No description available.

This thesis examines spectrality in Elizabethan literature, focusing on the ghost as a figuration of disjuncture within contemporary constructions of the dead. Taking account of the cultural unease and uncertainties about the afterlife generated during the Reformation, I explore how particular conceptualizations of the dead manifest instabilities that move the figure of the ghost into the disturbing role of the spectre. The literature I examine ranges from Elizabethan translations of Seneca and key theological treatises to examples of the English revenge tragedy produced by Shakespeare, Marston, and Chettle. In drawing upon this cross-section of work, I highlight the resonances between varying forms of spectrality in order to explore ways in which the ghost incorporates, but also exceeds, the theatre’s requirement for dramatic excess. It thus becomes clear that the presence of the spectre extends beyond the immediate purposes of particular writers or genres to expose a wider disruption of the relation between, and ontologies of, the living and the dead. The theoretical apparatus for this project is drawn primarily from deconstruction and psychoanalytic theory, with attention to the uncanny as an area in which the two intersect and overlap. These modes of analysis usefully highlight areas of disturbance and slippage within the linguistic and conceptual structures by which the living and dead are defined and understood. In adopting this approach, I aim to expand upon and complicate existing scholarship concerning the figure of the ghost in relation to sixteenth-century theological, philosophical, mythological, and popular discourses and traditions. I do so by demonstrating that the emergence of the uncanny arises through a culturally specific haunting of the form and language of Elizabethan treatments of the dead. The spectre thereby emerges as a figure that is as much the product as the cause of instabilities and erosion within the Elizabethan construction and containment of the dead.

The essay presents the scholarly controversy over the correct attribution of the works by “Shakespeare”. The main alternative author is Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford. 16th century conventions allowed noblemen to write poetry or drama only for private circulation. To appear in print, such works had to be anonymous or under pseudonym. Overtly writing for public theatre, a profitable business, would have been a degrading conduct. Oxford’s contemporary fame as an author is little matched by known works. Great gaps in relevant sources indicate that documents concerning not only his person and authorship but also the life of Shakspere from Stratford, the alleged author, have been deliberately eliminated in order to transfer the authorship, for which the political authority of the Elizabethan and Jacobean autocratic society had motive and resources enough. A restored identity would imply radical redating of plays and poems.                       To what extent literature is autobiographical, or was in that age, and whether restoring a lost identity from written works is legitimate at all, are basic issues of the debate, always implying tradition without real proof versus circumstantial evidence. As such arguments are incompatible, both sides have incessantly missed their targets. The historical conditions for the sequence of events that created the fiction, and its main steps, are related. Oxford will be in focus, since most old and new evidence for making a case has reference to him. The views of the two parties on different points are presented by continual quoting from representative recent works by Shakespeare scholars, where the often scornful tone of the debate still echoes. It is claimed that the urge for concrete results will make the opinion veer to the side that proves productive and eventually can create a new coherent picture, but better communication between the parties’ scholars is called for. / Literary Degree Project