NOTES

Introduction

Quotation of Shakespeare’s plays and poems in the chapters in this volume are taken from , The Complete Works of Shakespeare, ed. David Bevington, 6th edn. (New York: Pearson/Longman, 2009). 1. Sabine Melchior-Bonnet, The Mirror: A History, trans. Katharine H. Jewett (1994; New York and London: Routledge, 2001), 113. 2. Herbert Grabes, The Mutable Glass: Mirror-imagery in Titles and Texts of the Middle Ages and , trans. Gordon Collier (1973; rpt. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982), 202–20; Grabes, “Glassy Essence: Shakespeare’s Mirrors and Their Contextualization,” Hebrew University Studies in Literature and Art 9 (1981): 175–95; Carol Banks “ ‘The purpose of play- ing . . . ’: Further Reflections on the Mirror Metaphor in Shakespeare’s Plays,” Signatures 2 (2000): 1–12; Philippa Kelly, “Surpassing Glass: Shakespeare’s Mirrors,” Early Modern Literary Studies 8.1 (May 2002): 32 paras + 66 notes; and Arthur Kinney, “Shakespeare’s Mirrors,” Shakespeare’s Webs: Networks of Meaning in Renaissance (New York and London: Routledge, 2004), 1–34. 3. Grabes, The Mutable Glass, 204. Grabes classifies and analyzes mirror passages in , Love’s Labor’s Lost, , , Sonnet 62, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, King Richard II, King Richard III, , and . 4. See, e.g., Marvin Rosenberg, The Masks of (Berkeley: U of California P, 1972), 107; and Allan R. Schickman, “The Fool’s Mirror in King Lear,” English Literary Renaissance 21 (1991): 75–86. 5. The most recent, and the most thorough, analysis of King Richard II’s use of a mirror and its multivalent meanings appears in Kinney, Shakespeare’s Web 1, 3, 8–11, 12, 16, 18, 24, 26, 32–34. 6. “ ‘Words represent most exactly the image of the minde and soule: wherefore Democritus calleth speech . . . the image of life; for in words, as in a glass may bee seene a mans life and inclination.’ So writes Thomas Wright in The Passions of the Minde [1604] . . . . [in Timber; or Discoveries] declares: ‘Language most shewes a man: speake that I may see thee. It springs out of the most retired, and inmost parts of us, and is the Image of the Parent of it, the mind’ ” (Christina Luckyj, “A Moving ”: Gender and Silence in Early Modern England [Manchester and New York: Manchester UP, 2002], 13–14, 37). Thomas Wright, The Passions of the Minde (London: Valentine Simmes, 1604), 105; Ben Jonson, Timber; or Discoveries, Ben Jonson, ed. C. H. Herford, Percy and Evelyn Simpson (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947), 8:563–649, esp. 625. 7. For some of the mirror passages concerning images of Queen Elizabeth in this great poem, see , Spenser: The Faerie Queene, ed. A. C. Hamilton; text eds. Hiroshi 212 Notes

Yamashita and Toshiyuki Suzuki, Longman Annotated Poets (Harlow, UK: Longman, 2001), 1.Proem.1–5, esp. 4; 1.6.15; 2.Proem.4, 6–9; 2.3.25; 6.Proem.5–7. See Kathleen Williams, Spenser’s World of Glass: A Reading of The Faerie Queene (Berkeley: U of California P, 1966); and David Lee Miller, The Poem’s Two Bodies: The Poetics of the 1590 Faerie Queene (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1988), 101. 8. Benjamin Goldberg, The Mirror and Man (Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1985), 95–176; Melchior-Bonnet, The Mirror; Rayna Kalas, Frame, Glass, Verse: The Technology of Poetic Invention in the (Ithaca and London: Cornell UP, 2007), esp. 106–205. Also see Kinney, Shakespeare’s Webs, 3–5. 9. Melchior-Bonnet, The Mirror, 18; Goldberg, The Mirror and Man, 135–52; Grabes, The Mutable Glass, 4–5. The quoted phrases are Melchior-Bonnet’s. 10. Melchior-Bonnet, The Mirror, 22. This historian notes, however, that “[c]rystal glass mir- rors were not produced in England until 1624” (117–18). 11. Goldberg, The Mirror and Man, 143; Kalas, Frame, Glass, Verse, 100. 12. Kalas, Frame, Glass, Verse, 107; Melchior-Bonnet, The Mirror, 10. 13. Kalas, Frame, Glass, Verse, 107. 14. Melchior-Bonnet, The Mirror, 22. 15. George Gascoigne, The Steele Glas and The Complainte of Phylomene, ed. William L. Wallace, Elizabethan and Renaissance Studies 24 (Salzburg, Austria: Institut für Englische Sprache und Literatur, 1975), 86–138, 188–206. 16. Ibid., 68n73. 17. Kinney, Shakespeare’s Webs, 14–15. 18. Kalas, Frame, Glass, Verse, 114. 19. Goldberg, The Mirror and Man, 144. 20. Debora Shuger, “The ‘I’ of the Beholder: Renaissance Mirrors and the Reflexive Mind,” Renaissance Culture and the Everyday, ed. Patricia Fumerton (Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1999), 21–41. 21. Ibid., 22. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. On the supposedly rare occasions when, according to Shuger, an English Renaissance writer such as Sir John Davies in Nosce Teipsum does see reflected in a mirror an inward self, “that self turns out to be generic rather than individual” (ibid., 26). In Davies’ case, the “generic” self, according to this cultural critic, is his soul’s immortal face. 25. The thought of this sentence and that of the previous one derived from have, in a somewhat different form, been cited as precedent for Leontes’ seeing—momentarily, at least—the truth of Hermione’s and his conception of Mamillius (and the falseness of his jealousy) in the mirror of the boy’s face in The Winter’s Tale. See Kalas, Frame, Glass, Verse, 186, and Yves Peyré, “Mirrors in the Eyes: The Winter’s Tale, from Mannerism to Baroque?” Contexts of Baroque: Theatre, Metamorphosis, and Design, ed. Roy T. Eriksen, Novus Studies in Literature 1 (Oslo, Norway: Novus Press, 1997), 79–98, esp. 79–85. 26. In the most recent analysis of Sonnet 3, Aaron Kunin, in “Shakespeare’s Preservation Fantasy,” PMLA 124 (2009): 92–106, esp. 96–97, notes that “[t]he late introduction of the young man’s mother [in this sonnet] makes this account of reproduction . . . incoherent even on its own terms: the young man’s image is supposed to be exactly reproduced in the face of his child, but he has received that image from his mother . . . rather than from his father, which implies that ‘some’ mothers are more important than others” (97). Kunin’s shrewd insight does not affect Shakespeare’s assumption of the possibility in this sonnet of subjec- tive understanding delivered via a mirror. 27. Kelly, “Surpassing Glass” (paras. 8–10), provides a persuasive account of Shakespeare’s sense of a subjective self from his reaction to seeing his face in a mirror as recounted in Sonnet 62. Notes 213

Chapter One

1. Sir John Davies, Nosce Teipsum, Philosophy in Poetry: A Study of Sir John Davies’s Poem Nosce Teipsum (1903; rpt. New York: Greenwood Press, 1969), 221–319, esp. 275. 2. Ibid., 280, 281; emphasis in the original. 3. George Puttenham, The Arte of English Poesie, ed. Gladys Doidge Willcock and Alice Walker (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1936), 19. 4. Sir , The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia, ed. Maurice Evans (Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1977), 433–434. 5. , Dr. Faustus, The Complete Works of Christopher Marlowe, Volume II, ed. Fredson Bowers, 2nd edn. (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981), 121–271, esp. 172. 6. Baldassare Castigione, The Courtier, trans. Charles Singleton (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1959), 354. 7. Gordon Worth O’Brien, Renaissance Poetics and the Problem of Power (: Institute of Elizabethan Studies, 1956), 1–9, 17–21, 24, 26–27, 28, 38, 40, 45–46. 8. Ibid., 2. 9. Ibid. 10. Among this small minority must be counted Edmund Spenser, at least at the time he wrote An Hymne of Heavenly Beautie (1586): Thence gathering plumes of perfect speculation To impe the wings of thy high flying mynd, Mount up aloft through heavenly contemplation, From this darke world, whose damps of soule do blynd, And like the natiue brood of Eagles kynd, On that bright Sunne of glorie fixe thine eyes, Clear’d from grosse mists of fraile infirmities. (Ll. 134–40) Edmund Spenser, An Hymne of Heavenly Beautie, The Yale Edition of the Shorter Poems of Edmund Spenser, ed. William A. Oram et al. (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 1989), 735–52, esp. 742–43. 11. O’Brien, Renaissance Poetics, 3. 12. Francis Bacon, in the Novum Organum (I.12), concludes, “ ‘And the human understand- ing is like a false mirror, which, receiving rays irregularly, distorts and discolors the nature of things by mingling its own nature with it’ ” (O’Brien, Renaissance Poetics, 4). Note that Bacon, perhaps skeptically, does not say that the understanding is a false mir- ror, but that it is like a false mirror, as though the system of faculty psychology based on mirrors were simply a metaphor for something quite different. Still, Bacon maintained that “ ‘the mind of man is far from the nature of a clear and equal glass . . . Nay, it is rather like an enchanted glass, full of superstition and imposture, if it be not reduced . . . [The Medieval Scholastics] ever left the oracle of God’s works and adored the deceiving and deformed images with the unequal mirror of their minds . . . [that] did represent unto them’ ” (ibid., 6). 13. O’Brien, Renaissance Poetics, 18. 14. Thomas Kyd, in (1582><1592), possibly supplied Shakespeare with this scenario when, in a popular scene, Hieronimo sees a self-image in the mirror of the old man Don Balzuto, who has sought redress from the Knight Marshall of Spain for his murdered son. Confronted with the reflection of his own loss of his son, Hieronimo feels momentary compassion for Balzuto and for himself: Oh, my son, my son, oh, my son Horatio! But mine, or thine, Balzuto, be content. Here, take my handercher and wipe thine eyes, 214 Notes

Whiles wretched I in thy mishaps may see The lively portrait of my dying self. (3.13.81–85) Shortly thereafter, recovering from a mad fit in which he tears Balzuto’s petition, Hieronimo says, Ay, now I know thee, now thou nam’st thy son, Thou art the lively image of my grief; Within thy face, my sorrows I may see. Thy eyes are gummed with tears, thy cheeks are wan, Thy forehead troubled, and thy mutt’ring lips Murmur sad words abruptly broken off By force of windy sighs thy spirit breathes; And all this sorrow riseth for thy son; Come in, old man, thou shalt to Isabel; Lean on my arm, I thee, thou me shalt stay . . . (3.13.161–70) Thomas Kyd, The Spanish Tragedy, Drama of the English Renaissance, I, The Tudor Period, ed. Russell A. Fraser and Norman Rabkin (New York: Macmillan, 1976), 167–203, esp. 193–94. 15. Wright’s sentence appears in The Oxford English Dictionary to illustrate definition 1b of the verb “speculate”: “Said of the soul, understanding, etc.” 16. Robert Burton, The Anatomy of Melancholy, ed. Floyd Dell and Paul Jordan-Smith (New York: Tudor Publ., 1927), 144; emphasis in the original. 17. Ibid. 18. Ibid., 145; emphasis in the original. 19. Edward W. Tayler, “Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure: Its Glassy Essence,” Cithara: Essays in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition 37.1 (November 1997): 3–21, esp. 8. 20. William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, The Norton Shakespeare, ed. Stephen Greenblatt et al., 2nd edn. (New York: Norton, 2008), 2039–2108, esp. 2065; William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, The Riverside Shakespeare, ed. G. Blakemore Evans et al., 2nd edn. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 579–621, esp. 595. For a defense of this reading of Isabella’s phrase “glassy essence,” see Herbert Grabes, “Glassy Essence: Shakespeare’s Mirrors and Their Contextualization,” Herbrew University Studies in Literature and Art 9 (1981): 175–95, esp. 192–95. 21. J. V. Cunningham, “ ‘Essence’ and The Phoenix and Turtle,” ELH 19 (1952): 265–76, esp. 266; ; emphasis in the original. Editors representing one or more variations of this gloss include William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, ed. J. W. Lever, New Arden Shakespeare, 2nd series (1965; rpt. New York: Vintage, 1967), 46; and William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, ed. Brian Gibbons, The New Cambridge Shakespeare, updated edn. (1991; Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006), 123. Essentially adopting Cunningham’s gloss of Isabella’s phrase is Tayler, “Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure,” 8. Reading the phrase as “transparent self” seems beside the point, as Richard Wilson does in Shakespeare in French Theory: King of Shadows (London and New York: Routledge, 2007), 106. 22. Tayler, “Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure,” 17–18. 23. Ibid., 13. 24. I have substituted the 1623 Folio reading of “giver” for the 1609 Quarto “givers” that Bevington selected. “[G]iver” appears, e.g., in William Shakespeare, , The Riverside Shakespeare, 477–532, esp. 506. 25. William Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida: A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, ed. Harold Hillebrand (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1953), 411. Notes 215

26. Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida: A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, 412. Rolf Soellner, in Shakespeare’s Patterns of Self Knowledge (Columbus: Ohio State UP, 1972), concludes that “ ‘the author’ in whom Ulysses alleges to have read his reflection simile is a minor puzzle. I know of no ancient writer who used the image similarly,” he asserts, “certainly not Plato, who has been claimed as the source . . . . This author is indeed a ‘strange fellow,’ appar- ently invented by Ulysses” (197). Despite this last argument, Soellner, unpersuasively in my opinion, proposes a passage in Thomas Wright’s The Passions of the Mind in General (1601) as a possible source of Ulysses’ speculation about speculation (198–99). Anthony D. Nuttall, in Shakespeare The Thinker (New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2007), 211–12, argues that Shakespeare jokingly alludes to himself as “the strange fellow” with the book a copy of the playwright’s open to the page where Cassius tells Brutus that he cannot know his mind until it is reflected back to him by Cassius. 27. For an alternative analysis of the dialogue between Pandarus and the Servant, one that sug- gests that the talk creates an “equable, amicable” atmosphere, see Jane Adamson, Troilus and Cressida, Twayne’s New Critical Introductions to Shakespeare (Boston: Twayne, 1987), 76–77. 28. In a lengthy note on the Servant’s question about Pandarus’s state of grace, editor David Bevington in the most recent Arden Shakespeare edition of Troilus and Cressida cites for comparison primarily 2 Corinthians 9:8—“And God is able to make all grace to abound toward you, that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound in every good work”—and secondarily Ephesians 2:5–8 and Romans 5:15. Bevington concludes that “The Servant plays sardonically on a cant phrase of the [R]eformers to suggest that Pandarus, being in a state of grace in this Pauline sense, would be enabled to give to the poor, not as a good work meriting salvation but as a manifestation of being one of the Elect” (William Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, ed. David Bevington, The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series [1998; London: Thomson Learning, 2006], 364). 29. Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, The Riverside Shakespeare, 467. 30. Ritamary Bradley, “Background of the Title Speculum in Medieval Literature,” Speculum 29 (1954): 100–15, esp. 109; Joseph Mazzeo, Medieval Cultural Tradition in Dante’s Comedy (1960; rpt. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968), 1–90. 31. Mazzeo, Medieval Cultural Tradition in Dante’s Comedy, 15–16, 20–21. 32. Spenser, An Hymne of HeavenlyBeautie, 735–52; and Ruth Wallerstein, Studies in Seventeenth- Century Poetics (Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1965), 181–342, esp. 208. 33. In “Surpassing Glass: Shakespeare’s Mirrors,” Early Modern Literary Studies 8.1 (May 2002): 32 paras + 66 notes, Philippa Kelly in her analysis of Troilus and Cressida 3.3.101–3 (“As when his virtues, shining upon others, / Heat them, and they retort that heat again / To the first [giver]”) claims that the passage implies that “mirrors reflect the ‘heat’ of interiority”—that “in the image Ulysses conflates the mirror with the retort, an apparatus used in alchemy for heating and distilling liquids, to suggest that actions or qualities are nothing in themselves” (para 24). This alchemical reading is unconvincing. For an alternative analysis of Troilus and Cressida 3.3.101–3, see Debora Shuger, “The ‘I’ of the Beholder: Renaissance Mirrors and the Reflexive Mind,” Renaissance Culture and the Everyday, ed. Patricia Fumerton and Simon Hunt (Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1999), 21–41, esp. 38–39. 34. Kenneth Muir, Shakespeare’s Comic Sequence (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1979), 119–20. 35. Quoted in Mazzeo, Medieval Cultural Tradition in Dante’s Comedy, 36. 36. George Gascoigne, The Steele Glas and The Complainte of Phylomene, ed. William L. Wallace, Elizabethan and Renaissance Studies 24 (Salzburg, Austria: Institut für Englische Sprache und Literatur, 1975), 42–43. 37. Ibid., 42. 38. The primary art practiced in Troilus and Cressida is the destructive satire originating in the character of Patroclus. The friendship between Achilles and Patroclus produces little 216 Notes

more than invective and bad drama, demeaning to its creators because it is degrading to its objects. According to Ulysses, “Patroclus, / Upon a lazy bed the livelong day / Breaks scurril jests” with Achilles, “[a]nd with ridiculous and awkward action, / Which, slanderer, he imitation calls, / He pageants us” (1.3.146–51). In Patroclus’s caricatures of Agamemnon and Nestor, artistic imitation is abused (slandered), for neither Greek, despite his failings, resembles the cartoon Patroclus creates for the lolling Achilles. This debasing art is the result of Patroclus’s and especially Achilles’ rebellion, their defiance of military order and their selfish withdrawal from combat and camp life. In a political allegory, Shakespeare implies that the popularity of verse and dramatic satire in London at the turn of the sixteenth into the seventeenth century might be the consequence of social disorder, of the willful refusal of certain Elizabethan warriors such as Robert Devereux, the Earl of Essex, to depend upon the queen through their proper obedience to her and her orders for them. “And in the imi- tation of these twain” (Patroclus and Achilles), Nestor concludes that “many are infect[ed]” (1.3.185, 187). In other words, the mutual dependence of Achilles and Patroclus, which amounts to the standing alone of the complementary pair, becomes the model for the will- ful isolation in the play of Ajax and Thersites, who, in their roles of passive audience and vile satirist, replicate the functions of Achilles and Patroclus. Such is the infectious art form that develops when humankind pridefully wishes to stand alone, free from mutually supportive dependencies. Such is the art form that develops when humankind lacks the kind of epis- temology represented by Neoplatonized Christianity, a way of knowing by which it might understand itself wholesomely. On the contagion of Patroclus’s satiric art, see Eric Mallin, “Emulous Factions and the Collapse of Chivalry: Troilus and Cressida,” Representations 29 (Winter 1990): 143–79, esp. 151. For an account of the Trojans’ use of art in the play, see Carolyn Asp, “Transcendence Denied: The Failure of Role Assumption in Troilus and Cressida,” Studies in English Literature: 1500–1900 18 (1978): 257–74, esp. 257–66. 39. Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida, ed. Bevington, The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series, 120. 40. William Elton, Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida and the Inns of Court Revels (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1997). 41. Geoffrey Chaucer, Troilus and Criseyde, The Riverside Chaucer, ed. Larry D. Benson (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987), 471–585, esp. 584. 42. Cf. Muriel C. Bradbrook, “What Shakespeare Did to Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde,” Muriel Bradbrook on Shakespeare (Brighton, UK: Harvester Press, 1984), 99–109, esp. 105. Bradbrook claims that Shakespeare rejected the Christian perspective on the Troilus and Cressida story that he found in Chaucer. Her argument, however, is not convincing. For example, Ulysses’ reference in the Folio text of the play to “the first giver” (3.3.103) possibly involves an allusion to “The Firste Moevere of the cause above” in Chaucer’s The Knight’s Tale [I(A) 2987], where Theseus stretches the limits of his pagan perspective on the events of the tale to include Neoplatonic insights into the order of the cosmos, insights associated with a time later than the tale’s setting. A similar introduction of Neoplatonized thought into act 3, scene 3 of Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida strengthens the appropriateness of the above-described possible allusion in The Knight’s Tale. 43. Frederick Goldin, The Mirror of Narcissus and the Courtly Love Lyric (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1967), 209. Goldin’s epilogue, “The De Trinitate of St. Augustine and the Lyric Mirror” (207–58), amounts to a summary of Augustine’s epistemology and its importance for imagi- native literature in the Middle Ages. 44. Quoted in ibid., 220. 45. Quoted in ibid. 226, 228. 46. Ibid., 243–44. Charles Muscatine, in Chaucer and the French Tradition (1957; Berkeley: U of California P, 1964), remarks that the meaning of Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde “does not hinge on so fortuitous a fact as Troilus’ placing his faith in the wrong woman or in a bad woman, but in the fact that he places his faith in a thing which can reflect back to him the image of that faith and yet be incapable of sustaining it” (164). Notes 217

47. William O. Scott, in “The Speculative Eye: Problematic Self-Knowledge in Julius Caesar,” Shakespeare Survey 40 (1987): 77–87, esp. 77–82, argues that Shakespeare suggests in this Roman tragedy that knowledge of the self via its reflection in the face or character of another man (Cassius’s claim) is never possible. 48. Maurice Hunt, “Cobbling Souls in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar,” Cahiers Élisabéthains 64 (Autumn 2003): 19–28; reprinted in Shakespeare’s Christianity: The Protestant and Catholic Poetics of Julius Caesar, , and Hamlet, ed. Beatrice Batson (Waco, TX: Baylor UP, 2006), 111–29, 151–57. 49. F. P. Wilson, The Oxford Dictionary of English Proverbs, 3rd rev. edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 534. 50. Ironically, Brutus appears blind to an infirmity—a disingenuousness—of his own in his accusation of Cassius. According to William B. Toole, in “The Cobbler, The Disrobed Image, and the Motif of Movement in Julius Caesar,” The Upstart Crow: A Shakespeare Journal 4 (1986): 41–55, “Brutus rebukes Cassius for the manner in which he raises money and later criticizes him for not sending him the money he needs to pay his legions” (50). Also see G. Wilson Knight, The Imperial Theme (London: Oxford UP, 1931), 74; and Derek Traversi, Shakespeare: The Roman Plays (Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 1963), 64. 51. Stephen M. Buhler, “No Spectre, No Sceptre: The Agon of Materialist Thought in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar,” English Literary Renaissance 29 (1996): 313–32, esp. 326. 52. Ibid., 325. 53. John Roland Dove and Peter Gamble, “ ‘Lovers in Peace’: Brutus and Cassius—A Re-Examination,” English Studies 60 (1979): 543–54, esp. 547–48. 54. Coppélia Kahn, Roman Shakespeare: Warriors, Wounds, and Women (London: Routledge, 1997), 95. 55. William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, ed. David Daniell, The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series (Walton-on-Thames, UK: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 183. 56. Harley Granville-Barker, Prefaces to Shakespeare, Volume II: King Lear, , Julius Caesar (1936; rpt. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1965), 171. 57. Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, ed. David Daniell, 284. 58. Buhler, “No Spectre, No Sceptre,” 319–21. 59. Jan H. Blits, in the course of arguing that Cassius’s and Brutus’s friendship is the most elaborated friendship in the play, remarks that “Brutus and Cassius call each other ‘brother’ as many as eight times, although Shakespeare never explains that they are brothers-in-law” (“Manliness and Friendship in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar,” Interpretation 9 [1981]: 155–67, esp. 166–67). My argument demonstrates that even as Cassius abandons certain tenets of Epicureanism, so Brutus in his warm embrace of Cassius as “my dear brother” violates a principle of Stoicism. According to Marvin Vawter, in “Julius Caesar: Rupture in the Bond,” JEGP 72 (1973): 311–28, “the Stoic Wise Man sees himself as an independent entity unwilling to bind himself to any specific community. [Brutus has refused Cassius’s desire that the conspirators swear an oath to assassinate Caesar]. [The Stoic’s] entirely private per- sonality and his obsession with the self-sufficiency of his virtue-reason (the essential basis of Stoic philosophy) separate him from ordinary men” (316–17). Brutus in his soul brother- hood with Cassius thus apparently relinquishes a Stoic tenet that most likely contributed to his cold treatment of Cassius earlier in the quarrel scene. Essentially agreeing with Vawter is J. L. Simmons, “Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: The Roman Actor and the Man,” Tulane Studies in English 16 (1968): 1–28, esp. 23. 60. Hunt, “Cobbling Souls in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar,” 20–21, 21–22. 61. The Iliad of Homer, trans. Richmond Lattimore (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1951), 66. 62. Sir Thomas North, Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans Englished by Sir Thomas North, ed. W. E. Henley, The Tudor Translations (London: David Nutt, 1896), 6:216. 63. Cf., however, Thomas Pughe, “ ‘What Should the Wars do with These Jigging Fools?’: The Poets in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar,” English Studies 69 (1988): 313–22, esp. 317–18, 319–20. 218 Notes

Pughe asserts that Shakespeare introduces the camp poet to stress by contrast the absence of any saving powers of mind within Brutus: “In Brutus’s case, the violent treatment of the camp-poet is an outward manifestation of his denial of imagination and intuition” (320). 64. Stephen Booth, King Lear, Macbeth, Indefinition and Tragedy (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1983), 98–99. 65. William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Macbeth, ed. George Lyman Kittredge; rev. by Irving Ribner, The Kittredge Shakespeares (Waltham, MA: Blaisdell, 1966), 4. 66. Laurence Michel, The Thing Contained: Theory of the Tragic (Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1970), 52–53. 67. James. L. Calderwood, If It Were Done: Macbeth and Tragic Action (Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1986), 77. 68. For a full account of the trope antimetabole and it linguistic and structural importance for Shakespeare’s The Life and Death of King John, see Maurice Hunt, “Antimetabolic King John,” Style 34 (2000): 380–401. George Puttenham in The Arte of English Poesie (1589), terming antimetabole “the Counterchaunge,” provides a contemporary definition and several com- plex examples of the trope (Hunt, “Cobbling Souls in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar,” 382–83). 69. T h i s i s t he g lo s s of ed itor Nichol a s Brooke i n Wi l l i a m Sh a ke spe a re, The Tragedy of Macbeth, , Oxford World’s (1990; Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998), 158. The word “speculation” is glossed as “the power of sight, or of seeing” in William Shakespeare, Macbeth, ed. A. R. Braunmuller, The New Cambridge Shakespeare (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997), 181; and in William Shakespeare, Macbeth: Texts and Contexts, ed. William C. Carroll, The Bedford Shakespeare (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 1999), 71. 70. William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Macbeth, The Norton Shakespeare 2569–2632, esp. 2607. The single word “sight” is also the gloss in William Shakespeare, The Tragedy of Macbeth, The Riverside Shakespeare 1355–1390, esp. 1375. 71. William Shakespeare, Macbeth, ed. Kenneth Muir, The Arden Shakespeare, 2nd Series (1951; Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1953), 98. After his gloss, Muir cites Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida (3.3.107–11): but eye to eye opposed Salutes each other with each other’s form; For speculation turns not to itself, Till it hath travell’d and is mirror’d there Where it may see itself. (98) 72. The only other commentators I have found who gloss Macbeth’s word “speculation” in this sense are Samuel Singer and John Bullokar, both cited by Horace Howard Furness in Macbeth: A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, 3rd ed. rev. by Horace Howard Furness, Jr. (1873; Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1903), 222: “Speculation, the inward knowledge, or behold- ing of a thing.” Furness then notes that W. A. Wright in the 1869 Clarendon Press Series edition of the tragedy adds to this definition “the intelligence of which the eye is the medium, and which is perceived in the eye of a living man” (222). 73. The quoted phrase is Robert Bayliss’s, in The Discourse of Courtly Love in Seventeenth-Century Spanish Theater (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell UP, 2008), 42. 74. The 1623 Folio text of the play includes this stage direction, “A shew of eight Kings, and last, with a glasse in his hand” (William Shakespeare, Mr. William Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories & Tragedies: A Facsimile Edition Prepared by Helge Kökeritz [New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1954], 144 [Tragedies]). Nicholas Brooke summarizes the opinion of edi- tors throughout the centuries when he claims that the Folio stage “direction is no doubt a conflation of separate marginal notes, confused by copyist or compositor” (The Tragedy of Macbeth 175–76). Notes 219

75. Robert Greene, Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, Drama of the English Renaissance, I, The Tudor Period, 357–82, esp. 366. Bacon’s twice calling the glass a “crystal” (sc. 6, 15, sc.13, 83) sug- gests that it is not a looking glass, or mirror. The OED definition 4 of “Crystal” reads “A piece of rock-crystal or similar material: esp. one used in magic art.” The 1597 usage comes from King James I’s Demonology: “The Seer looks into a Chrystal or Berryl, wherein he will see the answer, represented in either Types or Figures.” 76. Edmund Spenser, Spenser: The Faerie Queene, ed. A. C. Hamilton; text. ed. Hiroshi Yamashita and Toshiyuki Suzuki (Harlow, UK: Longman, 2001), 304. All references to The Faerie Queene are to this edition. 77. Sabine Melchior-Bonnet, The Mirror: A History, trans. Katharine H. Jewett (1994; New York and London: Routledge, 2001), 189. Benjamin Goldberg, in The Mirror and Man (Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1985), 7, 8, 13, 15, 16–19, distinguishes Medieval and Renaissance scrying, the art that seeks to foretell the future and discover hidden knowledge in images of distant or future events that appear in a mirror, from catoptromancy, the dia- bolical use of a mirror to summon the devil. The distinguished man of science and confi- dant of Queen Elizabeth, John Dee, practiced scrying. But “[t]o further condemn scrying, the [Medieval] Church [had] associated it with witchcraft” (8). 78. Jonathan Goldberg, “Speculations: Macbeth and Source,” Shakespeare Reproduced: The Text in History and Ideology, ed. Jean E. Howard and Marion F. O’Connor (New York and London: Routledge, 1987), 242–64, esp. 253. 79. Jonathan Goldberg basically makes this last point, remarking that “the mother on whom James rested his claims to the throne of England . . . he sacrificed to assure his sovereignty” (ibid., 259). 80. The Tragedy of Macbeth, 176. The editors of Macbeth in The Norton Shakespeare point out that “James I was crowned twice, once as King of Scotland and later as King of England. He car- ried one orb at each coronation. ‘Treble scepters’ refers to the fact that he held two scepters in the English coronation and one in the Scottish, or perhaps to his claim to be King of Britain, France, and Ireland” (2614).

Chapter Two

1. Herbert Grabes, The Mutable Glass: Mirror-imagery in the Titles and Texts of the Middle Ages and English Renaissance, trans. Gordon Collier (1973; Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982), 100–3. 2. Ibid., 103. This author’s later application of Hamlet’s idea of drama as mirror to the play as a whole supposedly demonstrates the conventionality of the concept (216–18). 3. Charles Nicholl, Leonardo da Vinci, Flights of the Mind (New York: Viking Penguin, 2004), 48. 4. Oscar James Campbell, Comicall Satyre and Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida (San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1938). 5. Alvin Kernan, The Cankered Muse: Satire in the English Renaissance, Yale Studies in English 142 (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1959), 156–91. 6. Maurice Hunt, Shakespeare’s As You Like It: Late Elizabethan Culture and Literary Representation (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008), 62–67. 7. David Riggs, Ben Jonson: A Life (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1989), 56, 57; Campbell, Comicall Satyre, 1. 8. William Shakespeare, The Complete Works of Shakespeare, ed. David Bevington, 6th edn. (New York: Pearson Longman, 2009), 1121. 9. The Complete Works of Shakespeare, ed. Bevington, 1141. 220 Notes

10. Ben Jonson, Timber, or Discoveries, The Works of Ben Jonson, ed. C. H. Herford and Percy and Evelyn Simpson (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1947), 8:625. Stefano Guazzo in The Civile Conversation asserts that “[h]ee then than will behave himselfe wel in civile conversation, must consider that the tongue is the mirrour, and (as it were) the image of the minde” (Stefano Guazzo, The Civile Conversation of M. Steeven Guazzo, trans. George Pettie and Bartholomew Young [1581, 1586; London: Constable, 1925], 1:122–23). 11. The Complete Works of Shakespeare, ed. Bevington, 1141. 12. Ibid., 1116. 13. Shakespeare focuses the painting’s largest “message” at the beginning of his expansive word picture of Troy. A first glance at the tapestry shows “the power of Greece” deployed “[f]or Helen’s rape the city to destroy” (1368–69). 14. Bevington, like most editors of Hamlet, notes that Shakespeare should have written “King’s name” rather than the phrase “Duke’s name” here, since the speech headings of the inset play are “Player King” and “Player Queen.” Bevington remarks that the “inconsistency . . . may be due to Shakespeare’s acquaintance with a historical incident, the alleged murder of the Duke of Urbino by Luigi Gonzaga in 1538” (The Complete Works of Shakespeare, 1124). 15. Almost certainly, a brother-in-law figures in the part of The Murder of Gonzago that never gets acted because Claudius’s behavior aborts the performance. Incredibly, Hamlet in the excitement of the moment tells Claudius that the Player King’s murderer, Lucianus, is the king’s nephew, and that the murderer will win the love of Gonzago’s wife. But in the unacted part of the play, Lucianus is probably named the Player King’s brother-in-law, an identity perhaps made possible by one or more of the twelve or sixteen verses Hamlet has added to the play’s received script, but one that he undercuts by his impulsive outburst “nephew.” 16. Anthony Miller comes to a similar conclusion in “Hamlet, II.ii-III.iv: Mirrors of Revenge,” Sydney Studies in English 11 (1985–1986): 3-22, esp. 14. Miller notes that “The Murder of Gonzago, like the player’s speech about Pyrrhus, turns into a multiplying mirror: its key images of life reflect more than one character, allow of more than one judgment, and pro- duce unexpected reversals” (14). 17. The fullest and most learned analysis of these two possibilities involving a literal mirror in the closet is provided by Roland Mushat Frye, The Renaissance Hamlet: Issues and Responses in 1600 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1984), 151–60. 18. Quoted in Grabes, The Mutable Glass, 57–58. 19. This is the claim of Philip Armstrong, “Watching Hamlet Watching: Lacan, Shakespeare, and the Mirror Stage,” Alternative Shakespeares, Vol. 2, ed. Terence Hawkes (London and New York: Routledge, 1996), 216–37, esp. 235–36; and by Debora Shuger, “The ‘I’ of the Beholder: Renaissance Mirrors and the Reflective Mind,” Renaissance Culture and the Everyday, ed. Patricia Fumerton and Simon Hunt (Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1999), 21–41, esp. 30, 34. 20. Jerry Brotton, “Ways of Seeing Hamlet,” Hamlet: New Critical Essays. ed. Arthur F. Kinney, Shakespearean Criticism 23 (New York and London: Routledge, 2002), 161–76, esp. 165; Alan Stewart, “The Early Modern Closet Discovered,” Representations 50 (Spring, 1995): 76–100, esp. 82. 21. Brotton, “Ways of Seeing Hamlet,” 166. 22. Ibid., 167–68. Sometimes editors and commentators assert that Hamlet compares a minia- ture of his father, which he wears on a chain about his neck, with a miniature of Claudius that Gertrude wears about hers, perhaps by pulling her next to him where he can grasp the miniatures and show them to her side-by-side. Patricia Fumerton notes that Early Modern painted miniatures, because of their small oval size, “focus[ed] for the most part only on the face and shoulders, perhaps also the hands” (Cultural Aesthetics: Renaissance Literature and the Practice of Social Ornament [Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1991], 70). Hamlet says, in his description of his father’s portrait, that he in “station,” or stance, resembles “the herald Notes 221

Mercury / New-lighted on a heaven-kissing hill” (3.4.56–57). Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor suggest that Hamlet, in referring to this “athletic, upright . . . stance, . . . may indicate that [he] is describing (or imagining) a full-length portrait, not a head or bust as would have been more usual for a miniature” (William Shakespeare, Hamlet, ed. Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor, The Arden Shakespeare, 3rd series [London: Thomson Learning, 2006], 340). Most likely, the Prince is interpreting the details of a commemorative portrait hang- ing in Gertrude’s closet. 23. “In drawing attention to the ways in which elite women utilized art objects (and in this particular case commemorative portraits) within semi-autonomous private domestic space, this approach to the materiality of the closet scene [of Hamlet] offers one way of reascribing social agency to Gertrude” (Brotton, “Ways of Seeing Hamlet,” 168). 24. Sir John Davies, Nosce Teipsum, Philosophy in Poetry: A Study of Sir John Davies’s Poem Nosce Teipsum (1903; rpt. New York: Greenwood Press, 1969), 218–319, esp. 232, 236. Arthur Kinney, in Shakespeare’s Webs: Networks of Meaning in Renaissance Drama (New York and London: Routledge, 2004), has quoted these verses of Nosce Teipsum as part of his commen- tary on Gertrude’s inner vision in the closet scene (27–29, esp. 29). 25. For accounts of this divine epistemology involving mirrors of the mind, see Gordon Worth O’Brien, Renaissance Poetics and the Problem of Power (Chicago: Institute of Elizabethan Studies, 1956), 1–9, 17–21, 24, 26–27, 28, 38, 40, 45–46; Frederick Goldin, “The De Trinitate of Augustine and the Lyric Mirror,” The Mirror of Narcissus and the Courtly Love Lyric (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1967), 207–58; and Edward W. Tayler, “Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure: Its Glassy Essence,” Cithara: Essays in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition 37.1 (1997): 3–21. 26. Fumerton, Cultural Aesthetics, 71. 27. Lena Cowen Orlin, “Gertrude’s Closet,” Shakespeare Jahrbuch 134 (1998): 44–67, esp. 48. 28. Also noting these overtones in the Ghost’s archaic word for the Eucharist, Anthony Low, in Aspects of Subjectivity: Society and Individuality from the Middle Ages to Shakespeare and Milton (Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne UP, 2003), remarks that “[Thomas] Becon [in Comparison of the Lord’s Supper and Mass (1564)] contrasts the Anglican celebration of ‘the Lordes Supper’ with, ‘as the Papistes terme it, . . . their Hushel’ ” (113). 29. Stephen Greenblatt, Hamlet in Purgatory (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2001), 43–44, 246–47, 274–75n82. Anthony Low asserts that the “priest’s word ‘requiem’ in Hamlet [Q2 and F] is not an exclusively Catholic term, as witnessed by [Edmund] Spenser’s complaint [in The Ruines of Time (1590)] that no one offers a ‘Requiem’ for the reformist Earl of Leicester” (121). Actually, in this poem Spenser wrote concerning dead Leicester that “Scarse anie [are] left upon his lips to laie / The sacred sod, or Requiem to saie” (ll. 195–96). (Edmund Spenser, The Ruines of Time, The Yale Edition of the Shorter Poems of Edmund Spenser, ed. William A. Oram et al. [New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1989], 225–61, esp. 241.) Spenser’s proposed spoken requiem, which never occurred, is a far cry from the sung requiem mentioned by Shakespeare’s priest, the sung requiem he refuses to provide for Ophelia’s funeral. Reformation Protestants con- sidered a sung requiem virtually synonymous with a Requiem Mass. 30. Paul D. Stegner, “ ‘Try what repentance can’: Hamlet, Confession, and the Extraction of Interiority,” Shakespeare Studies 37 (2007): 105–29, esp. 114, 119. For more on Hamlet’s role here as resembling that of a Catholic priest, see Eleanor Prosser, Hamlet and Revenge (Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 1971), 195; and Arthur McGee, The Elizabethan Hamlet (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1987), 131. 31. Stegner, “ ‘Try what repentance can,’ ” 119. 32. For the argument that Hamlet “shrives” his mother successfully in Protestant terms, see Frye, The Renaissance Hamlet, 159–66. 33. Stegner, “ ‘Try what repentance can,’ ” 120. 34. Eric P. Levy, “ ‘Nor th’exterior nor the inward man’: The Problematics of Personal Identity in Hamlet,” University of Toronto Quarterly 68 (1999): 711–27, esp. 723. 222 Notes

35. Ibid., 724. Gertrude’s supposedly obvious proof of her reformation (obvious in her onstage actions), for this commentator, breaks the impasse of the presumably unknowable interior life and untrustworthy outward displays of it in favor of knowability. 36. Holy Bible: New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1990), 171. Also see Leviticus 20:21: “If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless” (175). 37. Jason Rosenblatt, “Aspects of the Incest Problem in Hamlet,” 29 (1978): 349–64, esp. 360; emphasis in the original. Rosenblatt notes that Shakespeare’s later sympa- thetic portrayal of Katherine of Aragon in The Life of King Henry the Eighth (1613) as a some- what wronged wife may have drawn on this persistent Elizabethan and Jacobean Catholic belief that there is no sin attached to King Henry’s marriage to his brother Arthur’s widow (360–61). 38. Hamlet, ed. Cedric Watts, Twayne’s New Critical Introductions to Shakespeare (Boston: Twayne, 1988), 30–31. Lisa Jardine, in Reading Shakespeare Historically (London and New York: Routledge, 1986), also has argued that a significant number of Shakespeare’s countrymen likely went along with the kind of marriage Gertrude has made. Jardine has shown that English legal tables set forth in 1563 prohibited certain marriages of consanguinity and affinity (39–40). According to Jardine, the remarriage of a widow to her former brother- in-law was not prohibited by consanguinity but by affinity, i.e., those unions that might produce conflicting inheritance claims (40). In other words, the sexual sin of incest that the Ghost of King Hamlet and the Prince harp on was not the legal issue in an Elizabethan widow’s remarriage to her former brother-in-law (45–46). Jardine shows this to have been the case in a number of contemporary English hearings where the marriage of a widow and her husband who had been her former brother-in-law was judged wholesome by their neighbors. Since Gertrude has heard Claudius tell Hamlet that he is the heir apparent (1.2.109–12), and since she knows that electoral courtiers (rather than a law of affinity) have selected Claudius to be king, she perhaps does not initially believe that her remarriage is the sexual crime that Hamlet convinces her it is. Nowhere in Hamlet does anyone suggest that the throne of Denmark devolves to a deceased king’s wife, the queen. In this respect, Gertrude by her remarriage does not appear to be barring her son from the crown. 39. This indeed is the case in John Updike’s novel Gertrude and Claudius (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000) based on details of Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Updike could write a compel- ling fictional account of Fengon and Gerutha’s (Claudius and Gertrude’s) adulterous love affair during an unhappy marriage to an egotistical Horvendile (Hamlet senior), and of her continuing love for the new king after he, without her knowledge, has secretly poisoned Horvendile (once he had found out about the love affair), because Shakespeare in the trag- edy encourages, even forces, playgoers and readers to make many assumptions and infer- ences about the absences and gaps in Claudius’s and especially Gertrude’s words and deeds. 40. So also argues Stephen Greenblatt from the same data in Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare (New York: Norton, 2004), 137. 41. The only utterance of Gertrude in the 1603 First Quarto edition bedchamber scene that indicates her belief that her son is mad consists of her remark after he claims to have just seen his father’s ghost: “Alas, it is the weakenesse of thy braine, / Which makes thy tongue to blazon thy hearts griefes . . . . But Hamlet, this is onely fantasie, / and for my loue forget these idle fits” (The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet, Shakespeare’s Plays in Quarto: A Facsimile Edition of Copies Primarily from the Henry E. Huntington Library, ed. Michael J. B. Allen and Kenneth Muir [Berkeley: U of California P, 1981], 579–611, esp. 602). The emphasis upon madness is stronger in the 1604–5 Second Quarto equivalent of this speech: “This is the very coinage of your brain. / This bodiless creation ecstasy / Is very cunning in” (3.4.135–37). Gertrude already once in the Q2 bedchamber scene has referred to Hamlet’s presumed insanity: “O gentle son, / Upon the heat and flame of thy distemper / Sprinkle cool patience” (3.4.118–20). This speech has no counterpart in Q1. At the beginning of Notes 223

act 4, when Gertrude straightway tells Claudius that Hamlet is “[mad] as the sea and wind when both contend / Which is the mightier” and that her son, in a “lawless fit,” has killed “the good old man” Polonius (4.1.7–8, 11), she suggests that she believes Hamlet is insane throughout his dialogue with her in her closet. This utterance about her son’s madness does not appear at the corresponding place of Q1. Again in Q2, she refers to her son’s “madness” at 4.1.25 in a speech not present in Q1. Gertrude’s likely belief that Hamlet was mad not only at the moment he stabbed Polonius but throughout his frightening, sometimes dis- jointed, diatribe against her in the bedchamber plausibly plays its part in her refusal to say that she will perform his several commands. 42. Bert O. States, Hamlet and the Concept of Character (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1992), 106–7, is one of the few critics who explicitly say that Gertrude appears not to have followed Hamlet’s command to abandon Claudius’s bed. 43. John N. King, in Tudor Royal Iconography: Literature and Art in an Age of Religious Crisis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1989), 179–80, asserts that Henry the Fifth, considered in a sixteenth-century English context, was an ideal Christian king. 44. Raphael Holinshed, Holinshed’s Chronicles: Richard II 1398–1400, Henry IV, and , ed. R. S. Wallace (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923) 1–136, esp. 132. 45. Edmund Spenser, Spenser: The Faerie Queene, ed. A. C. Hamilton; text. ed. Hiroshi Yamashita and Toshiyuki Suzuki, Longman Annotated English Poets (Harlow, UK: Longman, 2001), 716. 46. The Famous Victories of Henry V, The Oldcastle Controversy: Sir John Oldcastle, Part I and The Famous Victories of Henry V, ed. Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge, The Revels Plays Companion Library (Manchester, UK: Manchester UP, 1991), 144–99, esp. 176. 47. For the possible influence of The Famous Victories on Shakespeare’s composition of The Life of King Henry the Fifth, see G. K. Hunter, , 1586–1642: The Age of Shakespeare, The Oxford History of English Literature (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997), 229–30; Bernard M. Ward, “The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth: Its Place in Elizabethan Dramatic Literature,” Review of English Studies 4 (1928): 270–94, esp. 270–73; and The Famous Victories of Henry V, 28 n83. 48. Besides Holinshed and Shakespeare, the only other Elizabethan to make Henry the Fifth a princely mirror was Samuel Daniel in his The First Fowre Bookes of the Civile Wars (1595), where Henry is that magnanimous King Mirror of virtue, miracle of worth, Whose mightie Actions with wise managing Forst prouder boasting climes to serve the North. (Bk 4, st. 15, 1–4) (Geoffrey Bullough, Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, Volume IV, Later English History Plays: King John, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VIII [London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966], 420–30, esp. 424.) 49. Joel B. Altman, “ ‘Vile Participation’: The Amplification of Violence in the Theater of Henry V,” Shakespeare Quarterly 42 (1991): 1–32. 50. See, e.g., Stephen Greenblatt, “Invisible Bullets: Renaissance Authority and its Subversion, Henry IV and Henry V,” Political Shakespeare: New Essays in Cultural Materialism, ed. Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield (Ithaca and London: Cornell UP, 1985), 18–47; Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield, “History and Ideology: The Instance of Henry V,” Alternative Shakespeare, ed. John Drakakis (London and New York: Methuen, 1985), 206–27; and Vickie Sullivan, “Princes to Act: Henry V as the Machiavellian Prince of Appearance,” Shakespeare’s Political Pageant: Essays in Literature and Politics (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996), 125–52. 51. John Roe, Shakespeare and Machiavelli, Studies in Renaissance Literature (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2002), 70. 224 Notes

52. Greenblatt, “Invisible Bullets,” 20. 53. Roe, Shakespeare and Machiavelli, 73. 54. For the Reformation Protestant doctrine of the cessation of miracles at the end of Apostolic times, see Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1971), 80, 107–8, 124–25, 128, 203, 256, 479, 485, 490, 577–78, 643; and The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand (New York: Oxford UP, 1996), 3:64–65. 55. Most notably, Sullivan, “Princes to Act.” 56. William Shakespeare, Mr. William Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories & Tragedies: A Facsimile Edition Prepared by Helge Kökeritz (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1954), 78. 57. This represents Shakespeare’s departure from Holinshed’s Chronicles, with the result that the playwright’s Henry escapes the criticism that can be leveled against the chronicler’s king: “The [French] souldiors were ransomed, and [Harfleur] sacked, to the great gaine of the Englishmen. Some writing of this yeelding up of Harfleu, doo in like sort make mention of the distresse whereto the people, then expelled out of their habitations, were driven: insomuch as parents with their children, yoong maids and old folke went out of the towne gates with heavie harts (God wot) as put to their present shifts to seeke them a new abode, Besides that, king Henrie caused proclamation to be made within his owne domin- ions of England, that whosoever . . . would inhabit in Harflue, should have his dwelling given him gratis, and his heire after him also injoy the like grace and favour” (24). By dis- regarding these details, Shakespeare insulates his Henry from the charge that he followed through on his threats. 58. Desiderius Erasmus, The Education of A Christian Prince, ed. Lester K. Born, Records of Civilization 27 (1540; New York: Columbia UP, 1936), 11–12, 134–35, 147. 59. Ibid., 135, 136, 147. 60. Ibid., 165–66. 61. Ibid., 177. 62. Ibid., 168, 249, 251. 63. Ibid., 173. For an account different from mine of the relationship between Machiavelli and Erasmus’s The Education of a Christian Prince in Shakespeare’s King Henry the Fifth, see R. V. Young, “Shakespeare’s History Plays and the Erasmian Catholic Prince,” The Ben Jonson Journal 7 (2000): 89–114, 104–11. 64. C. S. Lewis, English Literature in the Sixteenth Century, Excluding Drama (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1954), 240. 65. All quotations of Henry the Sixth’s tale refer to lines taken from the 1559 edition of The Mirror for Magistrates, ed. Lily B. Campbell (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1938), 211–18. 66. Michael Manheim, in “Duke Humphrey and the Machiavels,” American Benedictine Review 23 (1972), 249–57, esp. 252, judges that “[b]y the Machiavellian standards which govern just about everybody else [in the Henry VI plays], Henry is surely the wretchedest king in ‘Christendom.’ ” 67. See Maurice Hunt, “Unnaturalness in Shakespeare’s 3 Henry VI,” English Studies 80 (1999): 146–67. 68. For this likelihood, see Geoffrey Bullough, Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, Volume III, Earlier English History Plays (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960), 214–17. 69. Sullivan, “Princes to Act,” 142; emphasis in the original. 70. Sullivan claims that because of the Earl of Richmond’s prayer he should be considered Shakespeare’s exemplary Christian king. But Richmond is not king when he utters this prayer. More important is the fact that Shakespeare never in any play either alluded to or depicted King Henry VII’s character or rule. Whether he would have been a remarkable Shakespearean Christian monarch resists speculation. His twenty-four-year reign, from 1485 to 1509, was not known for being notably pious. Notes 225

71. For other analyses of the St. Crispin’s Day speech, see Norman Rabkin, Shakespeare and the Problem of Meaning (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1981), 45–46; and Lawrence Danson, “Henry V: King, Chorus, Critics,” Shakespeare Quarterly 34 (1983): 27–43, esp. 34–35, 42. 72. Remarking that Henry the Fifth “has strong affinities with mainstream English concep- tions of the Eucharist,” Jeffrey Knapp, in “Preachers and Players in Shakespeare’s England,” Representations 44 (Fall 1993): 29–59, esp. 33, investigates the broad symbolic function of the Eucharistic pax in the play (41). 73. Altman, “ ‘Vile Participation,’ ” 28. 74. See William Carroll, The Great Feast of Languages in Love’s Labour’s Lost (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1976). 75. Jonas A. Barish, “The Prose Style of John Lyly,” ELH 23 (1956): 14–35.

Chapter Three

1. Edmund Spenser, Spenser: The Faerie Queene, ed. A. C. Hamilton, text. ed., Hiroshi Yamashita and Toshiyuki Suzuki, Longman Annotated English Poets (Harlow, UK: Longman, 2001), 289. 2. For the translation (with an introduction and commentary), see Marc Shell, Elizabeth’s Glass (Lincoln and London: U of Nebraska P, 1993), esp. 111–44. 3. Ibid., 19. 4. Ibid., 7. 5. Ibid., 26. 6. This indeed is what she seems to have realized when she translated Marguerite of Navarre’s poem. 7. G. Wilson Knight, “Lyly,” Review of English Studies 15 (1939): 146–63, esp. 149. 8. Leah S. Marcus, Puzzling Shakespeare: Local Reading and Its Discontents (Berkeley and London: U of California P, 1988), 51–105, esp. 66–92. 9. John Lyly, Sapho and Phao, The Plays of John Lyly, ed. Carter A. Daniel (Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell UP, 1988), 69–104, esp. 71. All citations of Lyly’s plays (by page numbers) refer to texts in this edition. 10. G. K. Hunter, in John Lyly: The Humanist as Courtier (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1962), refers in his analysis of Sapho and Phao to “the sovereign lady Sapho-Elizabeth” (166–77, esp. 169). Hunter asserts that “[i]t is fairly clear throughout Sapho and Phao . . . that the chaste and lovable sovereign of the play is intended to be a complimentary image of Queen Elizabeth” (173). Peter Saccio, in The Court Comedies of John Lyly: A Study in Allegorical Dramaturgy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1969), asserts that “[t]he overwhelming praise given Sapho clearly makes her a figure for that phoenix of the age: Queen Elizabeth” (168). 11. Spenser, The Faerie Queene 410 (Book 4, Proem 4.3–4, 9). Also see Edgar Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1958), 73–75. 12. Philippa Berry, in Of Chastity and Power: Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen (London and New York: Routledge, 1984), argues that ’s utterance, taken in con- junction with the association of lesbianism and Sapho’s name, creates a highly salacious innuendo in this play about the object of the unmarried Queen Elizabeth’s affections. 13. Hunter states that “[t]he cedar, here as elsewhere in Renaissance iconography, is the noble tree whose height betokens royalty or power, and must represent Sapho herself” ( John Lyly, 175). In Shakespeare’s Cymbeline, the cedar tree symbolizes King Cymbeline with its branches his royal progeny (5.5.439–46, 457–62). 14. Joseph W. Houppert, in John Lyly, Twayne’s English Authors Series 177 (Boston: Twayne, 1975), claims that these details in Sapho’s dream register her sexual frustration in consum- mating her consciously unacknowledged passion for Phao (80). 226 Notes

15. Hunter here suspects a pun on “feathers”/“favors,” with the dove/Phao’s eventual loss of those favors that originally elevated him to courtly esteem ( John Lyly, 175). 16. Hunter notes that in Shakespeare’s Richard II the parasitical courtiers Bushy and Bagot are likened to caterpillars (ibid.). 17. Theodora A. Jankowski, in “The Subversion of Flattery: The Queen’s Body in John Lyly’s Sapho and Phao,” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 5 (1991): 69–86, asserts that while Lyly perhaps intended in this play to flatter Queen Elizabeth, its text “can be read as calling into serious question both the political stature and political efficacy of the woman he intended to flatter” (70). 18. Houppert argues that, when Sapho says “ ‘I would faine sleepe, to see if I can dreame, whether the birde hath feathers, or the Antes wings,’ . . . [t]he stress on feathers and wings very obviously suggests a suppressed desire for freedom, a freedom to love which has been and will continue to be denied Sapho so far as Phao is concerned” ( John Lyly, 82). 19. Cf. Michael Pincombe, The Plays of John Lyly: Eros and Eliza, The Revels Plays Companion Library (Manchester and New York: Manchester UP, 1996), 52–78. 20. Hunter, John Lyly, 173. Berry endorses the likelihood of an allusion in the play to Alençon’s courtship of Elizabeth (Of Chastity and Power, 122). 21. Hunter, John Lyly, 174. 22. Ibid., 152. 23. Richard Dutton, Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama (Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1991), 60–61. 24. Christine M. Neufeld, in “Lyly’s Chimerical Vision: Witchcraft in Endimion,” Forum for Modern Language Studies 43 (2007): 351–69, esp. 353, 362, argues that Queen Elizabeth is associated with the witch in this play not only by her moon aspect of Hecate, queen of witches, but also by her metaphorical bewitching Endimion in love and her releasing him from enchantment. Pincombe also suggests Cynthia’s association with the witch Dipsas (The Plays of John Lyly, 97–98). In the same vein, see Berry, Of Chastity and Power, 129. 25. Robert S. Knapp, in “The Monarchy of Love in Lyly’s Endimion,” Modern Philology 73 (1976): 353–67, remarks that “[t]his behavior [of Endimion was] first exemplified in [Dante’s] Vita Nuova. In that first stage of a long allegorical journey through created veils, Dante . . . had first used one and then another lady as both screen and defense, as a ‘schermo’ for his love for Beatrice, herself ‘figura’ of divinity. Dante’s progress toward spiritual maturity consists in discarding these childish allegories, which had simultaneously shielded him from worldly envy and permitted him to worship through their protection that beauty which he had neither courage nor power to approach” (359–60). He argues that Endimion must learn to do the same, but Cynthia is not the aloof Beatrice of the Vita Nuova. She must learn to make an exception to her cold aloofness and bend in mercy to kiss and redeem Endimion, setting an example for her world. 26. Knapp states that “[a]fter the oracle has been fulfilled and Cynthia’s kiss has wakened Endimion to divine beauty incarnate, he must still put on the Pauline new man: he must stop lying” (363). He believes that, after his final lie, he did not say to Tellus that he loved her (191). Endimion, “[u]rged by Cynthia, taking heart from her promise not to revenge love with hatred, . . . puts away his screen of honor and openly speaks truth” (363). The only speech before the end of the play to which Knapp’s judgment might apply involves Endimion’s telling Cynthia that he never dared to call his honoring of her love (either to himself or to anyone else), and that he now knows that the great difference in their states means that his feeling for her cannot be called love (191). Nevertheless, he asks Cynthia to grant him the wish to call his honoring her love, as long as the profession is secretly to himself (and that if anyone asks him what he feels, he will say “honor”) (191). Taking this speech, whose subject is duplicity, as clear testimony of Endimion’s putting on the New Man, of his new capacity for truth telling, proves difficult. I would argue that awakened Endimion’s persistent mark of original sin accentuates the generosity of Cynthia’s merciful Notes 227

stooping to kiss and redeem him. In this respect, the Catholic Virgin Mary as intercessor for fallen humankind constitutes an analogue for Cynthia’s behavior. As both Peter Weltner (“The Antinomic Vision of Lyly’s Endimion,” English Literary Renaissance 3 [1973]: 5–29, esp. 27–28) and Carolyn Ruth Swift Lenz (“The Allegory of Wisdom in Lyly’s Endimion,” Comparative Drama 10 [1976]: 235–57, esp. 235, 254) note, Lyly’s Endimion was first per- formed before Queen Elizabeth on Candlemas Day (February 2, 1588). Candlemas, cel- ebrated in the calendar, focuses the presentation of the infant Jesus in the temple and commemorates the purification of the Virgin Mary as well as her chastity. Weltner in particular explains how Cythnia in Lyly’s play is an analogue to the Virgin Mary (28). Lenz concludes that “[a]lthough Endimion never displays the supremacy we would expect of Christ, Cynthia in contrast does resemble the Virgin Mary as intermediary between the mortal and the divine. No one can prove that [Protestant] silence about the Virgin in liturgy, in sermons, and in the English tales about Cynthia means that [the Virgin] was also absent from the hearts of a congregation, of a theatre audience, or of a playwright” (“The Allegory of Wisdom in Lyly’s Endimion,” 254). 27. Daniel, The Plays of John Lyly, 369. For an account of lunary’s magical properties, see Knapp, “The Monarchy of Love,” 358 n16. 28. Ibid., 359; my italics. 29. Saccio, interpreting the dumb show of Endimion, equates the first lady with Tellus, the second with Dipsas, and the third with either Bagoa or Floscula (The Court Comedies of John Lyly, 181). He does so as part of his effort to interpret the dumb show in terms of the Four Daughters of God deriving from Psalm 85:10: “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness [or justice] and peace have kissed each other” (175–85, esp. 175). In Saccio’s reading, Tellus is Truth, and she carries a knife because she hates the falsehood about love that Endimion has told her. Dipsas is Justice, supporting Truth’s intent to punish Endimion’s falsehood. Bagoa or Floscula is Mercy because each feels sorry for Endimion’s bewitchment, but lack the cour- age to oppose it. Later, Cynthia assumes the role of Mercy. But there are four Daughters and only three women in the dream vision, a discrepancy challenging interpreters such as Saccio who would decode it in terms of Psalm 85:10. Peace proves the troublesome Daughter. First Saccio says that Cynthia not only absorbs Bagoa’s or Floscula’s role as Mercy, but also that she gathers all four Daughters’ virtues within herself (179). Then he claims, incredibly, that the acid-tongued Semele represents Peace in the allegory (183–84). Contrary to Saccio’s claim that Tellus depicts Truth in Endimion, Weltner argues that Tellus “dissembles more than any of the other major characters in the play [and] fails to follow truth’s constancy” (“The Antinomic Vision of Lyly’s Endimion,” 18). Most commentators interpret the dumb show of Endimion according to the dynamics of the Four Daughters of God in Psalm 85:10. In addi- tion to Saccio, see Bernard F. Huppé, “Allegory of Love in Lyly’s Court Comedies,” ELH 14 (1947): 93–113, esp. 105n; J. A. Bryant, Jr., “The Nature of the Allegory in Lyly’s Endimion,” Renaissance Papers (Durham, NC: Southeastern Renaissance Conference, 1956), 4–11, esp. 7–9; and Lenz, “The Allegory of Wisdom in Lyly’s Endimion,” 245. 30. Concerning the symbolism of the looking glass in the vision, Knapp concludes that it “commonly [was] an attribute of Vanitas, Superbia, and Luxuria, [but that] it [could] also designate Veritas, Prudentia, and Contemplation” (“The Monarchy of Love,” 364). I would stress the final one of these three latter possibilities. 31. Saccio points out that in Medieval personifications, mirrors are held variously by Pride, Lechery, Wisdom, and Truth (“because she knows herself”) (The Court Comedies of John Lyly, 180). 32. For an alternative allegorical interpretation of the enigmatic properties of Endimion’s dream vision, one involving not the three major women of the play but personifications of Cruelty, Pity, and Prudence, see Knapp, “The Monarchy of Love,” 364–66. 33. Leah Scragg, “The Victim of Fashion? Rereading the Biography of John Lyly,” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 19 (2006): 210–26, esp. 212. 228 Notes

34. Pincombe, The Plays of John Lyly, 174–75. 35. Marcus, Puzzling Shakespeare, 54, 66. 36. See Maurice Hunt, “Being Precise in Measure for Measure,” Renascence 58 (2006): 243–67. 37. Hunter, John Lyly, 219. 38. Abraham Fraunce in The Third Part of the Countess of Pembrokes Iuychurch (1599) is typical of his age in assigning the moon these three aspects and realms (Lenz, “The Allegory of Wisdom in Lyly’s Endimion,” 246). 39. According to legend, the man had been transported to the moon for gathering firewood on a Friday night. 40. Hunter, John Lyly, 82. Hunter considers The Woman in the Moon—not Mother Bombie—“to be the last of Lyly’s plays” (82). “[O]ne cannot be surprised that it was not a popular success” (83).

Chapter Four

1. Lukas Erne, Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003), 67–68. 2. Ibid., 17–18. 3. Allot’s count is eighty-six passages from Shakespeare’s poems and plays compared to fifty- seven from Sidney’s works. 4. Leah S. Marcus, “Levelling Shakespeare: Local Customs and Local Texts,” Shakespeare Quarterly 42 (1991): 168–78, esp. 171. 5. Ibid., 171. “The Princess’s speeches are sometimes headed ‘Queen,’ ” editor Richard David notes of the 1598 Quarto text of the play—“on her first appearance in II., throughout IV.i, and once in V.ii” (William Shakespeare, Love’s Labour’s Lost, ed. Richard David [London: Methuen, 1956], 2). This change suggests that Shakespeare himself thought of this character more as queen than as princess. 6. William Shakespeare, Shakespeare’s Plays in Quarto: A Facsimile Edition of Copies Primarily from the Henry E. Huntington Library, ed. Michael J. B. Allen and Kenneth Muir (Berkeley: U of California P, 1981), 292. 7. F. P. Wilson, Shakespearian and Other Studies, ed. Helen Gardner (Oxford: Clarendon P, 1970), 70. 8. Alice S. Griffin (Venezsky), Pageantry on the Shakespearean Stage (1951; rpt. New York: Twayne, 1972), 139. The relevance for Love’s Labor’s Lost to entertainments that occurred during Elizabeth’s summer progresses into the countryside was first strongly argued by O. J. Campbell in “Love’s Labour’s Lost Re-studied,” Studies in Shakespeare, Milton and Donne, Publications in Language and Literature 1 (New York: Macmillan, 1925), 1–45, esp. 13–20. 9. Peter B. Erickson, “The Failure of Relationship between Men and Women in Love’s Labor’s Lost,” Women’s Studies 9 (1981): 65–81, esp. 71. Erickson claims that Holofernes’s and Nathaniel’s scholarship, which applies the names “Dictynna” and “Phoebe” to the moon (4.2.36–38), “indirectly gives us the key to the Princess’ identity as the slayer of the deer” (Diana/Elizabeth) (80). Richard Cody confirms the identification of the hunting Princess of France with Diana in The Landscape of the Mind: Pastoralism and Platonic Theory in Tasso’s Aminta and Shakespeare’s Early Comedies (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), 109. 10. M. C. Bradbrook, Shakespeare: The Poet in his World (New York: Columbia UP, 1978), 30. 11. William Shakespeare, Love’s Labour’s Lost, ed. H. C. Hart, Arden Shakespeare (London: Methuen, 1906), xlviii–l. H. B. Charlton, in “The Date of Love’s Labour’s Lost,” Modern Language Review 13 (1918): 257–66, 387–400, esp. 391–92, extended Hart’s identification to include Shakespeare’s supposed criticism, in 4.1.1–40, of the queen’s callous slaughter of many penned deer at Cowdray. Notes 229

12. Quoted in Shakespeare, Love’s Labour’s Lost, ed. David, xxxix. 13. Campbell, “Love’s Labour’s Lost Re-studied,” 13. 14. Glynne Wickham, “Love’s Labor’s Lost and The Four Foster Children of Desire, 1581,” Shakespeare Quarterly 36 (1985): 49–55. 15. Ibid., 50. 16. Also claiming that the figure of Queen Elizabeth is evoked in the character of the Princess of France in this play is David Wiles, Shakespeare’s Almanac: A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Marriage and the Elizabethan Calendar (Cambridge: Brewer, 1993), 30, 32. Donald M. Goodfellow, in “Lovers Meeting”: Discussions of Five Plays by Shakespeare, Carnegie Series in English 8 (Pittsburgh: Carnegie Institute of Technology, 1964), devotes a paragraph to speculating that traits of Queen Elizabeth partly inform the character of the Princess of France: “Of each it can be said that her head controlled her heart; that she enjoyed witty badinage, but that she knew how to be straight-forward and businesslike; that she liked to follow the stag-hounds. . . . In the Muscovite scene, when Ferdinand, addressing Rosaline in the guise of the Princess, pleads: ‘Vouchsafe, bright moon, and these thy stars, to shine’ . . . he seems to be echoing the remark of an ambassador who had been asked by Queen Elizabeth how he liked her ladies: ‘It is hard to judge of stars in the presence of the sun’ ” (8). Also see Gary Schmidgall, Shakespeare and the Poet’s Life (Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1990), 39, 102–3, 110, 114, 116. 17. For substantiation of this claim with regard to The First Part of King Henry the Sixth, see Leah S. Marcus, “Elizabeth,” Puzzling Shakespeare: Local Reading and Its Discontents (Berkeley: U of California P, 1988), 51–105. 18. See Shakespeare, Love’s Labour’s Lost, ed. David, 2. 19. Charlton, “The Date of Love’s Labour’s Lost,” 259–60. 20. Campbell, “Love’s Labour’s Lost Re-studied,” 8–9; Shakespeare, Love’s Labour’s Lost, ed. David, xxxiii–xxxiv. 21. Jasper Ridley, Elizabeth I: The Shrewdness of Virtue (New York: Viking, 1988), 308. 22. Ibid., 310. 23. Ibid., 268. 24. J. E. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I (1934; rpt. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957), 337. The pound figure is confirmed by Christopher Haigh, Elizabeth I (London: Longman, 1988), 138–39. 25. The Letters of Queen Elizabeth I, ed. G. B. Harrison (1935; rpt. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1968), 213. 26. Charlton, “The Date of Love’s Labour’s Lost,” 266; Shakespeare, Love’s Labour’s Lost, ed. David, 63–64; Albert H. Tricomi, “The Witty Idealization of the French Court in Love’s Labor’s Lost,” Shakespeare Studies 12 (1979): 25–33, esp. 31; Gillian Woods, “Catholicism and Conversion in Love’s Labour’s Lost,” How to Do Things with Shakespeare: New Approaches, New Essays, ed. Laurie Maguire (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008), 101–30, esp. 112. 27. David (Shakespeare, Love’s Labour’s Lost, ed. David, 64) asserts that the following lines spo- ken by the Princess refer, when heard within the context of the proper allusion, to Henry’s crime (in Protestant minds) of spiritual vow breaking: And, out of question, so it is sometimes, Glory grows guilty of detested crimes, When for fame’s sake, for praise, an outward part, We bend to that the working of the heart. (4.1.30–33) 28. Charlton, “The Date of Love’s Labour’s Lost,” 265; Shakespeare, Love’s Labour’s Lost, ed. David, xxv. 29. In the course of establishing the presence of Henry of Navarre in the play, R. Chris Hassel, Jr., in “Love Versus Charity in Love’s Labor’s Lost,” Shakespeare Studies 10 (1977): 17–41, esp. 230 Notes

25–26, cites the opinion of Geoffrey Bullough to this effect: “He [Henry of Navarre] had forsworn himself for power when he turned Catholic, so it would not surprise an English audience to find a fictitious King of Navarre forswearing himself more innocently for love” (26). 30. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, 361. 31. Ibid., 399. 32. Shakespeare, Love’s Labour’s Lost, ed. David, 37. Alfred Harbage, however, in “Love’s Labor’s Lost and the Early Shakespeare,” Philological Quarterly 41 (1962): 18–36, esp. 27–28, points out that John Phelps, in an article published in 1899, originally made the connection with Marguerite’s 1578 visit. 33. For a different paraphrase of the details of the Aquitaine matter, see Kristian Smidt, “Shakespeare in Two Minds: Unconformities in Love’s Labour’s Lost,” English Studies 65 (1984): 205–19, esp. 215–16. 34. Quoted in Edmund Spenser’s Poetry, ed. Hugh Maclean (New York: Norton, 1968), 440. 35. For the relevant passages in Raleigh’s “Cynthia,” see E. C. Wilson, England’s Eliza, Harvard Studies in English 20 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1939), 309–10. 36. For Elizabethan poetic descriptions of the queen in terms of these values, see E. C. Wilson, England’s Eliza, 321–69. 37. Noting that “Una was also used as a cult epithet of Queen Elizabeth,” Michael O’Connell, in Mirror and Veil: The Historical Dimension of Spenser’s Faerie Queene (Chapel Hill: U of P, 1977), 44–51, explicates the several senses in which Una is Elizabeth. For more on the identification, see Lawrence Rosinger, “Spenser’s Una and Queen Elizabeth,” English Language Notes 6 (1968–69): 12–17; and Robin H. Wells, Spenser’s Faerie Queene and the Cult of Elizabeth (London: Croom Helm, 1983), 31–32, 52–53. Shakespeare clinches the positive identification of the Princess near the end of the play when, in one of her rare oaths, she swears by her “maiden honour, yet as pure / As the unsullied lily” (5.2.352–53). Many years later, at the end of his career, Shakespeare’s highest praise for his dead queen took the form of this supreme floral image. “Would I had known no more!” Cranmer laments in The Life of King Henry VIII during his vision of England’s future queen: [b]ut she must die, She must, the saints must have her; yet a virgin, A most unspotted lily shall she pass To th’ground, and all the world shall mourn her. (5.5.60–63) 38. In “Love’s Labour’s Lost and the Renaissance Vision of Love,” Shakespeare Quarterly 25 (1974): 335–50, Neal Goldstien, after summarizing the argument that the Princess and her ladies in Love’s Labor’s Lost represent Petrarchan or Neoplatonic mistresses, persuasively concludes that Shakespeare’s mockery of the identification makes it unlikely that he seriously intended the typified association. 39. Harvey Birenbaum, “The Princess and the Pricket: Love’s Labor’s Lost on the Problem of Will,” Mosaic 36.1 (March 2003): 103–19, esp. 109. 40. Bobbyann Roesen, “Love’s Labour’s Lost,” Shakespeare Quarterly 4 (1953): 411–26, esp. 422. In addition to Roesen, John Russell Brown, in Shakespeare and His Comedies (1957; rpt. London: Methuen, 1968), 77, notes that the reaction of the Princess to the playlet is empa- thetic, especially when compared to that of the courtiers and King. 41. John Nichols, The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth (1788–1805; rpt. London: Printed by N., 1823), 1:155. 42. Ibid., 1:162. 43. Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, 212. 44. Nichols, The Progresses and Public Processions, 2:155 Notes 231

45. Ibid., 2:159. Neale also notes the queen’s courteous treatment of Limbert as evidence of her charity for well-meaning but imperfect entertainers (Queen Elizabeth I, 212–13). 46. The possibility that Theseus’s charitable reception of public welcomes was modeled on those of Elizabeth has been remarked by Jean Wilson, Entertainments for Elizabeth I (Totowa, NJ: Rowman, 1980), 39. 47. Nichols, The Progresses and Public Processions, 3:319. 48. This subtle transformation makes the shape like that of the notorious gestalt of rabbit/duck, which forms the basis of Norman Rabkin’s analysis of the double figure of Henry V in Shakespeare and the Problem of Meaning (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1981), 33–62. 49. For the paradox of a sixteenth-century female prince, at once superior politically and (at least for masculinists) inferior culturally to her male subjects, see Constance Jordan, “Woman’s Rule in Sixteenth-Century Political Thought,” Renaissance Quarterly 40 (1987): 421–51; Haigh, Elizabeth I, 8–10; and Philippa Berry, Of Chastity and Power: Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen (London: Routledge, 1989), esp. 61–165. For the Shakespearean treatment of the paradox with respect to Elizabeth, see Louis A. Montrose, “ ‘Shaping Fantasies:’ Figurations of Gender and Power in Elizabethan Culture,” Representations 1 (Spring 1983): 61–94. 50. Quoted by Irene Dash, Wooing, Wedding, and Power: Women in Shakespeare’s Plays (New York: Columbia UP, 1981), 15. 51. For the pun in The Four Foster Children, see Jean Wilson, Entertainments for Elizabeth I, 75–76. 52. Berry, Of Chastity and Power, 65–66. 53. Marcus, Puzzling Shakespeare, 52–53, 66–96. 54. The bawdy allusion is confirmed by Herbert A. Ellis, Shakespeare’s Lusty Punning in Love’s Labour’s Lost with Contemporary Analogues (The Hague: Mouton, 1973), 62–64. 55. See ibid., 78–79. Also noting the bawdy joke on “pricket,” Peter B. Erickson concludes that Shakespeare “makes the Princess’ killing of the deer verbally equivalent to castra- tion and provides another context for the men’s uneasiness with women” (“The Failure of Relationship,” 80). 56. Roy Strong, The Cult of Elizabeth: Elizabethan Portraiture and Pageantry (London: Thames, 1977), 52. 57. Quoted in ibid., 52. 58. Sir Walter Ralegh: Selected Writings, ed. Gerald Hammond (Manchester: Fyfield, 1984), 39. 59. See Roy Strong, Gloriana: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I (London: Thames, 1987), 94, 98. 60. Quoted by Stephen Orgel, The Jonsonian (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1965), 45. In just a few short years, Sidney himself would experience the truth of this poetic repre- sentation; his own ears must have burned and his eyes smarted when he heard and read that Elizabeth had rusticated him as punishment for his blunt letter warning her against mar- riage to Alençon. 61. Edmund Spenser, Spenser: The Faerie Queene, ed. A. C. Hamilton; text. ed. Hiroshi Yamashita and Toshiyuki Suzuki, Longman Annotated English Poets (Harlow, UK: Longman, 2001), 184. 62. The fullest demonstration of this claim is that of Judith C. Perryman, “A Tradition Transformed in Love’s Labour’s Lost,” Études Anglaises 37 (1984): 156–62. 63. The courtiers’ prospect of barrenness and emasculation finds support in the play’s repeated allusions to Omphale’s and Delilah’s figurative castrations of Hercules and Samson, heroic men who, to their grief, lost their heads (both in the passionate and sexual senses) to a woman. 64. Bobbyann Roesen identifies several senses in which the Princess and her ladies are linked with death: “Significantly, it is they, the intruders from the outside world of reality, who 232 Notes

first, in Act Three, bring death into the park itself. In this act the Princess kills a deer” (“Love’s Labour’s Lost,” 419–20). It is Katherine’s sister who died of melancholy (420), and it is the ladies whose effect upon the lords Berowne half-seriously equates with that of the black death: Write: “Lord have mercy on us” on those three; They are infected; in their hearts it lies; They have the plague, and caught it of your eyes. These lords are visited; you are not free, For the Lord’s tokens on you I see. (420) 65. Neale remarks that “even if Dudley had been less envied and hated by his fellows, the trag- edy of Amy Robsart was too black a cloud over his reputation with Englishmen to permit [Elizabeth’s] marrying him” (Queen Elizabeth I, 84), an opinion echoed by Haigh (Elizabeth I, 12, 155–56). The death of Amy Robsart transformed the latent fertility of Dudley and Elizabeth’s liaison into barrenness. 66. Associations of death further grew around Alençon from the English fear that the queen, advanced in years, would die during pregnancy or (less likely) in childbirth if she married him (Neale, Queen Elizabeth I, 246). 67. See, e.g., Charles R. Forker, “Sexuality and Eroticism on the Renaissance Stage,” South Central Review 7.4 (1990): 1–22, esp. 13–14. 68. Ridley, Elizabeth I, 208. 69. Strong, Cult of Elizabeth, 75. 70. Ibid., 71. 71. Sir Philip Sidney, The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia, ed. Maurice Evans (New York: Penguin, 1977), 119–29. 72. Ibid., 164–65. 73. Strong, Gloriana, 114–15. 74. G. B. Harrison, The Elizabethan Journals, Being a Record of Those Things Most Talked of during the Years 1591–1603 (Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1955), 1:314. 75. In “Court and Polity under Elizabeth I,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester 65.2 (1982–83): 259–86, Penry Williams quotes the opinion of Bishop Goodman—“that Elizabeth was ‘ever hard of access and grew to be very covetous in her old days’; towards the end of her life he alleges ‘the Court was very much neglected, and in effect the people were very generally weary of an old woman’s government’ ” (270). 76. Ridley describes Elizabeth’s prohibiting the daughter of Sir Robert Arundell from mar- rying the man of her choice after she cruelly led the girl and her father to believe that she would assent to the match (Elizabeth I, 324). 77. Harrison, Elizabethan Journals, 2:305. Ridley remarks that, during the 1590s, Elizabeth’s “worst outbursts were often on the subject of marriage and sex” (Elizabeth I, 323). 78. For an alternative reading of Love’s Labor’s Lost as a critique of Queen Elizabeth in the characterization of the Princess of France and the ladies of her entourage, notably their abandonment of a beneficial order of exchange, including that of gifts, see Mark Thornton Burnett, “Giving and Receiving: Love’s Labour’s Lost and the Politics of Exchange,” English Literary Renaissance 23 (1993): 287–313, esp. 300–1, 302–3, 304, 310, 312–13.

Chapter Five

1. Marco Mincoff, “Shakespeare and Lyly,” Shakespeare Survey 14 (1961): 15–34, esp. 20–22; G. K. Hunter, John Lyly: The Humanist as Courtier (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1962), 298–349, esp. 318; Leah Scragg, “Shakespeare, Lyly and Ovid: The Influence of Gallathea Notes 233

on A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” Shakespeare Survey 30 (1977): 125–34; Patricia Parker, “ ‘Rude Mechanicals’: A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Shakespearean Joinery,” Shakespeare from the Margins: Language, Culture, Context (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996), 83–115, esp. 102. 2. See, e.g., David Bevington, “Lyly’s Endymion and Midas: The Catholic Question in England,” Comparative Drama 32 (1998): 26–46, and books and articles referred to in the notes of this essay. Louis A. Montrose, in “The Imperial Votaress,” The Purpose of Playing: Shakespeare and the Cultural Politics of the Elizabethan Theatre (Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 1996), 151–78, esp. 159, asserts that “late Elizabethan plays and poems such as A Midsummer Night’s Dream and The Faerie Queene . . . were . . . inscribed by the allegorical discourse of Elizabethan royal courtship, panegyric, and political negotiation.” 3. Richard Wilson, Shakespeare in French Theory: King of Shadows (London and New York: Rout le d g e , 2 0 0 7 ), 14 6 . T he A r d e n e d it o r r e fe r r e d t o i s H a r ol d F. B r o ok s , A Midsummer Night’s Dream, The Arden Shakespeare, 2nd Series (London: Methuen, 1979), xxxvi–xxxviii. 4. Wilson, Shakespeare in French Theory, 158–59. 5. David Bevington, Tudor Drama and Politics: A Critical Approach to Topical Meaning (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1968), 17. 6. For the evidence, see Barbara Freedman, “Censorship and Representation in A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” A Midsummer Night’s Dream: Critical Essays, ed. Dorothea Kehler (New York and London: Garland, 1998), 170–215; Richard Wilson, “The Kindly Ones: The Death of the Author in Shakespearean Athens,” Literature and Censorship, ed. Nigel Smith, Essays and Studies 46 (Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1993), 1–24, esp. 6–10; Richard Dutton, Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England (Houndmills, UK: Palgrave, 2000), 33–34; and David Laird, “ ‘If We Offend, It Is With Our Good Will’: Staging Dissent in A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” Connotations 12.1 (2002–2003): 35–51. 7. Laird, “If We Offend,” 39 8. Freedman, “Censorship and Representation,” 209–10. 9. Wilson, “The Kindly Ones,” 7. 10. Dutton, Licensing, Censorship and Authorship in Early Modern England, 34. 11. Annabel Patterson, Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England (Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1984), 11. 12. Philip J. Finkelpearl, “ ‘The Comedians’ Liberty’: Censorship of the Jacobean Stage Reconsidered,” English Literary Renaissance 16 (1986): 123–38, esp. 123, 124. 13. Richard Dutton, Mastering the Revels: The Regulation and Censorship of English Renaissance Drama (Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1991), 86. 14. Given the likelihood that the moon queen Elizabeth would notice the manifold negative effects of the moon represented in A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Wilson thinks “it improb- able that Gloriana was present in ‘the great chamber in Blackfriars when the Dream was first performed’ ” (“The Kindly Ones,” 13). 15. So Robert L. Reid argues in “The Fairy Queen: Gloriana or Titania?” The Upstart Crow: A Shakespeare Journal 13 (1993): 16–32 esp. 16–18. The seminal article for the relevance of various poems of Spenser’s for the artistry of A Midsummer Night’s Dream is James Bednarz’s “Imitations of Spenser in A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” Renaissance Drama, n.s. 14 (1983): 79–102. David Wiles, in Shakespeare’s Almanac: A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Marriage and the Elizabethan Calendar (Cambridge: Brewer, 1993), 67–82, significantly strength- ens Bednarz’s claim that Spenser’s Epithalamion (publ. 1595) is important for appreciating Shakespeare’s artistry in A Dream. 16. Paul A. Olson, in “A Midsummer Night’s Dream and the Meaning of Court Marriage,” ELH 24 (1957): 95–119, asserts that “[l]ike Spenser, Shakespeare uses the shadow country [of the woods] to represent the ‘Other-world of allegory—that is, of Platonic Ideas, which con- stitute a higher reality of which earthly things are only imperfect copies’ ” (107–8). Olson is quoting Josephine Waters Bennett. In this vein, also see Jane K. Brown, “Discordia 234 Notes

Concors: On the Order of A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” Modern Language Quarterly 48 (1987): 20–41, esp. 20–21. 17. Martin Dzelzanis, “Shakespeare and Political Thought,” A Companion to Shakespeare, ed. David Scott Kastan (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999), 100–16, esp. 107, 109. 18. Nevertheless, Susan Doran, in “ versus Diana: The Treatment of Elizabeth I’s Marriage in Plays and Entertainments, 1561–1581,” The Historical Record 38 (1995): 257–74, esp. 259–63, 266–68, argues that quite a few plays of this period, including Gorboduc, obliquely recommend Elizabeth’s marriage to Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. 19. Margot Heinemann, in “Rebel Lords, Popular Playwrights, and Political Culture: Notes on the Jacobean Patronage of the Earl of Southampton,” The Yearbook of English Studies 21 (1991): 63–86, remarks that “the very variety of anti-absolutist ideas and oppositional views of history within the Essex circle, openly discussed as they could never have been at Court, may indeed have contributed to Shakespeare’s astonishingly multivocal drama” (64). David Wiles asserts that Shakespeare’s “company [was] sympathetic to Essex, as we can see from the compliment paid to him in Henry V, and from the notorious commissioned performance of Richard II on the eve of Essex’s rebellion” (Shakespeare’s Almanac, 25). 20. Debora Shuger, in Censorship and Cultural Sensibility: The Regulation of Language in Tudor- Stuart England (Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2006), notes that “the Elizabethan treason statutes of 1558-59 and 1571 made it an offense to ‘maliciously, advisedly, and directly . . . utter . . . by express words . . . that any one particular person is or ought to be [Queen Elizabeth’s] successor’ ” (73). She points out, however, that “the final clause forbid- ding discussion of the succession applied only to printed books” (288). Theoretically (but almost certainly not practically), unprinted plays could be claimed to be exempt. Still, an decidedly dark allegory alluding to the royal succession in a performed play certainly did not constitute a “direct” naming by “express words.” 21. Boaden’s claim has been further established and developed by N. J. Halpin, “Oberon’s Vision” in The Midsummer Night’s Dream, Illustrated by a Comparison with Lylie’s Endymion (London: Shakespeare Society, 1843), 16–25, 90–95; George Brandes, William Shakespeare: A Critical Study, trans. William Archer, Mary Morison, and Diana White (1898; reprint, London: William Heinemann, 1905), 65–66; John Dover Wilson, Shakespeare’s Happy Comedies (London: Faber and Faber, 1962), 195; and Roger Warren, “Shakespeare and the Princely Pleasures at Kenilworth,” Notes and Queries, n.s. 18 (1971): 137–39. 22. Robert Laneham, A Letter: Whearin, part of the Entertainment, untoo the Queenz Maiesty, at Killingworth Castl, in Warwick Sheer . . . iz signified . . . , The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth, ed. John Nichols (1788–1805; reprint, London: Printed by N., 1823), 1:420–84, esp. 457. 23. George Gascoigne, The Princely Pleasures at the Courte at Kenelwoorth, Nichols, 1:485–523, esp. 498. 24. Laneham, A Letter, Nichols, 1:458. 25. Gascoigne, The Princely Pleasures, Nichols, 1:500. 26. Halpin makes a case for the likelihood of the boy Shakespeare’s presence at Kenilworth in 1575 (“Oberon’s Vision,” 20–25, 43–46). 27. Laneham, A Letter, Nichols, 1:457. 28. Gascoigne, The Princely Pleasures, Nichols, 1:499. 29. Laneham, A Letter, Nichols, 1:440. 30. Ibid., 1:435. 31. Edith Rickert, “Political Propaganda and Satire in A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” Modern Philology 21 (1923–24): 53–87, 133–54, esp. 55–56. 32. Ibid., 56. 33. Wiles, Shakespeare’s Almanac, 167–70, esp. 167. 34. Ibid., 168. Notes 235

35. See William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream: A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, ed. Horace Howard Furness (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1895), 75–91; and Maurice Hunt, “The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia, Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and the School of Night: An Intertextual Nexus,” Essays in Literature 23 (1996): 3–20, esp. 13–14. 36. Maria Perry, The Word of a Prince: A Life of Elizabeth I from Contemporary Documents (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1990), 238. 37. Marion A. Taylor, Bottom, Thou Art Translated: Political Allegory in A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Related Literature (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1973), 40. 38. Perry, The Word of a Prince, 247–49. 39. Wallace MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I (London: Edward Arnold, 1993), 199, 210. 40. Ibid., 199. 41. Jasper Ridley, Elizabeth I: The Shrewdness of Virtue (New York: Viking Press, 1988), 208. 42. Perry, The Word of a Prince, 237. 43. In this respect, my argument resembles that of Louis Adrian Montrose in his influential essay, “ ‘Shaping Fantasies’: Figurations of Gender and Power in Elizabethan Culture,” Representations 1.2 (Spring 1983): 61–94. Montrose asserts that A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a male fantasy of control over Queen Elizabeth: “With Cupid’s flower, Oberon can make the Fairy Queen ‘full of hateful fantasies’ (2.1.258); and with Dian’s bud, he can win her back to his will” (81). For an allegorical reading of the “old moon” of the play as representing the “ominous repressive power” of Elizabeth, see Richard Wilson, “The Kindly Ones,” 13–16. 44. Ridley, Elizabeth I, 208; Perry, The Word of a Prince, 238. 45. Two previous commentators have allegorically read Titania and Bottom’s dotage as signify- ing Elizabeth and the Duc D’Alençon’s love affair: Alden Brooks, Will Shakespeare and the Dyer’s Hand (New York: Scribner’s, 1943), 95–98; and Taylor, Bottom, Thou Art Translated, 31–50, 131–65. In Brooks’s symbolic reading, Oberon figures Robert Dudley, the Earl of Leicester (Will Shakespeare and the Dyer’s Hand, 95), who marries Lettice Knollys out of anger that Titania/Elizabeth will not hand over to him a changeling, a courtier with whom she had been flirting. Oberon/Leicester’s humiliation of her through the pansy’s spell back- fires in Brooks’s reading when the Fairy Queen falls in love with Leicester’s rival, Alençon. Taylor anticipates my claim that Bottom’s repeated utterance of the word “Monsieur” and his association with the French-crown disease evoke aspects of the Duc D’Alençon’s char- acter as the English understood it (Bottom, Thou Art Translated, 136–39). Otherwise, she essentially adopts the details of Edith Rickert’s reading except for Rickert’s equation of Bottom with King James of Scotland. 46. Bednarz, “Imitations of Spenser in A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” 82; Reid, “The Fairy Queen,” 26; Harold F. Brooks, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, xxi–cxliii, esp. xxxix. Critics finding an allusion to Spenser’s poem rather than to Greene in the proposed nuptial enter- tainment usually claim that the phrase “thrice-three” is a parody of Spenser’s sometimes labored archaic diction. 47. Edwin Greenlaw, “Spenser and the Earl of Leicester,” PMLA 25 (1910): 535–61. Reprinted in his Studies in Spenser’s Historical Allegory (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1932), 108–32. My citation of line numbers for Prosopopoia refers to the text in The Yale Edition of the Shorter Poems of Edmund Spenser, ed. William A. Oram et al. (New Haven: Yale UP, 1989), 327–79. 48. Edmund Spenser, Spenser: The Faerie Queene, ed. A. C. Hamilton; text. ed. Hiroshi Yamashita and Toshiyuki Suzuki, Longman Annotated English Poets (Harlow, UK: Longman, 2001), 6.12.41 (689). I explore this issue involving Lord Burghley and speculate on its consequences for Spenser’s career in “Hellish Work in The Faerie Queene,” Studies in English Literature: 1500–1900 41 (2001): 91–108. 49. Montrose, “Shaping Fantasies,” 63. 50. Ibid. 236 Notes

51. Montrose also notes the uncanny fact that one of the men in Forman’s dream that he and the queen hear arguing with another man “was a weaver, a tall man with a reddish beard, distract of his wits” (Ibid., 62). 52. Margot Heinemann nevertheless points out that the Essex/Southampton faction was as much a milieu as a circle, a larger milieu than is usually supposed, one that “included aris- tocrats who intensely resented their increased economic dependence on the Court and its ‘upstart’ favourites and the restrictions of their military power, but also City Puritan minis- ters and ambitious army officers; rising diplomats, historians, and Oxford classical scholars; and a remarkable number of writers, playwrights, and poets, involved either as patrons or clients” (“Rebel Lords, Popular Playwrights, and Political Culture,” 64). 53. Leah S. Marcus, in Puzzling Shakespeare: Local Reading and its Discontents (Berkeley and London: U of California P, 1988), 72, has argued that the Elizabeth-Alençon affair could be of topical interest in a Shakespeare play (1 Henry VI) as late as the early 1590s. 54. Perry, The Word of a Prince, 240. 55. MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 203. Also see Robert Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex (New York: Atheneum, 1971), 17. 56. Perry, The Word of a Prince, 243. 57. Ibid., 240–42. 58. All quotations of The Faerie Queene are taken from the Hamilton edition. 59. Shakespeare was especially familiar with Book 2 of The Faerie Queene. I have demonstrated elsewhere that certain details of it constitute a subtext of As You Like It (Maurice Hunt, “Wrestling for Temperance: As You Like It and The Faerie Queene, Book II,” Allegorica: A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Literature 16 [1995]: 31–46). Furthermore, in canto 10 of Book 2, Shakespeare found not only the King Lear story vividly told (2.10.27–32), but also reference to King Cymbeline and his son Arvirage (Arviragus) and the fact that this monarch’s reign coincided with the birth of Christ (2.10.50–52), a coincidence that the playwright exploits in Cymbeline. 60. All quotations of The Whore of Babylon are taken from the text appearing in The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker, ed. Fredson Bowers (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1955), 2:491–592. 61. See Rickert, “Political Propaganda and Satire in A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” 64. 62. Homer Swander, “Editors vs. A Text: The Scripted Geography of A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” Studies in Philology 87 (1990): 83–108. 63. Ibid., 96n.14; Olson, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream and the Meaning of Court Marriage,” 111. 64. James L. Calderwood, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream: Anamorphism and Theseus’ Dream,” Shakespeare Quarterly 42 (1991): 409–30, esp. 415. 65. See Margo Hendricks, “ ‘Obscured by dreams’: Race, Empire, and Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” Shakespeare Quarterly 47 (1996): 37–60, esp. 41. “But why does [the boy] have to be Indian? Why not describe the boy as merely a changeling child? Or, if critical tradition is correct that all the fairies of A Midsummer Night’s Dream are taken from English folklore, why not identify the changeling as the English boy?” 66. Critics who have found the phrase “a vot’ress of my order” especially perplexing include Ernest Schanzer, “The Moon and the Fairies in A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” University of Toronto Quarterly 24 (1955): 234–46, esp. 241–42; and William W. E. Slights, “The Changeling in A Dream,” Studies in English Literature: 1500–1900 28 (1988): 259–72, esp. 261. Attempting to interpret the phrase, Schanzer speculates: “The order of the fairy queen? With human votaresses? It does not make sense . . . the words ‘vot’ress of my order’ seem oddly chosen. Perhaps some topical allusion is the answer to the puzzle, with Titania at least in this episode standing for the Queen and the votaress perhaps one of her ladies-in-waiting.” 67. King James VI, Correspondence of King James VI of Scotland with Sir Robert Cecil and Others in England, During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, ed. John Bruce (Westminster: The Camden Society, 1861), viii–x. Notes 237

68. Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 127; Bruce, Correspondence of King James VI of Scotland, ix–xi. 69. “The line of Henry VIII was about to fail. They must go back to Henry VII. James of Scotland was Henry VII’s eldest lineal representative, his true and obvious and nearest heir. Building upon that foundation, the judgment of the vast majority of people . . . was clearly in his favour” (Bruce, Correspondence of King James VI of Scotland, xii). 70. Ridley, Elizabeth I, 131. 71. Coppélia Kahn, in “ ‘Magic of bounty’: , Jacobean Patronage, and Maternal Power,” Shakespeare Quarterly 38 (1987): 34–57, esp. 56, associates Timon and James on the basis of their passion for hunting. 72. Robert Greene, The Scottish History of James the Fourth, ed. Norman Sanders (London: Methuen, 1970), 126. All quotations of Greene’s play are taken from Sanders’s edition. 73. Sanders, in ibid., xxvii, xxxiv–xxxv. 74. A. L. Rowse, Shakespeare’s Southampton: Patron of Virginia (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 85. 75. The Life of King Henry the Fifth, 5.0.29–34. 76. G. P. V. Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1968), 27; Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 110. 77. Charlotte C. Stopes, The Life of Henry, Third Earl of Southampton, Shakespeare’s Patron (1922; rpt, New York: AMS Press, 1969), 35. 78. Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 111. 79. Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 47. 80. Lacey, Robert, Earl of Essex, 127. 81. Ibid. 82. Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 47–48; Rowse, Shakespeare’s Southampton, 103–4. 83. Stopes, The Life of Henry, 42. 84. G. B. Harrison, The Life and Death of Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex (New York: Henry Holt, 1937), 45. 85. Helen G. Stafford, James VI of Scotland and the Throne of England (New York: Appleton- Century, 1940), 73. 86. Ibid., 117–18. 87. Ibid., 203. 88. Ibid., 118. 89. Ibid. 90. MacCaffrey, Elizabeth I, 439. 91. Stafford, James VI of Scotland, 204. 92. David P. Young, Something of Great Constancy: The Art of A Midsummer Night’s Dream (New Haven: Yale UP, 1966), 4–5. 93. Bednarz, “Imitations of Spenser in A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” 82. 94. For the impression that Shakespeare was writing A Midsummer Night’s Dream for a coterie, see Wiles, Shakespeare’s Almanac, 27. 95. David Mikics, “Poetry and Politics in A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” Raritan 18.2 (Fall 1998): 99–119, esp. 99–100.

Chapter Six

1. David Haley, Shakespeare’s Courtly Mirror: Reflexivity and Prudence in All’s Well That Ends Well (Newark: U of Delaware P, 1993), 19. 2. Ibid., 25. 3. Ibid., 33. 238 Notes

4. Ibid., 35. 5. Appendix E, “Giletta of Narbonne,” All’s Well That Ends Well, ed. Susan Snyder, Oxford World’s Classics (Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998), 225–32, esp. 228. All quotations of “Giletta of Narbonne” are taken from this edition. 6. Ibid., 232. 7. Roger Warren, “Why Does It End Well? Helena, Bertram, and the Sonnets,” Shakespeare Survey 22 (1969): 79–92; Richard P. Wheeler, Shakespeare’s Development and the Problem Comedies: Turn and Counter-Turn (Berkeley: U of California P, 1981), 57–75; Sheldon P. Zitner, All’s Well That Ends Well, Twayne’s New Critical Introductions to Shakespeare 10 (Boston: Twayne, 1989), 23–39. Also see Muriel Bradbrook, “Virtue is the True Nobility: A Study of the Structure of All’s Well,” Review of English Studies ns 1 (1950): 289–301, esp. 290; G. Wilson Knight, The Sovereign Flower: On Shakespeare as the Poet of Royalism (New York: Macmillan, 1958), 157–58; Snyder, All’s Well That Ends Well, 44–48; and Richard A. Levin, “Did Helena Have a Renaissance?” English Studies 87 (2006): 23–34, esp. 34. 8. See, e.g., Robert Giroux, The Book Known as Q: A Consideration of Shakespeare’s Sonnets (New York: Atheneum, 1982). 9. M. C. Bradbrook, in “Courtier and Courtesy: Castiglione, Lyly and Shakespeare’s Two Gentlemen of Verona,” Theatre of the English and Italian Renaissance, ed. J. R. Mulryne and Margaret Shewring (New York: St. Martin’s P, 1991), 161–78, esp.171, has proposed that “Shakespeare’s two narrative poems dedicated to the Earl of Southampton suggest a retreat to Tichfield, the Earl’s country house, where he would have enjoyed the company of John Florio, the Earl’s tutor, and the most celebrated Italian teacher of his time. . . . In these years 1592–4, I suggest Shakespeare acquired the experience that went into Two Gentlemen of Verona and Love’s Labour’s Lost, plays of elegance and eloquence.” 10. A. L. Rowse, Shakespeare’s Southampton: Patron of Virginia (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 170–71; G. P. V. Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1968), 254–57. Also see Zitner, All’s Well That Ends Well, 32–33. 11. Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 256. 12. Ibid. 13. I recognize that the comparison of Parolles and the Earl of Essex will not bear a great deal of weight. It does not extend to the suggestion that the following speech of Parolles, uttered after the detection of his betrayal and his fall from grace—“There’s place and means for every man alive” [4.3.341]—indicates Shakespeare’s opinion that Essex ought not to have been (if All’s Well postdates 1601) executed for treason. 14. Charlotte C. Stopes, The Life of Henry, Third Earl of Southampton, Shakespeare’s Patron (1922; rpt. New York: AMS Press, 1969), 65. 15. The tremendous egotism of young Elizabethan aristocratic courtiers is described in detail by Anthony Esler, The Aspiring Mind of the Elizabethan Younger Generation (Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1966), 123. 16. Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 256. 17. Zitner, All’s Well That Ends Well, 33. 18. Francis Meres, Palladis Tamia (1598; rpt. New York: Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, 1938), 282a. Editors of and commentators on All’s Well no longer generally believe that All’s Well is the enigmatic Love’s Labour’s Won listed as a Shakespeare play by Meres in Palladis Tamia (Snyder, All’s Well That Ends Well, 21–24). 19. William Shakespeare, The Complete Works of Shakespeare, ed. David Bevington, 6th edn. (New York: Pearson/Longman, 2009), A-7. 20. Katherine Duncan-Jones, Ungentle Shakespeare: Scenes from His Life (London: Thomson Learning, 2001), 104. Also see F. J. Levy, “Patronage and the Arts,” William Shakespeare: His World, His Work, His Influence, Volume I, ed. John F. Andrews (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1985), 99–105, esp. 104. 21. All’s Well That Ends Well, 5. Notes 239

22. The uncanny correspondence between the details of the plot and characterization of the previously existing play, The Tragedy of Soliman and Perseda, and the tragic use made of it by Hieronimo as a mirror image of the situation that has developed in Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy (1582><1592) illustrates this prediction of life’s imitation of art. Like The Murder of Gonzago, Soliman and Perseda is almost certainly a fictional creation. That likeli- hood, however, does not qualify the inclination of Shakespeare’s generation to assume that life often imitated art. The ultimate source for this belief seems to have been the biblical master narrative of fall and redemption that Early Modern England looked to for the inter- pretation of a man’s or woman’s life. 23. For the letters, see Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 87–88, 119, 128–29. A. L. Rowse asserts that Southampton’s wife Elizabeth “was inconsolable under the double blow of the loss of her husband and [her elder] son [James, Lord Wriothesley],” both of fever within five days of each other at a camp in the Lowlands in early November 1624. “She had always been in love with Southampton,” Rowse states, “and their married life, as every- thing shows, was singularly happy—never a shadow upon it” (Shakespeare’s Southampton, 301). 24. Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 88. 25. Ibid., 119. 26. Stopes, The Life of Henry, 35. 27. Ibid., 86. 28. Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 48. 29. The tracing of the development of this toxic love triangle through the sonnets begins with Sonnets 34 and 35, which name a “sensual fault” (35.9) of the young man that has “disgrace[d]” (34.8) the poet, proceeds through Sonnets 40–42, which chronicle the poet’s mistress’s seduction of the poet’s complicit beloved friend, becomes tortured in the loss of the friend as the lover of the dark-complected mistress (Sonnets 133 and 134), and concludes in the bitter suggestion of that his beautiful beloved friend has likely become an angelic “fiend” engaged in diseased sexual intercourse with the mistress. Sonnets 94–95 are almost certainly about the lascivious fault of the young man in carnally loving Shakespeare’s mistress. It is possible that the mistress of Shakespeare having sexual relations with the young man described in Sonnets 40–42 is not the later dark-complected woman, but a dif- ferent one. The sense of the poet’s loss in these earlier sonnets is not nearly as great as that recorded in Sonnets 133, 134, and certainly 144. 30. Shakespeare implies that he will know the truth of his suspicion only when the young man catches syphilis from being in the “hell” (the pudendum) of his “bad angel”: Suspect I may, yet not directly tell; But being both from me, both to each friend, I guess one angel in another’s hell. Yet this shall I ne’er know, but live in doubt Till my bad angel fire my good one out. (144:10–14) Ironically, the two concluding sonnets of the sequence (153, 154), if they are by Shakespeare, imply—as Katherine Duncan-Jones has argued (Ungentle Shakespeare, 219, 224–26)—that he had contracted syphilis. (See, also, Bevington’s notes on 153.7–8, 12 and 154.13 in The Complete Works of Shakespeare 1744.) 31. For an excellent account of the appearance of these two sonnets in Jaggard’s The Passionate Pilgrim and its significance for the life and art of the playwright in 1599, see James Shapiro, A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599 (New York: HarperCollins, 2005), 188–202. 32. Meres, Palladis Tamia, 281b–282a. 33. The continuity between two sonnets established by the carryover of a poetic conceit or its language can be seen in Sonnets 5–6, 27–28, 30–31, 33–34, 34–35, 40–41, 41–42, 44–45, 240 Notes

46–47, 50–51, 57–58, 63–64, 71–72, 78–79, 82–83, 92–93, 93–94, 100–101, 106–7, 110–11, 113–14, 118–19, 133–34, 135–36, 141–42, 148–49. 34. This hypothesized scenario would undercut Akrigg’s argument that Sonnet 107 was written in April or May 1603 to celebrate Southampton and his release from the Tower of London (254–55). An examination of the sonnet reveals, however, that its terms are so ambiguous as to be able to refer to a number of persons and events of the 1590s. Not mine own fears nor the prophetic soul Of the wide world dreaming on things to come Can yet the lease of my true love control, Supposed as forfeit to a confined doom. The mortal moon hath her eclipse endured, And the sad augurs mock their own presage; Incertainties now crown themselves assured, And peace proclaims olives of endless age. Now with the drops of this most balmy time My love looks fresh, and Death to me subscribes, Since, spite of him, I’ll live in this poor rhyme, While he insults o’er dull and speechless tribes; And thou in this shalt find thy monument, When tyrants’ crests and tombs of brass are spent. Rather than believing with most commentators on the poem that the phrase “my true love” in the third verse refers to the poet’s love for the young man, Akrigg believes that it stands for Southampton himself, and that the first quatrain refers to contemporary read- ers’ belief that Southampton’s “doom” was confinement in the Tower. In this reading, the “eclipse” of the “mortal moon” in verse 5 refers to the death of the moon-queen Elizabeth on March 24, 1603, and the rest of the second quatrain celebrates the peace promised by the ascension of King James. And so Southampton in this view shall find his monument in Shakespeare’s poem, which will endure beyond the anticipated pompous tomb of the late “tyrannical” queen. It is hard to match, however, the pale, drawn, sad face of the thirty- year-old Southampton in the John de Critz painting of him in captivity that the earl com- missioned upon his release with Shakespeare’s exclamation in verse 10 of his poem: “My love looks fresh” (for the painting, see the plate facing page 132 in Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton). While the “mortal moon” most likely (but not necessarily) does refer to Queen Elizabeth, most commentators on this sonnet believe that the “eclipse” she has recently “endured” points toward an illness or political embarrassment suffered, rather than toward her death undergone, and that the sonnet is about the resistance of Shakespeare’s love to control and its freshness in a time of relative peace in the 1590s. Thomas Tyler believes that verse 5 refers to the Earl of Essex’s uprising in February 1601, which Elizabeth survived; E. K. Chambers thinks the line points toward the queen’s illness in 1599, and English fears during that year and the next of a Spanish invasion (which never materialized); Rowse believes that Shakespeare refers to Elizabeth’s surviving in 1594 the purported attempt of her physician, Dr. Lopez, to poison her and to the end of the religious wars in France with the capitulation of Henry IV in March of that year; G. B. Harrison to the queen’s surviving her Grand Climacteric sixty-third year in 1595; and so on. (These and other readings of Sonnet 107 based on different moments in the 1590s or in 1600 or 1601 are found in Martin Green, Wriothesley’s Roses in Shakespeare’s Sonnets, Poems and Plays [Baltimore: Clevedon Books, 1993], 11; and in Stephen Booth, Shakespeare’s Sonnets [New Haven: Yale UP, 1977], 342–43). Green notes Leslie Hotson’s opinion that the eclipse of the mortal moon in the sonnet signifies the destruction in 1588 of the Spanish Armada, whose battle position regu- larly assumed the shape of a crescent moon (11). Hotson’s interpretation is cited by James Notes 241

Winny, The Master-Mistress: A Study of Shakespeare’s Sonnets (London: Chatto & Windus, 1968), 19–20. Booth quotes Martin Seymour-Smith, who demonstrates that “[t]here is a theory (for decoding Sonnet 107) for almost every year from 1588 to 1609” (Shakespeare’s Sonnets, 343), and concludes as a result that “[a]ll the theories are inconsequential” (342). 35. Peter L. Rudnytsky, “ ‘The Dark and Vicious Place’: The Dread of the Vagina in King Lear,” Modern Philology 96 (1998–1999): 291–311, esp. 303–4. Rudnytsky also cites and interprets passages in this play concerned with adultery (294, 297, 303). 36. Willobie His Avisa, 1594, ed. G. B. Harrison, Elizabethan and Jacobean Quartos (New York: Barnes & Noble, 1966), 115–16. Quotations of this poem are taken from this edition. 37. G. B. Harrison, “An Essay on Willobie His Avisa,” Willobie His Avisa 181–231, esp. 205, 213–31; Sir E. K. Chambers, William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1930), 1:568–76; M. C. Bradbrook, The School of Night: A Study of the Literary Relationships of Sir Walter Raleigh (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1936), 168–71; Eric Sams, The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Early Years, 1564–1594 (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1995), 95–102, 105, 224–25. 38. Sams, The Real Shakespeare, 98. 39. Willobie His Avisa 116. A stanza in a dedicatory poem to this verse novella explicitly presents Shakespeare and his recent Rape of Lucrece (1594) in an uncomplimentary light: Though Collatine haue deerely bought, To high renowne, a lasting life, And found, that most in vaine haue sought, To haue a Faire, and Constant wife, Yet Tarquyne pluckt his glistering grape, And Shake-speare, paints poore Lucrece rape. (19:7–12; emphasis in the original) 40. Harrison makes a strong case for Arthur Acheson’s claim that the mathematician Matthew Roydon wrote Willobie His Avisa (226–27). C. S. Lewis, in English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama, The Oxford History of English Literature (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954), 466, likewise thinks Roydon was probably the poem’s author. Roydon was a member of the circle of intellectuals and noblemen surrounding Raleigh, who Harrison asserts was the likely sponsor of the poem (204–31). 41. The conjectured public impressions in this instance were likely greater concerning Southampton than for Shakespeare. In 1954, the handsome gallant Southampton, not involved with Elizabeth Vernon, had possibly had one or more publicly known adulterous affairs. The sonnets registering Shakespeare’s adultery with the dark-complected woman were presumably among those circulating among his “priuate friends” in 1598, and they may have been doing so as early as 1593 and 1594. Early on, these almost certainly cop- ied and recopied sonnets may have gained a small “public” reading among not-so-private friends and their acquaintances. 42. J. I. M. Stewart, Character and Motive in Shakespeare: Some Recent Appraisals Examined (London: Longmans, 1929), 30–37. For the dynamics of this psychology, see Sigmund Freud, “Some Neurotic Mechanisms in Jealousy, Paranoia, and Homosexuality,” The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume 18, ed. James Strachey (London: Hogarth Press, 1964), 221–32. Also see Ernest Jones, “The Case of Louis Bonaparte,” Miscellaneous Essays [Vol. 1 of Essays in Applied Psycho-Analysis] (London: Hogarth Press, 1951), 39–54, esp. 52–53; and Years of Maturity 1901–1919 [Vol. 2 of The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud] (New York: Basic Books, 1955), 270–71. 43. See Maurice Hunt, “Motivating Iago,” Approaches to Teaching Shakespeare’s , ed. Peter Erickson and Maurice Hunt, Approaches to Teaching World Literature (New York: MLA, 2005), 125–32, esp. 130–31. Significantly, Leontes and Iago are the same age, twen- ty-eight. For the calculations, see Maurice Hunt, “The Three Seasons of Mankind: Age, 242 Notes

Nature, and Art in The Winter’s Tale,” Iowa State Journal of Research 58 (1984): 299–309, esp. 300–301. 44. Duncan-Jones, Ungentle Shakespeare, 65. 45. Akrigg, Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton, 182. Akrigg notes that Thomas Nashe’s Pierce Penilesse His Supplication to the Devil (1592) “ends with a fulsome dedication to that ‘matchlesse image of Honor, and magnificent rewarder of vertue, Joves Eagle-borne Ganimed, thrice-noble Amyntas.’ To Sir Sidney Lee, Amyntas was ‘beyond doubt’ Southampton. A ‘ganymede’ . . . was an Elizabethan slang word for a homosexual” (181). 46. Joel Fineman, Shakespeare’s Perjured Eye: The Invention of Poetic Subjectivity in the Sonnets (Berkeley: U of California P, 1986), 275. 47. See William C. Carroll, “The Virgin Not: Language and Sexuality in Shakespeare,” Shakespeare and Gender: A History, ed. Deborah Barker and Ivo Kamps (London: Verso, 1995), 283–301, esp. 283, 287, 288–89, 294–97. Also see Martin B. Green, The Labyrinth of Shakespeare’s Sonnets (London: Charles Skilton, 1974), 60–81, esp. 77–78. Green notes the imagined correspondence between the letter “O” and the number zero and the shape of the vulva as one source of this Early Modern English cant term for the external female genitalia. 48. Booth, Shakespeare’s Sonnets, 164–65. 49. In this respect, see Lisa Freinkel, “The Shakespearean Fetish,” Spiritual Shakespeares, ed. Ewan Fernie, Accents on Shakespeare (London and New York: Routledge, 2005), 109–29, esp. 123–25. 50. For other arguments that Sonnet 20 is, despite its apparently literal denial of homosexual feeling, an avowal of the poet’s sexual love for the young man, see Joseph Pequigney, Such is My Love: A Study of Shakespeare’s Sonnets (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1985), 34–41; and Bruce R. Smith, Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare’s England: A Cultural Poetics (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1991), 248–50. 51. Stephen Greenblatt, Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare (New York: Norton, 2004), 289–90. 52. Ibid., 290. 53. William R. Bowden, “The Bed Trick, 1603–1642: Its Mechanics, Ethics, and Effects,” Shakespeare Studies 5 (1969): 112–23, esp. 122. 54. So argues Zvi Jagendorf, “ ‘In the Morning, Behold, It was Leah’: Genesis and the Reversal of Sexual Knowledge,” Biblical Patterns in Modern Literature, ed. David H. Hirsch and Nehama Aschkenasy, Brown Judaic Studies 77 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984), 51–60, esp. 53–54. 55. Peggy Muñoz Simonds, “Overlooked Sources of the Bed Trick,” Shakespeare Quarterly 34 (1983): 433–34, esp. 434. 56. This conceit of the melded and Diana derives for Renaissance poets from Virgil’s Aeneid (I.315), in which Venus appears disguised as a nymph of Diana. Edgar Wind, in Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance (New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1958), describes the transformation of Virgil’s portrayal of the goddess of love as a devotee of chastity—“Virginis os habitumque et virginis arma”—into a variety of Renaissance images (73–75): “The union of Chastity and Love through the mediation of Beauty is now expressed by one hybrid figure in which the two opposing goddesses, Diana and Venus, are merged into one” (73–74). 57. This emphasis in the composite of Diana and Venus is apparent in stanza 4 of Spenser’s Proem to Book 4 of The Faerie Queene. The “chast breast” of the poet’s “sacred Saint,” the Virgin Queen Elizabeth, paradoxically contains “all bountie naturall, / And treasures of true loue”—riches that make her “The Queene of loue” (4.Proem.4.3–4, 9). 58. In “The Most Prevalent Form of Degradation in Erotic Life,” Sigmund Freud asserts that “[t]he erotic life of [many] people remains dissociated, divided between two channels, the same two that are personified in art as heavenly and earthly (or animal) love. Where such men love they have no desire and where they desire they have no love. . . . In only very few Notes 243

people of culture are the two strains of tenderness and sensuality fused into one.” Collected Papers, Volume IV, ed. Ernest Jones and trans. Joan Riviere, The International Psycho- Analytical Library 10 (London: Hogarth Press, 1948), 203–16, esp. 207, 210.

Conclusion

1. Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (1979; Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1980), 12. For other formulations of the domination of the mind-as-mirror epistemology, see ibid., 38–45, 60–61, 97, 100–1, 105–6, 126–27, 163–64, 333, 357, 371–72, 376–77, 392–94. 2. Ibid., 13. 3. Ibid., 393. 4. Ibid., 37. 5. Ibid., 42–43, 43. Philip Armstrong ironically demonstrates that the specula epistemology criticized by Rorty remains with us by citing Rorty and the specula tradition he describes in a positive application of Lacanian mirror theory to Hamlet, so as to show the limitations in the Prince’s and other characters’ thinking, without mentioning that Rorty is critical of this tradition (“Watching Hamlet Watching: Lacan, Shakespeare, and the Mirror/Stage,” Alternative Shakespeares, Vol. 2, ed. Terence Hawkes [London and New York: Routledge, 1996], 216–37, esp. 224). 6. Jacques Lacan, “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I,” Écrits: A Selection, trans. Alan Sheridan (1977; London: Routledge, 1989), 1–7. 7. Ibid., 2. The previous quotations are also taken from this page. 8. Malcolm Bowie, Lacan (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1991), 23. 9. Luce Irigaray, Speculum of the Other Woman, trans. Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1985), 205–6; emphasis in the original. 10. Paul-Larent Assoun, “The Subject and the Other in Levinas and Lacan,” Levinas and Lacan: The Missed Encounter, ed. Sarah Harajym (Albany: State U of New York P, 1998), 79–101, esp. 89–90; emphasis in the original. 11. The best short account of Levinas’s conception of the face and its place in his philoso- phy is given by Bernard Waldenfels, “Levinas and the Face of the Other,” The Cambridge Companion to Levinas, ed. Simon Critchley and Robert Bernasconi (Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002), 63–81. 12. In Totality and Infinity, Levinas claims that “[t]he dimension of the divine opens forth from the human face” (quoted in Waldenfels, “Levinas and the Face of the Other,” 67). Also see Seán Hand, Emmanuel Levinas, Routledge Critical Thinkers (London and New York: Routledge, 2009), 42, 118. Samuel Moyn, in Origins of the Other: Emmanuel Levinas: Between Revelation and Ethics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 2005), identifies the German Jewish philoso- pher Franz Rosenzweig as the source for this aspect of the face in Levinas’s earlier writings. In Rosenzweig’s conception of God as a lover, “Love is not [God’s] rigid mask that the sculptor lifts from the face of the dead. Rather it is the fleeting, indefatigable alteration of mien, the ever youthful radiance that plays on the eternal features. Love hesitates to make a likeness of the lover: the portrait would reduce the living countenance to rigor mortis” (147). 13. Waldenfels, “Levinas and the Face of the Other,” 69–71. 14. Ibid., 71. Hand quotes from Judith Butler’s Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence (London: Verso, 2004)—that Levinas “makes use of the ‘face’ as a figure that communicates both the precariousness of life and the interdiction on violence” (118). WORKS CITED

Adamson, Jane. Troilus and Cressida. Twayne’s New Critical Introductions to Shakespeare. Boston: Twayne, 1987. Akrigg, G. P. V. Shakespeare and the Earl of Southampton. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1968. Altieri, Joanne. “Romance in Henry V.” Studies in English Literature: 1500–1900 21 (1981): 223–40. Altman, Joel. “ ‘Vile Participation’: The Amplification of Violence in the Theater of Henry V.” Shakespeare Quarterly 42 (1991): 1–32. Armstrong, Philip. “Watching Hamlet Watching: Lacan, Shakespeare, and the Mirror/Stage.” Alternative Shakespeares, Vol. 2. Ed. Terence Hawkes. London and New York: Routledge, 1996. 216–37. Asp, Carolyn. “Transcendence Denied: The Failure of Role Assumption in Troilus and Cressida.” Studies in English Literature: 1500–1900 18 (1978): 257–74. Assoun, Paul-Larent. “The Subject and the Other in Levinas and Lacan.” Levinas and Lacan: The Missed Encounter. Ed. Sarah Harasym. Albany: State U of New York P, 1998. 79–101. Banks, Carol. “ ‘The purpose of playing . . . ’: Further Reflections on the Mirror Metaphor in Shakespeare’s Plays.” Signatures 2 (2000): 1–12. Barish, Jonas A. “The Prose Style of John Lyly.” ELH 23 (1956): 14–35. Bayliss, Robert. The Discourse of Courtly Love in Seventeenth-Century Spanish Theater. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell UP, 2008. Bednarz, James. “Imitations of Spenser in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Renaissance Drama ns 14 (1983): 79–102. Berry, Edward I. Patterns of Decay: Shakespeare’s Early Histories. Charlottesville, VA: UP of Virginia, 1975. Berry, Philippa. Of Chastity and Power: Elizabethan Literature and the Unmarried Queen. London: Routledge, 1989. Bevington, David. “Lyly’s Endimion and Midas: The Catholic Question in England.” Comparative Drama 32 (1998): 26–46. ———. Tudor Drama and Politics: A Critical Approach to Topical Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1968. Birenbaum, Harvey. “The Princess and the Pricket: Love’s Labour’s Lost on the Problem of Will.” Mosaic 36.1 (March 2003): 103–19. Blanpied, John W. Time and the Artist in Shakespeare’s English Histories. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1983. Blits, Jan H. “Manliness and Friendship in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.” Interpretation 9 (1981): 155–67. Booth, Stephen. King Lear, Macbeth, Indefinition and Tragedy. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1983. 246 Works Cited

Booth, Stephen. Shakespeare’s Sonnets. New Haven: Yale UP, 1977. Bowden, William R. “The Bedtrick, 1603–1642: Its Mechanics, Ethics, and Effects.” Shakespeare Studies 5 (1969): 112–23. Bowie, Malcolm. Lacan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1991. Bradbrook, Muriel. “Courtier and Courtesy: Castiglione, Lyly and Shakespeare’s Two Gentlemen of Verona.” Theatre of the English and Italian Renaissance. Ed. J. R. Mulryne and Margaret Shewring. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1991. 161–78. ———. The School of Night: A Study of the Literary Relationships of Sir Walter Raleigh. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1936. ———. Shakespeare: The Poet in His World. New York: Columbia UP, 1978. ———. “Virtue is the True Nobility: A Study of the Structure of All’s Well.” Review of English Studies ns 1 (1950): 289–301. ———. “What Shakespeare Did to Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde.” Muriel Bradbrook on Shakespeare. Brighton, UK: Harvester Press, 1984. 99–109. Bradley, Ritamary. “The Background of the Title Speculum in Medieval Literature.” Speculum 29 (1954): 100–15. Brandes, George. William Shakespeare: A Critical Study. Trans. William Archer, Mary Morison, and Diana White. 1898. London: William Heinemann, 1905. Brooks, Alden. Will Shakespeare and the Dyer’s Hand. New York: Scribner’s, 1943. Brotten, Jerry. “Ways of Seeing Hamlet.” Hamlet: New Critical Essays. Ed. Arthur F. Kinney. Shakespearean Criticism 23. New York and London: Routledge, 2002. 161–76. Brown, Jane K. “Discordia Concors: On the Order of A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Modern Language Quarterly 48 (1987): 20–41. Brown, John Russell. Shakespeare and His Comedies. 1957. London: Methuen, 1968. Bryant, J. A., Jr. “The Nature of Allegory in Lyly’s Endimion.” Renaissance Papers. Durham, NC: Southeastern Renaissance Conference, 1956. 4–11. Buhler, Stephen M. “No Spectre, No Sceptre: The Agon of Materialist Thought in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.” English Literary Renaissance 29 (1996): 313–32. Bullough, Geoffrey. Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, Volume III, Earlier English History Plays: Henry VI, Richard III, Richard II. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960. ———. Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare, Volume IV, Later English History Plays: King John, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VIII. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966. Burnett, Mark Thornton. “Giving and Receiving: Love’s Labour’s Lost and the Politics of Exchange.” English Literary Renaissance 23 (1993): 287–313. Burton, Robert. The Anatomy of Melancholy. Ed. Floyd Dell and Paul Jordan-Smith. New York: Tudor, 1927. Calderwood, James L. If It Were Done: Macbeth and Tragic Action. Amherst: U of Massachusetts P, 1986. ———. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream: Anamorphisms and Theseus’ Dream.” Shakespeare Quarterly 42 (1991): 409–30. Campbell, O[scar]. J[ames]. Comicall Satyre: Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida. San Marino, CA: Huntington Library, 1938. ———. “Love’s Labour’s Lost Re-Studied.” Studies in Shakespeare, Milton and Donne. University of Michigan Publications in Language and Literature 1. New York: Macmillan, 1925. 1–45. Carroll, William C. The Great Feast of Language in Love’s Labour’s Lost. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1976. ———. “The Virgin Not: Language and Sexuality in Shakespeare.” Shakespeare and Gender: A History. Ed. Deborah Barker and Ivo Kamps. London: Verso, 1995. 283–301. Works Cited 247

Castiglione, Baldassare. The Courtier. 1528. Trans. Charles Singleton. Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1959. Chambers, Sir E. K. William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems. 2 Vols. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1930. Charlton, H. B. “The Date of Love’s Labour’s Lost.” Modern Language Review 13 (1918): 257–66, 387–400. Chaucer, Geoffrey. Troilus and Crisyede. The Riverside Chaucer. Ed. Larry D. Benson. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1987. 471–585. Cody, Richard. The Landscape of the Mind: Pastoralism and Platonic Theory in Tasso’s Aminta and Shakespeare’s Early Comedies. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. Cunningham, J. V. “ ‘Essence’ and The Phoenix and the Turtle.” ELH 19 (1952): 265–76. Danson, Lawrence. “Henry V: King, Chorus, and Critics.” Shakespeare Quarterly 34 (1983): 27–43. Dash, Irene. Wooing, Wedding, and Power: Women in Shakespeare’s Plays. New York: Columbia UP, 1981. Davies, Sir John. Nosce Teipsum. Philosophy in Poetry: A Study of Sir John Davies’s Poem Nosce Teipsum. Ed. E. Hershey Sneath. 1903. New York: Greenwood Press, 1969. 221–319. Dekker, Thomas. The Whore of Babylon. The Dramatic Works of Thomas Dekker. Ed. Fredson Bowers. 4 Vols. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1955. 2:491–592. Dollimore, Jonathan, and Alan Sinfield. “History and Ideology: The Instance of Henry V.” Alternative Shakespeare. Ed. John Drakakis. London and New York: Methuen, 1985. 206–27. Doran, Susan. “Juno versus Diana: The Treatment of Elizabeth I’s Marriage in Plays and Entertainments, 1561–1581.” The Historical Journal 38 (1995): 257–74. Dove, John Roland, and Peter Gamble. “ ‘Lovers in Peace’: Brutus and Cassius—A Re- Examination.” English Studies 60 (1979): 543–54. Duncan-Jones, Katherine. Ungentle Shakespeare: Scenes from His Life. London: Thomson Learning, 2001. Dutton, Richard. Licensing, Censorship, and Authorship in Early Modern England. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave, 2000. ———. Mastering the Revels: The Representation of Censorship of English Renaissance Drama. Iowa City: U of Iowa P, 1991. Dzelzanis, Martin. “Shakespeare and Political Thought.” A Companion to Shakespeare. Ed. David Scott Kastan. Oxford: Blackwell, 1999. 100–16. Elizabeth I, Queen. The Letters of Queen Elizabeth I. Ed. G. B. Harrison. 1935. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1968. Ellis, Herbert A. Shakespeare’s Lusty Punning in Love’s Labour’s Lost with Contemporary Analogues. The Hague: Mouton, 1973. Elton, William. Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida and the Inns of Court Revels. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1997. Erasmus, Desiderius. The Education of a Christian Prince. Ed. Lester K. Born. Records of Civilization 27. New York: Columbia UP, 1936. Erickson, Peter B. “The Failure of Relationship Between Men and Women in Love’s Labor’s Lost.” Women’s Studies 9 (1981): 65–81. Erne, Lukas. Shakespeare as Literary Dramatist. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003. Esler, Anthony. The Aspiring Mind of the Elizabethan Younger Generation. Durham, NC: Duke UP, 1966. Famous Victories of Henry V, The. The Old Castle Controversy: Sir John Oldcastle, Part I and The Famous Victories of Henry V. Ed. Peter Corbin and Douglas Sedge. The Revels Plays Companion Library. Manchester, UK: Manchester UP, 1991. 144–99. 248 Works Cited

Fineman, Joel. Shakespeare’s Perjured Eye: The Invention of Poetic Subjectivity in the Sonnets. Berkeley: U of California P, 1986. Finkelpearl, Philip J. “ ‘The Comedians’ Liberty’: Censorship of the Jacobean Stage Reconsidered.” English Literary Renaissance 16 (1986): 123–38. Forker, Charles. “Sexuality and Eroticism on the Renaissance Stage.” South Central Review 7.4 (1990): 1–22. Freedman, Barbara. “Dis/Figuring Power: Censorship and Representation in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” A Midsummer Night’s Dream: Critical Essays. Ed. Dorothea Kehler. New York: Garland, 1998. 179–215. Freinkel, Lisa. “The Shakespearean Fetish.” Spiritual Shakespeares. Ed. Ewan Fernie. Accents on Shakespeare. London and New York: Routledge, 2005. 109–29. Freud, Sigmund. “The Most Prevalent Form of Degradation in Erotic Life.” Jones and Riviere. Collected Papers, Volume IV. 203–16. ———. “Some Neurotic Mechanisms in Jealousy, Paranoia, and Homosexuality.” The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. Ed. James Strachey. 24 Vols. London: Hogarth Press, 1964. 18:221–32. Frye, Roland Mushat. The Renaissance Hamlet: Issues and Responses in 1600. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1984. Fumerton, Patricia. Cultural Aesthetics: Renaissance Literature and the Practice of Social Ornament. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1991. Gascoigne, George. The Princely Pleasures at the Courte at Kenelwoorth. Nichols. The Progresses and Public Processions. 1:485–523. ———. The Steele Glas and The Complainte of Phylomene. Ed. William L. Wallace. Elizabethan and Renaissance Studies 24. Salzburg, Austria: Institut für Englische Sprache und Literatur, 1975. Giroux, Robert. The Book Known as Q: A Consideration of Shakespeare’s Sonnets. New York: Atheneum, 1982. Goldberg, Benjamin. The Mirror and Man. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1985. Goldberg, Jonathan. “Speculations: Macbeth and Source.” Shakespeare Reproduced: The Text in History. Ed. Jean E. Howard and Marion F. O’Connor. New York and London: Routledge, 1987. 242–64. Goldin, Frederick. The Mirror of Narcissus and the Courtly Love Lyric. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1967. Goldstien, Neal. “Love’s Labour’s Lost and the Renaissance Vision of Love.” Shakespeare Quarterly 25 (1974): 335–50. Goodfellow, Donald M. “Lovers’ Meeting”: Discussion of Five Plays by Shakespeare. Carnegie Series in English 8. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Institute of Technology, 1964. Grabes, Herbert. “Glassy Essence: Shakespeare’s Mirrors and Their Contextualization.” Hebrew University Studies in Literature and Art 9 (1981): 175–95. ———. The Mutable Glass: Mirror-Imagery in Titles and Texts of the Middle Ages and English Renaissance. Trans. Gordon Collier. 1973. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1982. Granville-Barker, Harley. Prefaces to Shakespeare, Volume II: King Lear, Cymbeline, Julius Caesar. 1936. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1965. Green, Martin. Wriothesley’s Roses in Shakespeare’s Sonnets, Poems and Plays. Baltimore: Clevedon Books, 1993. Green, Martin B. The Labyrinth of Shakespeare’s Sonnets. London: Charles Skilton, 1974. Greenblatt, Stephen. Hamlet in Purgatory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2001. ———. “Invisible Bullets: Renaissance Authority and its Subversion, Henry IV and Henry V.” Political Shakespeare: New Essays in Cultural Materialism. Ed. Jonathan Dollimore and Alan Sinfield. Ithaca and London: Cornell UP, 1985. 18–47. Works Cited 249

———. Will in the World: How Shakespeare Became Shakespeare. New York: Norton, 2004. Greene, Robert. Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay. Drama of the English Renaissance, I, The Tudor Period. Ed. Russell A. Fraser and Norman Rabkin. New York: Macmillan, 1976. 357–82. ———. The Scottish History of James the Fourth. Ed. Norman Sanders. The Revels Plays. London: Methuen, 1970. Greenlaw, Edwin. “Spenser and the Earl of Leicester.” PMLA 25 (1910): 535–61. ———. Studies in Spenser’s Historical Allegory. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1932. Griffin, Alice S. Pageantry on the Shakespearean Stage. 1951. New York: Twayne, 1972. Guazzo, Stefano. The Civile Conversation of M. Steeven Guazzo. Trans. George Pettie and Bartholomew Young. 2 Vols. 1581. 1586. London: Constable, 1925. Haigh, Christopher. Elizabeth I. London: Longman, 1988. Haley, David. Shakespeare’s Courtly Mirror: Reflexivity and Prudence in All’s Well That Ends Well. Newark: U of Delaware P, 1993. Halpin, N. J. “Oberon’s Vision.” The Midsummer’s Night’s Dream, Illustrated by a Comparison with Lylie’s Endymion. London: Shakespeare Society, 1843. 16–25, 90–95. Hand, Seán. Emmanuel Levinas. Routledge Critical Thinkers. London and New York: Routledge, 2009. Harbage, Alfred. Love’s Labor’s Lost and the Early Shakespeare.” Philological Quarterly 41 (1962): 18–36. Harrison, G. B. The Elizabethan Journals, Being a Record of Those Things Most Talked of During the Years 1591–1603. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1955. ———. “An Essay on Willobie His Avisa.” Willobie His Avisa. 181–231. ———. The Life and Death of Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex. New York: Henry Holt, 1937. Hassel, R. Chris, Jr. “Love Versus Charity in Love’s Labor’s Lost.” Shakespeare Studies 10 (1977): 17–41. Heinemann, Margot. “Rebel Lords, Popular Playwrights, and Political Culture: Notes on the Jacobean Patronage of the Earl of Southampton.” The Yearbook of English Studies 21 (1991): 63–86. Hendricks, Margo. “ ‘Obscured by dreams’: Race, Empire, and Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Shakespeare Quarterly 47 (1996): 37–60. Hillerbrand, Hans J. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996. Holinshed, Raphael. Holinshed’s Chronicles: Richard II 1398–1400, Henry IV, and Henry V. Ed. R. S. Wallace. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1923. Holy Bible: New King James Version. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1990. Homer. The Iliad of Homer. Trans. Richmond Lattimore. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1951. Houppert, Joseph W. John Lyly. Twayne’s English Authors 177. Boston: Twayne, 1975. Hunt, Maurice. “Antimetabolic King John.” Style 34 (2000): 380–401. ———. “Being Precise in Measure for Measure.” Renascence 58 (2006): 243–67. ———. “Cobbling Souls in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.” Cahiers Élisabéthains 64 (Autumn 2003): 19–28. ———. “The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia, Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, and the School of Night: An Intertextual Nexus.” Essays in Literature 23 (1996): 3–20. ———. “Hellish Work in The Faerie Queene.” Studies in English Literature: 1500–1900 41 (2001): 91–108. ———. “Motivating Iago.” Approaches to Teaching Shakespeare’s Othello. Ed. Peter Erickson and Maurice Hunt. Approaches to Teaching World Literature. New York: MLA, 2005. 124–32. ———. Shakespeare’s As You Like It: Late Elizabethan Culture and Literary Representation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. ———. “The Three Seasons of Mankind: Age, Nature, and Art in The Winter’s Tale. Iowa State Journal of Research 58 (1984): 299–309. 250 Works Cited

Hunt, Maurice. “Unnaturalness in Shakespeare’s 3 Henry VI.” English Studies 80 (1999): 146–67. ———. “Wrestling for Temperance: As You Like It and The Faerie Queene, Book II.” Allegorica: A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Literature 16 (1995): 31–46. Hunter, G. K. English Drama, 1586–1642: The Age of Shakespeare. The Oxford History of English Literature. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997. ———. John Lyly: The Humanist as Courtier. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1962. Huppé, Bernard F. “Allegory of Love in Lyly’s Court Comedies.” ELH 14 (1947): 93–113. Irigaray, Luce. Speculum of the Other Woman. Trans. Gillian C. Gill. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1985. Jagendorf, Zvi. “ ‘In the Morning, Behold, It was Leah’: Genesis and the Reversal of Sexual Knowledge.” Biblical Patterns in Modern Literature. Ed. David H. Hirsch and Nehama Aschkenasy. Brown Judaic Studies 77. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1984. 51–60. James VI, King. Correspondence of King James VI of Scotland with Sir Robert Cecil and Others in England, During the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. Ed. John Bruce. Westminster, UK: The Camden Society, 1861. Jankowski, Theodora A. “The Subversion of Flattery: The Queen’s Body in John Lyly’s Sapho and Phao.” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 5 (1991): 69–86. Jardine, Lisa. Reading Shakespeare Historically. London and New York: Routledge, 1986. Jones, Ernest. “The Case of Louis Bonaparte.” Essays in Applied Psycho-Analysis. 2 Vols. London: Hogarth Press, 1951. 2:39–54. ———. The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud. 3 Vols. New York: Basic Books, 1955. ———. Trans. Joan Riviere. Collected Papers. 5 Vols. The International Psycho-Analytical Library 10. London: Hogarth Press, 1948. Jonson, Ben. Timber, or Discoveries. The Works of Ben Jonson. Ed. C. H. Herford and Percy and Evelyn Simpson. Vol 8. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1947. 563–649. Jordan, Constance. “Women’s Rule in Sixteenth-Century Political Thought.” Renaissance Quarterly 40 (1987): 421–51. Kahn, Coppélia. “ ‘Magic of Bounty’: Timon of Athens, Jacobean Patronage, and Maternal Power.” Shakespeare Quarterly 38 (1987): 34–57. ———. Roman Shakespeare: Warriors, Wounds, and Women. London: Routledge, 1997. Kalas, Rayna. Frame, Glass, Verse: The Technology of Poetic Invention in the English Renaissance. Ithaca, NY, and London: Cornell UP, 2007. Kelly, Philippa. “Surpassing Mirrors: Shakespeare’s Mirrors.” Early Modern Literary Studies 8.1 (May 2002): 1–32. Kernan, Alvin. The Cankered Muse: Satire of the English Renaissance. Yale Studies in English 142. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1959. King, John M. Tudor Royal Iconography: Literature and Art in an Age of Religious Crisis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1989. Kinney, Arthur F. Shakespeare’s Webs: Networks of Meaning in Renaissance Drama. New York and London: Routledge, 2004. Knapp, Jeffrey. “Preachers and Players in Shakespeare’s England.” Representations 44 (Fall 1993): 29–59. Knapp, Robert S. “The Monarchy of Love in Lyly’s Endimion.” Modern Philology 73 (1976): 353–67. Knight, G. Wilson. The Imperial Theme. London: Oxford UP, 1931. ———. “Lyly.” Review of English Studies 15 (1939): 146–63. ———. The Sovereign Flower: On Shakespeare as the Poet of Royalism. New York: Macmillan, 1958. Works Cited 251

Kunin, Aaron. “Shakespeare’s Preservation Fantasy.” PMLA 124 (2009): 92–106. Kyd, Thomas. The Spanish Tragedy. Drama of the English Renaissance, I, The Tudor Period. Ed. Russell A. Fraser and Norman Rabkin. New York: Macmillan, 1976. 167–203. Lacan, Jacques. “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I.” Ecrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. 1977. London: Routledge, 1989. 1–7. Lacey, Robert. Robert, Earl of Essex. New York: Atheneum, 1971. Laird, David. “ ‘If We Offend, It Is With Our Good Will’: Staging Dissent in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Connotations 12.1 (2002–2003): 35–51. Laneham, Robert. A Letter: Whearin, part of the Entertainment, untoo the Queenz Maiesty, at Killingworth Castl, in Warwick Sheer . . . iz signified. The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth. Nichols. The Progresses and Public Processions. 1:420–84. Lenz, Carolyn Ruth Swift. “The Allegory of Wisdom in Lyly’s Endimion.” Comparative Drama 10 (1976): 235–57. Levin, Richard A. “Did Helena Have a Renaissance?” English Studies 87 (2006): 23–34. Lévinas, Emmanuel. Otherwise than Being, or, Beyond Essence. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne UP, 1998. Levy, Eric. “ ‘Nor th’exterior nor the inward man’: The Problematics of Personal Identity in Hamlet.” University of Toronto Quarterly 68 (1999): 711–27. Levy, F. J. “Patronage and the Arts.” William Shakespeare: His World, His Work, His Influence. Ed. John F. Andrews. Vol. 1. New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1985. 99–105. Lewis, Clive Staples (C.S.). English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama. The Oxford History of English Literature. Oxford: Clarendon P, 1954. Low, Anthony. Aspects of Subjectivity: Society and Individuality from the Middle Ages to Shakespeare and Milton. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne UP, 2003. Luckyj, Christina. “A Moving Rhetoric”: Gender and Silence in Early Modern England. Manchester and New York: Manchester UP, 2002. Lyly, John. The Plays of John Lyly. Ed. Carter Daniel. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell UP, 1988. MacCaffrey, Wallace. Elizabeth I. London: Edward Arnold, 1993. Mallin, Eric. “Emulous Factions and the Collapse of Chivalry: Troilus and Cressida.” Representations 29 (Winter 1990): 143–79. ———. Inscribing the Time: Shakespeare and the End of Elizabethan England. Berkeley: U of California P, 1995. Manheim, Michael. “Duke Humphrey and the Machiavels.” American Benedictine Review 23 (1972): 249–57. Marcus, Leah S. “Levelling Shakespeare: Local Customs and Local Texts.” Shakespeare Quarterly 42 (1991): 168–78. ———. Puzzling Shakespeare: Local Reading and Its Discontents. Berkeley: U of California P, 1988. Marlowe, Christopher. Dr. Faustus. The Complete Works of Christopher Marlowe. Ed. Fredson Bowers. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981. 121–271. Mazzeo, Joseph. Medieval Cultural Tradition in Dante’s Comedy. 1960. New York: Greenwood Press, 1968. McGee, Arthur. The Elizabethan Hamlet. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1987. Melchior-Bonnet, Sabine. The Mirror: A History. Trans. Katharine H. Jewett. 1994. New York and London: Routledge, 2001. Meres, Francis. Palladis Tamia. 1598. New York: Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, 1938. Michel, Laurence. The Thing Contained: Theory of the Tragic. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1970. Miller, Anthony. “Hamlet: Mirrors of Revenge.” Sydney Studies in English 11 (1985–1986): 3–22. 252 Works Cited

Miller, David Lee. The Poem’s Two Bodies: The Poetics of the 1590 Faerie Queene. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1988. Mincoff, Marco. “Shakespeare and Lyly.” Shakespeare Survey 14 (1961): 15–34. The Mirror for Magistrates. Ed. Lily B. Campbell. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1938. Montrose, Louis A. “The Imperial Votaress.” The Purpose of Playing: Shakespeare and the Cultural Politics of the Elizabethan Theatre. Chicago and London: U of Chicago P, 1996. 151–78. ———. “ ‘Shaping Fantasies’: Figurations of Gender and Power in Elizabethan Culture.” Representations 1.2 (Spring 1983): 61–94. Moyn, Samuel. Origins of the Other: Emmanuel Levinas Between Revelation and Ethics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 2005. Muir, Kenneth. Shakespeare’s Comic Sequence. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1979. Muscatine, Charles. Chaucer and the French Tradition. 1957. Berkeley: U of California P, 1964. Neale, J. E. Queen Elizabeth I. 1934. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957. Neufeld, Christine M. “Lyly’s Chimerical Vision: Witchcraft in Endimion.” Forum for Modern Language Studies 43 (2007): 351–69. Nicholl, Charles. Leonardo da Vinci, Flights of the Mind. New York: Viking Penguin, 2004. Nichols, John. Ed. The Progresses and Public Processions of Queen Elizabeth. 3 Vols. 1788–1805. London: Printed by N. 1823. North, Sir Thomas. Plutarch’s Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans Englished by Sir Thomas North. Ed. W. E. Henley. The Tudor Translations. 6 Vols. London: David Nutt, 1896. Nuttall, Anthony D. Shakespeare The Thinker. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 2007. O’Brien, Gordon Worth. Renaissance Poetics and the Problem of Power. Chicago: Institute of Elizabethan Studies, 1956. O’Connell, Michael. Mirror and Veil: The Historical Dimension of Spenser’s Faerie Queene. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 1977. Olson, Paul A. “A Midsummer Night’s Dream and the Meaning of Court Marriage.” ELH 24 (1957): 95–119. Orgel, Stephen. The Jonsonian Masque. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1965. Orlin, Lena Cowen. “Gertrude’s Closet.” Shakespeare Jahrbuch 134 (1998): 52–67. Parker, Patricia. “ ‘Rude Mechanicals’: A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Shakespearean Joinery.” Shakespeare from the Margins: Language, Culture, Context. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1996. 83–115. Patterson, Annabel. Censorship and Interpretation: The Conditions of Writing and Reading in Early Modern England. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1984. Pequigney, Joseph. Such is My Love: A Study of Shakespeare’s Sonnets. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1985. Perry, Maria. The Word of a Prince: A Life of Elizabeth I from Contemporary Documents. Woodbridge, UK: Boydell, 1990. Perryman, Judith C. “A Tradition Transformed in Love’s Labour’s Lost.” Études Anglais 37 (1984): 156–62. Peyré, Yves. “Mirrors in the Eyes: The Winter’s Tale, from Mannerism into Baroque?” Contexts of Baroque: Theatre, Metamorphosis, and Design. Ed. Roy T. Eriksen. Novus Studies in Literature 1. Oslo, Norway: Novus P, 1997. 79–98. Pincombe, Michael. The Plays of John Lyly: Eros and Eliza. The Revels Plays Companion Library. Manchester and New York: Manchester UP, 1996. Prosser, Eleanor. Hamlet and Revenge. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 1971. Pughe, Thomas. “ ‘What Should the Wars do with These Jigging Fools?’ The Poets in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar.” English Studies 69 (1988): 313–22. Puttenham, George. The Arte of English Poesie. Ed. Gladys Doige Willcock and Alice Walker. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1936. Works Cited 253

Rabkin, Norman. Shakespeare and the Problem of Meaning. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1981. Ralegh, Sir Walter. Sir Walter Ralegh: Selected Writings. Ed. Gerald Hammond. Manchester, UK: Fyfield, 1984. Reid, Robert L. “The Fairy Queen: Gloriana or Titania?” The Upstart Crow: A Shakespeare Journal 13 (1993): 16–32. Rickert, Edith. “Political Propaganda and Satire in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Modern Philology 21 (1923–1924): 53–87, 133–54. Ridley, Jasper. Elizabeth I: The Shrewdness of Virtue. New York: Viking, 1988. Roe, John. Shakespeare and Machiavelli. Studies in Renaissance Literature. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2002. Roesen, Bobbyann. “Love’s Labour’s Lost.” Shakespeare Quarterly 4 (1953): 411–26. Rorty, Richard. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. 1979. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1980. Rosenberg, Marvin. The Masks of King Lear. Berkeley: U of California P, 1972. Rosenblatt, Jason. “Aspects of the Incest Problem in Hamlet.” Shakespeare Quarterly 29 (1978): 349–64. Rosinger, Lawrence. “Spenser’s Una and Queen Elizabeth.” English Language Notes 6 (1968– 1969): 12–17. Rowse, A. L. Shakespeare’s Southampton: Patron of Virginia. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Rudnytsky, Peter L. “ ‘The Dark and Vicious Place’: The Dread of the Vagina in King Lear.” Modern Philology 96 (1998–1999): 291–311. Saccio, Peter. The Court Comedies of John Lyly: A Study in Allegorical Dramaturgy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1969. Sams, Eric. The Real Shakespeare: Retrieving the Early Years, 1564–1594. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1995. Schanzer, Ernest. “The Moon and the Fairies in A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” University of Toronto Quarterly 24 (1955): 234–46. Schmidgall, Gary. Shakespeare and the Poet’s Life. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 1990. Scott, William O. “The Speculative Eye: Problematic Self-Knowledge in Julius Caesar.” Shakespeare Survey 40 (1987): 77–87. Scragg, Leah. “Shakespeare, Lyly and Ovid: The Influence of Gallathea on A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Shakespeare Survey 30 (1977): 125–34. ———. “The Victim of Fashion? Rereading the Biography of John Lyly.” Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 19 (2006): 210–26. Shakespeare, William. All’s Well That Ends Well. Ed. Susan Snyder. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998. ———. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Ed. David Bevington. 6th Ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2009. ———. Hamlet. Ed. Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor. The Arden Shakespeare. 3rd Series. London: Thomson Learning, 2006. ———. Julius Caesar. Ed. David Daniell. The Arden Shakespeare. 3rd Series. Walton-on- Thames, UK: Thomas Nelson, 1998. ———. Love’s Labour’s Lost. Ed. H. C. Hart. The Arden Shakespeare. 1st Series. London: Methuen, 1906. ———. Love’s Labor’s Lost. Ed. Richard David. The Arden Shakespeare. 2nd Series. London: Methuen, 1956. ———. Macbeth. Ed. Kenneth Muir. The Arden Shakespeare. 2nd Series. 1951. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1953. ———. Macbeth. Ed. A. R. Braunmuller. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1997. 254 Works Cited

Shakespeare, William. Macbeth: A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare. Ed. Horace Howard Furness. 1873. Rev. Horace Howard Furness, Jr. 3rd Edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1903. ———. Macbeth: Texts and Contexts. Ed. William C. Carroll. The Bedford Shakespeare. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s P, 1999. ———. Measure for Measure. Ed. J. W. Lever. The Arden Shakespeare. 2nd Series. 1965. New York: Vintage, 1967. ———. Measure for Measure. Ed. Brian Gibbons. The New Cambridge Shakespeare. Updated Edn. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2006. ———. Measure for Measure. The Norton Shakespeare. 2039–108. ———. Measure for Measure. The Riverside Shakespeare. 595–621. ———. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Ed. Harold F. Brooks. The Arden Shakespeare, 2nd Series. London: Methuen, 1979. ———. A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Ed. Peter Holland. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. ———. A Midsummer Night’s Dream: A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare. Ed. Horace Howard Furness. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1895. ———. The Norton Shakespeare. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt et al. 2nd Edn. New York: Norton, 2008. ———. The Riverside Shakespeare, Ed. G. Blakemore Evans et al. 2nd Edn. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. ———. The Tragedy of Macbeth. Ed. George Lyman Kittredge. Rev. Irving Ribner. The Kittredge Shakespeares. Waltham, MA: Blaisdell, 1966. ———. The Tragedy of Macbeth. Ed. Nicholas Brooke. The Oxford Shakespeare. Oxford World’s Classics. 1990. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1998. ———. The Tragedy of Macbeth. The Norton Shakespeare. 2569–632. ———. The Tragedy of Macbeth. The Riverside Shakespeare. 1355–90. ———.Troilus and Cressida. Ed. David Bevington. The Arden Shakespeare. 3rd Series. 1998. London: Thomson Learning, 2006. ———. Troilus and Cressida: A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare. Ed. Harold N. Hillebrand. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1953. ———. Troilus and Cressida. The Riverside Shakespeare. 477–532. ———. Shakespeare’s Plays in Quarto: A Facsimile Edition of Copies from the Henry E. Huntington Library. Ed. Michael J. B. Allen and Kenneth Muir. Berkeley: U of California P, 1981. ———. Mr. William Shakespeare’s Comedies, Histories &Tragedies: A Facsimile Edition Prepared by Helge Kökeritz. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1954. Shapiro, James. A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599. New York: HarperCollins, 2005. Shell, Marc. Elizabeth’s Glass. Lincoln and London: U of Nebraska P, 1993. Shickman, Allan R. “The Fool’s Mirror in King Lear.” English Literary Renaissance 21 (1991): 75–86. Shuger, Debora. Censorship and Cultural Sensibility: The Regulation of Language in Tudor-Stuart England. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2006. ———. “The ‘I’ of the Beholder: Renaissance Mirrors and the Reflexive Mind.” Renaissance Culture and the Everyday. Ed. Patricia Fumerton and Simon Hunt. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1999. 21–41. Sidney, Sir Philip. The Countess of Pembroke’s Arcadia. Ed. Maurice Evans. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1977. Simmons, J. L. “Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: The Roman Actor and the Man.” Tulane Studies in English 16 (1968): 1–28. Works Cited 255

Simonds, Peggy Muñoz. “Overlooked Sources of the Bed Trick.” Shakespeare Quarterly 34 (1983): 433–34. Slights, William W. E. “The Changeling in A Dream.” Studies in English Literature: 1500–1900 28 (1988): 259–72. Smidt, Kristian. “Shakespeare in Two Minds: Unconformities in Love’s Labour’s Lost.” English Studies 65 (1984): 205–19. Smith, Bruce R. Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare’s England. New York: Norton, 2001. Soellner, Rolf. Shakespeare’s Patterns of Self-Knowledge. Columbus: Ohio State UP, 1972. Spenser, Edmund. Edmund Spenser’s Poetry. Ed. Hugh Maclean. New York: Norton, 1968. ———. Spenser: The Faerie Queene. Ed. A. C. Hamilton. Text. Ed. Hiroshi Yamashita and Toshiyuki Suzuki. Longman Annotated English Poets. Harlow, UK: Longman, 2001. ———. The Yale Edition of the Shorter Poems of Edmund Spenser. Ed. William A. Oram et al. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1989. Stafford, Helen G. James VI of Scotland and the Throne of England. New York: Appleton-Century, 1940. States, Bert. Hamlet and the Concept of Character. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins UP, 1992. Stegner, Paul D. “ ‘Try what repentance can’: Hamlet, Confession, and the Extraction of Interiority.” Shakespeare Studies 37 (2007): 105–29. Stewart, Alan. “The Early Modern Closet Discovered.” Representations 50 (Spring 1995): 76–100. Stewart, J. I. M. Character and Motive in Shakespeare: Some Recent Appraisals Examined. London: Longmans, Green, 1949. Stopes, Charlotte C. The Life of Henry, Third Earl of Southampton, Shakespeare’s Patron. 1922. New York: AMS Press, 1969. Strong, Roy. The Cult of Elizabeth: Elizabethan Portraiture and Pageantry. London: Thames, 1977. ———. Gloriana: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I. London: Thames, 1987. Sullivan, Vicki. “Princes to Act: Henry V as the Machiavellian Prince of Appearance.” Shakespeare’s Political Pageant: Essays in Literature and Politics. Laneham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996. 125–52. Swander, Homer. “Editors vs. A Text: The Scripted Geography of A Midsummer Night’s Dream.” Studies in Philology 87 (1990): 83–108. Tayler, Edward W. “Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure: Its Glassy Essence.” Cithara: Essays in the Judeo-Christian Tradition. 37.1 (November 1997): 3–21. Taylor, Marion A. Bottom, Thou Art Translated: Political Allegory in A Midsummer Night’s Dream and Related Literature. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1973. Thomas, Keith. Religion and the Decline of Magic. New York: Charles Scribners’ Sons, 1971. Toole, William B. “The Cobbler, The Disrobed Image, and the Motif of Movement in Julius Caesar.” The Upstart Crow: A Shakespeare Journal 4 (1986): 41–55. Traversi, Derek. Shakespeare: The Roman Plays. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 1963. Tricomi. Albert H. “The Witty Idealization of the French Court in Love’s Labor’s Lost.” Shakespeare Studies 12 (1979): 25–33. Updike, John. Gertrude and Claudius. New York: Knopf, 2000. Vawter, Marvin. “Julius Caesar: Rupture in the Bond.” JEGP 72 (1973): 311–28. Waldenfels, Bernhard. “Levinas and the Face of the Other.” Cambridge Companion to Levinas. Ed. Simon Critchley and Robert Bernasconi. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002. 63–81. Wallerstein, Ruth. Studies in Seventeenth-Century Poetics. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1965. Ward, Bernard M. “The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth: Its Place in Elizabethan Dramatic Literature.” Review of English Studies 4 (1928): 270–94. 256 Works Cited

Warren, Roger. “Shakespeare and the Princely Pleasures at Kenilworth.” Notes and Queries ns 18 (1971): 137–39. ———. “Why Does It End Well? Helena, Bertram, and the Sonnets.” Shakespeare Survey 22 (1969): 79–92. Watts, Cedric. Hamlet. Twayne’s New Critical Introductions to Shakespeare. Boston: Twayne, 1988. Wells, Robin H. Spenser’s Faerie Queene and the Cult of Elizabeth. London: Croom Helm, 1983. Weltner, Peter. “The Antinomic Vision of Lyly’s Endimion.” English Literary Renaissance 3 (1973): 5–29. Wheeler, Richard. Shakespeare’s Development and the Problem Comedies: Turn and Counter-Turn. Berkeley: U of California P, 1981. Wickham, Glynne. “Love’s Labor’s Lost and The Four Foster Children of Desire, 1581.” Shakespeare Quarterly 36 (1985): 49–55. Wiles, David. Shakespeare’s Almanac: A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Marriage and the Elizabethan Calendar. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1993. Williams, Kathleen. Spenser’s World of Glass: A Reading of The Faerie Queene. Berkeley: U of California P, 1966. Williams, Penry. “Court and Polity under Elizabeth I.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library of Manchester 65.2 (1982–1983): 259–86. Willobie His Avisa. 1594. Ed. G. B. Harrison. Elizabethan and Jacobean Quartos. New York: Barnes & Noble, 1966. Wilson, E. C. England’s Eliza. Harvard Studies in English 20. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1939. Wilson, F. P. Shakespearian and Other Studies. Ed. Helen Gardner. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. Wilson, Jean. Entertainments for Elizabeth I. Totowa, NJ: Rowman, 1980. Wilson, John Dover. Shakespeare’s Happy Comedies. London: Faber & Faber, 1962. Wilson, Richard. “The Kindly Ones: The Death of the Author in Shakespearean Athens.” Literature and Censorship. Ed. Nigel Smith. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 1993. 1–24. ———. Shakespeare in French Theory: King of Shadows. London and New York: Routledge, 2007. Wind, Edgar. Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1958. Winny, James. The Master-Mistress: A Study of Shakespeare’s Sonnets. London: Chatto & Windus, 1968. Woods, Gillian, “Catholicism and Conversion in Love’s Labour’s Lost,” How to do Things with Shakespeare: New Approaches, New Essays. Ed. Laurie Maguire. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008. 101–30. Wright, Thomas. The Passions of the Minde. London: Valentine Simmes, 1604. Young, David P. Something of Great Constancy: The Art of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, 1966. Young, R. V. “Shakespeare’s History Plays and the Erasmian Catholic Prince.” The Ben Jonson Journal 7 (2000): 89–114. Zitner, Sheldon. All’s Well That Ends Well. Twayne’s New Critical Introductions to Shakespeare 10. Boston: Twayne, 1989. INDEX

Note: The index excludes material contained in the endnotes and works cited. The titles of works by Shakespeare, John Lyly, Edmund Spenser, and Sir Philip Sidney are listed separately.

Akrigg, G. P. V., 183–4, 185, 190, 198 Bednarz, James, 164, 178 Allot, Robert, 127 Bellona, 142 All’s Well That Ends Well, 3, 89, 94, Bevington, David, 55, 56, 57, 107, 152, 181–6, 187–8, 190–1, 192, 194, 154, 186, 200 196, 199, 200, 202–4 Bible, The Altman, Joel, 78, 93 1 Corinthians, 12, 14 Anna of Denmark, Queen of 2 Corinthians, 13, 14, 17 England, 177 Deuteronomy, 200 antimetabole, 40–1 Exodus, 200–1 Antony and Cleopatra, 159 Genesis, 200–1 Arcadia, Renaissance, 118 Leviticus, 74 Arcadia, The Countess of Pembroke’s, parable of the talents, 20, 22, 23 10–11, 127, 148 Birenbaum, Harvey, 137 Arden of Feversham, 65 Boaden, James, 157, 160 Aristotle, 51, 77 Boccaccio, Giovanni, 86, 181–2, 184, Armstrong, Philip, 207 185, 188, 200, 201, 203 Arundel, Charles, 166 Bonaventura, Saint, 23, 24, 100 As You Like It, 49, 51–3, 54 Booth, Stephen, 39–40, 199 Assoun, Paul-Larent, 209 Bowie, Malcolm, 208 Augustine, Saint, 26–8, 31, 42, 70–1, Bradbrook, M[uriel] C., 128 99, 100, 210 Brandon, Charles, Duke of Suffolk, 170 Brooke, Nicholas, 48 Babington Plot, The, 171 Brooks, Harold F., 164 Bacon, Anthony, 177 Brotton, Jerry, 69 Baldwin, T. W., 19 Buhler, Stephen, 35 Baldwin, William, 86 Burton, Robert, 15 Bale, John, 99 ban on satire, 53 Calderwood, James L., 169 Banks, Carol, 2 Calvin, John, 12 bed trick, the, 186, 200, 201–3, 204 Campbell, O[scar], J., 129 258 Index

Cancellar, James, 99 Drummond of Hawthorndon, Castiglione, Baldassare, 11, 14 William, 53 Catholic rituals, Counter-Reformation, Dudley, Robert, Earl of Leicester, 138, 71, 72, 74, 75, 92 147, 157, 158, 159, 160, 163, 166, Cecil, Robert, 177, 186, 189, 198 167, 171, 176, 177 Cecil, William, Lord Burghley, 165, dumb show, 45–8, 112–14 175, 177, 178, 183, 189, 190 Duncan-Jones, Katherine, 187, 197–8 censorship, 100, 107–8, 128, 152–5 Dutton, Richard, 108, 154, 155 Chambers, Edmund, 129 Dzelzanis, Martin, 156 Charles, Archduke of Austria, 147 Charles IX, King of France, 147 Edmonds, Piers, 198 Charles Stuart, Prince, 48 Edward, Lord Beauchamp, 170, 172 Charlton, H. B., 130 Edward III, King, 171 Chaste Love (Venus/Diana), 203, 204 Elizabeth I, Queen Chaucer, Geoffrey, 26, 27 authorship, 99–100 Christianity, Neoplatonized, 23–6, bastardry, charge of, 99–100 28, 99 chastity of, 104, 108–9, 112, 129, 140, Cicero, 19, 49 147, 149, 160, 161 Communion, Christian, 37, 92–3 courtiers, treatment of, 100, 108, Complaints, 164 109–10, 114, 116–17, 137, 144, 150, Cunningham, J. V., 16 166, 175 and Devereux, Robert, 184, D’Alençon, Duc Francis, 103, 107, 186, 187 108, 129, 147–8, 156, 161–6, 168, entertainments for, 129, 140, 157–61 169, 176 as the Fairy Queen, 153, 155, 161, Daniell, David, 36 162–5, 167, 176 David, Richard, 132 flattery of, 101, 120 Davies, Sir John, 9–10, 11–12, 16, 19, and hunting, 128–9, 140, 141–2, 157 42, 70, 143, 144 and King Henry of Navarre, 130–3, Decameron, The, 181, 182, 188 134–5 Dekker, Thomas, 167, 168 and King James VI of Scotland, 171 Devereux, Robert, Earl of Essex, 129, maids of honor, treatment of, 111, 148, 149, 156, 158, 161, 165, 169, 149–50, 176 171, 175–8, 184, 186, 187, 190, masculine character of, 113–14, 120, 197–8 121, 140–2, 145 Devereux, Walter, Earl of Essex, 161 mask of youth, 109, 143, 148 devil possession, 43 paintings of, 143–4 Discoursi, I, 79 and patriarchy, 121, 140–1 Dove, John, 36 personal traits, 5–6, 119, 137–9, 147, drama 149, 150, 152 as historical record, 59–61 play-going of, 100, 124, 125, 155 as a model for life, 59 potential marriages of, 103, 107, 108, as oral history, 58 129, 147–8, 160–1, 161–6 dream vision, 104–6, 112–14, 118, 151 Protestantism of, 136 Index 259

responsibility for natural and social Goldberg, Jonathan, 47 disasters, 112, 152, 153 Goldin, Frederick, 26, 27, 28, 42 royal progresses, 108, 129, 144, 157 Goldwell, Henry, 129 royal succession, 48, 103, 107–8, 109, Gower, George, 144 129, 147–8, 150, 156, 168–74, 176, Grabes, Herbert, 2, 6, 49–50 177–8 Granville-Barker, Harley, 36 royal symbols of, 135–6, 143, 145, Greenblatt, Stephen, 79, 199–200 148, 149, 152 Greene, Robert, 45–6, 164, 172–4 subject of male fantasies, 165 Greenlaw, Edwin, 164 unpopularity of, 96, 150 Greville, Sir Fulke, 129, 140 vulnerability to suitors, 163–4 Grey, Lady Jane, 149 and Wriothesley, Henry, 186, 187, 189 Grey, Lady Katherine, 111, 149–50, Elizabeth Stuart, Princess, 48 170, 171 Endimion, 3, 100, 108–17, 125 Grey, Lady Mary, 111, 150 England’s Parnassus, 127 Griffin, Alice, 128 Epicureanism, 35, 36 Erasmus, Desiderius, 85–6 Haley, David, 181 Eric XIV, King of Sweden, 147 Halpin, N. J., 160 Erickson, Peter, 128 Hamlet, 2, 3, 4, 7, 43, 49–76, 76–7, 82–3, Erne, Lukas, 127 95, 188, 198–9, 206–7 Essex Rebellion, The, 186, 198 Hart, H. C., 128 Eucharist, The, 71, 93 Heneage, Thomas, 147 Eugenia Isabella Clara, Infanta, 171 Henry, French King of Navarre, 130–3, Evans, G. Blakemore, 22 134–5, 137 Henry VIII, King, 74, 96, 140, 167, 168, Faerie Queene, The, 3, 46, 77, 99, 104, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174 127, 136, 145, 149, 151, 154, 155, Henry Stuart, Prince, 47, 48 165, 166–7, 168, 169, 176 Herbert, George, 34 fairies, 112 Hercules, 145 The Famous Victories of King Henry V, 77–8 Holinshed, Raphael, 77, 89 Fisher, John, Bishop of Rochester, 74 Homer, 38 Forman, Simon, 165 Howard, Henry, 166 Foulis, David, 177 Howard, Lady Mary, 149 Four Foster Children of Desire, The, Hunter, G[eorge] K., 107, 123, 125 129, 140 Hymne to Heavenly Beautie, An, 23 Freedman, Barbara, 153 Freud, Sigmund, 171, 197, 203, 208 incest, 68, 69, 72, 74–5, 76, 99–100 Fumerton, Patricia, 71 Irigaray, Luce, 208

Gamble, Peter, 36 Jaggard, William, 184, 191 Gascoigne, George, 5, 157, 158 James I, King of England, 46–8, 155, Gesta Grayorum, 139 174, 175, 186, 188, 191 Gheeraerts the Younger, Marcus, 143 James VI, King of Scotland, 156, 170, Goldberg, Benjamin, 4, 5 171, 172, 173, 174, 176–7, 186 260 Index

Johnson, Samuel, 140 Lydgate, John, 86 Jonson, Ben, 3, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, Lyly, John, 3, 96, 99–125, 127, 148, 150, 56, 155 151–2, 178, 181, 204 Julius Caesar, 2, 19, 24, 31–9, 156, 207 Macbeth, 2, 39–48, 68, 92, 182, 200 Kahn, Coppélia, 36 MacCaffrey, Wallace, 177 Kalas, Rayna, 4 Machiavelli, Niccolò, 79 Katharine of Aragon, Queen, 74, 167 Machiavellian policy, 78–9, 81, 84–5, Kelly, Philippa, 2 88, 89–90, 94, 97 Kenilworth, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161 Magic, 102, 103, 109, 111–12, 117, 156–7 Keys, Thomas, 111, 150 see also mirror, magical Killegrew, Henry, 132 Magnificance, 77, 78 King Henry V, 3, 76–97, 175, 186 Maitland, James, 177 King Henry VI, The First Part of, 88–9, Manners, Lady Bridget, 111, 149, 185 101, 129, 141 Marcus, Leah, 101, 127–8, 141 King Henry VI, The Second Part of, 89 Marguerite of Navarre, Queen, 99 King Henry VI, The Third Part of, 89 Marguerite of Valois, 133 King Henry VIII, 2 Marlowe, Christopher, 11, 118 King John, 199 Mar-prelate Controversy, The, 121 King Lear, 2, 43, 54, 68, 122, 182, 192, Marston, John, 19, 53 193–4, 196, 201 Mary, Queen of Scots, 46, 47, 170, King Richard II, 2, 6–7, 209 171, 173 King Richard III, 2, 54, 58, 92, 200 Mary Tudor, Queen, 47 King’s Men, The, 188 Mazzeo, Joseph, 23 Kittredge, George Lyman, 40 Measure for Measure, 16–18, 20, 121, Knapp, Robert S., 112 186, 206 Knight, G. Wilson, 100 Melchior-Bonnet, Sabine, 1, 4, 47 Knollys, Lettice, Countess of Essex, Merchant of Venice, The, 2, 12 161, 166 Meres, Francis, 186, 191 merit, religious, 132 Lacan, Jaques, 4, 205, 207–8, 209 Midsummer Night’s Dream, A, 2, 101, Lady of May, The, 144–5 102–3, 112, 117, 124, 127, 139, Laneham, Robert, 157, 158–9 151–79, 181, 187 Lattimore, Richmond, 38 Mikics, David, 178–9 Lefranc, Abel, 133 miracles, Protestant doctrine on, 81, Leighton, Thomas, 132 93–4 Levinas, Emmanuel, 4, 207–8, 209–10 mirror Levy, Eric, 172 allegorical, 3, 5, 6, 99–125, 127–50, Lewis, C[live] S[taples], 86 151–79, 210 Limbert, Stephen, 139 and antimetabole, 40–4 Lord Chamberlain’s Men, The, 152, 175 Augustinian, 26–7, 99 Love’s Labor’s Lost, 3, 96, 100–1, 117, as biblical dark glass, 12, 14, 100, 114 127–50, 181 and catoptromancy, 46, 47 Lucillius, 5 of Christ, 13, 17, 26–8, 70–1, 207, 210 Index 261 of Christian creation, 23–4 Mirror for Magistrates, The, 86–8, 89 and Christian epistemology, 19–20, Montrose, Louis A., 165 21, 23–5 More, Sir Thomas, 49–50, 85 of Christian kingship, 3, 77–97, , 198–9 207–8 Muir, Kenneth, 24, 42 and cognition, 41–2, 43–5, 205 of compassion, 13–14, 17–18, 59–63, Napoleon, 41 66–8, 76, 77, 83, 207 Neale, J. E., 132, 147 of contemporary life, 188 Neoplatonism, Italian, 11–12, 13–14 and courtly love, 27–8 Nichols, John, 3 crystalline, 4, 5, 6, 7, 24, 69 North, Sir Thomas, 38 encyclopedic, 1 and the face, 6–7, 7–8, 19, 31–9, 207, O’Brien, Gordon Worth, 12, 13 209–10 Oedipal Complex, 208 and faculty psychology, 9–12, 13, oracle, 115–18 15, 16 Orlin, Lena Cowen, 71 history of, 4–6 Orpheus, 154 magical, 45–8, 115 Othello, 2, 43, 53, 68, 197 for magistrates, 86–8 Ovid, 118, 124 and miming, 39–41 of Narcissus, 8, 96 Pageant of the Nine Worthies, The, 137, of Nature, 2, 29–51, 54, 55, 57, 68, 145–6 76, 95, 206–7 Painter, William, 182, 188 and the Other, 209 Parliaments, Elizabethan, 125 and play-acting, 3, 49–50, 52, 54, see Parsons, Robert, 176 also mirror, of Nature Passionate Pilgrim, The, 191 of Pride, 25, 114 Patterson, Annabel, 254 for princes, 63, 78, 85 Paul, Apostle, 13, 14, 17 and satire, 51–4, 55–7, see also mirror, Pericles, Prince of Tyre, 14 of vice Perry, Maria, 166 and scrying, 47 Petrarch, Francesco, 149 and self-knowledge, 15, 17–18, 24, Philip II, King of Spain, 147, 171 28–9, 31–9, 43–4, 68, 70, 181, Pickering, Sir William, Earl of 182, 208, see also mirror, faculty Arundel, 147 psychology Plato, 10, 19 of Shakespeare’s life, 182, 183, 190, Plutarch, 38 194–5, 200–1, 203 Principe, Il, 79 of the soul, 16, 70, 71, 73–4 Prosopopoia, or Mother Hubberds Tale, 155, and speech, 3, 27, 55–8, 61, 65, 66, 95 164–5 steel, 4, 5, 22, 24 Protestant rituals, Reformation, 71, tin, 4, 5 72, 74 of Vanity, 25, 52, 96, 114 Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, 23 of vice, 51–3, 54, 64–5, 66, 69, see also Ptolemaic universe, 118–19 mirror, and satire Puttenham, George, 10 262 Index

Rabkin, Norman, 78 and the young man, 7–8, 183, 189, Raleigh, Sir Walter, 77, 100, 111, 135, 190–1, 192–3, 198–9 143–4, 148, 151, 154, 195 Shell, Marc, 100 Rape of Lucrece, The, 59–60, 62–4, 156, Shepheardes Calender, The, 135 183, 191 Shuger, Debora, 6, 8 Reid, Robert, 164 Sidney, Sir Philip, 10–11, 127, 129, 140, Rich, Barnaby, 69 144–5, 148, 149, 163, 171, 175, 177 Rickert, Edith, 152, 159 Simier, Jean de, 163, 164, 166 Robsart, Amy, 147 Skelton, John, 49 Roe, John, 79 Snyder, Susan, 188 Roesen, Bobbyann, 137 Socrates, 19 , 54, 127 Sonnets, The, 3, 7–8, 182, 183, 188, Rorschach theory, 78–9 190–1, 192, 198–9, 204 Rorty, Richard, 4, 15, 205–6, 208 speculum (specula), see mirror Rosenblatt, Jason, 74 Spenser, Edmund, 3, 23, 46, 77, 99, 100, Rowse, A. L., 183, 185 104, 127, 135, 136, 145, 149, 151, Rudnytsky, Peter L., 194 154, 155, 164, 165, 166, 169, 176, 178, 203, 210 Sams, Eric, 195 Stafford, Helen, 177 Sapho and Phao, 3, 100, 101–8, 120 Stafford, Sir Edward, 162 Scholasticism, 16 Stanley, William, Earl of Derby, 178 Scottish History of James IV, The, 172–4 Steele Glas, The, 5, 24 Seymour, Edward, Earl of Hertford, Stegner, Paul, 72 111, 150, 170 Stewart, J. I. M., 196–7 Shakespeare, William Stewart, Lady Arabella, 171 and adultery, 3–4, 182, 192–204 Stoicism, 37, 83 and allegorical drama, 100–1, Stopes, Charlotte, 175, 189, 190 107–8, 127 Strong, Roy, 143, 148, 149 composition habits, 26, 130, 165, Stubbs, John, 103, 147, 162, 164, 169 188, 191 succession, Jacobean, 45–8, see and the dark lady, 190, 192–3, 196, also Elizabeth I, Queen, royal 199, 200–1, 203, 204 succession death of son, 196–7, 199–200 Sullivan, Vicki, 92 and Devereux, Robert, 156, 158, Swander, Homer, 169 175, 178 and Greene, Robert, 172 Tayler, Edward, 16, 17, 18 and homosexuality, 197, 198–9 Taylor, Marion A., 162 at Kenilworth, 158 temperance, 49, 50–1, 54, 82–3, 95, 96 and patrons, 155, 178–9 Tempest, The, 13–14, 16, 196, 207 and play dating, 185–6, 187–8, Terence, 49 191, 200 Throckmorton, Elizabeth, 111 and satire, 51–4 Tilney, Edmund, 108, 152, 155 self censorship, 152–5 Timon of Athens, 53 and Wriothesley, Henry, 156, 174–8, , 54 181–8, 190–6, 197 Tricomi, Albert, 132 Index 263

Troilus and Cressida, 2, 9, 15–16, 18–31, Wickham, Glynne, 129 42, 51, 198, 207 Wiles, David, 159–60 Two Noble Kinsmen, The, 122, 164 Willobie His Avisa, 194–6 Tyndale, William, 12 Willoughby, Ambrose, 185 Wilson, F. P., 128 Utopia, 85 Wilson, Richard, 152, 154 Winter’s Tale, The, 2, 182, 196–7, 200 Vavasour, Anne, 111 witch, 41, 45, 46, 47 Venus and Adonis, 156, 183, 191 Woman in the Moon, The, 3, 100, Vere, Lady Elizabeth, 178, 183 117–25 Vernon, Elizabeth, Countess of Woods, Gillian, 132 Southampton, 111, 149, 176, 184, Wright, Thomas, 15 186, 189, 190 Wriothesley, Henry, Earl of Vinci, Leonardo da, 50 Southampton, 3, 111, 149, 156, 165, Virgin Mary, The, 6, 100 169, 171, 174–8, 181–2, 183–95, 196–201, 203, 204 Walsingham, Francis, 143, 163 Wriothesley, Thomas, Earl of Ward, John, 99 Southampton, 189 Wardship, 175, 184, 189 Warren, Roger, 183 Yorkshire Tragedy, A, 65 Wheeler, Richard, 183 Whore of Babylon, The, 167–8 Zitner, Sheldon, 183, 185