The Eight Animals in Shakespeare; Or, before the Human

Author(s): Laurie Shannon

Source: PMLA , Mar., 2009, Vol. 124, No. 2 (Mar., 2009), pp. 472-479
Published by: Modern Language Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25614287

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to PMLA

This content downloaded from

93.44.80.49 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 13:44:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 [ PMLA

theories and
methodologies

The Eight Animals

in Shakespeare; or,
Before the Human
THE POVERTY OF THE SINGLE-DIGIT SUM IN MY TITLE, I TRUST, RAISES A

BROW. AFTER ALL, THE UBIQUITY OF THOSE WE CONVENTIONALLY SHEP

LAURIE SHANNON herd into the enclosure of the term animals stands out as a feature
of both Shakespearean material and early modern texts generally.
The animal footprints in this archive result from the frequency with
which early moderns encountered living and butchered animals in
their daily routines. Hardly an urban, rural, or domestic scene was
painted without them. For illustration, Jan van der Heyden's cityscape
of Amsterdam's main public square dramatizes the civic visibility of
dogs and horses (alongside the town hall and the New Church) and
muddies any distinction between beasts of burden and creatures of
leisure?especially beneath that vast early modern sky (see next page).
In a prescient intimation of modernity, Thomas Mores Utopia imag
ined a noncitizen, butchering class performing its labors, deemed too
brutal for citizens to witness, out of sight (75). Early modern humans
had more contact with more animals than most of us now do.1 For a
species with weak ears and a terrible nose, out of sight is out of mind.
Beyond such daily and bodily engagement, animal effects ex
tended to characterizations drawn from the bestiary tradition, with
its inventory of attributes (the elephant's memory, peacock's pride,
dog's loyalty, rabbit's fearfulness, fox's cunning, and so on). They in
LAURIE SHANNON is associate professor
cluded classical natural histories like Pliny's Historia naturalis (c. AD
of English and Wender-Lewis Research
77), read in Latin and new vernacular translations and universally
and Teaching Professor at Northwestern
University. She is the author of Sovereign
tapped for animal lore; husbandry and hunting manuals, often
Amity: Figures of Friendship in Shakespear translated from medieval and contemporary European texts; and a
ean Contexts (U of Chicago P, 2002) and is wave of natural-history writing, fueled by colonialism and the con
at work on "The Zootopian Constitution: catenated rise of a "science of description" (Ogilvie).2 Both ordinary
Animals, Membership, Early Modernity"
observation and diverse forms of reading, then, made the represen
(forthcoming from U of Chicago P). Both
tational archive zootopian?not a Utopia for animals, but a domain
projects consider historical ideas that
are broadly constitutional in order to
constituted by a more pervasive cognizance of them than our own.3
explore the kaleidoscopic possibilities by Early modern idioms are also more broadly zoographic than ours.
which we might frame terms and condi By zoography, I refer to the way writing in that period relies pervasively
tions for political membership. on animal reference and cross-species comparison, while at the same

472 | ? 2009 BY THE MODERN LANGUAGE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA j

This content downloaded from

93.44.80.49 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 13:44:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 12 4-2 J Laurie Shannon 473
<*
time proceeding from a cosmological frame Ha, We find Crab, the shaggy cur in Two Gen 3"
ft
work in which the diversity of creaturely life tlemen of Verona; the notorious stage direction 0
8
is finely articulated, whether as a "great chain' in The Winters Tale ("Exit, pursued by a bear" ft
of being or to indicate natures virtuosity.4 In [3.3.57]); and the dogs in The Tempest, sound
3
other words, this repertoire is not provincially ing their "bow-wow" as a "burden, dispersedly" a
human. To return to Shakespeare, animals to Ariel's song (1.2.385). If we tried to number
ft
1
even appear among the plays' dramatis anima all the species Shakespeare mentions?the r+
T
0
a
o
o
W
ft*

:;-1,.

Jan van der Heyden,

De Dam [The Dam
Square), 1668. Oil
on canvas, 68 x 55
cm. Amsterdams
Historisch Museum.

This content downloaded from

93.44.80.49 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 13:44:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
474 The Eight Animals in Shakespeare; or, Before the Human | PMLA

winter lion, Hyrcanian tiger, and baitedAsbear;

Donna Haraway urges, "[W]e h
w
o never
the little shrew and the necessary cat; been human" (2). At the same
bottled
o spiders and horned toads; brave harts
"we" and
have almost always been hu
"O
0 exceptionalist. Even so, historical atten
gentle hinds; the forward horse and preposter
X
?H
0> ous ass; the temple-haunting martlet, morn
to the lexicons for living things gives a
E ing lark, nightly owl, and winging to crow;
whatthewe now repeatedly posit as "th
-o nibbling sheep and hunger-starvedman/animal
wolves; divide" and "the question o
c
f8 the chafed boar, princely palfrey, fat oxen,
animal," revealing them to be modern r
</>
and spotted leopards; stranger curs, ical
mastiffs,
propositions rather than universal
2z
o hellhounds?we would be, as the saying goes,
evitable features of thought (philosophi
X otherwise)
herding cats. In what way, then, are there only on these subjects. As proposi
4*
eight animals in Shakespeare? they descend from Enlightenment mo
science and philosophy that have been la
qualified in contexts like subjectivity,
Shakespeare's Eight Animals
nality, and liberalism. Yet they persist
While references to the creatures now conventional
gath framework for species co
ered as animals defy inventory, the erations.
collectiveIn the seventeenth-century C
English word animal appears a mere sian eight
iteration of the human, cogito erg
times across the entire verbal expanse of
inaugurated?among the many other th
already
Shakespeare's work. His practice on this pointcharged to its account?a sp
of nomenclature tilts overwhelmingly definition.
against It culled humans, who alone
the word. By contrast, Shakespeareequipped
uses thewith a rational soul, from the
terms beast 141 times and creature spectrum
127 timesof creatures, and the rest were
compressed
(Spevack).5 In this pattern, he is typical. As the within the mechanistic lim
OED confirms, animal hardly appears in En
purely instinctual behavior (in what has
glish before the end of the sixteenth been termed the bete-machine doctrine fo
century.
denial
What does the scarcity of this collective of a difference between anima
noun,
despite the texts' menagerie, suggest about other automatons).6
clocks or
Tolife,
present idioms concerning the forms of put it in the broadest terms: bef
the cogito,
idioms that habitually invoke a dualistic logic there was no such thing as
of human versus/and animal? Also animal."
at stake There were creatures. There
are the questions of when and why brutes,
it became and there were beasts. There
conventional to speak using those blunt, nom
fish and fowl. There were living things. T
inalized adjectives the human and the were humans, who participated in an
animal,
where humanity is characterized by nature and who shared the same bodily
a positive
attribute, however slippery (language, terials with animals (Paster). These hum
a soul,
were
existential possibility, tool use, etc.), andmeasured
ani as much in contradistin
to angels as to animals, taking their pl
mality by a corresponding deficit or privation.
Jacques Derrida dubs this reductiveabinarism
larger cosmography, constitution, or
a case of intellectual betise, or "beastly"world
idiocy,"picture" than the more contr
a word choice that deconstructs?and know
post-Cartesian human/animal divide
ingly repeats?the human/animalwhich divideweincustomarily wrangle. None of
classifications
question (400). If the extreme generality of line up with the fundame
modern
these nomenclatures leaps out on briefest re sense of the animal or anim
humanity's
flection, why do they still shape our vocabu persistent, solitary opposite.
conception derives from a mode of tho
lary, especially in academic contexts?

This content downloaded from

93.44.80.49 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 13:44:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 124-2 ] Laurie Shannon 475

whose trajectory can be said to end with a late a divine craftsman.8 When we think histori 3"
ft
(and hesitating) suggestion in Derrida's long cally, something timely can be gleaned from 0
"t

essay "The Animal That Therefore I Am." To the broadly constitutionalist discourses rati
deconstruct the confinement of "the animal," fying animal membership before and against
3
Derrida writes, would require "perhaps ac Descartes. Timely, that is, if?as we abandon a
ceding to a thinking, however fabulous and the spurious compass of the human/animal 1
chimerical... that thinks the absence of the divide to navigate a wider sea of new eco
name and of the word otherwise, as something systemic, genetic, and posthumanist knowl 0
a
other than a privation" (416; emphasis mine). edges?we aim for a more creaturely and less o
As his speculation suggests, our thin vocabu human-exceptionalist vision of cosmopolity. ?
lary isn't the only problem: the exceptionalist
premise of signification as exclusively human
Creatures of Language
(a claim now eroding under the scrutiny of
science) circumscribes our thinking. The word animal itself embeds an etymologi
Shakespeare by contrast, like his prede cal collision between classical and biblical
cessors and contemporaries, wrote from a perspectives. Despite their alleged lack of a
cosmography that drew on broadly textual soul, animals are called by the name of an
ideas like the Book of Nature and the Book ima, the Latin noun for soul, breath, or spirit.
of Creatures.7 Partly theological and partly Aristotle's widely influential De anima had
empirical, these notions challenge a simple, postulated the ensouledness of all things, giv
exceptionalist sense of language, significa ing a taxonomy of souls (vegetative, sensitive,
tion, or writing as a human monopoly. Here appetitive, locomotive, and intellective). Each
is a scriptural instance of the persuasive force higher form of life in this order necessarily
attributable to animals: incorporated all the kinds of soul below it.
Here, animatedness, or the possession of soul,
Aske now the beasts, and they shall teach thee, likens all living creatures, even if a hierarchy
and the foules of the heaven, and they shall tell of souls also ranks them.
thee: Or speake to the earth, and it shall shewe
In early modern English, commonplace
thee: or the fishes of the sea, and they shall de
phrasings likewise manifested a more elabo
clare unto thee. Who is ignorant of all these,
but that the hande of the Lord hath made rate census than the impoverished dualism
of human versus animal. As we have seen al
these? In whose hande is the soule of every liv
ing thing, and the breath of all mankinde. ready, animal was an uncommon word. When
(Bible, Job 12.7-10) one subcategory of what we call animals was
intended, beast often served. But beast was no
A familiar Shakespearean passage connects to synonym of the modern animal, since beast
this larger principle: in woodland exile, Duke (at least when referring to nonhumans) in
Senior in As You Like It finds "tongues in tended neither fish nor fowl but a quadruped,
trees, books in the running brooks, / Sermons usually livestock. When the aim was to de
in stone, and good in everything" (2.1.16-17). note more than one subcategory of animals, a
Both passages show that elemental materials list was likelier than a single collective word.
too (earth, stone) participate in this cosmic To give a Shakespearean instance: "We can
voicing. I stress here the participation and not live on grass, on berries, water, / As beasts
authority that the Book of Nature accords to and birdes and fishes" {Tim. 4.3.427-28). This
all creatures, the theologically derived cat litany of kinds?beasts, birds, fishes?draws
egory including humans, animals, plants, its rhythms from Scripture; in English trans
and elements, all created by the "hande" of lations of Genesis we find "the fish of the sea,"

This content downloaded from

93.44.80.49 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 13:44:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
476 The Eight Animals in Shakespeare; or, Before the Human [ PMLA

"the foule of the heaven," and "the beast of the vexed and class-inflected) human standard.
m
0 fielde." (1.26, 2.18, and passim). While some In Much Ado, a disenchanted suitor accuses
o enumerations ground humankind's claims to his beloved of a lack of self-government, an
"0
0 authority ("over the fish of the sea, and over unchastity "more intemperate ... / Than Ve
x
the foule of the heaven, and over the beastes, nus, or those pampered animals / That rage
E and over all the earth, and over every thing in savage sensuality" (4.1.58-60). In Love's
that creepeth and moveth on the earth"), Labors Lost, a curate classifies the illiterate
c
ft others grant rights of sustenance to animals Dull according to Aristotle's additive model
?/>
4> exactly as those rights have been conveyed of souls. Dull evidences only the lower forms
3*
0 to humans: "Likewise to every beast of the of soul, showing no sign of the higher, intel
x earth, and to every foule of the heaven, and lective forms: "He hath not eat paper ...; he
+*
to every thing that moveth upon the earth, hath not drunk ink. His intellect is not replen
which hath life in it selfe, every greene herbe ished. He is only an animal, only sensible in
shall be for meate" (Gen. 1.28-30). These the duller parts; And such barren plants are
creaturely inventories in the vernacular bibles set before us that we thankful should be ... for
and homilies of the Reformation reinforced those parts that do fructify in us more than
a traditionally expansive cosmic census: they in he" (4.2.25-29). The logic posits distinctions
attentively noted the presence of other crea among humans and animals and plants while
tures by listing them (see Bond 161-73). undercutting them by calling a human speci
When a higher level of generality is men a nonhuman "animal" (and also a plant).
sought, Scripture again plays a role, supply No fewer than three of Shakespeare's eight
ing terms like "creatures," "living things," animals inhabit As You Like It. Each implicitly
and "living beings."9 We have seen Job refer critiques Genesis, reading human dominion in
to "every living thing." Genesis, too, makes terms of a searing issue in Renaissance politi
numerous collective references. For example, cal thought: tyranny. Orlando, oppressed by a
"God spake ... to Noah ... saying, Behold... brother who denies him an education, laments,
I establish my covenant with you, and with "I... gain nothing under him but growth, for
your seede after you, And with every living the which his animals on his dunghills are as
creature that is with you, with the foule, with much bound to him as I . . . the spirit of my
the cattell, and with every beast of the earth father, which I think is within me, begins to
with you, from all that goe out of the Arke, mutiny against this servitude" (1.1.16-24).
unto every beast of the earth" (9.8-10; empha Meanwhile, in Arden's woods, Jacques ob
sis mine). This passage uses both the general serves a wounded stag, a "wretched animal"
category of creatures and the enumerative who "heaved forth such groans" that those
approach to representing animals, a legalistic taking up exile in the forest are called "mere
variation that suits the quasi-contract being usurpers, tyrants, and what's worse, / To fright
made. With characteristic period emphasis, the animals and to kill them up / In their as
when creature appears in these incalculably signed and native dwelling place" (2.1.39, 65
influential texts, it is commonly intensified 67). These three political animals are radical
by every, as here. But animal never appears animals, claiming an authority beyond any
in the benchmark English of the Great Bible human master. In Renaissance political theory,
(1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), or the King what is "worse" than a usurper or tyrant?
James Version (1611). The last three animals in Shakespeare
What, then, are Shakespeare's eight ani bear philosophical or cosmological weight?
mals doing, and what do they tell us? Two uses but with a twist. In The Merchant of Venice,
of the word involve persons failing a (gender an animal appears when Gratiano addresses

This content downloaded from

93.44.80.49 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 13:44:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 12 4-2 J Laurie Shannon 477

Shylock on the transmigration of souls: "Thou whatever we might say about its hierarchy or li
ft
almost mak st me waver in my faith / To hold rigidity, was not essentially binary in the way 0
n
opinion with Pythagoras / That souls of ani the modern duo of human/animal is. In the ft
<*
mals infuse themselves / Into the trunks of anti-Cartesian instances of Shakespearean
men" (4.1.130-33). Here animal ensouledness usage, animal comes most into service when 3
a
is not already in man but is an alien infusion, humanness is least secure and cross-species
likenesses are most evident. There are scales
1
consistent with the play's religious attentions. ft
??*
3"
Hamlet, in a sarcastic staging of mental insta of being, of course, but early modern human 0
a
bility for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, calls ity is relatively ecosystemic: it always has ani o
man "[t]he beauty of the world! the paragon of mality (and divinity and plants and elements) o
in or with it. w
animals!... And yet... Man delights not me"
(2.2.308-10). Last, Lear, in his cosmic crisis on As subsequent attentions became relatively
the heath, classifies "unaccommodated man" contracted to a human/animal divide and as
as "a poor, bare, forked animal" (3.4.105-06), the vitality and claims of other creatures were
which is to say man is insufficient by an ani closely impounded in the post-Enlightenment
mal standard. In an instance of what I call philosophical category of the animal, a tech
human negative exceptionalism, here only the nologically fortified human exceptionalism
appropriated coats and borrowed practical found more advantageous linguistic condi
knowledge of other creatures equip human tions in which to evolve. The disappearance
kind for the world, while all other creatures of the more protean creatures into the abstract
are understood to arrive prepared.10 Shake nominalizations of animal, the animal, and
speare deviates from his customary vocabu animals parallels livestock s banishment to a
lary and uses animal when critically posing clandestine, dystopian world of industrial food
what we might well call "the question of the production, where the unspeakable conditions
human" rather than when humanity is as of life depend on invisibility.11 It mirrors, too,
serted. This contradicts the coming Cartesian the increasing confinement of wildlife in pre
dispensation, which seeks to secure the hu serves as wild spaces disappear with alarming
man by according it a unique, positive attri speed. By this double apartheid (a segregation
bute that all animals can be said to lack. In in language and of bodies), our conceptions of
King Lear in particular, animals are compara a we and the public square in which that we
tively integral and sovereignly competent; hu is performed give new meaning to the phrase
mankind is inadequate, the weaker vessel. human error. As creatures whose sensory skills
are largely visual, what we see determines what
we say. And the ways we have seen fit to speak
Tailpiece
about the framework of species, compressing
Two points seem especially salient. First, ani our most vivid planetary array of polymor
mals represented no single, philosophically phous embodiment into the confines of "the
invested category in early modernity; they animal," determine our ignorance. A 1594
instead suggested populations. English speak translation of La Primaudaye's French Acad
ers almost never grouped together all the emy cited in the OED harbors one of the rare
creatures we call (nonhuman) animals under animals of the sixteenth century, asserting,
that name, preferring a more articulated list "Many men, by reason of their ignorance in
influenced by the cadences of Scripture and the Latine tongue, think that Animal is a beast,
cognizant of plants and minerals as well. Sec whereas it signifieth a living creature." Modern
ond, their failure to group all creatures under habits of language and thought demonstrate a
animal evidences a different cosmology that, similar species provincialism. Indeed, since

This content downloaded from

93.44.80.49 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 13:44:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
478 The Eight Animals in Shakespeare; or, Before the Human | PMLA

the cosmos has never coincided with "the hu

Works Cited
?
w>
0 man," we aren't even cosmopolitan yet.
"Animal." The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989.
0 Print.
"0
0 Berger, John. "Why Look at Animals?" About Looking.
X
New York: Pantheon, 1980. 3-30. Print.

? Notes
The Bible: That Is, the Holy Scriptures Conteined in the Olde
and New Testament. 1560. London: Barker, 1587. Print.
? Bond, Ronald, ed. Certain Sermons or Homilies (1547).
1. Berger explores the disappearance of the animal's
Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1987. Print.
returned glance with industrialization.
Calarco, Matthew. Zoographies: The Question of the Ani
2. On science and empire, see Parrish; Schiebinger.
0 mal from Heidegger to Derrida. New York: Columbia
3. In my book manuscript in progress, entitled "The
(V UP, 2008. Print.
X Zootopian Constitution: Animals, Membership, Early
"California Proposition 2 (2008)." Ballotpedia. Ballotpe
Modernity," I stress the scope and consequences of this
engagement. dia, 15 Dec. 2008. Web. 18 May 2009.
Coetzee, J. M. The Lives of Animals. Princeton: Princeton
4. Calarco considers animals in Continental philoso
UP, 2001. Print.
phy. It's extraordinary how human-exceptionalist and
nonzoographic that tradition is. As Connor suggests, "It Connor, Steven. Thinking Perhaps Begins There: The Ques
is a mystery that this ... tradition, which has been preoc tion of the Animal. Connor, n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2009.

cupied to the point of mania with alterity?with human Derrida, Jacques. "The Animal That Therefore I Am
others, and the problem of the 'other' for humans?and (More to Follow)." Trans. David Wills. Critical In
has so intensely pondered questions of'the human,' the quiry 28.2 (2002): 369-418. Print.
'inhuman' and the 'posthuman,' should have managed to Descartes, Rene. Discourse on the Method for Conducting
remain so singlemindedly uninterested in the proximate One's Reason Well and for Seeking Truth in the Sci
otherness represented by the animal." Santner employs the ences. Trans. Donald A. Cress. Indianapolis: Hackett,
term creature but restricts its sense to torsions within the 1998. Print.

human: "what I am calling creaturely life is a dimension of -. Philosophical Essays and Correspondence. Ed.
human existence" (xv). Early modern discourses, by con Roger Ariew. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2000. Print.
trast, are zootopian: a place well populated with animals. Haraway, Donna. The Haraway Reader. New York: Rout
5. Creature is the broadest term, beast the narrowest. ledge, 2004. Print.
Even so, Shakespeare sometimes denotes humans by all Hyland, J. R. God's Covenant with Animals: A Biblical Ba
three words. sis for Humane Treatment of All Creatures. Brooklyn:
6. Descartes develops the bete-machine doctrine in part Lantern, 2000. Print.
5 of the Discourse on Method (1637) and in letters addressed Lupton, Julia Reinhard. "Creature Caliban." Shakespeare
to the marquess of Newcastle (23 Nov. 1646) and Henry Quarterly 51.1 (2000): 1-23. Print.
More (5 Feb. 1649 [Philosophical Essays 275-76, 292-96]). More, Thomas. Utopia. Ed. Edward Surtz. New Haven:
7. For a history of these conceptions, see Pedersen. Yale UP, 1964. Print.
8. For a good theological and theoretical discussion of Ogilvie, Brian. The Science of Describing: Natural His
creatureliness, see Lupton. tory in Renaissance Europe. Chicago: U of Chicago P,
2006. Print.
9. Earlier wording is more accurate than modern
translations. However, the original Hebrew "nefesh Parrish, Susan Scott. American Curiosity: Cultures of
chaya" means "living souls" (despite the tradition of re Natural History in the Colonial British Atlantic World.
serving those words for Adam while rendering the phrase Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 2006. Print.
as "living creatures or things" for nonhumans). See Hy Paster, Gail Kern. Humoring the Body: Emotions and the
land 73. In Latin scientific writings, the term animalia is Shakespearean Stage. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2004.
highly evident; in at least one instance of early modern Print.
translation (William Harvey's 1628 De motu cordis), ani Pedersen, Olaf. The Two Books: Historical Notes on Some
malia was anglicized predominantly as "living creatures" Interactions between Natural Science and Theology.
(see my "Invisible Parts"). South Bend: Vatican Observatory Foundation; Notre
10. For a fuller discussion, see my "Poor, Bare, Forked." Dame UP, 2007. Print.
11. On speaking of "life" in this context, see Coetzee. Santner, Eric. On Creaturely Life: Rilke, Benjamin, Sebald.
When these conditions are made visible, as they were Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006. Print.
during the Proposition 2 campaign in California in 2008, Schiebinger, Londa. Plants and Empire: Colonial Bio
they are judged intolerable?in that instance by a strong prospecting in the Atlantic World. Cambridge: Har
majority (63.5% ["California"]). vard UP, 2004. Print.

This content downloaded from

93.44.80.49 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 13:44:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 12 4-2 ] Laurie Shannon 479

Shakespeare, William. The Complete Works of Shake -. "Poor, Bare, Forked: Animal Sovereignty, Human 3T
speare. Ed. David Bevington. 5th ed. New York: Pear Negative Exceptionalism, and the Natural History of ft
0
son, 2004. Print. King Lear" Shakespeare Quarterly 60.2 (2009): 168 ??

Shannon, Laurie. "Invisible Parts: Animals and the Re 96. Print. ft

</>

naissance Anatomies of Human Exceptionalism." An Spevack, Martin. A Complete and Systematic Concor &>
imal Encounters. Ed. Tom Tyler and Manuela Rossini. dance to the Works of Shakespeare. Hildesheim: Olms, 3
a
Leiden: Brill, 2009. 137-57. Print. 1968-80. Print. 9 vols.

ft
1
f*
3"
0
a
o
o

This content downloaded from

93.44.80.49 on Tue, 15 Jun 2021 13:44:10 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms