Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T13:41:10.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Eight Animals in Shakespeare; or, Before the Human

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Laurie Shannon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The poverty of the single-digit sum in my title, I trust, raises a brow. After all, the ubiquity of those we conventionally shepherd into the enclosure of the term animals stands out as a feature of both Shakespearean material and early modern texts generally. The animal footprints in this archive result from the frequency with which early moderns encountered living and butchered animals in their daily routines. Hardly an urban, rural, or domestic scene was painted without them. For illustration, Jan van der Heyden's cityscape of Amsterdam's main public square dramatizes the civic visibility of dogs and horses (alongside the town hall and the New Church) and muddies any distinction between beasts of burden and creatures of leisure—especially beneath that vast early modern sky (see next page). In a prescient intimation of modernity, Thomas More's Utopia imagined a noncitizen, butchering class performing its labors, deemed too brutal for citizens to witness, out of sight (75). Early modern humans had more contact with more animals than most of us now do. For a species with weak ears and a terrible nose, out of sight is out of mind.

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Information
PMLA , Volume 124 , Issue 2 , March 2009 , pp. 472 - 479
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

“Animal.” The Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. Print.Google Scholar
John, Berger. “Why Look at Animals?” About Looking. New York: Pantheon, 1980. 3–30. Print.Google Scholar
The Bible: That Is, the Holy Scriptures Conteined in the Olde and New Testament. 1560. London: Barker, 1587. Print.Google Scholar
Ronald, Bond, ed. Certain Sermons or Homilies (1547). Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1987. Print.Google Scholar
Matthew, Calarco. Zoographies: The Question of the Animal from Heidegger to Derrida. New York: Columbia UP, 2008. Print.Google Scholar
“California Proposition 2 (2008).” Ballotpedia. Ballotpedia, 15 Dec. 2008. Web. 18 May 2009.Google Scholar
Coetzee, J. M. The Lives of Animals. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2001. Print.Google Scholar
Steven, Connor. Thinking Perhaps Begins There: The Question of the Animal. Connor, n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2009.Google Scholar
Jacques, Derrida. “The Animal That Therefore I Am (More to Follow).” Trans. David Wills. Critical Inquiry 28.2 (2002): 369–418. Print.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. Discourse on the Method for Conducting One's Reason Well and for Seeking Truth in the Sciences. Trans. Donald A. Cress. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998. Print.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. Philosophical Essays and Correspondence. Ed. Ariew, Roger. Indianapolis: Hackett, 2000. Print.Google Scholar
Donna, Haraway. The Haraway Reader. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print.Google Scholar
Hyland, J. R. God's Covenant with Animals: A Biblical Basis for Humane Treatment of All Creatures. Brooklyn: Lantern, 2000. Print.Google Scholar
Lupton, Julia Reinhard. “Creature Caliban.” Shakespeare Quarterly 51.1 (2000): 1–23. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, More. Utopia. Ed. Surtz, Edward. New Haven: Yale UP, 1964. Print.Google Scholar
Brian, Ogilvie. The Science of Describing: Natural History in Renaissance Europe. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006. Print.Google Scholar
Parrish, Susan Scott. American Curiosity: Cultures of Natural History in the Colonial British Atlantic World. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P, 2006. Print.Google Scholar
Paster, Gail Kern. Humoring the Body: Emotions and the Shakespearean Stage. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2004. Print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olaf, Pedersen. The Two Books: Historical Notes on Some Interactions between Natural Science and Theology. South Bend: Vatican Observatory Foundation; Notre Dame UP, 2007. Print.Google Scholar
Eric, Santner. On Creaturely Life: Rilke, Benjamin, Sebald. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006. Print.Google Scholar
Londa, Schiebinger. Plants and Empire: Colonial Bioprospecting in the Atlantic World. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2004. Print.Google Scholar
William, Shakespeare. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. Ed. Bevington, David. 5th ed. New York: Pearson, 2004. Print.Google Scholar
Laurie, Shannon. “Invisible Parts: Animals and the Renaissance Anatomies of Human Exceptionalism.” Animal Encounters. Ed. Tyler, Tom and Rossini, Manuela. Leiden: Brill, 2009. 137–57. Print.Google Scholar
Laurie, Shannon. Poor, Bare, Forked: Animal Sovereignty, Human Negative Exceptionalism, and the Natural History of King Lear.“ Shakespeare Quarterly 60.2 (2009): 168–96. Print.Google Scholar
Martin, Spevack. A Complete and Systematic Concordance to the Works of Shakespeare. Hildesheim: Olms, 1968–80. Print. 9 vols.Google Scholar