with the Cambridge and Globe editions. The Globe, as
MargretadeGrazia has observed, was ‘portable, affordable, and
legible ... intended for worldwide circulation’. In an age of
imperial expansion it provided, as she notes, ‘One Shakespeare for
one world’. 32
The popular success of the Globe was matched by the critical
success of the Cambridge , which
, beginning with the first and longest. Less excuse for
prolixity may be needed in the case of Hamlet, which has, of
course, occasioned many books on its own. These include a recent study
by MargretaDeGrazia, Hamlet without Hamlet (2006), whose
objective is to free the text from the ‘Modern Hamlet’ – the
daunting and inhibiting burden of significance that has accrued over the
centuries to its central
impending impact on
Shakespeare’s own creative project, it is astonishing how little
the Oldenburg programme figures in their accounts. In MargretadeGrazia’s 2007 monograph, setting out to correct ‘a
200-year old tradition’ of de-historicizing the play, the
reigning King of Denmark is mentioned, for instance, not once. 21 Yet Hamlet’s
orders to Polonius to receive the actors ‘after your own honour
refined bodie?’ (5.116–21). Four very precise lexical parallels make the resemblance between the two texts more than a coincidence: like the Ghost, John is compared to a mole; like the Ghost, he is underground, and more precisely in a cellar; and like the Ghost, he cries.
More recently MargretadeGrazia observed that ‘mole’ links the Ghost to the earthly body in keeping with a more physical representation of ghosts in early modern ballads,
while for Ricard McCoy or Sarah Outterson-Murphy, the
Haven: Yale University Press, 1977 ),
MargretadeGrazia and Peter Stallybrass
examine the heir/hair/air connection in Macbeth in their
‘The Materiality of the Text’, Shakespeare
Quarterly 44 ( 1993 ), 255–83.
See Parker, Shakespeare from the
The Dunsoete Agreement and daily life in the Welsh borderlands
overkingship in the seventh century’, Midland
History 30 (2005): 1–19; H. P. R. Finberg, ‘Mercians and Welsh’, in Lucerna –
Studies of Some Problems in the Early History of England (London, 1964): 66–82;
and Nicholas Brooks, ‘The formation of the Mercian kingdom’, in The Origins of
Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, ed. Bassett, 159–70.
41 For overviews of postcolonial approaches to the Middle Ages, see Gabrielle M.
Spiegel, ‘Épater les médiévistes’, History and Theory 39 (2000): 243–50, MargretadeGrazia, ‘The modern divide: from either side’, Journal of Medieval and Early
Beacon Press, 1994), p. 3.
4 MargretaDeGrazia, Maureen Quilligan, Peter Stallybrass, Subject and Object in
Renaissance Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), Introduction,
5 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1958), p. 137.
6 Bill Brown, ‘The matter of materialism: literary mediations’, Material Powers:
Cultural Studies, History and the Material Turn, edited by Tony Bennett and Patrick
Joyce (London: Routledge, 2010), p. 60.
7 The National Archives, Kew (hereafter TNA), PROB 11/11/213,Will of Elizabeth
Christian and Jewish eudaimonism in The Merchant of Venice
James Perrott, Discovery of Discontented
Minds (Oxford, 1596).
‘Hamlet’ without Hamlet
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007) is
an excellent example of a work that has continued to press the
R. A. Foakes, Shakespeare: The Dark
Comedies and the Last Plays: from Satire to Celebration
(London: Routledge, 1971), p. 103.
Susan Snyder, ‘The Genres of
Shakespeare’s Plays’, in MargretadeGrazia and
Stanley Wells (eds), The Cambridge Companion to
or other of the Plantagenet kings (it matters little which) and its
gothic design may be richly decorated but is decidedly less modern
(and therefore less important) than the Monument’s Roman Doric
column. To use MargretadeGrazia’s language, Freud’s mistake
reveals ‘the exceptional force of that secular divide’ between medieval and modern that ‘determines nothing less than relevance’.3
It reveals Freud’s faith in this divide but also indicates the frequent difficulty of identifying the medieval. For medieval culture
has been so variously reused, reappropriated