, ‘Fantasizing Infanticide: Lady Macbeth and the Murdering Mother in Early Modern England’, College Literature , 32 (2005), pp. 72–91; and Joanna Levin, ‘Lady Macbeth and the Daemonologie of Hysteria’. ELH , 69 (2002), pp. 21–55.
21 Julia Reinhard Lupton, ‘ Macbeth 's Martlets: Shakespearean Phenomenologies of Hospitality’, Criticism , 54 (2012), pp. 365–76 (p. 372).
22 Alvin Kernan, Shakespeare, the King’s Playwright: Theater in the Stuart Court, 1603–1613 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), p. 77
memory after it. Derrida will not
think of time as implying chronology, because ‘the concept of
time, in all its aspects, belongs to metaphysics, and it names the
domination of presence’. 6 If the very concept of time is metaphysical, this
feeds his critique of Husserl: discussing The Phenomenology of
Internal Time Consciousness (lectures given between 1905 and
1910, published by Heidegger in 1928
Invisibility and erasure in The Two Merry Milkmaids
Spenser, Knapp explains that the ‘central paradox of Christian
epistemology’ is ‘that the only path to the invisible
truth leads through the visible world’. 50 Knapp discusses Spenser’s
Protestant-minded negotiation of this paradox with reference to
Marion’s Catholic phenomenology, which claims that invisible
truth can be reached through ‘phenomenal lived
experience’. 51 Spenser, in Knapp
Allusion, anti-pastoral, and four centuries of pastoral invitations
appearance, allude back to the
earlier work themselves. Thus a reader of Walton might only subsequently come to read
the Marlowe–Raleigh poems as well as the classical poems from which they derive. The
temporal phenomenology of allusion is complex and sometimes counter-intuitive.
39 Such dense and manifold intertextual echoing, seemingly beyond any conscious authorial control, comes close to the different kind of intertextuality described by Mikhael
Bakhtin and Julia Kristeva, referring to the interwoven cultural and linguistic fields
out of which texts are woven. See
Two distinct portraits of a ‘fairy queen’ imply contrary views of human nature and contrary aesthetics. In Spenser’s epic a mystic Gloriana draws noble heroes to realise the twelve virtues, perfecting the soul in Godlikeness. In Shakespeare’s comic stage-play a sensually potent Titania evokes a different fairy realm. Directly experienced, her bodily splendor and witty combative speeches arouse desire not just in the privileged but in rude commoners, who commandeer the play’s most engaging scenes. Instead of vying with Spenser’s elite quests for morality in an intellectual heaven-based allegory, Shakespeare views morality in all social classes, the humbler earthy sort matching the more pretentious. Both are ego-driven yet communally civil. This ironic engagement with Spenser’s ‘supreme fiction’ wondrously expands Shakespeare’s own artistry. Equally polarized are the poets’ views of self-love as a touchstone of human psychology. Like Calvin and Luther, Spenser discredits self-love as shameful, both in monarchs like Lucifera and in louts like Braggadocchio, causing Redcrosse’s wretched fall and Guyon’s helpless faint. In contrast, Shakespeare’s characters, noble and vulgar, show a positive form of self-love if carefully managed, as observed by Aristotle, Aquinas, and Primaudaye.