Gender, Hunger, Horror: The History and Significance of "The Bloody Banquet"

Author(s): Gary Taylor

Source: Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring - Summer, 2001), pp.
1-45
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40339498 .
Accessed: 30/05/2011 09:45
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iupress. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
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 support@jstor.org.

Indiana University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal for
Early Modern Cultural Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

JEMCS1.1 (Spring/
Summer2001)

Gender,Hunger,Horror:The History
and Significanceof The BloodyBanquet
Gary Taylor
"Stophermouthfirst."1
- *2
is a Gourmand
"Grief

an infamousscene near the end of the 1996 filmFargo, a

murdererfeeds the leg of a human corpse into a backyard
woodchipper.3In an equally shockingmomentnear the end of
The Bloody Banquet, the pieces of a quartered human being,
freshlyslaughtered,are hungon hooks in frontofthe audience.
and nauseBoth scenes violentlyyoketogethercozydomesticity
ating horror.The familiarand usefulAmericanwoodchipperis
in ourimaginations,
whenwe watchitchewforever
transformed,
ing up (and spittingout, as pulp) parts ofa bodythatwas, momentsbefore,a person,walkingout ofthe frontdoorand across
the driveway.In TheBloodyBanquet,Thomas Middletonworksa
In earlymodernEurope- a world
similarhorrific
metamorphosis.
and freezers,withouthygienicsuperwithoutour refrigerators
marketsto wrap animal proteinin euphemizingplastic- every
substantial home had a larder,in whichwere hung, on hooks,
pieces of freshlybutchered,smokedor salted carcasses (Jones
82-83).4 We can see themin sixteenthand seventeenthcentury
Dutch paintingsofworkinginteriors,likeJoachimBeuckelaer's
KitchenScene,withJesus intheHouse ofMarthaand Mary( 1566),
where the colorfuldead meat in the foregroundutterlydwarfs
the pale Saviorin the background(Brown21). But in TheBloody
Banquetthosefamiliarcuts ofmeat,hangingfromthosefamiliar
hooks,are partsofa bodythatwas, at thebeginningofthe scene,
a youngman, happilyenteringthe bedroomofhis lover.
No one who has witnessed"thewoodchipperscene" in Fargo
is likelyto forgetit (even ifhe or she wants to). Whatwe might
call "the larderscene* in The BloodyBanquet is equally unfor-

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1

gettable,and arguablymoreprofound.But no one has seen "the

larder scene" since 1642. Before1642, when that scene could
stillbe seen, the playwas apparentlypopular enoughto remain
in the repertoryforthreedecades; as late as 1655, it was esteemedenough to be quoted, in the firstanthologyof excerpts
fromEnglish Renaissance drama,fifteentimes- morethan any
otherMiddletonplaybut TheRevenger'sTragedy,morethanany
The BloodyBanShakespeare play but Hamlet5 But thereafter
quet disappeared fromour collectiveculturalmemory.Much of
the play's meaningand powerdepends upon its abilityto make
us look at what we cannot bear to see; therefore,in order to
understand the play in a worldwhere it was no longerbeing
performed,later readers would have to imagineseeing it. But
mostreaderswillrefuseto do that,because anysane personwill
probablyrecoil fromwhat the play demands that we confront;
unlike spectators,readers have the powerto refusethe play's
invitationto horror.Consequently,not only has the play not
no readerhas even
been stagedsince theRestoration;effectively,
imagineditbeingstaged;no editorhas suppliedtheobviousstage
directionsdemanded by the dialogue; no critichas connected
the play (thatquarteredbodyon stage) to the worldoutside the
play (the meat hangingin the spectators'homes). No one has
wantedto touch somethingso revolting,so horrifying.
Nevertheless,we should forceourselvesto do so. First,because "fromapproximately1588 to 1630, drama showcasing
horrorwas a persistentphenomenonon the English stage; this
drama involvedmost major playwrights,
and was performed
in
bothpublicand privatetheaters,as wellas at court"(Zimmerman
159). Second, because horroris arguablythe most powerfulof
human emotions,and the early moderntheaterwas "the first
of affectin
large-scale,capitalized,routinizedcommodification
human history"(Taylor,"FeelingBodies" 274); horrorin many
waysepitomizesthe culturalworkdone bythe emergentinstitutions of mass entertainment.
Third,because horror,like other
emotions,is culturallygendered. In Fargo, the "woodchipper
scene" is seen throughthe eyes ofa pregnantfemalesheriff;in
the "larderscene" of TheBloodyBanquet,the corpseis dismembered and displayed to tormenta single onstage spectator,a
woman;moregenerally,the modernhorrorfilmpervasivelyand
fundamentallydepends upon violencedirectedat women (Clover,Creed).
TheBloodyBanquet,writtenbyThomas Middletonand Thomas Dekker,was probablyfirstservedup to audiences- or so I
willargue in the firstsectionof this essay- in 1609.6 That date

3
Taylor
mattersbecause it enables us, forthe firsttime,to historicize
theplay.LikePericles(1607), TheBloodyBanquetself-consciously
resurrectsan old-fashionedromance,set in the fabulous Mediterranean,in orderto investigateextremesof human violence,
sexuality,and need; like Coriolanus(1608), TheBloodyBanquet
dramatizesa conflictbetweencourtand commonsalong the po- as I
litical and psychologicaldividingline of food.7Moreover
will argue in the second sectionofthis essay The BloodyBanquetis the hingeupon whichMiddleton'sentiredramaticcareer
turns: the missinglinkbetweenthe writerwho had createdthe
verymale worldsofMichaelmasTerm(1604) and TheRevenger's
Tragedy(1606) and the writerwho would later imaginethe female protagonistsof TheRoaringGirl(1611) and WomenBeware
Women(1622). And- as I will argue in the thirdsection of this
essay- what made possible that regenderingis what we might
call the Edible Complex:the problemof cannibalism,its relationshipto the more general categoryof horror,and the relationshipofboth to gender.
1
These conclusionshave not been reachedby earlierscholars
partlybecause The BloodyBanquet has neverbeen edited,and
hence has hardlyeven been read. Therehas accordinglybeen no
ofits date ofcomposition.Obviously,it must
seriousinvestigation
have been writtenbeforeit was published;but even the date of
its firsteditionremainedunclear forcenturies.Croppingofthe
titlepage led earlierscholars to believethat therewere editions
of 1620 and 1630, when in factonlyone editionwas ever published, thatof 1639 (Cole). The beliefin an entirelyfictionaledition of 1620- not discrediteduntil 1919- led to datings of the
for
play "c. 1620," thoughno evidencehas ever been advanced
that date.8
Since Middletonapparentlywrotemuch ofthe play, it must
have been composed beforehis death in 1627. At the otherend
ofthe chronologicalspectrum,it must have been writtensometime afterits chiefsource, the revised 1597 editionof William
span, the date
Warner'sPan his Syrinx.9Withinthis thirty-year
threekinds
down
narrowed
be
examining
can
by
ofcomposition
and
political.
ofevidence:stylistic,theatrical,
David Lake believedthat"theverse ofBanquetmightplausibly be taken as representing the first beginnings of the
Middletonianverse style";in particular,he suggestedcomposition "about 1600-02" (241). But that suggestionis contradicted

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1

bytheveryevidenceLake was considering.Lookingat verse statistics forthe play as a whole, he concluded that it had to be
earlierthan any extantplay by Middleton;but no one has ever
suggestedthat Middletonwrotethe whole play. If we look instead at the statisticsforthe twoseparateauthorialshares,they
tell a very differentstory. (Chronologyof other plays in the
OxfordMiddleton.)10
Middletoncanon is thatofthe forthcoming
Rhymedlines as a proportionof verse lines: Middleton
Phoenix(1603)
MichaelmasTerm(1604)
Mad World(1605)
Trickto Catchthe Old One (1605-06)
[BloodyBanquet (Middletonscenes)
[Revenger'sTragedy( 1606-07)
YourFive Gallants( 1607)
RoaringGirl(Middleton)(1611)
No Wit/
Help (161 1)
[Lady}s Tragedy(1611)
Chaste Maid (1613)

27%
33%
29%
24%
2 1%]
19%J
19%
14%
15%
6%]
9%

Rhymedlines as a proportionof verse lines: Dekker

Old Fortunatus(1599)
Shoemaker'sHoliday( 1599)
Satiromastix( 1600)
WhoreofBabylon(1605-07)
[BloodyBanquet (Dekkerscenes)
RoaringGirl(Dekker)(1611)
If ThisBe Not( 1611-12)
MatchMe in London(162 1)

28%
27%
35%
24%
32%]
4 1%
50%
25%

Thereis no clear chronologicalpatternto Dekker'suse ofrhyme,

and accordinglythe Dekkerscenes in Banquetcould be slotted
intovirtuallyanydate excepttheyear 1611. But Middleton'suse
ofrhyme,althoughinitiallyalmostas extensiveas Dekker's,began droppingafterA Mad World,My Masters.The drop is not
perfectly
regular:TheRoaringGirlmust be a fewmonthsearlier
thanNo Wit/
Help likea Woman's,and A ChasteMaidinCheapside
is two years later than Lady's Tragedy,demonstratingthat a
couple ofpercentagepointscannotdeterminetheexactsequence
of plays. But the overall patternis unmistakable.In termsof
the Middletonscenes fromBanquet do not belong
versification,

5
Taylor
at the beginningofhis career,but somewherein the periodafter
1605 and before1611.
Theatricalevidenceforthe play'sdate is provided,in thefirst
place, by a 1639 manuscript(Public RecordOfficexii:5/134, p.
337) that lists Banquet among plays owned at that time by
Beeston's Boys (Chambers389-90). Since thatcompanydid not
exist until 1637, any play writtenby Middleton(d. 1627) and
Dekker (d. 1631) must have belonged,originally,to some other
company.Indeed, the list itselfestablishes that Beeston's Boys
fromothercompanies.11Ofthe
inheritedmostoftheirrepertory
nine
two
thirty- playslisted,twenty- belongedat one timeto Queen
Henrietta'sMen (1626-42);12twomoreprobablydid.13Nineare
attributableto Lady Elizabeth's Men (1611-25), most of whose
plays were acquired by Queen Henrietta'sMen.14Not surprisingly,scholars have been temptedto assign to Lady Elizabeth's
repertoryanother three plays, eventuallyowned by Beeston's
Boys, but writtenbyJohnFletcherat some pointin the second
decade ofthe seventeenthcentury.15
But how did Beeston inheritthe rightsto the fewremaining
older plays in the 1639 list? This question is relevantto The
BloodyBanquetybecause the companyforwhichit was written
willlimitthedates whenMiddletonand Dekkermighthave written it. Ignoringforthe momentThe BloodyBanquet, thereare
onlysix such olderplays on the list:
Georgea Greene(1589?), Sussex's Men (1593), printed1599
Rape ofLucrece(1606-8), Queen Anne's Men,printed1608
Knightof theBurningPestle (1607-10), Queen's Revels or
Childrenofthe Revels,printed1613
Cupid's Revenge(1607-12), Queen's Revels,printed1615
Cupid's Vagaries(1612), Prince'sMen, lost
ChabotAdmiralofFrance(161 1-22),unknown,printed1639
The firstplay on this list is morethan a decade olderthan Banquet. Sussex's Men disintegratedin 1594, and theirplays seem
to have been dividedbetween the two new companies formed
thatyear,the Chamberlain'sMenand thenewAdmiral's.Clearly,
Georgea Greenewas not acquired by the Chamberlain'sMen,
because thatcompanywas stillintactin 1639; so Georgea Greene
musthave goneto theAdmiral'sMen (1594-1603)- laterrenamed
thePrince'sMen (1603-12),thenPalatine'sMen (1612-24). Thus,
Georgea Greenewas apparentlyowned by the same company
that owned Rowley'slost Cupid's Vagaries.Whenthe company
finallywentbust duringthe plague of 1625, some oftheirplay-

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1

ers wenttoBeeston,whoalso acquiredsomeoftheirplays(Dekker

and Middleton'sTheHonest Whore,Middletonand Rowley'sThe
WorldTossed at Tennis,Marlowe'sJewofMalta).Shirleyrevised
Cupid's VagariesforQueen Henrietta'sMen in 1633, and it was
presumablythroughthat companythat Beeston's Boys inheritedbothRowley'sold playand Georgea Greene(Gurr4 16-36).16
ChristopherBeeston had been a memberof Queen Anne's
companyat the time it performedHeywood's Rape of Lucrece;
the company's London existence ended in 1622, and Beeston
mighthave acquired the play then, as he acquired Webster's
WhiteDevil and Heywood's If You Know NotMe fromthe same
company. Certainly,The Rape of Lucrece belonged to Queen
Henrietta'sMen beforeit passed to Beeston's Boys.
The importantpointabout these trajectoriesis thatBeeston
acquired some plays writtenforthe adult companieswho performedin the firstdecade ofthe centuryat the Fortuneand the
Red Bull. If Banquet had been writtenforan adult company,it
cannot have been writtenforthe Chamberlain's/
King'sMen, or
Beestonwouldneverhave gottenhis hands on it. Middletonnever
to our knowledgewrotea playfortheRed Bull,or forWorcester's/
Queen Anne's Men, who performedthere. But Dekker and
Middletonwere both workingforHenslowein 1602-04: forthe
Admiral'sMen,Middletonwrotehis firstknownunassisted play,
RandallEarl ofChester(1602, lost),and collaboratedwithDekker
on Caesar's Fall (1602, lost) and ThePatientMan and theHonest
Whore(1604). If Middletonand Dekkerhad writtenBanquetfor
Henslowein 1602-04, the play should have been mentionedin
his diary,as are these otherplays. It is not. Thus, ifBanquet is
an adultplay,itwas apparentlywrittenfortheAdmiral's/
Prince's
Men afterthe death of Queen Elizabeth. Indeed, it must have
been writtenafterDekkerand Middleton'sPatientMan and Honest Whore(1604), in which Middletonwas still the apprentice
and juniorpartner.The patternofcollaborationin Banquetmuch
morecloselyresemblesthat in TheRoaringGirl(1611), which- was performed
like both parts of Honest Whore
at the Fortune
Prince'sMen; the collaborationin Banquetand
bythe Admiral's/
RoaringGirlis moreevenlybalanced, and the shares of the two
moreclearlydistinct,than in Honest Whore.
playwrights
In the interim between Honest Whoreand Roaring Girl,
Middletonhad established an independentreputation.In particular,in 1603-06 he wrotea series ofcomediesforPaul's (The
Phoenix,MichaelmasTerm,A Mad World,MyMasters,A Trickto
Catch the Old One, and The PuritanWidow).But it seems unlikely that Banquet originated with Paul's; the 1639 list of

Taylor

Beeston's scriptscontains no other plays fromthat company,

and in any case mostofPaul's Boys' scripts(includingtheirfive
known Middletonplays) were published in 1607-08, afterthe
companycollapsed. But in 1606 Middletonbegan writingforthe
rivalboys'company,the Queen's Revels,firstwiththe lost Viper
and herBrood (1606), then YourFive Gallants(1607). By 1610
this companyhad reorganizedas the Childrenofthe Revels; in
March 1613, theymergedwithLady Elizabeth'sMen- thus forging a direct link with the companythat formedthe basis for
Queen Henrietta'sMen, and forBeeston's Caroline repertory.
Middleton's Chaste Maid was written for the merged Lady
Elizabeth's/Revels companyin 1613. Beeston's Boys owned at
least twoplays performed
bythe Revelsboys' companyof 160612, KnightoftheBurningPestleand Cupid's Revenge;that company mightalso have been the source fromwhichtheyacquired
ChabotAdmiralofFrance,since Chapman wroteextensivelyfor
that companyfrom1604 to 1612, and it has been plausiblyargued that Chabotwas originallywrittenforthemc. 1611-12.17
Obviously,Banquet could have come to them fromthe same
source. If it did, then it is not likelyto be earlier than 1606,
when Middletonis firstassociated withthe company.
Whetherit came to Beeston fromthe Admiral'sMen or the
Queen's Revels,Banquet can hardlybe Middleton'searliestsurvivingwork.If writtenforadult players,it must be later than
1604, and ifwrittenforchildrenit cannotbe earlierthan 1606.18
Eitherway,M.T. Jones-Daviesis almostcertainlyrightthat the
Queen's (unintentionally
ironic)praiseof"HonestRoxano"(3.2.32;
the
echoes
effect
produced by Othello's ironic,repeated
1046)
"Honest Iago" (Othello,1603-04): both characterspraise an attendant who in fact, as the audience knows, has already betrayed them (Jones-Davies 2.397). Echoes of two other
Shakespeare plays also seem likely.Two scenes- Dekker's 1.3
and Middleton's4.3- appear to play variationson the Claudius
prayerscene in Hamlet(1600-01). In 1.3, the Old Queen, witha
to take revenge,decides
swordin her hand and the opportunity
in
"When
he
it
because
penitentsighs his soul
against partly
the
him
to
Thou
send'st
commends,
gods, thyselfto th' fiends"
In
another
4.3,
Queen urges a man to pray,
(1.3.73; 323-24).
and thenmurdershimwhilethe unsuspectingvictimis kneeling
"Withheart as penitentas a man dissolving";she thenexplains
"I dealt notlikea cowardwiththysoul,/Nortookit unprepared"
(4.3.68-100; 1492-1526). Finally,in the play's firstscene a deposed king,thrustout ofhis own courtto wanderin the forest,
is surprisedthattwoofhis formersubjects agree to accompany

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1. 1

him, despite his change of fortunes:"Let it be enrolled:/Two

followa kingwhen he is poorand old" (1. 1.83-84; 142-43). This
looks like a reminiscenceofKingLear (1605), whereLear is followedontotheheath byKentand theFool. Certainly,in all three
ofthese passages, the phrases thatappear to echo Shakespeare
are not foundin Banquet's prose source.
So much forthe theatricalevidence,which seems to place
TheBloodyBanquetno earlierthan 1605. Several politicalallusions also suggesta Jacobean date. In 2.1, the Clowndescribes
foursorts of human "wolves."The firstare "courtwolves,"who
are characterizedas "fouleaters"whoalso "whentheybe drunk,
theycommonlycast up all" (2. 1.37-41; 627-31). The clown'sdescriptiondoes not reflectanythingwe see of the court in The
presumablyrefersto a real
BloodyBanquet itself,and therefore
the
This
sort
of
theater.
outside
court,
complaintis seldommade
of
about the court Queen Elizabeth,especiallyin herfinalyears;
but it is entirelycharacteristicofcomplaintsabout gluttonyand
in the
drunkennessat the courtofJames I. Almostimmediately
new reign, "A Court banquet, so decorously conducted in
Elizabeth'stime,became an indecentscrambleforfreefoodand
drink."19Such "fouleaters" at courtwere satirizedas earlyas
1604, and forthe rest of the reign.But the firstconspicuous
instance of court drunkennessdoes not come until the end of
July1606, when Sir JohnHaringtondescribesa notoriousfourday episode ofdrunkennessand vomitingduringthe state visit
ofKingChristianofDenmark:"I thinkthe Dane hath strangely
wroughton our good English nobles; forthose, whom I never
could get to taste good liquor,now followthe fashion,and wallow in beastlydelights.The ladies abandon theirsobriety,and
are seen to rollabout in intoxication";
one courtiervomits"wine,
cream,jelly, beverage,cakes, spices, and othergood matters"
onto the king'sgarments,whiletwoothersare "sick and spewing in the hall" (McClure119-20, 401).
"The next" sort, the Clown continues, "are your country
wolves. Nothingchokes thembut plenty;theysing like sirens
when corn goes out by shipfuls,and dance afterno tune but
after'an angel a bushel'" (2.1.43-46; 633-36). In the following
scene, the starvingLapyruslaments,
Whyshould men
Be nature's bondslaves?Everycreatureelse
Comes freelyto the table ofthe earth;
That whichforman alone dothall thingsbear
Scarce giveshim his truediet anywhere.

Taylor

What spitefulwinds breathehere?- that not a tree

arm? Distressed Queen
Spreads fortha friendly
And most accursed babes! The earth thatbears you
Like a proud motherscorns to giveyou food. . .
(2.2.2-10; 670-79)

Nothinglike eitherof these passages in 2.1 and 2.2 appears in

the source story;likewise,the dramatistsinventedRoxano's disguise, in 2.3, as a beggar,solicitingcharityfromcourtierswho
respondwithscorn.20
A source forall this is provided,however,by eventsoutside
the theater.Aftergood harvestsin the firstyearsofthe century,
the dearthof 1608-09 produced such high prices forcorn that
therewere protestriotsin some parts of England,and two million pounds was spent to importcorn (Stow 890; Gay; Pettet;
Brockbank26). On 2 June 1608, "havingtakenknowledgeofthe
high prices of Graine and otherVictuals, latelyand verysuddenly growenin sundryparts of this Realme," and that "the
multitudeofpoore people havingno Graineoftheirowne growing, must needes sustaine great lacke," King James issued a
ofthe dearthof
proclamation"forthe preventingand remedying
Graine,and otherVictuals."This proclamationspecificallytargeted"Engrossers,Forestallersand RegratorsofCome" and directed"all Ownersand Farmers,(havingCorne to spare) to furnish the Marketsrateablyand weekely";a fullhalfofits textwas
dedicated to cases where "Corne is shipped, or providedto be
parts"- theveryabuses mentionedbythe
shipped"into"forraine
Clown (Larkinand Hughes 186-88). In proclamationsin July
restrictedthe makingof starch
and December,the government
(in orderto preservewheat)and ofale (in orderto preservebarto "the greatscarcitieand dearthof
ley),in bothcases referring
Corne"among"all sortsof people (especiallythose ofthe poorer
sort)"(Larkinand Hughes 188-92, 200-02).
Moreover,we knowthat these eventsparticularlyinterested
at least one ofthe authorsofBanquet In his pamphletWorkfor
Armourers(1609), Dekker wroteextensivelyabout the dearth,
the resultinghunger,and the "richfarmers"who "transport. . .
all needfullcommoditiesintoothercountries"and therebyraise
prices to "ten shillings a bushell" or even "twelveshillings"
(Grosart4:114-15, 143-44, 147-50). An angel was a gold coin
equal in value to eleven shillings(Fischer41); Dekker*sclaim in
1609, that grainwas drivento betweenten and twelveshillings
a bushel, thus echoes the claim made in 2. 1 ofBanquet,thatthe
countrywolvesdance after"an angel a bushel."21

10

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1

The thirdcategory,citywolves,is essentiallya list ofcharacters fromcitycomedy,a genrefavoredand in large part created by Dekkerand Middletonfrom1603 to 1613; but the greed
of usurers and the gentry'ssale of land cannot be confidently
limitedto a particularyear. Moredatable is the fourthcategory:
"yoursea wolf,a horribleravenertoo: he has a bellyas big as a
ship, and devours as much silk at a gulp as would serve forty
dozentailorsagainsta ChristmasDay ora runningat tilt"(2.1.703; 658-61). The court,city,and countryare a traditionaltriad;
the emphasis upon pirates is unusual (and "sea-wolP not recorded in the OED as a descriptionof pirates until 1849). For
instance,in Middleton'sThePhoenix(1603), thePrincecomplains
about those who "make his courtan owl, cityan ape, and the
countrya wolfpreyingupon theridiculousprideofeither"(1.99);
here,as in Banquet,we have "thecountrywolf,"joined withsatire ofthe courtand city,but no imageofpiracy,or ofthe sea as
a fourthrealm. From 1609 onwards,partlyas a resultof deteriorationofthe EnglishnavyunderJames's administration,
pirates became a serious and increasingmenace to English shipping; between 1609 and 1616, no fewerthan 416 Britishships
were taken by pirates (Penn 82-89). The Kingissued "A Proclamationagainst Pirats"on 8 January1609; as a result,nineteen
peoplewereexecutedforpiracyat Wappingon 22 December1609
(Larkinand Hughes203-06).22The StationersRegisterfor3 July
1609 recordsthe entryoftwo ballads, "one called the seamens
songe of Captayne Warde, the famous Pirate of the world an
English, th' other,the seamens songe of Danseker the Dutchman his robberyesand fightsat sea" (Arber3.414); also in 1609
Pyrats
appeared twopamphlets,NewsfromSea, Oftwonotorious
A
True
and
Certaine
and
Andrew
Barker's
Reportof
(STC 25022),
. . . thetwolatefamous Pirates(STC 1417). Althoughpiracydid
not begin in 1609, the depredationsof "sea wolves" certainly
became a much moreconspicuousfocusofEnglishpublicattentionin 1609 than theyhad been hitherto.
In conjunction,these politicalallusions onlyfita couple of
yearsin the thirty-year
span in whichTheBloodyBanquetmight
have been written.Dekkerand Middletonare knownto have collaboratedrepeatedlybetween1602 and 1611; althoughbothcontinued writingduringthe next two decades, to our knowledge
theyneveragain, after1611, paired up to writea play.23Court
drunkenness,firstconspicuous in the summerof 1606, continued throughoutthe reignofJames I, but came to an abruptend
withthe accession of the sober-mindedCharles I. On 23 April
1625, less than a monthafterthe death of his father,the new

11
Taylor
kinglet it be known"he would have no drunkards"in important
positionsin his entourage.24The piracythat flaredup in 160809 flourishedfordecades, but the Clowncomparesthe tolltaken
by piratesto the ruinouslyexpensivearistocraticritualof"runthoughcommonin the reignofElizabethand durningat tilt77;
lifetime
ofPrinceHenry,such jousts became infrequent
the
ing
in Englandin February1626
after1621, and werelast performed
as
as
observers
1613,
early
(if then);
complained about the
decline
(Young41, 58, 205-08). The magnitudeofthe
spectacle's
1608-09 dearthwas not matchedagain until 1622-23, and even
thenwas "largelyconfinedto northern,highlandEngland"(Slack
49; Hoskins,"1480-1619,""1620-1759"; Harrison).Onlyin 1608^
*s(and Dekker's)
09 did all these"wolves"cohabit.GivenMiddleton
fondnessfortopical material,the allusions that so fit 1608-09
were almost certainlywrittenin 1608 or 1609.25
Those years nicelyfitthe evidenceoftheatricalprovenance.
statistics,
Theyare also the years suggestedby theversification
in the scenes apparentlywrittenby Middleton.And theyfitthe
patternofverbal parallels to both canons.26Moreover,in those
years the Middletoncanon is virtuallyempty.BetweenYourFive
Gallants,apparentlycompletedin early 1607, and The Roaring
Girl,apparentlycompletedin early1611, we do nothave a single
play by Middleton,and onlytwo knownpamphlets,both short
(SirRobertSherleyand The Two Gates ofSalvation). For parts of
this four-yearperiod, the theaterswere closed by plague, but
must have writMiddleton,like otherprofessionalplaywrights,
ten something.
Some criticswillneverthelessbalk at the suggestionthatthe
somethinghe wrotewas TheBloodyBanquet,a play usually describedin termsof"ineptitude"and "crudeness."But those critical reactionshave been prompted,I believe,not bythe dramatic
or poetic quality of the scenes attributedto Middleton,but by
the firstfourscenes. The play begins witha clunkyInduction,
certainlynot by Middleton.27Then followthreescenes written
by Dekker.Dekkerhas manymeritsas a writerofcomediesand
journalisticpamphlets,but fewcriticshave praised his efforts
at tragedyor history.Most readers will not make it past that
unpromisingopening; I did not, when I firstencounteredthe
's distinctivestyleappears,
play,yearsago. By thetimeMiddleton
in 1.4, even readerswho have perseveredmayhave settleddown
into a state of complacenthalf-attention,assuming that they
are dealingwitha workofsecondaryor eventertiary
importance.
Like TitusAndronicus,The Bloody Banquet was writtenin colthe
laboration;28in The BloodyBanquet,as in TitusAndronicus7

12

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1

olderand weakercollaboratorwrotethe opening,beginningthe

prejudicedlatercriticism.
play in a mannerthat permanently
But The BloodyBanquet is a betterplay (and betterpoetry)
than TitusAndronicus.Ifwe can stomachthewillingnecrophilia
of TheLady's Tragedy,we should be able to facethe sadistically
compelled,conscious cannibalismof TheBloodyBanquet. Read
and drain isolation,the Middletonscenes are psychologically
matically powerful. Critics may find them inferiorto The
foundYour
Revenger'sTragedy;but criticshave also traditionally
Five Gallantsinferiorto the citycomediesthat precededit. The
reasons fordisappointmentare much the same, in bothgenres.
By 1606-07, Middletonhad gone as far as he could go in one
direction.He could onlycontinuewritingby repeatinghimself,
or by tryingsomethingnew. TheBloodyBanquetlacks the sustainedgusto and synesthesiaofTheRevenger'sTragedy,in part
- but
because Middleton'scollaboratorwas "a trifleo'erparted"
also because Middletonwas heretryingsomethingverydifferent
fromthe brilliantsharp surfacesofA Mad World,MyMastersor
TheRevenger'sTragedy.
2
In The Bloody Banquet, Middletonbegan the relentlessexplorationof sexualitythat would culminatein WomenBeware
Womenand The Changeling.Nothingin the plays he wrotebefore1608 approaches the psychosexualcomplexityof the relationshipbetweenthe Queen and her loverTymethes.
The Queen, in particular,representsa radical departure.In
1611, Middletonwrotethree plays- The RoaringGirl,No Wit/
- thatgave titular
Help likea Woman's,and TheLady's Tragedy
and dramaticprideofplace to unique representationsofstrong,
complexwomen; his later plays are famous fortheirfemales.
But his early girlsare subordinatedand in manyways stereotypedfigures.Michaelmas Term(1604) is dominatedby male
homosocialand homoeroticrelationships(Leinwand);Thomasine
and the CountryWenchsay littleand matterless. Shakespeare
and Middleton'sTimonofAthens(1605) has, by way ofwomen,
onlytwo whores and some masque Amazons,whichno performance can make interestingor important.TheRevenger'sTragedy (1606), too, for all its daring, is a man's play; Castiza,
Gratiana,and the Duchess are littlemorethan emblemsin motion.
The Queen cannot be so easily boxed or forgotten.
Like the
Duchess in TheRevenger'sTragedy,she is marriedto "greyhairs*

13
Taylor
(1.1.127; 191), and commitsadulterywitha youngerman- so
youngherhusband calls hima "base boy"(1.1.97; 157), and she
addresses him as a "hapless boy"
herself,more affectionately,
(4.3.123; 1549).29But thereends any resemblancebetweenthe
aristocraticwomenin the twoplays. The Queen doesn't go looking foranotherlover. Instead, she enters the play carrying"a
book in her hand" (1.4.34.1; 388)- probablya Bible or prayer
book,since in hernextscene she makes her servantsswear on it
(3.2.0.1; 1013-14). God in hand, she stumblesinto temptation
when she is introducedto Tymethes:"I neverknewthe forceofa
desire/ Until this minutestruckwithinmy blood./ I fear one
look was destined to undo me" (1.4.41-3; 396-98). Like many
Middletoncharacters,she fallsvictimto a "mostunluckyminute"
(1.4.179; 540). Nevertheless,determinedto remainfaithful,she
"Sir,you'reforgetful.
brusquelyresiststheyoungman's flattery:
This is no place forcourtship,/Norwe a subject for't.Returnto
yourfriend"(1.4.52-4; 405-06).
Fromthisfirstmoment,she uses thesocial gap betweenthem
to assert her own control,and throughoutthe subsequent affair
she insists upon preservingher own superiorityand sexual
agency.Tymethes,the son ofa deposed king,has no incomeor
status in the new regime;utterlydependentupon the kindness
of strangers,he is called, by himselfand others,a "desperate
and (six times) a "beggar."30On the
wretch,"an "unfortunate,"
occasionoftheirfirstsexual rendezvous,she has thisneedyyoung
man broughtto a "fairroomgloriouslyfurnished,"fulloflights,
music, "rich hangings," and an arras outrageously "on the
ground,"expensiveclothforhim to walk upon (3.3.0-15; 105168); servantstwicemake"obeisance"to him(3.3.19.3, 36.4; 1074,
1095); she re-dresseshimwitha "fairwroughtshirt"and nightcap, the shirt-sleevefilledwith "fivehundredcrowns"(3.3.8790; 1151-55). If anyoneis whoredby this affair,it is he.31
Althoughoverpoweredby her own desire "It cannot be kept
downwithanyarguments"(1.4. 133; 493)- she insistsupon power
over her male lover. Indeed, she would ratherdie than satisfy
herselfin any way that would make her socially vulnerable
(1.4.194-195.1; 557-58). Because "menare apt to boast" (1.4.98;
453), she makes it a conditionoftheirliaison thathe "mustnot
know her name, nor see her face" (2.3.78, 3.1.76; 788, 958).
(4.1.2; 1200): blindfolded,
Tymethesis "ledto"her,"hoodwinked"
and directedby others.The affairis entirelystage-managed
controlled,initiated,and ended- by the olderwoman.
She ends it, moreover,by killinghim in self-defense.The
association of adulteryand murderis not unusual in the early

14

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1

moderntheatersor the earlymoderncourts; but most women

accused ofmurderin eithervenue had poisonedtheirhusbands.
As Frances Dolan has demonstrated,the characteristicstealth
of such crimes added to the horrorof the "pettytreason"involvedin a wife'sviolentrebellionagainst her weddedlord (2058). This Queen, by contrast,murdersher loverand social inferior;and ratherthanpoisonhim,"She shootshimdead' (4.3.96. 1;
1522) with"twopistols"(4.3.88.1; 1513). The stage directioninsists upon twopistolsbecause earlymodernguns could fireonly
once beforebeingreloaded;heruse oftwopistolstherefore
clearly
indicates that she shoots the man twice- the second time,presumably,in orderto insure that her woundedvictimis indeed
"dead." In the source,Tymethesis beheaded bythejealous husband, who discovershimin bed withhis wife(Warner49); in the
play, Middleton'sQueen instead preventsany such discovery,
by murderinga lovershe can no longercontrol.
She can no longercontrolhim because he has invaded the
sanctuaryofher home and discoveredher identity."Withthis/
"I taste
he says, describingthatmomentofproscribedknowledge,
death
follows"
as
she
ofthatforbidden
Which,
(4.3.38says,
fruit/
9; 1459-60). No Jacobean auditorcould have missed the echo of
Genesis.32The sin committedby Adamand Eve was- according
and Drunkennesse"
totheElizabethanhomily"AgainstGluttony
Dekker
As
the sin of gluttony(Rickeyand Stroupe 2:96).
said,
anatomizingThe Seuen Deadly Sinnes of London,"Because he
desiredmorethan was fitforhim,"Adam"lostall" (Grosart2:8).
associatesitwith"banAndalthoughthehomilistmostfrequently
does
limit
itself
to
not
overeating;it incorpogluttony
queting,"
rates "all kindeof excesse" of"our raginglustes and greedyappetites";itis epitomizedbythe"proudebanquetingand continuall
idlenesse"of Sodom and Gomorrah,"whichcaused themto bee
so lewdeoflife,and so unmercifull
towardsthe poore."33Modern
think
of
as
readers may
gluttony an irremediablycomic sin,34
but TheBloodyBanquetis a tragedyofgluttony.
Hungerorganizesand linkstheplay'stwoplots.As Tymethes
declares, "Hungerand lust willbreakthroughfleshand stones"
(1.4.27; 380). Proverbially,hunger breaks stone walls (Tilley
H81 1); Middletonyokeshungerto lust, and stone to flesh,making the two paired appetitesequally uncontainable,shattering
the walls ofprivilegedplentyand the fleshofprivilegedbodies,
eruptingthroughwalls made of stone and fromthe "stones"of
testicles.The Old Queen tells us that her "poorbabes . . . pine
here forfood"(1.2.9; 282); they"weepforhunger"(1.3.58; 304),
and suffera "lingeringdeath" (1.3.40; 285); one ofthe twosons

Taylor

15

eventuallydies "throughextremewant"(2.5.3; 863), but theother

is saved when "she pointsto herbreasts,as meaningshe should
nurseif (2.5.0.9; 855-6).
By contrast,the "perplexedbreast"ofthe Queen ofthe adulteryplot (4.3.264; 1703) feeds males in quite another sense.
Tymethes,in advance oftheirsexual union,imaginesher "upon
man's tongue"(3.3.32; 1090), and afterwardsbrags of"thedelicious pleasures ofher bed" (4.1.5; 1203). Indeed, she has been
describedin culinarytermsfromher firstappearance, repeatedlyaddressedas "sweetlady"(1.4.40, 149, 173, 4.2.9; 395, 511,
534, 1024), and a "mostsweet"creature(2.3.69, 3.1.75; 780-1,
956), whose own husband imaginesher as a nocturnaltreaton
whichhe will"banquet"(1.4.112; 469); she offersTymethesher
"sweetesttreasure"(2.3.95; 806). The adulteryitselfoccurs offstage, betweenscenes;35onstage,whatwe see as its visual correlativeis a "banquet,"fullof"choicesweets"and wines;Tymethes
is welcomed "First to this banquet, next to pleasure's feast"
(3.3.37-42; 1098-1102). Here,as oftenin Renaissancedramaand
Christianpolemic,food is foreplay,and gluttonythe usher to
lust. Four servantsbringhimwine and "dishes of sweetmeats"
(3.3.36.2; 1094), and anothercommentsaside: "Lecher,now beware. Securely sit and fearless quaffand eat: You'll findsour
sauce still,afteryoursweetmeat"(3.3.24-6; 1080-82). Sin's synesthesia whets his appetitefora "sweetvoyage"(3.3.88; 1152);
such pleasures"tastebest"in thedark(3.1.1 16; 1003). Tymethes
"munches"upon a royal dish (3.3.74; 1136), but he does not
differmuch fromthe predatorycapitalistswho will "feedupon
any whore,carrion,thief,or anything"(2.2.50-1; 640-41).
The play's two plots thus set in oppositionto one another
two social worlds,definedby theirrelationshipto ingestion:in
one, the worldof"starvelinghunger"(2.2.11; 680) inhabitedby
the English poor in the famineof 1608-09, lackingeven basic
sustenance; in the other,the worldofthe aristocraticbanqueting house, increasinglycharacterizedby corporealexcess ofeverykind.Indeed,the Tudorand Stuartbanquet "was essentially
an occasion forconspicuous consumption."The word"banquet"
had manyofthe same meaningsas the modern"dessert."But in
earlymodernculture,sweetdishes oftenconstituteda separate
course servedin a separate roomor building;theywere considered aphrodisiacs,dependedon expensiveimportedingredients
like sugar and spices, and requiredelaboratepreparation,especiallywhenservedin theformofsculptedpastriesor sugar statofthe Queen
ues (Stead).36Hence the play'sinsistentreification
as "sweet,"and the repeated descriptionof her as "delicate"

16

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1

(2.3.69, 3.1.75, 3.3.81; 780-81, 956, 1145)- an adjectivemeldingthe senses of"dainty,exquisite,fastidious,"but also used as
a culinarynoun, like the modern"delicacy,"and in all these
linguisticrecipes connotingsensuous rarity.EarlymodernEurope did not distinguish,as we do, betweenthe gluttonand the
gourmet:"delicatepersons"obsessed with"daintyfare"offended
as surelyas overeaters(Rickeyand Stroupe2:99, 100).
This oppositionin the play betweenthe worldof rich food
and the world of starvationderives,ultimately,fromthe New
Testamentparable of Dives and Lazarus. Closer in time,it also
which
structuresDekker's 1609 pamphletWorkforArmourers,
describesa war betweenPovertyand Money."Hungerwas one of
the best commandersforwarre"on Poverty'sside, for"no stone
wall (ofwhat heightor strengthwhatsoeuer)is able to hold him
out";on theotherside,Money"swimsin pleasuresand in plenty,"
and is supported by that "insatiable feeder"Usury and the
carnivalesque "Riot"(Grosart4:114, 132, 143, 163). Moreover,
each ofthe twoarmiesis headed bya "Queen,"liketheopposing
Queens in the twoplots of TheBloodyBanquet.
But the allegoricalfiguresof Dekker's pamphletare transformed,in Dekker and Middleton'splay, by a reversalin the
genderingof gluttony.In Christianiconography,gluttonyhad
alwaysbeen a masculinesin; womenwereconceptualizednotas
eaters, but as eaten (Bynum79, 213, 269-76; Miller107). After
all, women not only nursed infants(as does the Old Queen in
TheBloodyBanquet),but also preparedthe foodthatadult men
ate- as does the new Queen, who with "her own hand" for
Tymethes"Herselfprepared"a banquet, descendingfromthe
throneroom to the kitchenin orderto demonstrate"her care
and love to entertain"a dinner-guest(3.3.37-44; 1097-1104).
Giventhese immemorialassociations betweenfemalesand food,
it does not surpriseus thatthe play'smenrepeatedlycharacterize the Queen as a sinfullydeliciousdish. But in theend,he who
woulddare "tasteofsuch a banquet"(3.3.71; 1132) becomesnot
the taster but the tasted; he who smuttilyjokes withanother
man about being"in"a woman(3. 1.99; 983) getshis wish,ironically,not as the penetratingsubject but as an ingestedobject.
The Queen's murderofher loverdoes not save her. The jealous
husband, findingthe "dear" (or "deer")corpse, describes it as
"venisonforthyown tooth"(4.3.217-18; 1650-51); he promises
the Queen "111providefoodforthee" (4.3.228; 1662); later,he
returnswiththe dismemberedbody."Lady,you see yourcheer,"
he tells her, punningon the senses "joy"and "culinaryentertainment":"fineflesh,coarse fare,"punningon "faircorfplse"

Taylor

17

(4.3.278; 1720). In the final scene, the Clown's descriptionof

humans as wolves,feedingupon each other- an image ofsocial
cannibalismubiquitous in the Middletoncanon37- is literalized
in anotheronstage banquet, as the Queen is forcedpubliclyto
devour the body and drinkthe blood of her formerlover. "The
lecher must be swallowedrib by rib,"her tyranthusband explains to his male spectator-guests(5.1.203; 1976).
Feministcriticshave taughtus to see, in thewaymale poets
emblazon the particularsof femalebeauty, a celebrationthat
also dismembersthe bodyit desires (Vickers;Traub 12-13, 2549). But males, especiallyMiddleton'smales, can also be loved
to pieces, aribbyrib"(Daileader 112-14). In TheBloodyBanquet,
men recognizethe Queen's "beauty,"but theydon't itemizeit.
Instead, it is Tymethes,and to a lesser degreeothermen, who
are verballybrokendown into inanimatecomponents:a joint,
brains, an inch, a firstpart,a betterpart, bones, eyes, hair, a
reekingbreast,a heart,an eye,gall,lungs,a mouth,hand,breast,
trunk,a collectionof "dividedlimbs."38We are encouragedto
imaginean erect penis as a "bawdytaper"or an unauthorized
a testicleas a gemstone(3.3.209, 169, 175; 1641, 1597,
"finger,"
1604). A man may aspire to be "then . . . complete"(4.2.102;
1414), but that "then"of imaginedwholeness never materializes. Howcouldit? Menare "game"(1.4. 188; 550); theyare "fished
for"(4.3.237; 1672), and Tymethesis "venison,"a killed"buck"
that has been "catched"to satisfya woman's appetite(4.3.218,
216, 188; 1651, 1648, 1617). In anotherofthe Tyrant'spuns, it
is fitting("mete")that Tymetheshas become "meat" (4.3.215;
1647). Indeed, the play's most strikingimage of manhood- apparentlyvisible onstage fromthe end ofAct Four, throughthe
act interval,and thewholeofActFive- is a corporealanthology,
"hungup" likea smokedhaunch, or servedup on a platter,to be
eaten by a woman.
Or rather,eaten again. The Queen already "knowsthe relish" ofTymethes'flesh;"a dearerplace," her husband tells her,
"has been thytaster"(4.3.219; 1652). He imagineshervagina as
another mouth,and, more specifically,in his tyrantimagination,theprimary
mouth,themouthofa servant,thelowly"taster"
who tastes and tests anythingdestinedfora highermouth,protectingthat other "tooth"frompoison and spoiled food. What
the lowermouthhas firstengorgeda part of,the highermouth
can later engorgewhole.WhatPeterStallybrass sees in the imageryof The Revenger'sTragedyis embodiedin the plot of The
BloodyBanquet "thegradientofdisplacementis fromthe'sexual'/
genitalto the digestive"(211).

18

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1

This is, you mightthink,simplyanotherfantasticprojection

of male anxiety:the insatiable vagina dentata, the classic misogynisttropesummarizedin theaxiomaLa femme,c'est la faim"
(Loraux 62). 39 But Middletonspecificallylocates that vagina
dentata not in the Queen's body,but in the Tyrant'simagination.Outsideofherhusband's fantasies,theQueen herselfhardly
fitsthis stereotypeof genderedhunger.Her sexual appetiteis
to
matchedor exceeded by the men's;Tymethesis as unfaithful
his beloved (Amphridote)
as the Queen is unfaithfulto the Tydishes.
rant. Both gendersare edible; theyare simplydifferent
She is a refinedsuper-civilizeddessert,herlovera "coarse"animal- thus reversingthe usual oppositionbetweenfemalenahermanand mostsignificantly,
tureand male culture.Moreover,
eatingbanquet is imagined,arranged,sadisticallyenforced,and
enjoyed,by a man, a husband, a Tyrant.Unlike
voyeuristically
the vagina dentata,the Queen is at play's end an objectofpity,
not rage. Her finalwords,spokento herselfon an emptystage"Thereis no miseryfitmatchformine"(4.3.274; 1714)- are echoed by the sympathyofthe religiouspilgrimswho beholdher in
the finalscene: "Alas, poor lady! It makes me weep to see what
food she eats" (5.1.199-200; 1973-74). The Tyrant/husband
laughs afterhe kills her at the demonicdinnertable he has set
forher.
In her final scene, the Queen drinksher lover'sblood in a
gobletfashionedfromhis skull; in her firstscene, she had refusedto drinkfroma gobletofwine,because pledgingTymethes
is a sin ofthemouth,
as flirtatious.
Gluttony
mightbe interpreted
and as such easily associated withloose speech (Yeager46-7);
indeed,Jesus declaredthat"Noteatingbut speech defiles"(Matthew15:11). The Queen beginsas a womanin controlofherown
mouth, as organ of both ingestion and expression. "I speak
strangewords against myfantasy,"she says in an aside in her
firstscene (1.4.69; 424), makingher mouth maintainthe estrangingsocial distance that her "mind"insists upon, despite
the sexual impulses that would erase it. In the eroticbanquet
scene (3.3) and again in thebloodybanquet scene (5.1), she does
not speak at all. Her tongue-control
contrastsnot onlywithsteof
female
but
withtheactual logorrhea
loquaciousness,
reotypes
oftheplay'smen."I speak myaffection,"
Tymethesdeclares(1.4.9;
359), proud of the directline fromhis emotionsto his mouth,
and he subsequentlyproves himselfto be one of those "young
gallants ... ofthatvaingloriousand preposteroushumourthat
if theylay with theirown sisters you should hear them prate
on't* (1.4.215-19; 579-82). Tymethesdies- like Roxano, and

19
Taylor
Mazeres, and Zenarchus- because he cannot keep a secret. He
gets eaten because he could not keep his mouthshut.
If he dies forhis indiscretion,whydoes she die? One facile
answer, given by two of the play's men, would be "her lust"
(3.3.123, 5.1.169; 1188, 1938). But a morecomplexanswer is
givenbyanotherman: aTis mostcommon:/He thatloveswomen
is no friendto woman"(3.1.110-11; 996-97). The Queen is surrounded by men whose interestin her destroysher. Her husband is literallya "Tyrant"(so called insistentlyin speech prefixes,stage directions,and dialogue); his jealousy, which even
dethe othermen in the play findexcessive and self-defeating,
mands perpetualsurveillance.He is outragedwhenhe discovers
that her guard would, even fora moment,"leave her alone!"thus givingher "Timeto conveyand plot"(1.4.110; 467).
In a humanist traditionthat stretches fromErasmus to
Fletcherand Massinger,tyrantsare oftencharacterizedas uxorious. But withinthat convention,the Tyrant'swifeor mistress
uses her sexual powerto dominateand controlhim; she tyranhim (Bushnell).40
nizes over the tyrant,effectively
effeminizing
This Queen has no such power,and no such effectupon her
husband. Her relationshipto himis simplythe relationshipofa
wifeto a particularly
jealous, sadistic husband, the kindofhusHis staband anotherofMiddleton'swomencalls "tyrannous."41
tus as "Tyrant"situates the Queen only insofaras it suggests
thathis conjugal and politicalpowersare equally illegitimate;42
indeed, in the play's finalscene he seems to be overthrownas
much forhis conjugalcrueltyas forhis politicalusurpation.The
misogynist,deranged,perhaps demonicallypossessed Husband
of Middleton'sA YorkshireTragedy(1605) attemptsto murder
his wife,and succeeds in murderingtwoofhis children;the Tyrant of The BloodyBanquet succeeds in murderinghis wife,in
the same scene in whichhe expresses not griefbut satisfaction
at the death ofhis twochildren(5.1.120-23; 1873-76).
the emotionthe wifeof such a man most
Not surprisingly,
oftenexpresses elevenseparate times,in onlythreescenes- is
not love or desire but "fear."43Her onlyresourceagainst such
maritaldespotismis the seemingloyaltyof her male servants.
But that loyaltydepends in factupon theirown hope of sexual
favors:"There'snone ofus all, that stand her smock-sentinels,
but would venturea joint to do her any pleasurable service"
DeFlores:
(1.4.127-9;487-90).Indeed,Roxanoinmanywaysanticipates
I cannot choose but praise him,he's so needful.
There's nothingcan be done about a lady

20

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1

But he is forit. Honest Roxano!

Even fromour head to feethe's so officious.
(3.2.30-33; 1044-7)
Whenshe offersher"nectar"to a stranger,thesexually-inflected
"envy"(3. 1.5-6;
loyaltyofher entourageturnsintoa "gnaw[ing]"
Her
and
then
lover,
Tymethes,also betrays
betrayal.
881-84),
sexual
in
homosocial
the
braggingthat she
her, engaging
very
life
is
torn
The
and
dreads.
Queen's
apart by the rivalexpects
ries and bonds "betweenmen"(Sedgwick).
As she herselfrecognizes,the Queen suffersfroma "Strange
fate" (commonto women): "The fears and dangers that most
threatenme Livein the partythat I must enjoy,"for"wheremy
love keeps, therekeep myfears"(1.4.96-103; 451-58). But this
consciousness ofthe schizophreniaofherpositiondoes not save
her. Despite it, she continuesto care about the menwho betray
her. Holdingthe "poorbleedingbody"ofthe lovershe has murdered, beratinghim forhis indiscreet"breach"of "faith,"she
neverthelesscannothelp lovinghim:"Yet,spiteofdeath,I'll kiss
thee"(4.3.115-19; 1541-45)- theonlytimetheaudience sees her
kiss him. Andlater,accused by an internal"witness'gainstmyself,"she confessesherguiltto herhusband, acceptingtheprospect ofdeath, ifonlyshe can be spared "thelingeringexecution
of*the Tyrant'sgaze. If she did not still love her abusive husband, she would not be "tormented"by "that brow"of disapproval (4.3.196-200; 1627-31). Her finalwords to anotherhuman beingare a responseto the promisethather"sweetdearest
lord"(4.3.129; 1556) will be "appeased": "We are pleased," she
says (4.3.270; 1710), eitherregainingthe dignityofa royalpluinto the pluralityofmadness. In the final
ral, or disintegrating
scene, she enterswith "herhair loose" (5.1.154.2; 1919-20), a
theatrical emblem of madness or extremegrief(Dessen and
Thomson, 107); the disarrayof her locks reflectsa disarrayof
mindthathas alreadybeen anticipatedin herdescriptionofherselfas a "strangedistractedwoman,/E'en drawnin pieces betorn
twixtloveand fear"(4.3.75-76; 1499-1500)- psychologically
apart by the savage judicial punishmentof "drawingand quartering,"as Tymetheshas corporeallybeen.
The Bloody Banquet leaves us with the image of a divided
womanwho eats pieces ofher lover.In this, Middleton'sQueen
fromSeneca's Thyestes,herclassical forefather,
radicallydiffers
or Shakespeare's Tamora, her Elizabethan cousin. The titleof
the play promises a cannibal meal, like those in Seneca or
Shakespeare; the structureofthe play- withtwoopposed kings

Taylor

21

and theirchildren,one in the custodyof his father'senemyleads us to expect that the cannibalism will take the formof
parent eating child. But The BloodyBanquet delivers,instead,
something less predictable, and thereforemore disturbing.
Thyestesand Tamora ate a beloved body,withoutknowingit;
theyweremerelydeceivedinto self-pollution.The Queen knows
what and whom she is eating. Thyestesand Tamora only diswhattheyhave done,but Middleton'sQueen
coverretrospectively
an anthropophagite,
knows
she
an eater ofmen.
and
is,
is,
3

Cannibalism,fearand madness are not all that The Bloody

Banquetshares withthemoderngenresofhorror.One character
fallsintoa darkpit;he is completelysurprised,but the audience
has anticipatedthisveryoutcome;a witnessleaves himthereto
die. A "secretvault" (4.3.122; 1548) or "cave" (4.3.261; 1700)
runs "all underground*(3.3.5; 1058) beneath a castle; a man
rises fromit througha trapdoor,expectingto be rewardedfor
his treachery;instead, he is murderedwithoutwarningby his
dumpedback downinto
patron,and his corpseunceremoniously
the darkness.The last thirdofthe play takes place at night;the
final episode begins with "Thunderand lightning"
(5.1.109.2;
it
is
that
Act
Four
with the
ends
and
entirelypossible
1859);
sound ofa woman'suncontrollablescreaming.44
All these details recognizablybelong to the genres of suspense. Suspense seems to be necessary,but is certainlynot sufficient,to generatewhatphilosopherNoelCarrollcalls "art-horror/ the particularformof horrorgeneratedby fictionalrepresentations(Carroll,Horror128-44).WhatmovesTheBloodyBanquetbeyondmeresuspense intohorroris thehangingfromhooks
ofa quarteredhumanbody.Likemodernhorrorfilms,TheBloody
Banquet emphasizes "theact ofshowingthe spectacle ofthe ruwhichhas been called
ined body"(Brophy8), producingan effect
to the spectacle of
reaction
horror"
a
"body
(Boss 15-16), bodily
But
the
meathook
bodies.
violated
episodes in modernhorror
films,like TheTexas ChainsawMassacre(1974) or CannibalFerox
fromthe "larderscene" in TheBloody
(1981), differsignificantly
Banquet, because in the early modernplay, the body thereby
turnedinto helpless meat is male, not female.Indeed, in startlingcontrastto modernhorrorfilms,most of the play's serial
victimsare men: Tymethes,Roxano, Mazeres, and Zenarchus
are all murderedbeforethe Queen, and herdeath is immediately
followedby the climacticmurderofthe Tyrant.

22

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1

Obviously,althoughwomenare centralto the generationand

articulationofhorrorbothin TheBloodyBanquetand in modern
films,theirrole at the beginningofthe seventeenthcenturydiffromtheirrole at the end ofthe twentieth.As
ferssignificantly
Zimmermanrecognizes,one "synchronicvariablein the theatrical representationof horrorconcerns the functionof women"
(160). But neitherZimmermannor anyoneelse seems to recognize that this functionalshiftimperilsthe entireparadigmthat
has governedpostmoderncriticismof horrorgenres- because
that paradigmis foundedupon the transhistoricalclaims of a
genderbinary.Postmodernanalysis ofhorroralmostalways begins withFreud's 1919 essay on "The 'Uncanny,"whichtraces
horrorback to "the dread ofbeing castrated"(17:231) and "the
anxiety belonging to the castration complex of childhood"
(17:233). Because that castrationcomplexderives,forFreud,
betweenthe sexes, the complex
fromthe anatomical difference
cannotbe alteredbyhistory.Ifhistorydoes alterit,thenFreud's
theorymust be wrong.
and directorsknowabout Freud's casModernscreenwriters
trationcomplex,so it isn't surprisingthat the theoryhas sometimes explicitlyinfluencedpost-Freudianhorrorfilms.But alto Freudianallusions mayhelp us interpret
thougha sensitivity
the intentionsof directorslike Brian De Palma, such influence
does not provethe generalvalidityofthattheoryas an explanationof horror,even in modernfilms,and certainlydoes not establish the theory'sapplicabilityto earlymodernplays. I have
arguedelsewhere,at length,that Freud radicallymisrepresents
the natureand historyofcastration(Taylor,Castration).IfI am
right,then the psychoanalyticcastrationcomplexis useless as
an explanationofhorror(oranything
else). But evenifI am wrong,
Freud's theoryself-evidentlyfails to explain the particularhorrors of The Bloody Banquet The fearof being eaten obviously
predates any castrationanxiety,because it is a fear humans
share withotheranimals; it is, moreover,an ungenderedfear,
commonto bothmales and females.Whatwe call cannibalismis
a particularsubvarietyof"beingeaten." But althoughour emotional responses to that subvarietymay be more species-specific,theyare not sex-specific:in literatureas in life,cannibalism crosses genderboundaries,and the horrorgeneratedbyit is
not consistentlygenderedmale or female.
Freudclaimedthat"incest,cannibalism,and lust forkilling"
are the three"instinctualwishes"thatcivilizationmustrepress,
and even acknowledgedthat "cannibalismalone seems to be
universallyproscribed"(21:10-11); but ofthe three,he leftcan-

23
Taylor
nibalism the least theorized.He asserted that the sons of the
"primalhorde" firstmurderedtheir father,and then ate him
(13:142); hence,we can "understandcannibalismas an attempt
with[theFather]byincorporating
a piece
to insureidentification
ofhim"(23:82). But Freud's anthropologicalclaims,embarrassing to manyofhis followersfromthe beginning,have been comand in particularhis
prehensivelydismissedbyanthropologists,
cannibalistictotemicfeastis entirelyunsubstantiated.Likewise,
when Freud defendsthe claim that "theobject that we long for
and prize is assimilatedby eating"by declaringthat the cannibal "onlydevourspeople ofwhomhe is fond"(18:105), the hisrecorddirectlycontradictshim:many
toricaland anthropological
cannibals ate slain or capturedenemies,forwhomtheyshowed
anythingbut fondness.As Rene Girardcomplains,unlike incest, "cannibalismhas not yet foundits Freud and been promotedto the status ofa majorcontemporary
myth"(277); Freud
at best did not clarify,and at worstobscured,our understanding ofthis particularhuman practice.
For an anthropologistlike Girard,cannibalism is a widespread, ritualized,and extremeformof intra-speciesviolence;
as such, it obviouslywarrantssustained and sophisticatedattention.For traditionalliterarycritics,by contrast,representationsofcannibalismare merely"sensational,"and hence unworthyof sustained and sophisticatedattention.Indeed, the application of psychoanalytictheoryto horrorfilmswas an attempt
to legitimatethe analysis of works that the cultural elite had
either"dismissedwithcontempt... or simplyignored";horror
has consistentlybeen "one ofthe mostpopularand, at the same
time,the most disreputable"offilmgenres (Wood77). But this
ofwideofficialcontemptpointsto its status as a representation
spread and powerfulunconscious impulses that societyhas re(Wood78; Pinedo
nightmares"
pressed.Horrorfilmsare "collective
39-40).
In its compoundofpopularityand disreputability
, the horror
filmoccupies a cultural positionremarkablysimilarto that of
commercialtheaterin earlymodernEngland- and ofhorrortragedy, like The Bloody Banquet, in particular.One would think
that the powerof an emotionwould be regardedas an index of
its importanceto human experience,and that the power of a
play to provokestrongemotionwould constitutepresumptive
evidence of that play's significanceas a representationof humanness. But fromJeremyCollierto DoverWilson,English literarycriticismwas dominatedbya middle-classaestheticsensibility,foundedupon a conceptionof the "proper"body,clearly

24

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1

bodyof "low"culdistinguishedfromthe grotesque"improper7*

ture with its "bad" tastes, includingits preferenceforstrong
stimulantsand its cateringto the lower-body
"animalappetites"
ofthe loins and intestines(Stallybrassand White).Culturallegitimacywas thus inverselyproportionalto a work'sabilityto
affectaudiences physically.These prejudicescontinuedintothe
twentiethcenturyin the formofeliteand academic contemptfor
"mass art" (Carroll,Mass Art),Not despite but because of their
- ofmassive popularity,the genresof pornographyand horror
ten uncriticallylumped togetherin what has been labelled
"carnography"(Gehr 58)- could be righteouslyreviledfortheir
attentionto the carnal, the despised halfofthemind-bodyduality(Dyer27; Pinedo61).
AntoninArtaud'sTheaterof Crueltywas in part a reaction
and in the last half-century
against this aestheticofpropriety,
criticismhas finallybegun to recognizewhat Kristevacalls the
"powersof horror."Brottmanidentifiesand celebratesa genre
she calls "cinemavomitif"which "producesphysicaleffectson
the bodyofthe spectator"by showingus "thefundamentaland
oftengross realitiesofhuman flesh"(Brottman,OffensiveFilms
- have been"ignored,
3-4). Herownexamples- mostlyhorrorfilms
banned, censored,rejected,repressed,dismissed, and reviled"
(1). But in 1990, PeterGreenaway'sThe Cook,theThief,His Wife
and Her Lovertookcannibalismintoart houses and art reviews
aroundthe world;in 1991, JonathanDemme's TheSilenceofthe
Lambsearnedcannibalisman AcademyAward;in 1999,Anthony
Hopkins,whohad playedtheman-eatingHannibalLecter,played
the man-cookingTitus Andronicusin JulieTaymor'sfilmTitus,
finallyreunitingthe conventionsofthe modernhorrorfilmwith
theirprecursorsin earlymoderntragedy.
In Titus(thefilm),Aaronplops theold man's amputatedhand
into a transparentplastic sandwichbag. Like the woodchipper
scene in Fargo or the larderscene in The BloodyBanquet, the
sandwichbag scene in Titusworksby puttinggrotesquelyhorribleimages intothe cozilyfamiliarworldofhome.Indeed,what
English translationsdescribe as "uncanny"is, in Freud's German, actually unheimlich,
literally"unhomely,"and Freud's essay begins withan analysis of the word and concept heimlich,
"homely,home-like,at home"(17:2 19-26).45Whatis at homeis
safe,secure,familiar;but thehomeis also a privatespace, walled
offand hiddenfromthe outsideworld,and therefore
potentially
secret, concealed, mysterious,threatening.The word heimlich
(safe, familiar)thus becomes synonymouswith its antonym,
unheimlich
(mysterious,threatening).

Taylor

25

AlthoughEnglish does not have a wordexactlycorrespondthe paradox embodiedin the Germanword

ing to (unjheimlich,
exists in any settled community.The home or household is a
specificallyhuman structure:an enclosureinhabitedby a small
human group,whose membersventureout to foragebiologically
and socially. Every society has thresholdrules that regulate
movementacross the boundariesofsuch spaces. Those spaces,
and the taboos about theirboundaries,create the (un)heimlich
wordsin different
languages. In
paradox,expressedby different
secure
mean
both"acfor
could
modern
English, instance,
early
deluded."
and
Hence, as
"foolishlyoverconfident,
tually safe"
Middleton'sHecate declares, "securityis mortal'schiefestenemy"(Macbeth3.5.22-3); hence,Roxanoobserves,as he watches
Tymethesenjoyingthe banquet, "Tis more dangerous to be a
lecher than to enter upon a breach. Yet how securely he
munches!" (3.3.72-74; 1134-6).46The adjectivesafe could be
equally ambiguous.In the Queen's firstscene she is obsessively
preoccupied with her "safety,"with being "safe" and acting
"safely";one formor anotherofthe wordappears ten timesin a
lines (1.4.152, 158, 160, 163, 174, 176, 198,205,
meresixty-two
206, 214; 513, 519, 521, 524, 536, 537, 562, 569, 570, 578),
and she continues to reiterateit in later scenes (3.2.14, 27,
3.3.110, 4.3.10, 117, 239; 1028, 1041, 1177, 1425, 1543, 1674).
But when, in the end, her Tyranthusband promises her, "111
lock thee safe Fromthe world'spity"(4.3.282-3; 1724-5), there
can be no mistakingthe ironyor the paradox. Safe could mean
both "unhurt,unharmed"(OED a. la) and "imprisoned,kept in
custody,unable to do harm" (OED a. 10); any home capable of
protectingits inhabitantsagainst unwanted intrusionis also
rescue or rebellion.Hence theprominence,
capable ofpreventing
in Gothicfictionand horrorfilm,of "The Image of the Terrible
House" (Wood90). The refugebecomesa prison,its inmatesunable to escape, its wardensubjectto no outsidescrutinyor strictures.
The particularhorrorofcannibalismdependsupon the same
inversion,upon dangerwhereone expectssafety.In his account
ofearlytraditionsofsacrificeand taboo,WalterBurkertinsists
emotions
that"anxiety,fear,and terrorare notjust free-floating
broughton by psychologicalfantasy.Theyhave clear biological
functionsin protectinglife"(31). StephenSpielberg'sJaws, and
its sequels and imitators,demonstratedthatpeople stillretaina
deep fearofbeingeaten by a predator,howeverimprobablethat
threatmaynow be. Our greatestthreat,however,does not come
fromgiant sharks. The only"naturalenemy"thatnow seriously

26

TheJournal
forEarlyModemCulturalStudies1.1

threatensany memberofour species is anothermemberofour

species. What is to preventany one of us fromharvestingthe
readily-availableproteinsupplyrepresentedbythe otherpeople
sittingaround us at home? Onlytaboo. Our physicalrevulsion
againstcannibalismis notmerelya biologicalconstant,not simplyhardwired.Thyestesand Tamorado noteven realizetheyare
eatinghuman meat,and onlybecomenauseated retrospectively;
in societies where cannibalismis routinizedor ritualized(like
those analyzed by Girard),the thoughtor act ofeatinga man or
woman does not in itselfproduce nausea or horror.Whynot?
Usually,because thepersonso eatenbelongsto someothergroup:
an enemywarrior,killedand eaten raw on the battlefield,or a
capturedprisoner,broughtback and rituallysacrificed.
It is alwayspermissibleforus to eat them;itis neverpermiswhichkind ofeatingwe define
sible forus to eat us. Therefore,
as nauseous is determinedby how we define"us." Alongwhat
mightbe called the cannibal continuum,the more closely we
identifythe eater with the eaten, the more uncomfortablewe
become. For modernvegetarianslike philosopherPeterSinger,
"some non-humananimals are persons" (117); since such animals belong to the same categoryas "us," killingthemis murder, and eating them is cannibalism. (One woman I know became a vegetarianaftera nightmarein whichshe was carvinga
Thanksgivingturkey,and realized withhorrorthat it was her
own body she was dismembering.)This is a minorityopinion,
ofwho conwhichrelies upon the mostgenerousinterpretation
stitutes"us." At the otherextreme,to most humans it seems
to eat a memberofone's ownhousehold- as
particularlyhorrific
in Greekmythology
Saturn and Thyestesate theirownchildren,
or as in GeorgeRomero'sNightoftheLivingDead (1968) a young
girlkills and eats her own parents,or as in TheBloodyBanquet
the Queen eats her lover.
Whydo we considerit morehorrificto eat one's child, parent,or loverthan to eat a completestranger?Because we do not
share a home withthe stranger.Indeed, ifwe thinkofthe universe as a series ofconcentriccircles,withinthe small circleof
the home nests the even smaller circle of the bed: the bed in
which childrenare conceivedand were traditionallyborn. We
should not eat those withwhomwe have shared a bed, because
thereour mutual vulnerability
has been exposed. Human sociits
ety(with manyadvantages,physicaland emotional)depends
upon collaboratingwith,and therebytrusting,the humans with
whomwe cohabit. Those necessaryvulnerabilitiesmust thereforebe protectedby the strongestpossible defensesagainst be-

27
Taylor
trayal. Hence the taboo against cannibalism,which is always
or prohibitedin all but a fewstrictly
eithercompletely
prohibited,
definedcircumstances.
But this makes our reactions to cannibalism seem merely
utilitarian,the syllogisticconclusionofa recognitionthat such
a betrayalwould endangeradvantageous social collaborations.
The rationalityof a prohibitionon cannibalismmay explain its
social functionand social reinforcement
(as Girardargues); but
it cannot explainthe instantaneousvisceralrevulsionproduced
by violations of the taboo. It also cannot explain why,forinstance, I can read historicalor fictionalaccounts of cannibalism,withoutlosingmyanalyticaldispassion, but be catapulted
intoinstantqueasiness byturninga page and glancingat a single
- especially the more
still froma horrorfilm.Most such films
- I cannot watch at
graphic exemplarsdescribed by Brottman
all. Ofcourse,otherpeopledo watchthem;humanvisceralsensias wellas socially,alongthecannibalcontivities
differ,
individually
and less controlBut
tinuum.
typically,
seeingproducesa stronger
a
lable reactionthan reading.Readingis learnedculturalprocess,
is a biological
animalfuncmediated;
seeing,bycontrast,
intellectually
wiredtophysicalresponseslikenausea.
tion,and thusmoredirectly
In emphasizingthe biologicaland affective
primacyofseeing
overreading,I am notimplyingthatseeingis somehowinnocent
of cultural influence.In The BloodyBanquet,the audience offstage is doubledbyan audience onstage;bothare made to watch
the Queen's cannibalism. The Tyrantimpresariowho has put
on thisshow,forus and forthem,twicerefersto it as an "object"
(5.1.146, 156; 1906, 1924)- thatis, in earlymodernEnglish,"a
"
sight,spectacle, or "somethingwhich on being seen excites a
particularemotion,as admiration,horror,disdain, commiserasometimes,an object of pityor
tion, amusement . . . formerly
relief,an afflictedperson,sufferer"
(OED objectn.3b). The play
notonlyforcesus to lookat cannibalism;it forcesus to be aware
thatwe are lookingat it,thatthecannibalismis a self-conscious
and stage-managedshow,like the monstersdisplayedforprofit
in earlymodernEngland,and licensed,likeplays,by the Master
of the Revels: Siamese twins,a child withthreeheads, a child
withtwo,a childwithoutarms,a womanwithouthands, a woman
coveredwithhair fromfaceto foot(Bawcutt81-82). Andindeed,
in explaininghis "object,"the Tyrantimpresariosays that the
womanexhibitedforourinstruction
and amusementhas "brought
fortha monster,a detestedissue" (5.1.165; 1933).
Howeverthe taboo on cannibalism is defined,anyone who
breaks it ceases to be properly"human,"and becomes instead

28

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1

an "inhuman monster"(2.4.3; 817)- or "inhumainemonster/

since early modernusage did not distinguishbetweenthe two
"A monsteris whateverwe are not
adjectives. Definitionally,
The
monster
is
thus intrinsically
relatedto the can(Hanafiviii).
nibal: both violate the boundaries of human definition.Moreover,the monster,most criticsagree, is the definingfeatureof
horrorfilms;what makes monstersmonstrousis theirmixingof
categories(Carroll,Horror12-58). In particular,the monsteris
partlyhuman, and partlynot. When a monster(like the creatures featuredin The Blob or The Thing)does not in any way
visuallyresemblehomosapiens sapiens,itseems topossess traits
likeextraordinary
intelligencethatwe consideruniquelyhuman;
when a monster(like the titlecharacterof Henry:Portraitof a
Serial Killer)is physicallyhuman, he seems to lack traitslike
compassionthatwe considernecessaryto humanness.Monsters
thus confuse the distinctionbetweenhuman and not-human,
thatspecies-identification
crucialto our ownbiologicalsurvival.
The cannibal is a monster,because he or she is human, but he
or she is also an animal,wholikeothernon-humananimalpredators preysupon humans. In doingso, cannibals turntheirvictimsinto somethingmonstroustoo: a human who is also simultaneouslyan animal,like the otheranimals whose carcasses we
butcherand eat.
Bythisreasoning,Middleton'sQueen is a monster.This seems
to contradictour responses to her,whichare, as I have argued
But in many
morecomplicatedand sympathetic.
above,altogether
horrorfilms"the Monsteris clearlythe emotionalcenter,and
much morehuman"than the othercharacters(Wood80). This is
true in the most sustained narrativeportraitof a cannibal in
earlymodernEnglish,Thomas Nashe's account ofMiriam,who
at the heightofthe terriblefaminecaused bythe siege ofJerusalemkilled,cooked,and ate herownchild(2.71-77).47Nashe first
describesher"discoursingwithherselfe"in a soliloquysix pages
long(sig. II1-II3V);aftertwoparagraphssummarilynarratingthe
act, she then deliversa long speech to her "mute & amazed"
neighbors,invitingthemto "Eate,I prayyou,heereis goodmeate,
be not afrayd."She defendsherselfon the groundsthat"WhatI
have doone,you have drivenme to doe.nThis is, ofcourse, even
more legitimately,the Queen's defence.If she becomes someit is because she has been horrifically
victimthinghorrifying,
ized.
The Tyrantis the real monsterof The BloodyBanquet Like
the Husband ofA YorkshireTragedy,he commitsacts of"monstrouscruelty"(7.12); like the Duke in TheRevenger'sTragedy^

29
Taylor
his combinationof age, lust, and murderousjealousy "is like a
monsterto be seen" (2.3. 129); liketheTyrantin TheLady's Tragedy, he is a "monsterin sin" (5.2.189), a psychopathwho torturestheQueen withenforcedcannibalism,a seeminglyall-powerfulincarnationof evil who can be killedonlyby massed gunfirefroma distancewhen "Theyall dischargeat him"(5.1.218.1;
1995). The killingofthe monsteris an act of"collectivemurder"
(Girard193-222); it is a reflexof"pious terror"(Hanafi25). The
at the end of the play,
death of the betrayer-usurper-monster,
the
of
restoration
normalcy.
permits
If the Tyrantis the real monster,thenhow are we to understand the Queen? Nashe maysuggestan answer.The entirenarrativepurpose of Christ'sTears OverJerusalemis to enforcethe
parallel betweenJerusalemand London,and Nashe's descriptionofthe cannibal Miriambeginswitha specificexhortationto
his readers:"MothersofLONDON(each one ofyoutoyourselves),
doe but imaginethat you were Miriam"(2.71). TheBloodyBanquet likewiseexhortsus to imaginethat we are the Queen, to
imaginewhatitwouldbe liketo be "compelled"to becomea cannibal (Nashe 2.73).
is fundamentalto the generalhuThis act of identification
man problemof cannibalism,to what I am calling the Edible
Complex.Humans, afterall, are edible,just like otheranimals.
The taboo against recognizingthat factdepends upon an act of
I cannot eat that particularanimal, because it is
identification:
one of"us"- meaning,it is too much likeme. Hence the particular revulsioncaused by Miriameating her child, or the Queen
aware ofthe similarities
eatingherlover.We are mostintimately
betweenourselvesand thosewithwhomwe have shared a home,
a bed; such an animal is mostobviously"likeme."48
a double: the eater
Cannibalismthus produces,structurally,
- are a signifiis also the eaten. Doubles- twins,dopplegangers
cant elementof horrorfilms(Wood 95; Carroll,Horror46-47),
and also a significantelementof "theuncanny"(or unheimlich)
analyzed by Freud (17:234-38) and ofthe logicofsacrificialviolence analyzedbyGirard(143-68). The self,afterall, is the smallest ofall the concentriccircleswhichmap the universefromthe
perspectiveofthe ego: smallerthan the home, smallerthan the
bed inside the home,is the selflyingin the bed. In what Freud
calls the uncanny,or what Girardcalls the monstrousdouble,
the subject is split into two forms:that other self,the self as
other,becomes an object ofterror.TheBloodyBanquetis fullof
doubling: two opposed Queens, two opposed sets of two royal
children,two opposed sets of two loyal servants (Fidelio and

30

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1

Amorpho,Sertorioand Lodovico); two opposed Machiavellian

ministers(Roxano and Mazeres); two pits into which men fall,
and a thirdmetaphorical"pit"of the Queen's vagina, itselfa
double for the "pit*of hell (4.3.230; 1664). Tymethesis the
as theTyrant,he takestheTyrant's
Tyrant'sdouble:as misogynist
in
the
Queen's bed, usurpingthe Tyrant'sbed just as the
place
Tyrantusurps anotherman's kingdom.WhentheTyrantdiscovers that Tymetheshas taken his wife,he feelshe will "burst,"
that he is
that the news will "tear the frame"of his mortality,
blind: "I have lost myself*(4.2.42, 44, 66; 1341, 1345, 1375).
The Tyranthas Tymethes,his otherself,splitintopieces. Even
theaudience is doubled,seeingitselfon stage in the finalscene,
as the spectatorswho witnessthe Tyrant's"object."
And what ifwe see ourselvesalso doubled in that object itself?What if,as Nashe urges us to do, we imagineourselvesas
cannibals? The Queen is undoubtedlythe focusofan audience's
attentionin the finalscene, but the audience can onlyimagine
whatshe is thinkingand feeling,because she remainssilent.We
are therefore
forced,as spectators,to projectour own subjectivityinto her.
In the source, her counterpart"feedethsparingly"and is
"soon" unable to eat any more(Warner36); but this Queen apfourlines ofdiaparentlycontinuesto dine,onstage,duringfiftyshe
will
"taste no other
that
her
has
told
The
Tyrant
logue.49
in hers"
be
consumed
her
love's
sustenance . . . / Till
body
(5.1.180-81; 1949-50); but she could have refusedto eat. Other
womenhave starvedthemselvesto death, beforeher time,and
her
in ours. We have already seen her, three times, "offering
naked breast"to a man's sword,asking to die.50Ifshe is willing
to die, whyis she not willingto starveto death? She, who alone
ofall the play's charactershas provenherselfcapable ofclosing
her mouth,opens it to eat and eat and eat her lover'scorpse.
"The corpse," according to Kristeva, "is the utmost of
abjection."But "the most elementaryand most archaic formof
abjection"is "Loathingan itemoffood. . . The spasms and vomitingthat protectme . . . The shame of compromise,ofbeingin
the middleoftreachery."Andwhatifthese twocategoriesofthe
abjectare combined?Kristevadoes notask. Middletonand Dekker
do. What ifthe "gagging. . . spasms in the stomach,the belly,"
what ifthe increasedheartbeatand perspiration,the risingbile
fromthe gallbladder,what if the abjection of being treacherously servedfoodthatnauseates is combinedwiththe abjection
of "the corpse, the most sickeningof wastes"? What if one is
forced"to taste . . . deaths" (4.3.104, 224-25; 1530, 1658-59)?

Taylor

31

life.It is somethingrejectedfrom
The cadaver "is death infecting
which one does not part,fromwhich one does not protectoneselfas froman object"(Kristeva2-4).
The Queen does not protectherselffromwhatwould nauseate us. Instead, she abjects herself,becomeswhatotherwomen
already are, an "abject wretch"(4.2.18; 1311). Such an abject
whichproduces
subjectcannotspeak, because that"oralactivity,
and
the linguisticsignifier"
displaces "devouring";you
replaces
can't talk withyourmouthfull,infantslearn to talk when their
mouthsand bellies are empty;"verbalization... is alien to"her,
the symptomofher abjectionis "therejection... oflanguages"
(Kristeva41, 50, 45).
But what she cannotspeak the playspeaks forher,"through
horror'sjaws" (4.1.67; 1279). "I shall burst withtorment,"the
play says; "Tis springtidein mygall. All myblood's bitter.Puh!
lungs too"(4.2.42, 50-1; 1341-53). That spitting"Puh!"attempts
to expela taste thatis notexpellable,whichis the taste ofself:"I
expel myself,"Kristevasays, "I spit myselfout, I abject myself
withinthe same motionthroughwhichT claim to establish myself . . . I givebirthto myselfamid the violenceofsobs" (3). The
playsays, "thoughtis bitterness"(5. 1.206; 1992); theplayspeaks
of a "bitterpill"that "chokes"those who take it (5.1.78; 1819);
the play says thatthe "beauty"ofa once kissed and adored male
in a woman'seyes,into"a leperFull of
bodycan be transformed,
. . . black infection,foul"(4.2.70-2; 1380-4). And in the final
scene the play forcesus to witness twopeople dyingof poison,
one ofthema womanwho swallowswhatshe knowswillkillher.
And afterwe watch themclutchingat theirconvulsed internal
organs, or tryingto vomitup what is eatingtheirinsides, after
we have witnessedthis ingesteddeath, the play sets beforeus
twotables,one forthe Queen, one fortheTyrant'sguests,whom
he toasts and invitesto "sit"and "Feed!"on "ourcates" and other
desserts (5.1.143-49; 1903-09). The Bloody Banquet is dinner
theater."Imagineeating,"theplay says to its nut-crackingspectators,"whileshe eats what she eats."
"His flesh is sweet,"the Tyranttells us, watchingher eat
what she eats; "itmelts,and goes downmerrily"
(5. 1.204; 1977).
Is this descriptionof the Queen's eating sadistic sarcasm, or
truth?Does the sickly-sweetfleshgag her, or tenderlymeltin
her mouth? Miriamsays, describingthe child she has eaten,
"His pure snow-mouldedsoftfleshewill meltof it selfein your
mouthes";she says, "Sweetwas he to mee in his life,but never
so sweet as in his death" (Nashe II, 76). Afterall, this play is
called TheBloodyBanquet;banquets are characterizedabove all

32

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1. 1

by exoticsweetnesses. "Sweetwas yourlust; what can be bitter

there?" (4.3.279; 1721). When she enters for this meal, she
"makes a curtsyto the table" (5.1.154.2; 1920). She is mad, of
course;itis madnessto reverencethebodyand bloodofTymethes
as thoughit were the body and blood of Christ.The Church of
Englandhad declared,as a pointofdoctrineto whichall preachers and ministersmust subscribe,that it would be "repugnant*
to imaginethatcommunicants"do carnallyand visiblypresswith
theirteeth"the actual "bodilypresence ... ofChrist'sfleshand
blood in the sacramentof the Lord's supper" (O'Donovan 14849).51 It would be repugnantto imaginethat the religionof England resembled,in any way,cannibalism.
It was Catholics who insisted on transubstantiation.For
Catholics,Christwas
. . . whole i'th'bread,wholei'th'cup.
Theyeat Himwhole;whole they sup.
Wholei'th' cake, and whole i'th'cup . . .
Theyswallowdown His flesh,and blood up sup.
(Tuke 3.15-16)
Calvin had warned Protestantsthat "we must not dream"that
the bodyofChristis, in the sacrament,"putthereto be touched
bythe hands, to be chewedby the teeth,and to be swallowedby
the mouth."But how could Protestantscontroltheirdreams?
George Herbertcould not: "You must sitt downe says Love, &
tast mymeat <VR> So I did sitt& eat" ("LoveIII," 17-18). After
all, accordingto T. B. Bozeman "it was of the veryessence of
puritanconceptionsof the communionthat it should generate
visualization"(44). For instance, "Whenthou seest the Bread
broken,and the Wine powredforth,"WilliamPemble advised,
"thinkeon Christtorneand rentin his preciousbody"(sig. Blv).
Such visualizationswould be encouragedbywhataudiences
saw on stage. Protestantshad replaced the Catholicaltar with
"the Lord's table"; some Puritanspreferredto sit, ratherthan
kneel,to receivecommunion;believersofall kindswereinclined
to wear theirfinestclothes when theytook communion;newly
marriedcouplesweresupposed to takecommuniontogether,
and
Christiansgenerallywereexpectedto embrace"charity"by reconcilingthemselvesto anyone withwhom theyhad quarrelled
(Hunt). Hence, the sightof a (presumablywell-dressed)Queen
sittingat a "smalltable"(5. 1.142.3; 1901-02) drinkingbloodand
- mightstir
eating meat- in frontof men dressed as pilgrims
uncomfortablecomparisonswiththe eucharist; such compari-

33
Taylor
sons would make theTyrant'slack ofcharitytowardhis wifeall
the more shocking.The play earlier associates the sins of its
characterswithAdamand Eve's eatingofforbidden
fruit,bywhich
humankindfirst"tasteddeath";in Christiantheology,the sin of
thateatingwas undone by the eatingofChrist'sbodyand blood
in the bread and wine ofthe eucharist.Even Calvinhad repeatedly spoken of the eucharist as a "spiritual banquet" (4.17;
1:1372, 1360, 1370, 1377); TheBook ofCommonPrayercalled it
"this holy banquet" and "the banquet of most heavenlyfood"
(Booty255-56); JohnDenison's 1631 treatiseon "theDoctrineof
the Lords Supper" was entitledThe HeavenlyBanquet What if
Protestants,in theirdreams,were to imagineCatholicismfrom
the subject position?
Or what if,like Montaigne,we were to imaginecannibalism
fromthe subject position?Not as a degradedother,but as "an
extreme,and inexpiablerevenge"(1.223), the practiceofa society superiorto the inequityand sexual jealousy of our own?52
The Tyrantbelieves that he is avenginghimselfupon the adulterers,byforcingone to eat the other.But wouldnothis revenge
be subverted,and turned back upon itself,if the Queen, like
Montaigne'scannibals,relishedthefeast,regardedit as herown
revenge,upon her lover or upon her husband or upon both?
Whatifher celebrationofthatparodicsacramentremindedspectators of "the joyfulnessin the holy communion,"at which a
believermightfindhimself"brokento pieces withjoy; drunk
What if she celebrated,not in the attenuated
with comfort"?53
and endlesslyrepeated poetic tropes of
of
fascinated
form the
MoniqueWittig,not in the mindbut in the mouth,the slow and
delicateeatingofher lover'ssweetbody,"ribby rib"?54Howcan
we knowwhat she thinksas she eats? She does not speak.
Andhow,watchingthe Queen silentlyeat thatbodyand drink
that blood, can we not feelwhat Kristevacalls a "braided,woven,ambivalent"mixingof"thatfundamentaloppositionbetween
I and the Other"(7)? The Queen could have preservedthatopposition- that space betweenobject and subject, that divisionwe
and socially- by refusingto eat: she would
need psychologically
thenhave remaineda subject,the bodywouldhave remainedan
object.But she chooses to eat, ratherthandie. She willnotstarve
herself;ifher husband wants her dead, he will have to killher.
She embraces abjection; she becomes a devoteeofthe abject, a
martyrto self-pollution.Perhaps she exults in her degradation;
perhaps, like the spectatorto a horrorfilm,she indulges her
(Creed 10). "Jouissancealone causes the
"pleasurein perversity"
such.
One does not knowit, one does not deabject to exist as

34

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1. 1

sire it, one joys in it, enjoys it. Violentlyand painfully,"Kristeva

"
says (7, 9). The play says, "It melts, and goes down merrily.

"Supremest of [her] sex" (1.4.51; 404), the abject Queen of The

Bloody Banquet combines jouissance and horror,subject and object, in a mixtureofunprecedented psychosocial complexity.55She
embodies an engorginggender men hunger to engorge, a gender
whose mouths men will go to insane lengths to gag. She is
Middleton's firstattempt to imagine "her sex's rareness" (3.3.45;
1105). There would be others: Moll Cutpurse, Mistress Low-water,
Mistress Allwit,the Lady, the Duchess, the White Queen's Pawn,
Valeria, Roxana, Livia, Bianca, Isabella, Beatrice-Joanna. "This
course is but the first"(3.3.130; 1195). But Middleton never created a more complicated woman, and no one has ever writtena
greaterhorror-tragedythan The Bloody Banquet
Notes
lThe BloodyBanquet 1.3.8; 252. Quotationsfromthe play cite the
textand act-scene-linenumberingin Middleton.For
modern-spelling
I also givethethrough-line
cross-reference,
numberingin Schoenbaum.
2Dickinson,793.
3Mythanks to Julia Briggs,who (afterreadingan earlierdraftof
this essay) suggested I compare The Bloody Banquet to Joel Coen's
film.I am also indebtedto StanleyWellsand thestaffoftheShakespeare
BirthplaceTrustforadvice about earlymodernpantries,and, most of
all, to several inspiringconversationswithCelia R. Daileader.
4Sometimesthe "larder"was called a "pantry"or a "spence"; in
smallerhomes,withouta special room,the meat mighthang in a loft,
or the kitchenitself.For "larder"in Middleton,see A Mad World,My
7.25.
Masters1. 1.72, The Witch
2. 1. 139, and HonourableEntertainments
sTheplays quotedin theanthologybyCotgravewerepartiallytabulated by Bentleyon the basis of manuscriptattributionsin a British
all but a
Librarycopy; I have extendedthe tabulationby identifying
few of the unattributedexcerpts. I hope to publish an analysis of
Cotgravein a separate article.
6Forconclusionsabout the play's authorship,whichare assumed
here,see Taylor,"Banquet; Middletonis responsibleforalmostall the
scenes ofthe Tymethes(cannibalism)plot.
7Forthe dates here,see Taylor,Companion130-31. On foodas an
organizingtrope,see Adelman.
^he fictitiousdate ofthe firsteditionin turnwas used to support
equally fictitiousattributions.Lawrence,forinstance,made much of
the 1620 "edition"in attributingthe play to Thomas Drue and Queen
Anne's Men.
lxxxi-lxxxiv.
Bacon establishedtheplay'sdependenceupon
9Warner
Warner,but did notspecifywhethertheauthor(s)used thefirstedition

35
Taylor
in
the
Stationers*
or
the
entered
Register1574)
(undated,
extensively
revised second edition (1597). However,Banquet followsthe revised
edition in one of the fewnarrativedifferencesbetweenthe two versions: in 2.4, the old Kingand his entouragediscoverLapirus in thepit
because theyhear his cries,whereas in the earlierversionofWarner
one of the King's companionshimselffalls into the pit and discovers
him there(Warner210).
10Baird'sstatisticsare quoted in Jackson,Attribution
208-09; figures forBloodyBanquet,Revenger'sTragedy,and Lady's Tragedy(a.k.a.
"The Second Maiden'sTragedy")are myown.The Oxfordchronologyis
based upon theworkofindividualeditorsdatingthetextstheyworked
upon; none of those editorstookaccount ofthe Baird statistics.
uThe onlyplays on the list that Harbage identifiesas originating
withBeeston'sBoys are Brome'sA Mad CoupleWellMatched(published
1653), AlexanderBrome's (?) The CunningLovers (published 1654),
and The ConceitedDuke (a lost play,knownonlyfromthislist).In each
case, the plays are ofuncertaindate and ofuncertaintheatricalprovenance.
12Massinger'sA New Wayto Pay Old Debts, The Maid of Honour
withan earliercompany)and TheGreatDuke
(bothprobablyoriginating
The
Maid's
Fair
Florence;
Shirley's
Revenge,The Wedding,The Witty
of
Love's Cruelty,Hyde Park,The
One, The GratefulServant,The Traitor,
The Lady of Pleasure,
YoungAdmiral,The Example, The Opportunity,
The Coronation;Shirley'sadaptations of Fletcher'sThe NightWalker,
Chapman's ChabotAdmiralof France,and Rowley'sCupid's Vagaries
by earliercompanies); Ford's 'Tis PityShe's a
(all originallyperformed
Whoreand Love's Sacrifice;Heywood'sLove's Mistress;Davenport'sKing
Johnand Matilda.
A New Trickto Cheat theDevil and A Fool and her
13Davenport's
Maidenheadsoon parted.
l4Massinger'sTheBondmanand TheRenegado;Shirley'sTheSchool
Chapman's originalChabotAdmiralofFrance; Rowley's
of Compliment;
All's Lost by Lust (originally for the Prince's Men); Rowley and
Middleton'sThe Changeling;Dekker, Ford, Middletonand Rowley's
The Spanish Gypsy;Dekkerand Ford's TheSun's Darling;Davenport's
The CityNightcap.
15TheNightWalker,MonsieurThomas,and WitwithoutMoney.
16Subsequentstatementsabout companyhistoriesand repertoires
are based, unless otherwisenoted,on Gurr.Lawrence'sattributionof
Banquet to Queen Anne's Men was based upon Fleay,who erroneously
came fromthat comclaimed that all the plays in Beeston's repertory
Men.
or
Elizabeth's
Lady
through
pany
17See the arguments on date and provenance summarized in
mostconvincing.
Holaday 620. I findParrott'sreconstruction
18Isthere any way to tell whetherthe play was writtenforthe
Prince's Men at the Fortune or the Queen's Revels boys at the
Blackfriars?Banquets sustained portrayalof a deeplycorruptcourt,
in 2.1, certainlyfitthe "railand the superfluoussatiricalcommentary
ing*mode of the Blackfriarsboys up to 1608. But the same mightbe
said of The Revenger'sTragedy,which was performedby the King's
Men. Moreover,all the otherknownMiddleton-Dekker
collaborations
Prince'sMen;none ofMiddleton'sknown
werewrittenfortheAdmiral's/
plays forthe children'scompanies of the firstdecade of the seven-

36

The JournalforEarly ModernCulturalStudies 1. 1

teenth century were writtenwith a collaborator. The odds would seem

to favor the Prince's Men.
19McElwee174; see also 108-10, 167, 172, 175. Sir Dudley Carleton
described a banquet on 6 January 1605, "which was so furiously assaulted, that down went Table and Tressels, beforeone bit was touched"
(Sawyer 2:44). This court gluttonyis satirized in Dekker and Webster's
Westward Ho 3.2.29-32 (1604) and in Shakespeare's History of King
Lear 4. 146-50 (1605).
20InWarner, there is no dialogue of the shepherds. The old Queen
and her infants are hungry,but there is no suggestion that the Lapyrus
prototype (Deipyrus) suffersfromhunger himself, nor that he has any
difficultyproviding food for the Queen and her infants; moreover, in
Warner he is described only as "killing them victuals* (106), placing
the emphasis on game, never mentioned in connection with the subplot.
21lnthe same sentence of the pamphlet Dekker referredto a "stone
cutter," as the play immediately proceeds to the image of a "corn cutter": furtherevidence of the compositional closeness of the two passages.
22Immediatelyafterhis accession to the English throne, KingJames
had moved to outlaw privateeringagainst Spain, with whom he wished
to make peace; but such persons were not likely to be the subject of
much indignation among ordinary Englishmen. They therefore contrast with the Barbary pirates who became notorious later in the decade.
23On the basis of forthcomingnew research by myselfand MacD.
P. Jackson, the Oxford Middleton attributes The Spanish Gypsy (1623)
to Dekker, Ford, Middleton, and Rowley; even ifthis new attribution is
accepted, a four-man collaboration obviously differsfromthe two-man
Dekker-Middleton collaborations in 1604-1611.
24BritishLibrary Harleian MS 389, letters of Joseph Meade to Sir
M. Stuteville, folio 425 (letter of 23 April): "the King denyed it" (an
application forthe renewal of a post held under his father),"saying he
would haue no drunkards of his Bedchamber" (i.e., as members of his
inner circle). This declaration was supported by many subsequent actions.
25On Middleton's exploitation of topical material, see Taylor and
Jowett 199.
26See Taylor, Banquet 204- 10. Of the eleven Dekker parallels noted
there, only one is to an early play (Old Fortunatus, 1599), and one to a
late play [Wonder of a Kingdom, 1619-31); but 2 Honest Whore (160506) has four, Babylon (1605-07) three, and Devil (1611-12) two- suggesting that Dekker's scenes were writtenafter 1604, but no later than
1611. Likewise, of the fortyMiddleton parallels cited in that article,
only four come fromworks of 1620 or later, and only one froma work
of 1604 or earlier, and only two works affordmore than three parallels:
Revenger's Tragedy (1606-7) with seven, and Witch(1615) with foursuggesting that Middleton's scenes were writtenbetween 1606 and 1615.
27Ifnot writtenby Dekker, the Induction is the work of an anonymous Caroline adapter; for the evidence of abridgement and adaptation, see Schoenbaum vii-viiiand Taylor, Banquet 226-33.
28Forevidence ofa second hand in TitusAndronicussee early studies
by Robertson, Wilson, Maxwell, Jackson (Attribution),
Taylor (Compan-

37
Taylor
dismissedall thisdata on the basis ofhis
ion).Bate, characteristically,
own "literary
judgement"(83). But GeorgePeele's authorshipof three
scenes in Titushas since been decisivelyconfirmedby fivestudies,
workingwithindependentmethodologies:Tarlinskaja 124; Taylor,"I
HenryIV: Boyd; Jackson,"Stage Directions";Elliottand Valenza.
29The"youth"of Tymethesis repeatedlystressed,fromthe play's
firstscene to its last: 1.1.93, 1.4.71, 208, 215, 2.3.41, 4.3.51, 70, 77,
90,95, 107, 110, 117, 137, 5.1.3(152,427,572,579, 756, 1474, 1494,
1501, 1515, 1520, 1533, 1536, 1543, 1566, 1731). By contrast,the
as "young"onlytwice,once in thedramatispersonae
Queen is identified
list,once in a stagedirection(1.4.34.1; 388); in bothcases theadjective
maynotbe authorial,and itis clearlydesignedsimplyto distinguishher
fromthe "Old Queen" of the subplot.Since that"Old Queen" is young
referent
of"OldQueen"
enoughto be nursingherowninfant,theprimary
is probably"formerqueen" (she has been deposed); the contrasting
as the "newqueen"
womanshould perhapsmoreproperlybe identified
(newlymade queen bytheusurpationofherhusband theTyrant),rather
Jsbest friend,Zenarchus,and
than "youngqueen". Moreover,
Tymethes
bothcall theQueen "mymother"(1.4.72,
Zenarchus'ssisterAmphridote,
but thetextdoes not
4.2.69; 428, 1379); theymightmean "stepmother",
clarifyor requirethatmeaning,and the Queen could easilybe a woman
or sixties,havingan affair
in her forties,marriedto a man in his fifties
witha man theage ofherownchildren.In anycase, whatevertheQueen's
clear
age, the emphasisupon theyouthofTymethesmakes it perfectly
that he is youngerthan she is.
30l.1.153 (217), 1.4.50 (403); "beggar"1.1.109, 131, 2.3.55, 59,
4.1.25, 4.2.16 (172, 212, 768, 772, 1227, 1309). When the Queen's
husband discoversher affairwith"this fellow"(4.3.188; 1617), he is
appalled by her "adulterousbaseness" (5.1.168; 1937), both nouns
emphasizingthe social gap.
3Compare the relationshipbetween the Jeweller'swifeand the
Knightin Middleton'sThe Phoenix(1603), who repeatedlycall each
other"myrevenue"and "mypleasure",respectively.
32Genesisis also echoed earlier,in the Dekkerplot,when the traitorLapyrusberates"theearth. . . whichforman alone doth all things
bear"; he then spots a "Blest tree"fromwhich"fruit"hangs, and exclaims "Run,taste it then:Wise men servefirstthemselves,thenother
men." But when he runs towardthe tree,"He falls in thepit,"here as
elsewherea transparentallegoryofhell (2.2.4-13.1; 673-83). Both the
to the tree
selfishnessofLapyrusand thelust ofTymethesare referred
in Eden.
and Stroupe 2:94, 98, 97; "banquet[ting]"appears four33Rickey
teen timesin this sermon.
34Theanorexic"benefitsfromourwillingnessto allowthethintragic
possibility;the fat,in contrast,are relegatedalmostwithoutexception
to comedy,farce,and the grotesque"(Miller109).
35Forthe conventionsof "offstagesex" employedhere, and elsewherein Middleton,see Daileader 23-50.
36Steadnotes that the "lodge"where the banquet in 3.3 of The
BloodyBanquet is repeatedlypreciselylocated "is clearlya banqueting
house" (134).
37CompareThePhoenix(1603), 15.346, wherewar "eats but men,"
but thelaw eats "menand cattle";A TricktoCatchtheOld One,3.1 .177-

38

The Journalfor Early Modern CulturalStudies 1. J

78, "one that would undo his brother, Nay, swallow up his father";
Timon of Athens (1605?), 2.39-41, "what a number of men eats Timon
. . . how many dip their meat in one man's blood"; Revenger's Tragedy
(1606), "those that did eat are eaten" (3.5.160); The Puritan (1606),
2.1.191, "He would eat fools and ignorant heirs clean up"; Roaring Girl
(1611), 10.21, "He . . . eats up whores, feeds upon a bawd's garbage";
The Lady's Tragedy (1611), 2.3.87-88, "There's one gapes.- One that
would swallow you, sir"; Witat Several Weapons (1613), 4.1.129-30, "a
poached scholar is a cheater's dinner here; I ha' known seven of 'em
supped up at a meal." (Many more examples could be given, in these
Middleton texts and others.)
381.4.129, 166, 201, 208, 4.2.95, 3.1.77, 123, 3.3.100, 127, 4.1.7,
47-8, 4.2.50-1, 5.1.67-8, 103-4, 175, 4.3.276 (489, 527, 564, 572,
1407, 958, 1011, 1167, 1192, 1206, 1256-7, 1352-3, 1807-8, 184950, 1944, 1718).
39Forthe "sexually insatiable" stereotype in early modern culture,
see Henderson and McManus 47.
40Bushnell does not mention The Bloody Banquet
41Thomasinedescribing her husband Quomodo at Michaelmas Term
4.1.60. Vortiger,in Middleton's Hengist, King of Kent, is another such
conjugal tyrant, guilty of one of the few instances of marital rape in
English drama.
42Bushnell notes that "The plays of the 1610s and 1620s revive
the image of the lustful moralityprince" but "update the older image"
by addressing "the complex relationship between the prince's moral
behavior and his legitimacy, an issue rarely considered in the moralities" (158); her firstexample of "the newly important criterionof legitimacy" (154) is Middleton's The Lady's Tragedy (which she treats as
anonymous, and calls "The Second Maiden's Tragedy"). In both The
Bloody Banquet (1609?) and The Lady's Tragedy (1611), Middleton inaugurates a theme which she associates with later plays by Beaumont,
Fletcher, and Massinger.
431.4.43, 93, 96, 103, 138, 3.2.1, 35, 4.3.8, 76, 231-2; 398, 448,
451, 458, 499, 1015, 1049, 1424, 1500, 1665-6.
44Thereis no stage direction to indicate the Queen's reaction to the
appearance of the Tyrant and his two servants as they bring in the
freshlyquartered corpse. Earlier in the scene the Queen refersto "the
hideous shrieks of an enforced lady" (4.3.133-4; 1560-61), but neither
"scream" nor "shriek" ever appears in stage directions of the period
(Dessen and Thomson), so we would not expect it to be marked here,
but merely left to the performer;it would be entirelycharacteristic of
Middleton's irony if the fictional "shrieks" she invents earlier in the
scene revisited her at its end as real ones. Some strong reaction is
surely necessary, both theatricallyand psychologically;she cannot faint
or swoon, because the Tyrant addresses her directly for six lines
(4.3.278-83; 1720-25). She might be in shock, virtually catatonic; or
she might scream and then be gagged by the Tyrant, who could then
carry her off,still gagged, or screaming. Any of these reactions could
be extraordinarilypowerful,since they are just before the act interval;
there are parallels for them all in modern horror films and fiction.
4SThere is no comparable word in English; both "uncanny" and
"eerie" are originally Scots, never used in the plays of Middleton or
Shakespeare, and not etymologicallyrelated to "home." But Middleton

Taylor

39

does describedeath as a man's "everlastinghome"(5.1.76; 1817); this

is a commonimagein theperiod,and Christiansstillspeak ofdyingas
"goinghome,"tryingto make death,the greatunknown,sound as cozy
and familiar as possible. This is as close as English comes to
(un)heimlich.
46Comparethe moral of postmodernhorrorfilms,articulatedby
Pinedo:"Wecan onlybe secure in the knowledgethatthereis no security"(28).
47Ihave modernizedthe treatmentof i/j and u/v in quotations
fromNashe. Nashe was a major influenceon Middleton:see Rhodes
63-86, and Taylor,"Bardicide"340-42.
48Manypeople happily eat anonymous beef, but they would be
appalled by the idea of eating theirpet dog or cat- presumablybecause theycohabit withtheirpets, who accordinglybelonginside the
Notsurprisingly,
home's protectedcircleofintimacyand identification.
documentedcases of criminalcannibalism in the twentiethcentury
sometimesinvolveindividualswho began by killingand torturing
pets
beforegraduatingto humans (Brottman,Meat 37, 49).
49The1639 quarto contains no stage directionthat she eats or
drinks;but such a directionis suppliedbytheOxfordedition(5.2.45.3),
on the groundsthat (a) the titleof the play makes no sense unless a
"bloodybanquet*actuallytakes place somewherein the play,and this
is the onlypossible occasion; (b) she does eat and drinkin the source;
(c) the Old King says "it makes me weep to see what food she eats"
(5.1.199-200; 1973-4), the declarativepresenttense statementproviding presumptiveevidencethat she is actually eating, since he could
just as easilyhave said "tosee whatfoodshe's served"or "whatfoodhe
givesher";(d) ifshe eats thefoodspecifiedin the stage direction,there
is no reason forher not to drinkfromthe gobletspecifiedin the stage
direction;(e) whenthe skull-gobletappears in anotherMiddletonplay,
The Witch,the woman does drinkfromit- as she does, indeed, in all
versions of the skull-gobletmyth;(f)it is not at all unusual forplay
- as happens elsewherein this
texts to omitimpliedstage directions
veryquarto.
50TheQueen "did of her own accord constantlyhumble herselfto
her naked breastto be piercedofmythreatening
weapon";
diefoffering
"thrice"thehusband intendsto killher,and "thrice"liftshis weapon to
pierce "thatbeautifulbosom of hers" (Warner 49). The 1639 textof
The BloodyBanquet does not specifythe same actions, but the Queen
asks to die three times: "Doom me unto my death" (4.3.198; 1627);
"Tormentme notwithlife;it asks but death"(4.3.21 1; 1643); "Here's a
but thelike serviceupon
perplexedbreast: let thatwarmsteel Perform
me"- thatis, stabbingher,as he has just stabbed Roxano (4.3.264-5;
1703-4). In the thirdinstance,the "breast"is explicit;in the first,it is
implicitin the precedingsentence,whichrefersto an internalwitness
against herself"Here"- presumablyher heart or bosom. The Queen's
request fordeath parallels that of Lapyrusin 1.3; in both cases, the
versions of
request is denied, but the two plots offerverydifferent
"mercy".
51Thearticle"Of the Lordes Supper" was actually weakened between 1553 and 1571; the finalphrase I quote is presentin 1553 but
not 1571, which thus removesthe strongerprohibition.On the revision, see Bicknell382-3: it was made so as not to "exclude the Pres-

40
TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1
ence of Christ'sbodyfromthe Sacrament,but onlythe grossnessand
sensibleness in the receivingthereof."
52Inthe firstdecade ofthe seventeenthcentury,anyonewritinga
play about cannibalism mighthave wanted to read Montaigne'srecentlytranslatedessay on cannibals. The essay conflatescannibalism
ofthe
withsexual freedom;it ends witha cannibal's incomprehension
divisionsbetweenrich and poor in Europe; the precedingessay contrastsvirtuousmoderationwith"gluttony."
53Hunt58 (citingtwoseventeenth-century
Englishdiarists).
54Forthe abjected pronounsand anthropophagicnarrativesee for
instance: "M/ymostdelectableone /set about eatingyou,m/ytongue
moistensthe helix of your ear delicatelyglidingaround, m/ytongue
insertsitselfin the auricle,it touchestheantihelix,m/yteethseek the
lobe, theybeginto gnaw at it ... Havingabsorbed the externalpartof
yourear /burstthe tympanum,/feelthe roundedhammer-bonerollteethcrush it,/findthe anvil and the stiring betweenm/ylips, m/y
"
rup-bone,/crunchthem (Wittig24).
55TheLondon theater,in the period "fromabout 1610 to about
in 1609,
1620, rejoicesin assertivewomen"(Woodbridge
244). Ifwritten
TheBloodyBanquetwouldstand on thethresholdofthisdevelopment;
Woodbridgesees thefirstanticipationsof it,in referencesto womenin
male attire,in 1606 and 1607.
WorksCited
Adelman,Janet. "'Anger'sMy Meat': Feeding,Dependency,and Aggressionin Coriolanus."Shakespeare: PatternofExcellingNature.
Ed. David Bevingtonand Jay L. Halio. Newark:U of Delaware P,
1978. 108-24.
Arber,Edward. A Transcript
of theRegistersof the Companyof Stationers of London 1554-1640. 5 vols. London and Birmingham:The
StationersCompany,1875-94.
*
Baird, Matthew. Collaboration of Thomas Dekker and Thomas
Middleton."B. Litt.thesis. OxfordUniversity,1928.
Bate, Jonathan,ed. TitusAndronicus.New ArdenShakespeare. London: Routledge,1995.
Bawcutt, N. W. The Controland Censorshipof CarolineDrama: The
RecordsofSirHenryHerbert,
MasteroftheRevels 1623-73. Oxford:
ClarendonPress, 1996.
Bentley,Gerald Eades. "JohnCotgrave'sEnglishTreasuryof Witand
Language and the Elizabethan Drama." Studies in Philology40
(1943): 186-203.

totheThirty-Nine
Articles
Bicknell,E. J.A TheologicalIntroduction
of the Churchof England, Rev. H. J. Carpenter. London:
Longman's,1955.
Booty,JohnE., ed. TheBook ofCommonPrayer1559: TheElizabethan
PrayerBook.Washington,D.C.: FolgerShakespeare Library,1976.
Boss, Pete."VileBodies and Bad Medicine."Screen 27 (Jan/Feb1986):
14-24.
Boyd, Brian. "CommonWords in TitusAndronicus:The Presence of
Peele." Notesand Queries247 (1995): 300-07.

41
Taylor
Dimensionin PuriBozeman,T. B. To LiveAncientLives: The Primitivist
tanism.Chapel Hill: U ofNorthCarolina P, 1988.
Brockbank, Philip, ed. Coriolanus. Arden Shakespeare. London:
Methuen,1976.
TheTextuality
ofContemporary
HorrorFilms."
Brophy,Philip."Horrality:
Screen27 (Jan/Feb1986): 2-13.
Brottman,Mikita.OffensiveFilms:TowardAn Anthropology
of Cinema
VomitifWestport:Greenwood,1997.
. Meat is Murder!An IllustratedGuide to Cannibal Culture.London: CreationBooks, 1998.
Brown,Christopher.Scenes ofEverydayLife:DutchGenrePaintingof
theSeventeenthCentury.London: Faber and Faber, 1994.
Burkert,Walter.CreationoftheSacred: TracksofBiologyin EarlyReligions. Cambridge,MA: HarvardUP, 1996.
Bushnell, Rebecca W. Tragediesof Tyrants:PoliticalThoughtand Theaterin theEnglishRenaissance. Ithaca: CornellUP, 1990.
Bynum,CarolineWalker.HolyFeast and HolyFast: The ReligiousSignificanceof Food to Medieval Women.Berkeley:U of CaliforniaP,
1987.
Calvin,John. Institutesof the ChristianReligion.Ed. JohnT. McNeill.
Trans. FordLewisBattles.2 vols. Philadelphia:Westminster
, 1960.
Carroll,Noel. ThePhilosophyofHorror,orParadoxes of theHeart.New
York: Routledge,1990.
. A PhilosophyofMass Art.Oxford:Clarendon,1998.
Chambers,E. K., ed. "DramaticRecords:The Lord Chamberlain'sOffice."Collections:Vol.II. PartIII.Gen. ed. W. W. Greg.Oxford:Malone
Society,1931. 321-416.
Clover,Carol. Men,Womenand ChainSaws: Genderin theModernHorrorFilm.Princeton:PrincetonUP, 1992.
Cole, GeorgeWatson. "BibliographicalGhosts/ Papers of the BibliographicalSocietyofAmerica13 (1919): 98-1 12.
Cotgrave,John, ed. The English Treasuryof Witand Language, ColPoems.
lectedOutofthemost,and best ofourEnglishDrammatick
London: HumphreyMoseley,1655.
Film,Feminism,
Creed,Barbara. TheMonstrous-Feminine:
Psychoanalysis. NewYork:Routledge,1993.
Daileader, Celia R. Eroticismon theRenaissance Stage: Transcendence,
Desire, and the Limitsof the Visible.Cambridge,UK: Cambridge
UP, 1998.
Dekker, Thomas. The DramaticWorks.Ed. Fredson Bowers. 4 vols.
Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUP, 1953-61.
Dessen, Alan C, and Leslie Thomson.A Dictionaryof Stage Directions
inEnglishDrama 1580-1642. Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUP, 1999.
Dickinson,Emily.TheCompletePoems.Boston: Little,Brown,and Co.,
1960.
Dolan, Frances.DangerousFamiliars:Representations
ofDomesticCrime
in England,1550-1700. Ithaca: CornellUP, 1994.
Dyer, Richard. "Male Gay Porn: Comingto Terms."JumpCut no. 30
(1985): 27-29.
Elliott,WardE. Y., and RobertJ. Valenza. "AndThenThereWereNone:
Winnowingthe Shakespeare Claimants." Claremont:Claremont
McKenna College, 1996.

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1
Fischer,Sandra K. Econolingua:A GlossaryofCoinsand EconomicLanguage in Renaissance Drama. Newark:U ofDelaware P, 1985.
Freud, Sigmund. The StandardEditionof the CompletePsychological
Works.Tr. James Strachey et al. 24 vols. London:Hogarth,195574.
Gay, EdwinF. "The MidlandsRevoltand The InquisitionsofDepopulationof 1607." TransactionsoftheRoyalHistoricalSociety18 (1904):
195-244.
Gehr,Richard."Splatterpunk/VillageVoiceFeb. 6, 1990: 57-58.
Girard,Rene. Violenceand theSacred.Tr. PatruickGregory.Baltimore:
Johns HopkinsUP, 1977.
Worksof ThomasDekker.5 vols.
Grosart,A. B., ed. The Non-Dramatic
NewYork: Russell & Russell, 1963.
Gurr, Andrew. The Shakespearian Playing Companies. Oxford:
Clarendon,1996.
Hanafi,Zakiya. The Monsterin theMachine:Magic,Medicine,and the
Marvelousin the Timeof the ScientificRevolution.Durham: Duke
UP, 2000.
Harbage,Alfred.Annals ofEnglishDrama. Rev. S. Schoenbaum. London: Methuen,1964.
Harrison,C. J. "GrainPriceAnalysisand HarvestQualities,1465-1634/
Agricultural
HistoryReview 19 (1971): 135-55.
Henderson,KatherineUsher,and Barbara F. McManus. HalfHumankind: Contextsand Textsof the Controversy
about Womenin England, 1540-1640. Chicago: U ofIllinoisP, 1985.
EditionoftheBodleianManuHerbert,George.The Temple:A Diplomatic
script(Tanner307). Ed. MarioA. Di Cesare. Binghamton:Medieval
and Renaissance Textsand Studies, 1995.
Holaday,Allan,gen. ed. ThePlays ofGeorgeChapman:The Tragedies.
Cambridge:D. S. Brewer,1987.
Hoskins, W. G. "HarvestFluctuationsand English EconomicHistory
1480-1619/ Agricultural
HistoryReview 12 (1964): 28-46.
. "Harvest Fluctuations and English Economic History16201759/ Agricultural
HistoryReview16 (1968): 15-31.
Hunt,Arnold."The Lord's Supper in EarlyModernEngland/ Past and
Present161 (1998): 39-83.
Middletonand Shakespeare.
Jackson, MacD. P. Studies in Attribution:
Salzburg Studies in English Literature,79. Salzburg: Institutfur
1979.
Anglistikund Amerikanistik,
Jackson, MacD. P. "Stage Directionsand Speech Headings in Act I of
TitusAndronicusQ (1594): Shakespeare or Peele?" StudiesinBibliography49 (1996): 134-48.
Jones,Jeanne. FamilyLifein ShakespearefsEngland: Stratford-uponAvon 1570-1630. Shakespeare BirthplaceTrust,1996.
Jones-Davies,M. T. UnPeintrede la VieLondonienne:ThomasDekker.
Etudes Anglaisesno. 6. Paris: Didier, 1958.
Kristeva,Julia. Powers of Horror:An Essay on Abjection.Trans. Leon
S. Roudiez. NewYork:Columbia UP, 1982.
Lake, David. The Canon of ThomasMiddleton'sPlays. Cambridge,UK:
CambridgeUP, 1975.
Larkin,James F., and Paul L. Hughes,ed. StuartRoyalProclamations.
VolumeI: RoyalProclamationsofKingJames1 1603-1625. Oxford:
Clarendon,1973.
42

43
Taylor
a
Lawrence,W. J. Found: A MissingJacobean Dramatist."TimesLiterary Supplement(23 March 1922): 191.
Leinwand,Theodore M. "RedeemingBeggary/
Buggeryin Michaelmas
Term."ELH 61 (1994): 53-70.
Loraux,Nicole.aSur la race des femmeset quelques-unesde ses tribus."
Arethusa11 (1978): 43-87.
Maxwell,J. C, ed. TitusAndronicus.Arden Shakespeare. London:
Methuen,1953, rev. 1961.
McClure, N. E., ed. The Lettersand Epigramsof Sir JohnHarington.
Philadelphia:U ofPennsylvaniaP, 1930.
The Reign of King
McElwee,William.The WisestFool in Christendom:
JamesI and VI.London: Faber and Faber, 1958.
Middleton,Thomas. The CollectedWorks.Gen. ed. Gary Taylor. Oxford:OxfordUP, 2001.
Miller,WilliamIan. "Gluttony."
Representations60 (1997): 92-112.
Montaigne,Michel de. Essayes. Trans. John Florio. 3 vols. London:
Edward Blount, 1603; rpt. 1928.
Nashe, Thomas. Works.Ed. R. B. McKerrow.5 vols. Oxford:Basil
Blackwell,1966.
Articles:A ConversationwithTuO'Donovan, Oliver.On theThirty-Nine
Exeter:Paternoster,1986.
dor Christianity.
totheWorthy
Pemble,William.An Introduction
ReceivingtheSacrament
1631.
London:
the
Lords
Supper.
of
Penn, C. D. The NavyundertheEarly Stuartsand its Influenceon EnglishHistory.London: Cornmarket,1913.
Pettet,E. C. uCoriolanusand the Midlands Insurrectionof 1607."
Shakespeare Survey3 (1950): 34-42.
Pinedo,Isabel Cristina.RecreationalTerror:Womenand thePleasures
ofHorrorFilmViewing.Albany:State U ofNewYorkP, 1997.
Rhodes,Neil.ElizabethanGrotesque.London:Routledgeand KeganPaul,
1980.
Rickey,MaryEllen, and Thomas B. Stroup,ed. HomiliesAppointedTo
Be Read in ChurchesIn the Timeof Queen ElizabethI, 1547-1571.
Gainesville:U ofFloridaP, 1968.
Robertson,JohnM. Did Shakespeare WriteTitusAndronicus'?A Study
London:Wattsand Co., 1905.
in ElizabethanLiterature.
Sawyer,Edmund, ed. MemorialsofAffairsof State in the reignsof Q.
Elizabethand K. JamesI, collected(chiefly)
fromtheoriginalpapers
3
Sir
vols. London:T. Ward,
the
Honourable
Winwood.
Ralph
of Right
1725.
Schoenbaum,S., ed. TheBloodyBanquet Oxford:MaloneSociety,1962.
Sedgwick,Eve Kosofsky.Between Men: English Literatureand Male
HomosocialDesire. NewYork:Columbia UP, 1985.
Seneca. Thyestes.Trans. Jasper Heywood.Ed. Joost Daalder. New
Mermaids.NewYork:W. W. Norton,1982.
Shakespeare,William.TheCompleteWorks.Gen. ed. StanleyWellsand
GaryTaylor.Oxford:OxfordUP, 1986.
Singer,Peter.PracticalEthics.Cambridge,UK: CambridgeUP, 1993.
Slack, Paul. Povertyand Policyin Tudorand StuartEngland. London:
Longman,1988.
Stallybrass, Peter. "Reading the Body and the Jacobean Theater of
Consumption."StagingtheRenaissance: Reinterpretations
ofEliza-

TheJournal
forEarlyModernCulturalStudies1.1
bethan and Jacobean Drama. Ed. David Scott Kastan and Peter
Stallybrass.NewYork:Routledge,1991. 210-20.
Stead, Jennifer.aBowers of Bliss: The Banquet Setting/Banqueting
e: TheFare and SocialBackgroundoftheTudorand StuartBanStuff
quet. Ed. C. Anne Wilson.Edinburgh:EdinburghUP, 1991. 11557.
Stow,John.Annales,or,A generallchronicleofEngland.Rev. Edmund
Howes. London: RichardMeighen,1631.
Tarlinskaja, Marina. Shakespeare's Verse:IambicPentameterand the
Poet's Idiosyncracies.NewYork:PeterLang, 1987.
Taylor,Gary. "The Canon and Chronologyof Shakespeare's Plays."
StanleyWells, GaryTaylor,et al. WilliamShakespeare: A Textual
Companion.Oxford:Clarendon,1987. 69-144.
. "Bardicide."Shakespeare and CulturalTraditions:The Selected
ShakespeareAssociationWorldConProceedingsoftheInternational
gress, Tokyo,1991. Ed. Tetsuo Kishi, RogerPringle,and Stanley
Wells. Newark:U of Delaware P, 1994. 333-49.
. "Shakespeare and Others:The Authorshipof 1 HenryVI" Medieval and Renaissance Drama in England 7(1995): 179-82.
. "FeelingBodies/ Shakespeare and the Twentieth
Century:The
Selected Proceedingsof theInternational
Shakespeare Association
WorldCongress,Los Angeles, 1996. Ed. Jonathan Bate, Jill. L.
Levenson,and Dieter Mehl. Newark:U of Delaware P, 1998. 25879.
. Castration:An AbbreviatedHistoryof WesternManhood.New
York:Routledge,2000.
. "ThomasMiddleton,Thomas Dekker,and TheBloodyBanquet."
Papers oftheBibliographical
SocietyofAmerica94 (2000): 197-234.
Taylor,Gary, and John Jowett.Shakespeare Reshaped 1606-1623.
Oxford:Clarendon,1993.
and
Tilley,M. P. A DictionaryoftheProverbsinEnglandin theSixteenth
SeventeenthCenturies.AnnArbor:U ofMichiganP, 1950.
Traub, Valerie. Desire and Anxiety: Circulations of Sexuality in
Shakespearean Drama. London: Routledge,1992.
theHolyEucharist,and thePopishBreadenTuke,Thomas. Concerning
God. London: 1625. Ed. A. B. Grosart.Miscellanies."Printedfor
PrivateCirculation,"1872.
Vickers, Nancy. "Diana Described: Scattered Woman and Scattered
Rhyme."CriticalInquiry8 (1981): 265-79.
Warner,William.Syrinx,orA SevenfoldHistory.Ed. Wallace A. Bacon.
Evanston: Northwestern
UP, 1950.
NewShakespeare.Cambridge,
Wilson,JohnDover,ed. TitusAndronicus.
UK: CambridgeUP, 1948.
Wittig,Monique. TheLesbian Body.Trans. David Le Bay. Boston:Beacon, 1975.
Wood,Robin. HollywoodfromVietnamtoReagan. NewYork:Columbia
UP, 1986.
and
Woodbridge,Linda. Womenin theEnglishRenaissance: Literature
theNatureofWomankind,
1540-1620. Urbana: U ofIllinoisP, 1984.
Yeager, R. F. "Aspectsof Gluttonyin Chaucer and Gower."Studies in
Philology81 (1984): 42-55.
London:GeorgePhilip,
Young,Alan. Tudorand JacobeanTournaments.
1987.
44

45
Taylor
Zimmerman,Susan. "MarginalMan: The Representationof Horrorin
NewEssays on Renaissance
Renaissance Tragedy."Discontinuities:
Literatureand Culture.Ed. Viviana Comensoli and Paul Stevens.
Toronto:U ofTorontoP, 1998. 159-178.