepartofhumanperception.Foreveryoccasiononwhichprojectionhastragicconsequences,itisalsoshownonanothertomakehumanrelationshipspossible.ForeveryOthellothereisaBeatriceandBenedick,foreveryDemetriusthereisaLysander,foreveryDianathereisaHelen.AlthoughHelen’slanguageisstronglypejorative,ascribingtothedelusionsofanoverheatedfantasythecapacitytodefilewhatinShakespeareisaquintessentiallydefilingel-ement(‘pitchynight’),herownobsessionwithBertram,seeninthelightofhisactionsandothers’judgements,isequally‘trusting’of‘cozenedthoughts’.Theprojectionencounteredsofrequentlyinthesonnetsisthereforenotanecessarilypathologicalcondition,evenifsomeofthesonnetstothewomantreatitassuch.Itistheconditionofpossibilityofadulteroticconsciousness,renderedproblematiconlywhensomethingintherelationshiprendersprojectivedesiresopatentastodrawattentiontoatotaldiscrepancybetweeneyeandobject.WhenMercutiothusassumeswithoutenquirythatRomeohasfallenintothetrapwherebyallloversdenigrateevenacknowledgedparadigmsofbeautyinfavouroftheirownobjectofdesire,heisunderliningthelover’spsychologicalneedtodenysuchprojectionthroughthemererhetoricofobjectivity:NowisheforthenumbersthatPetrarchflowedin.Lauratohisladywasakitchenwench–marry,shehadabetterlovetoberhymeher–Didoadowdy,Cleopatraagypsy,HelenandHerohildingsandharlots,Thisbeagreyeyeorso,butnottothepurpose.(RomeoandJuliet,..–)SeeDavidSchalkwyk,‘TheRoleofImaginationinAMidsummerNight’sDream’,Theoria,(May),–.
TransformationsThatMercutiomistakesRomeo’snewbelovedfortheoldunderscoresthepoint.The‘numbersthatPetrarchflowedin’thuscontainavirtu-allyinsolubleproblem:howdoesoneconveythefeltuniquenessofthebeloved,whichistheveryconditionofromanticlove,inalanguagethatisnotonlyalwaysalreadybelated,butalsonecessarilythevehicleofprojec-tion.ShakespeareovercomesthisproblembyuniquelyfocusingonwhatPetrarchanpoetryoftentriestoforget:itsirreduciblyprojective–thatistosay,itsperformative,constitutive–nature.Performativeprojectionisnotconfinedtothe‘periurdeeye’ofthelasttwenty-eightsonnets.Itmaybelessovert,lessemotionallycharged,inthepoemstotheyoungman,butitremainsdeeplyconstitutiveofthetensionsinthatrelation-ship.Insonnet,forexample,itistheplayer-poet’sownlovethatkeepstheprojectedimageofthebelovedbeforehismind’seye,evenwhenheknowsthatthebelovedhimself‘dostwakeelsewhere...withothersalltooneere’.Sonnet–‘SoshallIliue,supposingthouarttrue,/Likeadeceiuedhusband’–isaconsciousexerciseinrefusingtoseewhatispalpablybeforeone.Buttheissueisdevelopedmostthoroughlyinapairofsonnets,and:nceIleftyou,mineeyeisinmyminde,Andthatwhichgouernesmetogoeabout,Dothparthisfunction,andispartlyblind,Seemesseeing,buteffectuallyisout:ForitnoformedeliuerstotheheartOfbird,offlowre,orshapewhichitdothlack,Ofhisquickobiectshaththemindenopart,Norhisownevisionhouldswhatitdothcatch:Forifitseetherud’storgentlestsight,Themostsweet-fauorordeformedstcreature,Themountaine,orthesea,theday,ornight:TheCroe,orDoue,itshapesthemtoyourfeature.Incapableofmorerepleat,withyou,Mymosttruemindethusmakethminevntrue.(sonnet)whetherdothmymindebeingcrown’dwithyouDrinkevpthemonarksplaguethisflattery?OrwhethershallIsaymineeiesaithtrue,AndthatyourlouetaughtitthisAlcumie?Tomakeofmonsters,andthingsindigest,Suchcherubinesasyoursweetselferesemble,CreatingeuerybadaperfectbestAsfastasobiectstohisbeamesassemble:Ohtisthefirst,tisflatryinmyseeing,
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysAndmygreatmindemostkinglydrinkesitvp,Mineeiewellknoweswhatwithhisgustisgreeing,Andtohispallatdothpreparethecup.Ifitbepoison’d,tisthelessersinne,Thatmineeyelouesitanddothfirstbeginne.(sonnet)Thesecondsonnetisasubtle,buttelling,reconsiderationofthefirst.Theirrepressiblecapacitytoseeineverything,fromthegreatesttothemeanest,theimageofthebelovedisrecognisedinastheprojectiveworkofthe‘mind’.Suchatendencyisuniversalratherthanselective,encompassingthe‘rud’storgentlestsight,/Themostsweet-fauorordeformedstcreature’withoutdiscrimination.Hereimaginativeprojec-tionisrecognisedasapositiveprocess:thetransformativeperjuryoftheeyeisasignofthetotalityofthepoet-player’slove,aninteriorisedversionoftheyoungnobleman’sown‘guilding’eyeinsonnet.Thatsonnet,however,neverlosessightofthefactthatthegildingeyeofnobilityactsinasocialcontext,apoliticalstructureofrelationshipsratherthanamerelypsychologicalsubjectivity.Sonnetgesturestowardsthatworldbyoccupyingtheplaceofthemonarchinamomentinwhichthepressingexistenceofhierarchyanddifferencemaybeforgotten.But,inacunningtwist,thepoemclaimsthatsuchapurposefulforgettingarisesoutoftheoccupationalhazardoftheruler.Itstemsfromhisorherowndesiretobethesubjectoftheveryflatteringprojectionthatinistheprerogativeoftheall-consumingconsciousnessatthecentreofthesonnet.Howelsecaneyeandmind’scollusioninthemaking‘ofmonsters,andthingsindigest/Suchcherubinesasyoursweetselferesemble,/Creatingeuerybadaperfectbest’flattertheplayer-poet(orasnow,theplayer-king)?Theprojec-tivetendencycelebratedinasthesignoftruelovebecomesinthemarkofawilfulindulgenceinthecelebrationofselfthroughthesocial‘alchemy’wroughtbytheyoungman’stransformativebuttenuouslyimaginedsocialandemotionalproximity.Thesonnetrecognises,asdoesnot,thatsuchindulgencemaybeapoisonousillusion,butitcanfindnowayoutofthetrapthatwouldnotinvolvearejectionoftheillusion-arycoronationthatinvitesthe‘monarksplague...flattery’inthefirstplace.Althoughthetermsaredifferent,especiallyregardingthesocialandpoliticalcontextsoftherespectiveformsofprojection,theproblemisthusequallyrootedinthefirstpoems.ThisfactmaybegristtoDubrow’smill,insofarasshequestionsthenarrativebywhichthesetwogroupsareusuallykeptapart.Theparallelsbetweenthetwogroupsmightsuggest
Transformationsanumberofthings:thattheusualascriptionoftwodistinctobjectsofaddresstothemismistaken;thatthetwofiguresarenotasdifferentasisusuallysupposed;orthatthequalityofthepoet-player’sinfatuationdoesnotdifferfundamentallybetweenthewomanandtheman.Norarethesepossibilitiesmutuallyexclusive.ThemultiplesubjectpositionsinthesonnetsthatthisreadingofAll’sWellthatEndsWellhassuggestedindicateamorecomplexfusingofgender,socialandsexualrolesthantheabsolutedistinctionusuallydrawn,inthenameof‘Otherness’,betweenmaleandfemaleinthesonnets.ArecentessayseesinHelen’sreflection–‘ButO,strangemen,/Thatcansuchsweetusemakeofwhattheyhate,/Whensaucytrustingofthecozenedthoughts/Defilesthepitchynight;solustdothplay/Withwhatitloathes,forthatwhichisaway’(..–)–heralienationof‘BertramasmaleOther,aspersonificationofdifference,asacreaturefromwhomsheisestranged’.Butthisreadingturnsboththecomplexnegotiationofrelationshipswithothers(lowercaseandplural),andtheinstabilityoftheperformanceofgenderintheinteractiveprogressoftheplaysandthepoemsthemselves,intothemisleadingmonolithof(anachronistic)theory.Helenistalkingtotwootherwomen,andinthemomentarycontextoftheirsolidarityshecertainlyreflectswiththemonthepeculiarityofBertram’sbehaviourasexemplaryofhissex.ButthatdoesnotmeanthatshealienateseitherBertramormeningeneralasbeingtotallydifferentorestranged.Thereisadegreeofsympathy–evenlove–inhertone,andherownactiveandpleasurableparticipationintheactisstronglyconveyedbythesensethat,nomatterhowperversesuch‘use’mightbe,shetoofindsit‘sweet’.Suchcomplexityoftoneandfeelingisregisteredtimeaftertimeinthesonnets,andcarefulattentiontowhatconnectsthetwosub-sequencesshowsthatitisnotconfinedtoonegender.Inthesonnetstraditionallyassumedtobeaboutthedarkmistress,forexample,thecentralcompli-cationoftherelationshiparisesfromthefactthatbothoftheprotagonistsmake‘sweetuseofwhattheyhate’.Thisismostobviousinthecaseofthe(male)poet,whostrugglestocometotermsnotmerelywiththeequaldegreesofattractionandrepulsionwithwhichheseeksto‘vse’hismistress,butalsowiththemorefundamentally‘strange’possibilitythatitispreciselyher‘defiling’qualitiesthatattracthim.Thissituationcanariseonlybecausethewomanisinthesameposition:she‘lieswith’himdespiteherown‘hate’(sonnets,and),herpromiscuityre-peatedlycomplicatedbyreferencestoher‘tyranny’(sonnet),‘cruelty’DavidMcCandless,‘Helen’sBed-trick:GenderandPerformanceinAll’sWellthatEndsWell’,ShakespeareQuarterly,.(Winter),–().
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplays(sonnetsand),‘reproouing’‘unkindnesse’(sonnetsand)and‘disdaine’(sonnetsand).Itispossibletoreadsomeofthesonnetssupposedlyaddressedtoherasiftheywereinhervoice:asifshewererespondingtothecontradictorypetitionsandaccusationsofherlover.Whymight,forexample,notreflectherfrustratedresponsetohistiresomeandunfairhectoring;andifmayberecognisedasanexemplificationofHelen’sposition,whynotthatofthedarkmistressaswell?Thisargumentmaybeextendedtothesonnetstotheyoungman.Itisnotonlypossible,asDubrowpointsout,to‘cross-read’sonnetsfromthetwogroupsasapplyingtotheotherbeloved.Itisalsopossibletorecogniseinsomepoemsattitudesandfeelingsthatmightbethoseofthebelovedhimself.Theseriesofadmissionsofneglectandapologyfromtomaybeinthevoiceoftheyoungman,ortheexcul-patorypoemsfrom–thatculminateinthereciprocityofsharedunfaithfulnessandmutualacceptancein:atyouwereoncevnkindbe-friendsmeenow,Andforthatsorrow,whichIthendiddefeele,NeedesmustIvndermytransgressionbow,VnlessemyNerueswerebrasseorhammeredsteele.ForifyouwerebymyvnkindnesseshakenAsIbyyours,y’hauepastahellofTime,AndIatyranthauenoleasuretakenTowaighhowonceIsufferedinyourcrime.OthatournightofwomighthaueremembredMydeepestsence,howhardtruesorrowhits,Andsoonetoyou,asyoutomethentendredThehumblesalue,whichwoundedbosomesfits!Butthatyourtrespassenowbecomesafee,Mineransomsyours,andyoursmustransomemee.Toseeinthispoemthepossibleexpressionofthedifferentsocialandpersonalperspectivesofeachoftheprotagonistsistorecognisethecomplexreciprocitythatitenactsandtogivefullweighttothetensionbetweensocialpositionandprivateloveregisteredinthesonnetsasawhole.Theimaginedroleofunmoved‘tyrant’willdifferconsiderably,dependingonwhetheritisoccupiedbytheabjectplayer-poetortheinjuredman-of-rank.Theverypossibilityofreciprocityisenactedintheswitchingofroles,wherebythepoetmayempatheticallyassumethepositionoftyrantandfeelitsattraction,andthewell-bornmancanimaginativelyrejecthiscustomaryhabitofcarelesspower.Tofeelthe
Transformationsobligationto‘bow’undera‘transgression’becausenottodosowouldnegateone’shumanitymeanssomethingsubtlydifferent,dependingonwhetheroneissociallyaccustomedorunusedtosuch‘bowing’.Thatisnottosaythatthedesiredreciprocitywillnecessarilybeachieved.Unlikesonnet,inwhichthedemandforanapologyissentimentalisedbythetoo-effusivecouplet(‘Ah,butthosetearesarepearlwhichthylouesheeds,/Andtheyareritch,andransomeallilldeeds’),sonnetleavesopenthepossibilitythattherequiredransommightbewithheld.Thelattercoupletopensupthepossibilityofdivergingresponsesinthefuturebyrecallingthethoughtless‘tyranny’recountedaspartofthesonnet’spast.Thissonnetismuchmoretough-mindedthanthemawkishnessattheendofsonnet.Fortheacknowledgementofpersonalsuffering–expressedinthedeeplyempatheticqualityof‘y’hauepastahellofTime’and‘mydeepestsence,howhardtruesorrowhits’–maintainsafirmsenseofconstrainingmutualobligationthroughwhich,miraculously,thefeudalandthepersonalaspectsoftherelationship,somuchatwarelsewhereinthegroup,arereconciled.Tosuggestsuch‘cross-reading’ofdifferentpossiblepersonaeinthesonnetsdoesnotnecessarilyinvolvetheextravagantmultiplicationofactualspeakers.Itmerelyrecognisesthattheinteractiveexperiencesandattitudesareshared.IncontrasttothedifferencesoftenossifiedinPetrarchandiscourse,Shakespeare’soccupationofthatconventionisaswide-rangingashisskillsasadramatist,bywhichtheselfalwayscontainsandiscontainedbyothers(inlowercaseandintheplural),reduplicatingitselfthroughthemasmuchasitdefinesitselfagainstthemininteractivedialogue.Thisiswhy,inherreflectionsonthe‘strangeness’ofthemanwhohasjustusedher,Helenisnotregisteringabsoluteestrangement,butreflectingonthepossibilityofareciprocitythatshehasbeenattemptingtoengineerfromtheverybeginning,intheformofa‘kindness’thatisgivenandmutuallyenjoyeddespiteoneself:‘O,mygoodlord,whenIwaslikethismaid/Ifoundyouwondrouskind’(..–).Asinsonnetsand,transformativereciprocityiswrenchedfromamutualfault,achievedthroughtheconjoinedinfidelityofBertram’sdesireandtheuntruthofHelen’strick.TheQuartoisunusualforjoiningthetraditionalPetrarchanlanguageoffemale‘cruelty’withthefactofanexplicitlycarnalliaison.Thismayruncontrarytoconventionalexpectations,butitreflectsthecomplexuncertaintiesandambivalencesofactualrelationships.Diana,characterisedbyawittycriticasthe‘girl-who-says-yes-but-means-no’
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplays(McCandless,‘Helen’sBed-trick’,),doesnotactuallycompromiseherchastitythroughthat‘yes’.Hercounterpartinthesonnets,however,repeatedlyenactsthatcontradiction:promiscuousyetcruel,faithlessyetaloof.Herloverbothconnivesinthatcontradictionandvilifiesherforit.Urgingherontheonehandto‘beare[her]eyesstraight,though[her]proudheartgoe[s]wide’(sonnet),heatothertimesblamesherfor‘mak[ing][him]louehermore,/Themore[he]heare[s]andsee[s]iustcauseofhate’(sonnet).Helen’slivedexperienceofthewayinwhich‘lustdothplay/Withwhatitloathes,forthatwhichisaway’echoessonnet;butitalsotouchesonexperiencesthatdrawallthesonnetstogether.All’sWellthatEndsWellisunusualfortheplacethatitgivestoanalready,ifdarklyachieved,carnalunion.Thisisperhaps,morethananythingelse,whattiesittothesonnets.All’sWelllookslikeacomedy,notmerelyinitswhimsicaltitle,butalsointhecomicuseofatranscendentalsigni-fier–theplain-speakingrings–whichcannotbemis-taken.Therearenosuchtranscendentalsignifiersinthesonnets,despitetheplayer-poet’sdesperateillusion,forawhile,thathehasfoundoneintheinfamous‘fairfriend’,anddespiteawholecriticaltradition’swishtoseeoneofadifferentcomplexioninthepromiscuous‘ring’ofthe‘darklady’.All’sWellthatEndsWellandthesonnetsembodyandexplorecarnalexperi-enceasthepathandobstacletoothers.Thisaffinitymarkstheirradicaldifferencefromotherexamplesoftheirrespectivegenres.Theysuspendtheirgenericdifferenceswitheachotherthroughtheirremarkablysimi-lartreatmentofgenderdifferenceandaffinity.IhavearguedinchapterthatShakespeare’ssonnetexemplifieshissonnets’distancefromthePetrarchanthroughitsrecoursetotheperformative.Thedoubleaccom-modationofthatsonnet,embodiedinthemutualityofits‘lying’,createsaneroticspacethatisquitedifferentfromtheusualPetrarchanquestsfortruthandidealisation.Returningtotheargumentwithwhichthisbookbegan,IproposethatwereadthecomicmovementofAll’sWellassonnetwritlarge:theac-commodationsofcontradictoryeroticdesire–lying‘with’eachother–embodyasharedfalsehood–lying‘to’eachother.Liketheprotagonistsofthatsonnet,HelenandBertram’sfarfromidealaccommodationrestsuponthemutualityofliesthathasmadetheirfraughtbutconsummatedrelationshippossible.Theasymmetryoftheprotagonists’gendersintheplayandsonnetsattestsfurthermoretoShakespeare’sremarkablyun-dogmaticvisionofgender.IfwhatSusanSnydercalls‘Shakespeare’sown
Transformationsexperience’(‘TheKing’sNotHere’)confrontedhimwithaneroticlifedominatedbyaduplicitous,commonplacewomanandanenigmatic,well-placedyoungman,thecomicfictionsbywhichhelivedallowedhimtoexplorenotmerelythereversalofthoseroles,butalsotheradicalcomplicationoftheperformativegenresbywhichgenderisitselfconsti-tutedandperformed.
ConclusionInthissystematicreadingofShakespeare’ssonnetsinrelationtohisplaysIhavesetoutfromtheassumptionthatShakespeare’sinvolvementwiththetheatreinformshiswritingofsonnetsindecisiveways.Suchareadinghasmadepossibletheargumentthatthelanguageofthesonnetsiscom-posedofavarietyofessentiallyperformative,ratherthandescriptive,speechacts.Theplayer-poetofShakespeare’ssonnetsengagesinadis-courseofself-authorisationbymobilising,notmerelytheperlocutionary(orrhetorical)forceoflanguage(thishasbeenlongrecognised),butalsoitsillocutionaryforce.Inthelatter,situationsmaybetransformedinthesayingofsomething,personalandsocialrelationsforgedandreflectedinwaysnotregisteredinformalrhetoricalhandbooks.Theelaborate,embodiedcontextsofaddressandinteractioninShakespeare’stheatri-calartenableustoimaginesituationsofpersonalinteractionandsocialpressurethattheirpurelytextualexistencehastendedtoobscure.LinkingthecontextualistlinguisticphilosophiesofLudwigWittgen-steinandJohnAustintothesonnetsandplays–especiallythesonnetsintheplays–hasenabledmetofocusmorepreciselyonrecentmaterialist,historicistandfeministconcernswiththewaysinwhichShakespeare’ssonnetsworkedintheirhistoricalandsocialworld.Theagencyembodiedinthesonnetsiscircumscribedbyinequalitiesofsocialclass,informedbytheexigenciesofpersonaldesireandmadepossiblebyreceivedliteraryconventionsandsociallygivenlanguagegames.Butthesonnets’grad-ualremovalfromoriginallyembodiedsituationsofaddresshastendedtoattenuatetheinteractionofsocialpressure,subjectivewillandlin-guisticformationthatcontinuestobestagedwithinthedramatictextsthroughwhichtheirplayer-poetmadehisliving.Undersuchcircum-stancesitisvitaltoworkwithaphilosophyoflanguagethatcanregisterboththegivenspeechgenresthatmakeindividualexpressionpossibleandtherichnuancesthroughwhichpersonalandsocialrelationshipsareimposedandrenegotiated.
ConclusionThepost-Saussureantheoryoflanguagethatcontinuestoinformthemajorcriticalmovementsthathaverecentlywishedtoexplorethecon-solidationorsubversionofrelationsofpoweranddesire,includingtheFoucauldiannotionofdiscourse,hasbeenfartoobluntaninstrumenttoprobetherangeandnuanceoflanguageatworkinShakespeare.Theperformativeviewoflanguageemphasiseslanguageasutterance–asaformofactionthatrespondstoandanticipatesaworldofotherswhileseekingtotransformthatworldandthespeaker’srelationshiptoit.Suchaviewalsoreplacestheinsidiousnotionoflanguageassystemorcodewiththeperspectivethattherearemanylanguageswithinasingle‘languagesystem’.Therearecountlessspeechacts,languagegamesorspeechgenresthatactindialogueorconflict,workinginandthroughaworld,repeatingthemselvesindifferentcontextstodifferenteffects,al-waysnegotiatingsocialrelationsthroughaprocessofinteractivedialoguethatissimultaneouslypersonalandpublic.Historicalandmaterialiststudiesofearlymoderntextshavescarcelybeguntoexplorethisrichnessoflinguisticperformance–thesitewheretheinteractionofpolitics,historyandsocietyismostfullyregistered–whiletraditionalformalistcriticismhastendedtoignoresuchformsofsociallifethroughamyopicattentiontolanguageeitherasapurelyfor-malsystemorthemeansofpurelyindividualexpression.Farfromactingasamereparodyofoutdatedliteraryconventionandshallowfeeling,thestagedrepresentationsofinteractivedialogueembodythelivedrealityofreceiveddiscoursesinalltheirperformativerichness.Notconfinedtothestage,suchperformativedimensionsattesttotheimbricationofindividualagencyandsociallygivenspeechgenreseverywherelanguageisused.Shakespeare’ssonnetsaredeeplyinformednotonlybythefactoftheplayer-poet’slowlysocialstatus,butalsobyhispeculiarself-consciousnessaboutthissimultaneouslydebilitatingandempoweringcondition.Despitethesenseofpersonalinadequacyandsocialtaintwithwhichsuchself-consciousnessabouthisprofessionimbuesthepoet’sPetrarchanmoments,asplayer-dramatistheisabletobringtothepoet’staskanex-traordinarilydevelopedsenseoflanguageasaperformativeforce,inForaclassiccritiqueofboththeseformalistpositions,seeV.N.Voloshinov,MarxismandthePhilosophyofLanguage,trans.LadislawMatejkaandI.R.Titunik(Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,).See,forexample,KatherineM.Wilson,Shakespeare’sSugaredSonnets(London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin,)fortheargumentthatboththesonnetsandplaysarenomorethanparodiesofanemptyliterarytradition.
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaystheAustinianandWittgensteinian,ratherthanthemerelytheatrical,senseoftheword.Byexaminingthedeliberatestagingofthesonnetasaformofpublicdiscourseinthetheatre,Ihaveemphasisedthesituationsofembodiedaddressofthesonnetasperformativeandthemodesbywhichevensilencemaybeaformofpowerorresistancethroughitsveryembodiment.Thishasallowedareviewofreadingsofthesonnetformasanessentiallydisempoweringdiscourseforwomen.Byexploringtherelationshipsamonganumberofvariouslygenderedcharactersintheplaysandavarietyofsubjectpositionsregisteredinthesonnets,Ihavealsosoughttocomplicatethetraditionalnarrativeregardingthefairyoungman,theunreliabledarkladyandourdevotedpoet.Thevarietyofcharactersandrelationsintheplayscomplicatethenotionofstablepersonaeinthepoems.Therearetracesoftheplayer-poetinthesubjectpositionsofCordeliaandLear;OpheliaandHamlet;Helen,BertramandParoles–andthenowtraditionallycodedpositionsof‘fair’friendand‘dark’ladyareequallycomplicatedbyreadingthemthroughtheinteractivediscoursesofthedrama.Thequestionofthesonnets’autobiographicalmodeisposedespeciallyforcefullyviathelogicofpropernamesandnamingevents.Arguingthatitispreciselythepeculiarabsenceofpropernamesin‘-’thattestifiestotheirautobiographicalnature,Ihaveexploredthepowerofthepropernamenotonlytotieindividualstoineluctablenetworksofsocialrelations,butalsotoallowforthefictionalexplo-rationofalternative,counter-traditionalconnotationsforhistoricallygivennames,suchas‘Cressida’.Ihavealsolookedatthewaysinwhichnamingeventsmayactperformatively,totransformsocialandpersonalrelations,andhaveexploredtheunstabletensionbetween‘proper’and‘common’nameindiscoursesofracialandsexualstereotyping.Bypos-ingthequestionofbiographyasamatterof(Wittgensteinian)‘grammar’Ihavesoughttogivegreaterhumansubstancetothesonnets’darkwomanbyasking,paceA.L.Rowse,whetherwecanindeedassumethatShakespearehastolduseverythingabouther,andwhyweshouldbelievewhathedoessayabouther.Thisisbothamatteroftheunderdetermi-nationofhumanityinthesonnetsasdislocated,disembodiedtextsandaquestionoftracingtheimplicitcontoursofinteractivedialoguebetweentwoormorepeopleinasonnetthatmayberenderedmoreapparentonthestage.Thatistosay,thequestionofthe(multiple)audiencesofthesonnetsisraisedbytheplays’doublenature:asasiteinwhichthesonnetasaformofpublicdiscoursemaybedisplayedandasaplaceinwhichspeechengagesavarietyofaudiences.
ConclusionThesenseofthetextualor‘inward’natureofthepoemsaslyricshas,Ihope,beenenrichedandmademorecomplexbyreadingthemthroughthehistoricalembodimentofsonnetsintheatricalrepresenta-tions.Shakespeare’sdramaticartmadepossibletheextraordinaryusesoflanguageinthesonnets,buttheplaysthemselvesalsorendermorepalpa-blecircumstancesofaddresswhichtherestrictedbodyofthesonnetmaysuggestbutnotcontain.ByemphasisingtheirconcernwithsituationsofdialogicalinteractionIdemonstratethatthesonnets’performativelanguageencompassesmuchmorethanthesolitarymindoftheirlyricspeakerorisolatedreader.Itarisesoutofthetriangularrelationshipofaddresser,addressee(s)andthecontextoreventofsuchaction,whichisconstantlyinformedandnegotiatedthroughpubliclyavailablelanguagegames.Thepublicorsocialnatureofsuchlanguagegamesdoesnot,however,meanthatinteriorityortheprivateisamereillusion.IhaverevisitedthevexedquestionofsubjectivityinthesonnetsviaHamletinordertofindacriticalspacebetweenHelenVendler’sdenialofthesocial,publicnatureofthepoems,andthehistoricistclaimthatintheearlymodernperiodtheprivateisentirelyconsumedbythepublic.IhavearguedthatShakespeare’sdramaticworkmakesvisiblethecontextsthatrenderspeechactsintelligibleandmakepossiblethelanguageofinteriority.Interiorityisneitheranineffableinwardstatehiddenfrompublicviewnoramereephiphenomenonofthesocial,butratheraconditionmadepossiblebytheavailabilityofcertainsociallysustainedlanguagegames.PlayssuchasKingLearandHamletshowusthatsuchlanguagegamesmayberobbedoftheirconditionsofpossibilitybyparticularsocialandpoliticalconditions,butthatdoesnotobliteratethepersonalasaconcept.Infact,itmaymakeitallthemoreindispensable.Finally,myanalysisofShakespeare’ssonnetsasdocumentsthatne-gotiateapassagebetweenprivateandpublicrealmshasconsequencesfortheirstatusasliterarytexts.LynneMagnusson’sanalysisofsonnetinthelightoftherhetoricofpolitenessincontemporaryletter-writingshowshowShakespeare’ssonnetsemploytheveryrhetoricalstrategiesintheirnegotiationsofhierarchicalrelationshipandpersonaldesireevidentintheletters(Magnusson,ShakespeareandSocialDialogue,ff.).Butshealsocautionsagainsttheassumptionthatthesonnetsaremerelyamoreelaborateformofepistolarywriting–thattheyplayanidenticalsetoflanguagegames.Theirlanguagegamesarerelatedtothoseusedinotherareasofsocialdiscourse,bothpublicandprivate,buttheydonotmerelyreplicatethem.Norarethey,assomephilosopherssuppose,
SpeechandperformanceinShakespeare’ssonnetsandplaysmerelypretendedspeechacts–fictions,‘non-serious’,or‘etiolated’formsof‘serious’language.Intheiroriginalcontext,andinthecontextsre-hearsedbyShakespeare’splays,theywereformsofrealsocialactionthatattemptedtoaffectandeffectsocialrelationsinlivedratherthanmerelyimaginaryways.ButtheimaginativepressurespeculiartotheirgenericdifferencefromothermodesofpublicspeechandwritingallowacertainplayinthegivenlanguagegamesofsocialinteractionthatMagnussonanalysessoperceptively.Inbothpoemandplayadistanceiscreatedbetweenrepre-senterandrepresentedsothatcircumscribeddiscoursesmaybestagedandhighlighted,thusallowingusuallyimplicittensionstoberevealed,scrutinisedandtransformed.Theliteraryconventionthatobligestheun-requitedlovertoseehimselfasa‘slave’tothebelovedallowsShakespearetoexplorethereal,politicalimplicationsofslaveryinhis‘literary’nego-tiationswithamaster’s‘willandpleasure’overtherelationshipbetweenloveandduty.Itallowshimtopushtheotherwisecircumscribedbound-ariesofpolitenessanddutytoandbeyondtheirlimitsinwaysthatarenotmerelyimaginary,sothatthespeechactcontinuestodoitspragmaticworkinthepoemitselfasaformofrealperformativeaction.IhavesoughttonegotiateapassagebetweenformalanalysisandaconcernwiththesocialandhistoricalconditionsofShakespeare’swriting.Languageisthesiteonwhichthesetwotraditionallydisparateenter-prisesmeet,orshouldmeet.Thisbookisnomorethananexploratoryforayintoaterrainthat,asMagnusson,pointsout,hasbeenlargelyun-explored(ShakespeareandSocialDialogue,–).HerownworkpromisestorevolutionisethewayinwhichweseeandrespondtoShakespeare’susesoflanguageasaformofimmediateverbalaction.WhatisrequirednowisacombinationofthephilosophiesofWittgensteinandAustinwiththeinsightsofBakhtin,Bourdieuandthetheoristsofsocialdiscoursethathavecomeintheirwake,sothatthefullrangeofShakespeare’s‘dialogicart’maybeseeninmorethan‘brokenglimpses’(ShakespeareandSocialDialogue,).SeeJohnR.Searle,‘TheLogicalStatusofFictionalDiscourse’,NewLiteraryHistory,(),–,andJ.L.Austin,HowToDoThingswithWords(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,),–.
BibliographyAdelman,Janet.SuffocatingMothers:FantasiesofMaternalOrigininShakespeare’sPlays.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,.Althusser,Louis.LeninandPhilosophyandOtherEssays.Trans.D.Brewster.London:NewLeftBooks,.Austin,J.L.HowToDoThingsWithWords.OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,.Bakhtin,Mikhail.RabelaisandhisWorld.Trans.HeleneIswolksy.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,.SpeechGenresandOtherLateEssays.Trans.VernW.McGee.Ed.CarylEmersonandMichaelHolquist.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress,.Barber,C.L.‘AnEssayontheSonnets’.InElizabethanPoetry:ModernEssaysinCriticism.Ed.PaulJ.Alpers,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,,–.Barish,Jonas.TheAnti-TheatricalPrejudice.BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,.Barker,DeborahE.andIvoKamps(eds.).ShakespeareandGender:AHistory.LondonandNewYork:Verso,.Barker,Francis.TheTremulousPrivateBody:EssaysinSubjection.LondonandNewYork:Methuen,.Barrell,John.‘EditingOut:theDiscourseofPatronageandShakespeare’sTwenty-ninthSonnet’.InPoetry,LanguageandPolitics.Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,,–.Barthes,Roland.‘TheDeathoftheAuthor’.InTheRustleofLanguage.Trans.RichardHoward.Oxford:Blackwell,,–.Belsey,Catherine.TheSubjectofTragedy:IdentityandDifferenceinRenaissanceDrama.London:Methuen,.Berger,HarryJr.MakingTriflesofErrors:RedistributingComplicitiesinShakespeare.Ed.PeterErickson.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,.Berthoud,Jacques.IntroductiontoTitusAndronicus.Ed.SonjaMassai.TheNewPenguinShakespeare.Harmondsworth:Penguin,,–.Booth,Stephen.AnEssayonShakespeare’sSonnets.NewHaven,CTandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,.Bourdieu,Pierre.‘TheEconomicsofLinguisticExchanges’.SocialScienceInformation,(),–.
BibliographyLanguageandSymbolicPower.Ed.JohnB.Thompson.Trans.GinoRaymondandMathewAdamson.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,.Bradbrook,Muriel.‘VirtueistheTrueNobility:AStudyoftheStructureofAll’sWellthatEndsWell’.ReviewofEnglishStudies,(),–.Bruster,Douglas.‘TheStructuralTransformationofPrintinLateElizabethanEngland.’InPrint,Manuscript,&Performance:TheChangingRelationsoftheMediainEarlyModernEngland.Ed.ArthurF.MarottiandMichaelD.Bristol.Columbus:OhioStateUniversityPress,,–.Cavell,Stanley.DisowningKnowledgeinSixPlaysofShakespeare.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,.TheClaimofReason:Wittgenstein,Skepticism,Morality,andTragedy.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,.Carroll,WilliamC.TheGreatFeastofLanguagein‘Love’sLabor’sLost’.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,.Chartier,Roger.‘LeisureandSociability:ReadingAloudinModernEurope’.Trans.CarolMossman.InUrbanLifeintheRenaissance.Ed.SusanZimmermanandRobertE.Weissman.Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress,,–.Clarkson,Carrol.‘NamingandPersonalIdentityintheNovelsofCharlesDickens:APhilosophicalApproach’.UnpublishedDPhilthesis.UniversityofYork,England(November).‘DickensandtheCratylus’.BritishJournalofAesthetics,.(January),–.Cloud,Random.‘“TheverynamesofPersons”:EditingandtheInventionofDramaticCharacter’.InStagingtheRenaissance:ReinterpretationsofElizabethanandJacobeanDrama.Ed.DavidScottKastanandPeterStallybrass.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,,–.Colie,Rosalie.Shakespeare’sLivingArt.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,.Crew,Jonathan.HiddenDesigns:TheCriticalProfessionandRenaissanceLiterature.NewYorkandLondon:Methuen,.Day,Angel.TheEnglishSecretorie.London:.DeGrazia,Margareta.‘TheMotiveforInteriority:Shakespeare’sSonnetsandHamlet’.Style,.(Fall),–.ShakespeareVerbatim:TheReproductionofAuthenticityandtheApparatus.Oxford:ClarendonPress,.‘TheScandalofShakespeare’sSonnets’.InShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays.Ed.JamesSchiffer.NewYork:Garland,,–.Derrida,Jacques.SpeechandPhenomena.Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,.LimitedInc.Ed.GeraldGraff.Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,.ActsofLiterature.Ed.DerekAttridge.London:Routledge,.
BibliographyDoran,Madeleine.‘GoodNameinOthello’.StudiesinEnglishLiterature,–,(),–.Dubrow,Heather.CaptiveVictors:Shakespeare’sNarrativePoemsandSonnets.Ithaca,NYandLondon:CornellUniversityPress,.EchoesofDesire:EnglishPetrarchismanditsCounterdiscourses.Ithaca,NYandLondon:CornellUniversityPress,.‘“Incertaintiesnowcrownthemselvesassur’d”:ThePoliticsofPlottingShakespeare’sSonnets’.ShakespeareQuarterly,(),–.ReprintedinShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays.Ed.JamesSchiffer.NewYork:Garland,,–.‘CriticismontheSonnets:–.’TheShakespeareanInternationalYearbookVolumeOne:WhereareWeNowinShakespeareanStudies?.Ed.W.R.EltonandJohnM.Mucciolo.Brookfield,VT:Ashgate,,–.Duncan-Jones,Katherine.‘WastheShake-spearesSonnetsReallyUnautho-rized?’.ReviewofEnglishStudies,(),–.‘FillingtheUnforgivingMinute:Modernizing-().’EssaysinCriticism,.(),–.Duncan-Jones,Katherine(ed.).TheSonnets.TheNewArdenShakespeare.London:Routledge,.Elam,Keir.Shakespeare’sUniverseofDiscourse:LanguageGamesintheComedies.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,.Engle,Lars.ShakespeareanPragmatism:MarketofHisTime.ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress,.‘“IamthatIam”:Shakespeare’sSonnetsandtheEconomyofShame.’InShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays.Ed.JamesSchiffer.NewYork:Garland,,–.Everett,Barbara.‘SpanishOthello:TheMakingofShakespeare’sMoor’.ShakespeareSurvey,(),–.Feinberg,Nona.‘ErasingtheDarkLady:SonnetintheSequence’.Assays:CriticalApproachestoMedievalandRenaissanceTexts,(),–.Ferry,Anne.The‘Inward’Language:SonnetsofWyatt,Sidney,Shakespeare,andDonne.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,.Fiedler,Leslie.TheStrangerinShakespeare.NewYork:Macmillan,.Fineman,Joel.Shakespeare’sPerjuredEye:TheInventionofPoeticSubjectivityintheSonnets.Berkeley,LosAngelesandLondon:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,.‘Shakespeare’sEar’.Representations,(Fall),–.Fish,Stanley.‘HowtoDoThingswithAustinandSearle’.InIsThereaTextinthisClass?Cambridge,MA,HarvardUniversityPress,,–.Fleissner,RobertF.‘TheMoor’sNomenclature’.NotesandQueries,(),.Foucault,Michel.‘WhatIsanAuthor?’.InLanguage–Countermemory–Practice.Ed.DonaldF.Bouchard.Trans.DonaldF.BouchardandSheerySimon.Oxford:Blackwell,,–.
BibliographyFumerton,Patricia.CulturalAesthetics:RenaissanceLiteratureandthePracticeofSocialOrnament.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,.Girouard,Robert.LifeintheEnglishCountryHouse:ASocialandArchitecturalHistory.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,.Glock,Hans-Johann.AWittgensteinDictionary.Oxford:Blackwell,.Goldberg,Jonathan.Sodometries:RenaissanceTexts,ModernSensibilities.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,.Greenblatt,Stephen.‘FictionandFriction.’InShakespeareanNegotiations.BerkeleyandLosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,,–.IntroductiontoRomeoandJuliet.TheNortonShakespeare.Ed.StephenGreenblatt,WalterCohen,JeanE.HowardandKatherineEisamanMaus.LondonandNewYork:W.W.Norton,,.Greene,ThomasM.‘PitifulThrivers:FailedHusbandryintheSonnets’.InShakespeareandtheQuestionofTheory.Ed.PatriciaParkerandGeoffreyHartman.LondonandNewYork:Methuen,,–.Griffin,Eric.‘Un-saintingJames:Or,Othelloandthe“SpanishSpirits”ofShakespeare’sGlobe’.Representations,(Spring),–.Gross,Kenneth.‘SlanderandSkepticisminOthello’.ELH,.(Winter),–.Hamer,Mary.‘Cleopatra:Housewife’.TextualPractice,.(September),–.Harvey,ElizabethD.andKatherineEisamenMaus(ed.).SolicitingInterpretation:LiteraryTheoryandSeventeenth-CenturyEnglishPoetry.ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress,.Howard,Jean.‘RenaissanceAntitheatricalityandthePoliticsofGenderandRankinMuchAdoAboutNothing’.InShakespeareReproduced.Ed.JeanHowardandMarionF.O’Connor.NewYork:Routledge,,–.‘Cross-Dressing,theTheatre,andGenderStruggleinEarlyModernEngland’.ShakespeareQuarterly,.(),–.Hulse,Clark.‘Stella’sWit:PenelopeRichasReaderofSidney’sSonnets’.InRewritingtheRenaissance:TheDiscourseofSexualDifferenceinEarlyModernEurope.Ed.MargaretW.Fergusonetal.ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress,,–.Hunter,G.K.‘TheDramaticTechniqueofShakespeare’sSonnets’.EssaysinCriticism,(),–.Husserl,Edmund.Ideas:AnIntroductiontoPurePhenomenology.Trans.W.R.BoyceGibson.London:GeorgeAllenandUnwin,.Hutson,Lorna.‘WhytheLady’sEyesareNothingLiketheSun’.InNewFeministDiscourses:CriticalEssaysonTheoriesandTexts.Ed.IsobelArmstrong.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,,–.Innes,Paul.ShakespeareandtheEnglishRenaissanceSonnet:VersesofFeigningLove.NewYork,StMartin’sPressandLondon:Macmillan,.Jardine,Lisa.‘“Whyshouldhecallherwhore?”:DefamationandDesdemona’sCase.’InAddressingFrankKermode:EssaysinCriticismandInterpretation.Ed.
BibliographyMargaretTudeauClaytonandMartinWarner.London:Macmillan,,–.ReadingShakespeareHistorically.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,.Kahane,HenryandRen´ee.‘Desdemona:AStar-CrossedName’.Names,.–(),–.Kamps,Ivo(ed.).MaterialistShakespeare.LondonandNewYork:Verso,.Kernan,Alvin.ThePlaywrightasMagician:Shakespeare’sImageofthePoetintheEnglishPublicTheatre.NewHaven,CTandLondon:YaleUniversityPress,.Kesler,R.L.‘TheIdealizationofWomen:MorphologyandChangeinThreeRenaissanceTexts’.Mosaic,.(Spring),–.Knight,G.Wilson.TheSovereignFlower:ShakespeareasthePoetofRoyalism.London:Methuen,,–.Kripke,Saul.NamingandNecessity.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,.Lamb,MaryEllen.GenderandAuthorshipintheSidneyCircle.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,.Latham,Agnes.Introduction.InAsYouLikeIt.TheArdenShakespeare.London:Methuen,,–.Lees,F.N.‘Othello’sName’.NotesandQueries,(),–.Levenson,JillL.‘TheDefinitionofLove:Shakespeare’sPhrasinginRomeoandJuliet’.ShakespeareStudies,(),–.‘RomeoandJulietbeforeShakespeare’.StudiesinPhilology,.(Summer),–.‘RomeoandJuliet:Tragical-Comical-LyricalHistory’.ProceedingsofthePMRConference.AugustinianHistoricalInstitute,VillanovaUniversity,PA,.(–),–.Lezra,Jacques.UnspeakableSubjects:TheGenealogyoftheEventinEarlyModernEurope.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,.Lyotard,Jean-Francois.TheDifferend:PhrasesinDispute.Trans.GeorgesvanDenAbbeele.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,.Macey,SamuelL.‘TheNamingoftheProtagonistinShakespeare’sOthello’.NotesandQueries,(),–.Magnusson,Lynne.‘LanguageandSymbolicCapitalinOthello’.ShakespeareSurvey,(),–.ShakespeareandSocialDialogue:DramaticLanguageandElizabethanLetters,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,.Marotti,ArthurF.‘“LoveisNotLove”:ElizabethanSonnetSequencesandtheSocialOrder’.ELH,(),–.JohnDonne:CoteriePoet.Madison:UniversityofWisconsinPress,.‘Shakespeare’sSonnetsasLiteraryProperty’.InSolicitingInterpretation:LiteraryTheoryandSeventeenth-CenturyEnglishPoetry.Ed.ElizabethD.HarveyandKatherineEisamenMaus.ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress,,–.Manuscript,Print,andtheEnglishRenaissanceLyric.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,.
BibliographyMasten,Jeffrey.‘Circulation,Gender,andSubjectivityinWroth’sSonnets’.InReadingMaryWroth:RepresentingAlternativesinEarlyModernEngland.Ed.NaomiJ.MillerandGaryWaller.Knoxville:UniversityofTennesseePress,.TextualIntercourse:Collaboration,Authorship,andSexualitiesinRenaissanceDrama.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,.Matz,Robert.‘Slander,RenaissanceDiscoursesofSodomy,andOthello’.ELH,(),–.Maus,KatherineEisaman.InwardnessandtheTheatreoftheEnglishRenaissance.ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress,.‘ProofandConsequences:InwardnessanditsExposureintheEnglishRenaissance’.InMaterialistShakespeare.Ed.IvoKamps.LondonandNewYork:Verso,,–.May,Stephen.TheElizabethanCourtierPoets:ThePoemsandtheirContexts.ColumbiaandLondon:UniversityofMissouriPress,.McCandless,David.‘Helen’sBed-trick:GenderandPerformanceinAll’sWellthatEndsWell’.ShakespeareQuarterly,.(Winter),–.Melchiori,Giorgio.Shakespeare’sDramaticMeditations:AnExperimentinCriticism.Oxford:ClarendonPress,.Miller,NaomiJ.andGaryWaller(eds.).ReadingMaryWroth:RepresentingAlternativesinEarlyModernEngland.Knoxville:UniversityofTennesseePress,.Miller,Naomi.‘Playing“themother’spart”:Shakespeare’sSonnetsandEarlyModernCodesofMaternity’.InShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays.Ed.JamesSchiffer.NewYork:Garland,,–.Montaigne,Michel.TheEssaysofMicheldeMontaigne.Trans.anded.M.A.Screech.Harmondsworth:Penguin,.Mullaney,Steven.ThePlaceoftheStage:Licence,Play,andPowerinRenaissanceEngland.ChicagoandLondon:ChicagoUniversityPress,.Neely,CarolThomas.‘WomenandMeninOthello’.ShakespeareStudies,(),–.Neill,Michael.‘ChangingPlacesinOthello’.ShakespeareSurvey,(),–.‘“Mulattos’,‘Blacks”,and‘IndianMoors”:OthelloandEarlyModernCon-structionsofHumanDifference’.ShakespeareQuarterly,.(Winter),–.Nelson,William.‘From“ListenLordings”to“DearReader”’.UniversityofTorontoQuarterly,(–),–.Orgel,Stephen.Impersonations:ThePerformanceofGenderinShakespeare’sEngland.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,.Parker,David.‘VerbalMoodsinShakespeare’sSonnets’.ModernLanguageQuarterly,.(September),–.Patterson,Annabel.ShakespeareandthePopularVoice.Oxford:Blackwell,.Pequigney,Joseph.SuchIsMyLove:AStudyofShakespeare’sSonnets.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,.
Bibliography‘Sonnets–:TextsandContexts’.InShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays.Ed.JamesSchiffer.NewYork:Garland,,–.Pirkhoffer,AntonM.‘TheBeautyofTruth:TheDramaticCharacterofShakespeare’sSonnets’.InNewEssaysonShakespeare’sSonnets.Ed.HiltonLandry.NewYork:AMSPress,,–.Popper,Karl.TheOpenSocietyanditsEnemies.VolumeI.TheSpellofPlato.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress,.Pratt,MaryLouise.TowardsaSpeech-ActTheoryofLiteraryDiscourse.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,.Puttenham,George.TheArteofEnglishPoesie.Ed.G.D.WillcockandA.Walker.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,;reprinted.TheArteofEnglishPoesie.London:.ScholarPressFacsimile.Menston,England:TheScholarPress,.Ramsey,Paul.TheFickleGlass:AStudyofShakespeare’sSonnets.NewYork:AMSPress,.Rea,John.‘Iago’.Names,(),–.Rose,Jacqueline.‘Hamlet–theMonaLisaofLiterature’.CriticalQuarterly,(),–.Rowse,A.L.Shakespeare’sSonnets:TheProblemsSolved.London:Macmillan,.DiscoveringShakespeare.London:WeidenfeldandNicholson,.Ryle,Gilbert.‘Categories’.ProceedingsoftheAristotelianSociety,(–).Schalkwyk,David.‘TheRoleofImaginationinAMidsummerNight’sDream’.Theoria,(May),–.‘“What’sinaname?”,Derrida,Apartheid,andtheNameoftheRose’.LanguageSciences,.(April),–.‘Shakespeare’sTalkingBodies’.Textus:EnglishStudiesinItaly,(),–.‘TheChroniclesofWastedTime’?Shakespeare’sSonnetsRevisited’.TheEnglishAcademyReview,(),–.LiteratureandTheTouchoftheReal:WordsintheWorldandLiteraryTheory.Newark:UniversityofDelawarePress,forthcoming.Schiffer,James,ed.Shakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays.NewYork:Garland,.Schoenbaum,Samuel.ShakespeareandOthers.London:ScholarPress,.Shakespeare’sLives,newedition.Oxford:ClarendonPress,.Searle,JohnR.SpeechActs:AnEssayinthePhilosophyofLanguage.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,.‘TheLogicalStatusofFictionalDiscourse’,NewLiteraryHistory,(),–.‘ReiteratingtheDifferences:AReplytoDerrida’.Glyph,(),–.Seddgwick,EveKosovsky.BetweenMen:EnglishLiteratureandMaleHomosocialDesire.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,.Shakespeare,William.TheWorksofShakespeare.Ed.AlexanderPopeandWilliamWarburton.vols.London:J.andR.Tonson,.TheFirstFolioofShakespeare.TheNortonFacsimile.Ed.CharltonHinman.NewYork:W.W.Norton,.
BibliographyShakespeare’sSonnets.Ed.StephenBooth.NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress,.TheSonnetsandALover’sComplaint.TheNewPenguinShakespeare.Ed.JohnKerrigan.Harmondsworth:Penguin,.TheCompleteWorks.TheOxfordShakespeare.Ed.StanleyWellsandGaryTaylor.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,.TheSonnets.TheNewCambridgeShakespeare.Ed.G.BlakemoreEvans.CambridgeandNewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,.TheNortonShakespeare.Ed.StephenGreenblatt,WalterCohen,JeanE.HowardandKatherineEisamanMaus.NewYorkandLondon:W.W.Norton,.TheSonnets.TheNewArdenShakespeare.Ed.KatherineDuncan-Jones.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,.Sidney,SirPhilip.AstrophilandStella.InThePoemsofSirPhilipSidney.Ed.WilliamA.RinglerJr.Oxford:Clarendon,,–.Sipahigli,T.‘Othello’sName.OnceAgain’.NotesandQueries,(),–.Smith,BruceR.HomosexualDesireinShakespeare’sEngland:ACulturalPoetics.ChicagoandLondon:UniversityofChicagoPress,.‘I,You,He,She,andWe:OntheSexualPoliticsofShakespeare’sSonnets’.InShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays.Ed.JamesSchiffer.NewYork:Garland,,–.Snow,Edward.A.‘LovesofComfortandDespair:AReadingofShakespeare’sSonnet’.ELH,(),–.Snyder,Susan.‘NamingNamesinAll’sWellthatEndsWell’.ShakespeareQuarterly,.(Fall),–.‘TheKing’sNotHere:DisplacementandDeferralinAll’sWellthatEndsWell’.ShakespeareQuarterly,.(Spring),–.Spenser,Edmund.ThePoeticalWorksofSpenser.Ed.J.C.SmithandE.deSelincourt.London:OxfordUniversityPress,.Spencer,T.J.B.‘“Greeks”and“Merrygreeks”:ABackgroundtoTimonofAthensandTroilusandCressida’.InEssaysonShakespeareandElizabethanDramainHonorofHardinCraig.Ed.RichardHosley.Columbia:UniversityofMissouriPress,,–.Spiller,Michael.TheDevelopmentoftheSonnet:AnIntroduction.London:Routledge,.Stallybrass,Peter.‘EditingasCulturalFormation:TheSexingofShakespeare’sSonnets’.InShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays.Ed.JamesSchiffer.NewYork:Garland,,–.Stevens,John.MusicandPoetryintheEarlyTudorCourt.London:Methuen,.Stewart,Alan.‘TheEarlyModernClosetDiscovered’.Representations,(Spring),–.Targoff,Ramie.‘ThePerformanceofPrayer:SincerityandTheatricalityinEarlyModernEngland’.Representations,(Fall),–.Tennenhouse,Leonard.PoweronDisplay:ThePoliticsofShakespeare’sGenres.London:Methuen,.
BibliographyTilyard,E.M.W.Shakespeare’sProblemPlays.Harmondsworth:Peregrine,.Thomson,Peter.Shakespeare’sTheatre.ndedn.LondonandNewYork:Methuen,.Vendler,Helen.‘Reading,StagebyStage:Shakespeare’sSonnets’.InShakespeareReread:TheTextsinNewContexts.Ed.RussMcDonald.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,,–.‘Shakespeare’sSonnets:ReadingforDifference’.BulletinfortheAmericanAcademyofArtsandSciences,.(),–.TheArtofShakespeare’sSonnets.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,.Vickers,Nancy.‘DianaDescribed:ScatteredWomanandScatteredRhymes’.CriticalInquiry,(–),–.Voloshinov,V.N.MarxismandthePhilosophyofLanguage.Trans.LadislawMatejkaandI.R.Titunik.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,.Warren,Roger.‘WhyDoesItEndWell?:Helen,Bertram,andtheSonnets’.ShakespeareSurvey,(Spring),–.Weimann,Robert.‘Bi-foldAuthorityinShakespeare’sTheatre’.ShakespeareQuarterly,.(Winter),–.‘Shakespeare(De)Canonized:ConflictingUsesof“Authority”and“Representation”.’NewLiteraryHistory,.(Autumn),–.‘RepresentationandPerformance:AuthorityinShakespeare’sTheater’.PMLA,.(May),–.‘ThresholdsofMemoryandCommodityinShakespeare’sEndings.’Repre-sentations,(Winter),–.AuthorityandRepresentationinEarlyModernDiscourse,ed.DavidHilman.Baltimore,MD:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,.Author’sPenandActor’sVoice:PlayingandWritinginShakespeare’sTheatre.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,.Wheeler,RichardP.Shakespeare’sDevelopmentandtheProblemComedies:TurnandCounter-Turn.Berkeley,LosAngelesandLondon:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,.Whittier,Gayle.‘TheSonnet’sBodyandtheBodySonnetizedinRomeoandJuliet’.ShakespeareQuarterly,(),–.ReprintedinCriticalEssayson‘RomeoandJuliet.’Ed.JosephA.Porter.NewYork:G.K.Hall,,–.Wilson,KatherineM.Shakespeare’sSugaredSonnets.London:GeorgeAllen&Unwin,.Wilson,Thomas.TheArtofRhetoric.Ed.PeterE.Medine.UniversityPark:PennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,.Wittgenstein,Ludwig.TractatusLogico-Philosophicus.Trans.C.K.Ogden.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul,.PhilosophicalInvestigations.Trans.G.E.M.Anscombe.Oxford:Blackwell,.OnCertainty.Ed.G.E.M.AnscombeandG.H.VonWright.Trans.DenisPaulandG.E.M.Anscombe.Cambridge:Blackwell,.LastWritings,vol..Ed.G.H.vonWrightandHeikkiNyman.Trans.C.G.LuckhardtandMaximilianA.E.Aue.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,.
BibliographyWofford,SusanneL.‘“ToYouIGiveMyself,ForIAmYours”:EroticPerformanceandTheatricalPerformativesinAsYouLikeIt’.InShakespeareReread:TheTextsinNewContexts.Ed.RussMcDonald.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,,–.Wright,GeorgeT.‘TheSilentSpeechofShakespeare’sSonnets’.InShakespeare’sSonnets:CriticalEssays.Ed.JamesSchiffer.NewYork:Garland,,–.Wroth,Mary.ThePoemsofLadyMaryWroth.Ed.JosephineA.Roberts.BatonRougeandLondon:LouisianaStateUniversityPress,.Zandevoort,R.W.‘PuttingOuttheLight:SemanticIndeterminacyandtheDeconstitutionofSelfinOthello’.EnglishStudies,(),–.Zitner,SheldonP.All’sWellthatEndsWell.NewYorkandLondon:HarvesterWheatsheaf,.
Indexabsence,andn.;HowToDoThingsWithaccusationWords,,,;illocutionaryforce,;action(seealsospeechacts),;activeperlocutionaryforce,femaledesireauthorisation,,;authorisingpoweraddress,,;circleof;circumstances;politicsofself-authorisation,,;of,,,,;directionsof;self-authorisingpower,,,;embodiedsituationsof;gapbetweenself-authorisingpublicshow;addresserandaddressee;properaddressself-proclaimedperformativeauthority;theatricalautobiographicalmode,,,,;addressee,;embodimentofthe,;deicticautobiographicalreferences;gapbetweenaddresseranaddresseeinternallogicalevidence;sonnetsasAdelman,Janetn.“pure”autobiographyaesthetics:aestheticappreciationagency,,,,,,,,,Bakhtinn.,,n.,andn.,,;female;ofpraiseandn.,;‘event’oftheutteranceagreementAlthusser,Louisn.Barber,C.L.,andn.,n.;‘AnEssayAmoretti(seeSpenser)ontheSonnets’anachronismBarish,Jonasandn.androgyny,Barker,Francisandn.,,n.anti-theatricality(seetheatricality)Barrell,Johnn.apology,Barthes,Rolandandn.,,appropriation:dialogicalbeauty,,,;theungenderingofarbitrarinessofsignsbeautyaristocraticpatronage;andtheplayer-poetbed-trick,;inequality,;negotiationsbetweenbeing:inner;outerpowerandweakness;poetryasbeloved;aristocratic;beloved’sproperaristocraticpastime;transformationofnametermsofrelationship;relationshipBelsey,Catherinebetweenaddressorandaddressee;socialBenson,,;editionrelationsofpowerBerthould,Jacques,n.;IntroductionAstrophilandStella,,,,,,,,toTitusAndronicus,;dialogicalinteraction;songs,Song,Song,Song;Sonnets,sonnet,sonnet,,sonnetbetrayal,sonnet,sonnet,sonnetbi-foldauthority,audience,,,,,,,,,,biography,;biographicalcriticism,,,,,,,,,,,,;biographicalscholarship;;complexitiesof;dissemination;revulsionfrommultiple;publicaudienceblacknessAustin,John,,,,andn.,,,BlakemoreEvans,G.,andn.and,,,,,n.,,,blame
Indexblazon,,,,,,,,,,contexts,;originalcontextofaddressandreception,blood:noblecorporealityofthereferentBoccacciocostumebody,the;emblazoned;idealised;courtlyvaluesmaterialityof;scattered;Cratylitic:desire;identity;matchtranscendingthecorporealityofthebodybetweenwordandobject,Booth,Stephenandn.,n.,andn.,Crew,Jonathann.,n.n.critics:feminist;literaryBourdieu,Pierreandn.,criticismBradbrook,Murieln.CulturalMaterialismBristol,Michael;PrintManuscriptandCupidPerformanceBruster,Douglas,andn.;‘TheDanielStructuralTransformationofPrintinLatedarklady,,,,,,,,,ElizabethanEngland’,,;darkwoman,,,,,,,,,carnivalesque,thedarklord,,,,,,,categorymistakedarkness,,;black,Cavell,Stanleyn.,,,n.Day,Angeln.Chapmandeathoftheauthor,chastity;female,declarationoflovecharacter;differentpossiblepersonaedefinition,;definitionpoem;definitionsratherthandescriptionscitationdeGrazia,Margaretan.,n.,n.Clarkson,Carroln.,,;NamingdeixisandPersonalIdentity;performativeactofDeliarenamingDerrida,Jacques,,,,,,,,class,,,,,,,,;andn.,,;ActsofLiteraturebloodandclass,,,;classn.;iterability;LimitedInc,n.,aspirationsofplaywright,,;classn.,n.,n.;presence;rivalry;difference,,;SpeechandPhenomenan.inequalities;lowlinessdescription,closet:asmostprivate,‘inward’roomofdeSelincourt,E.n.aristocratichousedesire,,,,;agency,;clothingdeferred;desireisdeath,;eroticCloud,Randomn.,andn.,;female,,,;genderedcode;singsascodedentities;homosexual;inthesonnets;Colie,Rosalieandn.Lacanian;lust,;male,;collageobjectof,;sexual;thwartedcomedydialogue:dialogicalappropriation;commonname,,,,,,,dialogicalfusionofvoicesanddesires;dialoguesonnets;interactive,,,commonplayer,,,communalspeechdifference,,,,,,;community,betweenmenandwomen,;betweenconcepts;conceptsassigns;conceptual‘use’and‘mention’n.;classandandideal;conceptualdistinctioneconomic,,,,,,,;betweeninwardnessandoutwardness;conceptual;generic;inthetheatreoflove;ofprivateandpublic;;ofrank,bloodandsocialpower,,performativeconcepts;pertainingto,;ofspeechacts;representedbyinwardnessorinteriority,;ruleforname,;sexual,concept,;thepurelyconceptualdiscourses;historical;indirect;constancy,,Petrarchan;political;public;constantive:acts;speechracist
Indexdiscrepancybetweenlanguageandsightfair;fairness;whitenessdisembodiment,fairfriend,,.–,;identitiesdisgracedisillusionment,,;disparagementfalsehood,farcedismemberment,female:agency;desire,,;disseminationofpoetrysexuality,,;subjectivitydisplay;publicfeminismdistance:socialandphysicalfeministcritics,;feministcriticism,distinction:betweenloveandlust;betweenmetaphysicalandmaterialanti-theatricalityFeinberg,Nona,n.,;betweentragedyandfarceFerry,Annn.,andn.,andn.,Donne,John,n.,,,,Doran,Madeleineandn.fiction;fictionalworld;fictions,;DraytontranscendenceoffactandfictiondressFineman,Joelandn.,andn.,,Dubrow,Heathern.,andn.,andandn.,,,,,,;Shakespeare’sn.,,n.,,,n.,n.,PerjuredEye:TheInventionofPoeticSubjectivityin,;CaptiveVictorsTheSonnets,Duncan-Jones,Katherine,,,n.FirstFolioand,,,andn.;Fish,Stanleyandn.,‘ShakespearesSonnets’Fleissner,RobertF.n.duty,,,,;love-as-duty,forgiveness,;publicdutyformalism,,;formalistcriticism,;formalistdisembodimentofpoetry,Egyptiancrocodile;formalistideasoflyricElam,Keir;Shakespeare’sUniverseofDiscourse:formsoflifeLanguageGamesintheComediesFoucault,Michelandn.,,,Elizabethansonnet;asformofsocialactionFumerton,Patrician.;publicandembodiedmediumeloquence:andimpotencegaystudiesemblazonment(seealsoblazon)gaze;perjorative;publicembodiment,,,,,,,,,gender,,,,;gendered,,,,,,,,;asymmetryofspeechacts;genderedembodiedaction;embodiedandrogynydesire;genderedspeechposition;;embodiedcharacters;embodiedgenderedsubjectpositions;identity;response;embodiedtexts,;performanceofgender;ungenderingofembodimentandaddress,,,;beautyembodimentinescapableinthetheatre,genre;normativity,,;necessaryembodiment;ofGerhard,John;TheHerbalsonnet’svoiceviatheplays;theatricalGirouard,Robertn.,Glock,Hans-Johannn.energeiagrammar:intheWittgensteiniansense;theEngle,Larsandn.,,andn.,grammaticaln.,n.,Grazia,Margaretadeepideixis,,,,,Greenblatt,Stephenn.,andn.epistemologicalcorrespondencebetweenwordGreene,ThomasM.n.,andobjectGrevilleepithetGross,Kennethandn.,essence,erotic,theHamer,Maryn.eternal‘no’HelenEverett,Barbaran.hierarchy(seealsoclass);hierarchicalexamplerelationshipexchange:eroticandeconomichistoricism,
Indexhistoricistcriticism,,,;ofinteriority;materialinteriority;historicisingcriticism,modern,;oflove;properlyhistory:ofideas;ofsubjectivity;ofthefemale;unrepresentableinteriority,representationofsubjectivityhistrionics,.invention;freshinventionHolofernesinwardness,,,,,,,homoeroticdesire;andlanguagegames;asproblemofhomosexuality,;homosexualfantasiesotherminds;beingatoddswithsociety,;earlymoderninwardness;homosocial:fantasies;rivalryinexpressibleinwardnesshonour,iterability;iteration,,,,Howard,JeanE.n.,n.Hulse,Clarkn.Hunter,G.K.,‘TheDramaticTechniqueofJardine,Lisa,n.Shakespeare’sSonnets’n.Jehoviantautologyhusband,JonsonHusserl,Edmundn.Hutson,Lorna,Kahane,HenryandRen´een.Kamps,Ivon.identity,,;confused;fairfriendKernan,Alvinn.,n.;gendered;names;ofform;Kerrigan,John;TheSonnetsandALover’ssocialComplaintn.idealisation,,,,;Kesler,R.L.n.,counter-ideal,;idealisedbody;Kripke,Saul,andn.,,andn.,theconceptualandideal,,,,,n.;propernamesasrigid,designatorsideologicalstructuresillocutionaryact,,,,,,,,Lacan,Jacques,,,;discrepancyofillocutionaryforcelanguage,,,,;asaformof;illocutionaryeffects;illocutionaryaction;asacode;asperformativeforce,,,;necessarylogicof;mediumofsexualexchange;asunspokenunreliable;consensuallinguisticpracticeimageofyoungman;earlymodernviewoftheidentityofimago,languageandtheworld;games,,imperativemood,,,,,,,;inadequacyofwordstotheirobjectsinadequacyofwordstotheirobject;inequalityofsocialclassandrankinward/ofinteriority,,;inuse,indicativemood;linguisticaction;linguisticrule;ofindirectdiscourse;freeindirectspeechtheself;Petrarchanindependence;declarationofLanyer,Emilia,,,inequality,;inequalitiesofpowerLatham,Agnesandn.infamiaLees,F.N.n.theinexpressible;inexpressibleinwardnessLevenson,Jillandn.,;unknowableandinexpressible‘inside’literarycriticlogicalnecessityinformer,love,,,,,,,,,inner:feeling;speech;state,,,,,,,,;Innesn.ambitious,;andduty,,,instance,,,,,;andlanguagegames;interactivity;interaction,;interactionasinexpressibleandprivate;aswar;andresponse;interactivedialogue,,conceptof;constancyof;consuming,,,,andnegating;cruellove,;interiority,,,,,,,,declarationof,;familial;forced,,;asinextricablyimbricatedin;Hamlet’sforOphelia;idealised;theatricality,;Elizabethanconceptoftheplayer-poet;romantic;self-love
Index,;self-sacrificial;‘silentloue’;modern:formalistdisembodimentofpoetrytriangle,;unrequited;interiority,,lying;falsehoodMontaigne,Michel,n.Lyotard,Jean-Fran¸coisn.moral;right,lyric,,,,;formalistideasof;muteness;onstagesonnetaslyric;speaker;surroundingmutuality,,,,,;‘mutuallsocialcircumstancesrender’Macey,SamuelL.n.names,,,,,,,,madness,,;asanetworkofrelationships;asMagnusson,Lynne,n.,n.,,rigiddesignators,,,;aswebofn.,;ShakespeareandSocialDialogue:irreduciblesocialrelations,;bearerDramaticLanguageandElizabethanLetters–,andname,;dividedself;good,name,;‘inhumanity’ofname;inMaitland,F.W.n.,Othello;nameofthefather;namesandmale:admiration;desire,,love;namesandthings,,,,,,;performativepowerofMalone,namesandnamingevents,,,Malone/Steevensdebate,,,,;wifeinnameonlymanuscriptcirculationmaterialism,Nature,,Marotti,Arthurandn.,andn.,,Neill,Michaeln.,n.andn.,;manuscriptcirculationNelson,Williamn.;PrintManuscriptandPerformanceNewCriticismMasten,Jeffreyn.NewHistoricism,Matz,Robertn.noblebloodMaus,KatherineEisaman,n.,,,,,n.,;theproblemofobjects:idealmatchingofwordandobject;othermindsintheworld;ofdesire,marriage,,,;ceremony,,Ophelia:allowednolanguageforaninterior;companionate;consummationofself;deniedprivacy;perverbadepraesenti;self-initiating,Orgel,Stephenn.,andn.self-authorisingperformative,;ornament,,,,,unconsummatedothernessMarstonoutwardness,;outwardshowmaterialistcriticism,,;materialanti-theatricality,;materialprivacypainPamphiliatoAmphilanthusMay,Stephenandn.paradigm,,,,,,;newMcCandlessn.,paradigms;ofnames,;oftruthMcLeod,Randall;paradigmaticdefinition;paradigmsmeaning;andnames,;projectedandstandardsparentage,Melchiorin.,;Shakespeare’sDramaticParker,Davidn.,,n.MeditationsParoles;asShakespeare;Paroles’sMeres,Francis,,sonnet,metaphysical:anti-theatricality,,;ThePassionatePilgrim,privacypatriarchalexpectationsoffemalechastityMiller,Naomin.patronagemimesis,patrons,,mimicry,Pequigny,Josephn.,n.,andn.,mirror(seealsoreflection);mirroring;,n.;bisexualcharacterofsonnetsmirroringofselfthroughothers;;‘ShakespearesSonnets’;SuchIsMyperformativemirrorLove:AStudyofShakespeare’sSonnets,misogyny,,,performance,;public
Indexperformativelanguage,,,,,,,poetic:speech;subject;subjectivity,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;non-linguisticperformatives;poetry,;andtheatre;asforceandperformativeagency;performativeasaction;asformofsocialaction;privatelove;performativeaspectsofprayer;spaceof;theatricalityofperformativeconcepts,;political,the,;politicalinscriptionsofperformativediscourse,;love;politicalagency;politics;performativeeffectsofrhetoric,;politicsofgenderandclass;politicsofperformativemirror;performativeself-authorisation;politicalstructure;power,,,,,;world;vicissitudesperformatives,,,,,,,,Pollock,F.andn.,,,,,,,,,Pope,Alexander,,,,,,,,,,Popper,Karln.;performativevs.constative;popularsongsandballadsphilosophyofspeechacts;politicsofportraitureself-authorisation;publiclyavailablelogicpossibleworlds,,,oftheperformative,;quasi-fictitiouspoststructuralismperformatives;quasi-performatives,power,,;asymmetryofpower,,,,;self-authorisingbetweenmenandwomen;ofaKingtoperformative,enforce‘love’;oflanguage;oftheperlocution,,;contingentforceof;spectator,;ofthewomentobreakperlocutionaryacts;perlocutionarysonnetagainsttheirbodies;silenceaseffectsofastatementordescription,sourceofpower;social;perlocutionaryforce,,,powerrelations,,,,,,;personal(seealsoprivacy)authorisingpower;re-negotiationof;personalrelations,unequalpowerrelations,–Petrarchan,,,,,,,praise,,,,,,,,,;,,,,;anti-Petrarchanagencyof;theexorbitantpowerofthought;beloved,,;blazon,Pratt,MaryLouise,TowardsaSpeech-ActTheory;comparison;deigesis;discourseofLiteraryDiscourse,,;love,;poet;Petrarchpresence,,;mode,,,;oxymoron;primarymodeloflanguage,sonnets(Sonnets–);stereotypes;privacy,,,,,,,,theatricality;tradition,,,,,,,,,,,;isnot,,,,,,,,,;versereducible,asaconcept,tothepublic;ofthewrittenpage;divisionofprivatefromphenomenologicalreduction,public,,;metaphysicalandPirkhoffer,AntonM.n.materialprivacy;personalspaceofPlato:platonicreadings,,,,,‘mutuallrender’;privateandpublicdistinguishedbydifferencesinlanguageplayer,,;common,;games;privatelanguage,;privateprecarioussocialpositionof;theplayersmoderninteriority;privatemuteness;,privateorinteriordiscourses,,;player-poet,,,,,,,,,privatesphere,,,,,;the,,,,,,,,,valueofthepersonal;solitaryreading,,,,,,,,,,,,;anti-theatricalityof;distanceprofitbetweenplayer-poetandaristocraticprojections,,;imaginativebeloved,;Helenasplayer-poet;projectionasapositiveprocessIagoasafantasyimageofplayer-poet;promises,,,manofthetheatre;resemblingBertrampronouns;inthesonnets,;subjectivityofproperaddresspoemasmirrorpropernames,,,,,,,,,,poet:Petrarchan,,,,,,–,,,,poetics:ofblame;of‘truevision’,,–,–,,,,;
Indexabsenceofnamesinsonnets,,,;rhetoric,,,,;oferoticpersuasionauthor’sname;descriptiontheoryof;performativerhetoric;persuasivepropernames;fictionaltexts;rhetoricgrammaticalandlogicalrolesof;right:toloveandbeloved;toaccuseindispensabilityof;inShakespeare’srivalry;homosocial;rivalpoetry;sonnets,,–;ofanauthor,;withunknownpoet,‘Othello’;persona’sname;presenceofromance:romanticandcompanionateunionnamesinsonnets;rigidityof,,,,,,;‘Shakespeare’asaproperRose,Jacquelinen.name,,;thenatureofthenameroutesofcirculationRowse,A.L.andn.,,andn.,public,,,,,,,,,andn.,,,,,,,;affiliations;rulesfortheuseofwords,;definingrulesandprivatedistinguishedbydifferencesinlanguagegames;attention;audienceRyle,Gilbertandn.;declarationsoflove,,;discourses,;display,;sample,;Saussure,;divisionofprivatefrompublic,,,post-Saussureantheoryoflanguage;;duty;eloquence;gaze;lifesemiotics,;occasion,;performancescepticism:thescepticaldisposition;performatives,;pressures,(Wittgenstein);publiclyaccessiblestandardsofSchalkwyk,Davidn.,n.,n.,behaviour,;space,,;spacen.,n.ofaristocraticaudience;speech,;Schiffern.,stagingSchoenbaum,Samuelandn.puredeixisSearle,JohnR.,andn.,,n.,Puttenham,George,andn.,,;andn.,n.;‘ReiteratingtheTheArteofEnglishPoesieDifferences:AReplytoDerrida’self,,,;authenticorreal,Quarto,,;dispersalof;divided;quasi-performative,the(seeperformative)interior;love,;reflected,self-authorisation(seeauthorisation)racismsemiotics;SaussureanranksenseRamsey,Pauln.sexuality;female,,;sexualRea,Johnn.desire;sexualdifferencereciprocity,,,,,,,,,Shakespeare,William:plays:All’sWellthatEnds,,,,,,,,,Well,,,,,,,,,,,,,,;oflies;of,,,,AMidsummerNight’ssharedunfaithfulnessandmutualDream,,,,AntonyandCleopatra,acceptance;reciprocatedlove,;,,,,,,,,,,,reciprocatingsonnets;reciprocityofAsYouLikeIt,,,,,,,kissesCoriolanus,Hamlet,,,,,reception,,,,,,,,,referent,;corporealityofthe;,,,,,HenryV,,HenryembodiedVI,JuliusCaesar,KingLear–,,reflection;reflectedself,,,,,,,Love’sreiteration;reiteratedscatteringLabour’sLost,,,,,,,,,repetition,,,;oftheproper–,,,,,,,,,,,name,MeasureforMeasuren.,,,representation,;anxietyof;MuchAdoAboutNothing,,,,n.authorityof;limitsandprecariousnessof,,,,Othello,,,,,;re-representation,,,,,,,,,restitutio,,,RichardII,RomeoandJulietrevulsion;fromrepresentation,,,,,,,,–,,,
IndexShakespeare,William:(cont.),sonnet,sonnet,,,,,,,,,,,andn.,,,sonnet,,,sonnet,,,,TheTamingoftheShrew,,,,sonnet,sonnet,TheTwoGentlemenofVerona,TheWinter’sTale,,,,,,sonnet,,,TroilusandCressida,,,,,,,,sonnet,,,,sonnet,,,,,,,,,,,,sonnet,,,,,,,,,TwelfthNight,,sonnet,,,,sonnet,–,,,,,–,,,,,,sonnet,,,,,,andn.,,,;Shakespearean,,,,,,sonnet,comedy;‘-’sonnet,,sonnet,sonnet,,,titleaspropernameor,sonnet,,,,,sonnetdescription?,lackofpropernames;,,,,,sonnet,,sonnets:,sonnet,sonnet,sonnetsonnet,,sonnet,,,,,,sonnet,sonnetsonnet,,asextendedapology,,sonnet,sonnet,sonnet,,aspublicdocuments,,,sonnet,sonnet,sonnet,sonnetaudienceofsonnets,autobiographyin,sonnet,sonnet,sonnetsonnets,,,bisexualcharacterof,,,sonnet,,,sonnetsonnets,desireinthesonnets,,,sonnet,sonnet,sonnet,dialoguesonnet,contextsofsonnets,,,,,,,,sonnet,embodimentofsonnets,epistolary,,,,sonnet,,,,,sonnets,,multiplesubjectpositions,,–,,,,,,,insonnets,non-fictionalnatureof,,,,,,,,sonnetsonnets,performativelanguageof,,,,sonnet,,,sonnets(seeperformatives),proper,,sonnet,,,,,namesinsonnets(seepropernames),,,sonnet,,sonnet,,sonnetrecirculationofsonnets,representations,sonnet,sonnet,sonnetofthesonnetsinShakespeare’splays,,,sonnet,,sonnet,scandalousproblem,socialactioninandn.,,sonnet,,,,,sonnetform,,situationofaddress,sonnet,sonnet,,sonnetsonnetsinplays,,sonnetsinprinted,sonnet,sonnet,sonnet,anthologies,sonnetsonabsence,title,,,sonnet,sonnet,,ofsonnets,;theman,;themansonnet,,sonnet,sonnet,ofthetheatre;thewriter,sonnet,,,,,,shame,,;shamingsonnet,,,sonnet,sonnetshifters,sonnet,sonnet,sonnetSidney,Philip,,,,,,,,,,sonnet,sonnet,,,,,n.,andn.,,sonnet,,,,,,sonnet,sonnet,,,,,,,signifier:transcendentalsonnet,,,sonnet,sonnet,signs:codedentities;arbitrarinessofsonnet,,,sonnet,,,,silence(seealsomuteness),,,,,,,,sonnet,,sonnet,,,,,,,,,,;sonnet,,,sonnet,,,enforced;female;ofthebeloved;ofsonnet,,,sonnet,sonnetthespectatorandthewrittenword;,sonnet,,sonnet,,,silencingofthewoman,,;silencing,,sonnet,,,sonnetoftheyoungman;silentinteriority;,,sonnet,sonnet,sonnetsilentlove;silentspeechorwords,,,,,,,,,sonnet,,;silentthoughts;wonderandbe,,sonnet,,sonnet,silent–Antonio,sonnet,,,,,sonnetsimilitude,,,,;asamatch,,,sonnet,,sonnetbetweenawordandobject;denigration,,,sonnet,,,of;similarities,sonnet,,sonnet,sonnetSipahigli,T.n.,sonnet,sonnet,,situationofaddress,,,sonnet,,,,sonnetslander
IndexslaveryTargoff,Ramieandn.,,,Smith,BruceR.andn.,;homoerotictautology,,,,,,,;desireJehovian;‘youareyou’Smith,J.C.n.Tennenhouse,Leonardn.Snow,EdwardA.,n.,textualitySnyder,Susan,andn.,n.,thetextualsocial:action,,,,,,,,theatre,,,,;audience,,,;ambition;context;(seealso‘audience’);materialspaceofthe,classandrank,,,,,,;necessaryembodimentintheatre–,,;contamination;criticism;;poetryandtheatre;situationofdifference,,;distance,;addressandreceptionforce;inadequacy,;identity;theatricality,,,,,,,loveasliminalsocialcondition;network,,,,;anti-theatricality,,,;practices,;privateas,,,,,,;asasetofsocial;privatediscoursesinformedbysocialconditions,actionsandtechniquessocialworld;relationsofpower,,;ofpoetry;theatricalconditionto,,;relationshipsandconflicts,writing;theatricaldisplayofcostume,,,;selfassocialproduct;;theatricalembodiment,;specificationandcircumstancetheatricalmodeofthesonnets;theatricalsodomypower;theatricalpractice;theatricalsolitary:mind,;speech,representationsongs;fromAstroplilandStellatheory,,,,,;ofinwardnessspacing;intimatespaceofwritingandtheatricality;post-Saussureanspeech:communalspeech;indirect,thought,;innerspeech,,;poetic;Tilyard,E.M.W.n.position;solitaryspeech,;time,,;analysisof;necessityofsounded,publicortheatrical(outer),changeovertimetragedy,speechacts,,,,,,,,transcendence,;ofclassicaloppositions,;descriptive;modalitiesof;ofcorporealityofthebody;differentspeechacts;performative;transcendentalsignifierpretend;speechasaction;transformation,,,,,,unsounded;vow,;byaperformativespeechact,speechgenres,,,;ofthetermsofrelationshipSpenser,,;Amoretti;sonnet,;ofasituation;ofstatusSpencer,T.J.B.n.transformative:act;magicofspeech,Spiller,Michaeln.;power,,Stallybrass,Petern.,,triangularsituationsstandardtruth,,,,,,,,,Stevens,Johnn.,,,,,,;claimtoStewart,Alann.truthfulness;dilemmabetweenflatterystyleandtruth;ofhistory;Troilusasstructuralismparadigmoftruth,subject:femalesubjectofpoeticdescription;poetic;positions,,,unequalpoliticalandsocialrelationshipsubjectivity,,,,,;effectunion:romanticandcompanionate;poetic,;theavailabilityofhumantheunknowable,;unknowableandsubjectivityinexpressible‘inside’substitution,,,,,,,;utterance,,ofnamesSumptuaryLaws;sumptuaryexhibitionvalues;courtly;valuevassalageSurreyVendler,Helenn.,andn.,andn.swearing,,,andn.,,,,,syntax,,,,;TheArtofShakespeare’s
IndexVendler,Helen(cont.)Wilson,Thomas;ArtofRhetoric;Sonnetsn.,n.,;epistolaryWilsonKnight,G.andn.sonnets;genericdifferencebetweenlyricWittgenstein,Ludwig,,,,,,andothergenres;novelanddrama;andn.and,,,,,,,phenomenologicalreduction;social,,;beetleinthebox,,matrix;solitaryreadingconsciousness;;explanationofameaningofawordissociallyshapedconsciousnessitsuseinasentenceinaplay;formsofVickers,Nancyandn.,life;grammar,;languagegamesviolence;OnCertaintyn.;PhilosophicalvirtueInvestigations,n.,;themeaningofvoice,wordsliesintheiruse;TractatusVoloshinov,V.N.n.,n.Logico-Philosophicusn.vow,;asspeechact;swearing,Wofford,Susanneandn.,n.words:asessentiallyinnerthings;idealvulnerability:andinadequacy;ofmatchingofwordandobjectPetrarchanlover;oftheplayerWright,GeorgeT.andn.,,writing,,;theintimatespaceofWarren,Rogern.Weimann,Robert,andn.,andn.,Wroth,Mary;ThePoemsofLadyMaryWrothn.,;AuthorityandRepresentationinn.EarlyModernDiscourseWyatt,Thomas,Wheeler,Richardandn.,whitenessyoungman,,,,,,,,,Whittier,Gaylen.,,,,,;asmirror;describedaswhore,,standard;youngaristocrat;youngwife,,,;confirmed;inman’ssocialposition,;nameonlyself-absorptioninthefirstseventeensonnetsWill,,,,willWilson,KatherineM.n.Zandevoort,R.W.andn.
微信/支付宝扫码支付