Intertexts

Paper-doll Queen Christel Johnson U N I V E R S I T Y O F S O U T H C A R O L I N A As the child of amonarch, Elizabeth had achildhood that was in most regards particular.Taken from her mother’s care at amost tender age, Eliza¬ beth was sent to her own household in Hatfield where her humanist educa¬ tionbeganunderthecareofCatherine(Kate)ChampernonandWilliam Grindal.MasteryofvariouslanguageswasessentialtoElizabeth’scurricu¬ lum.HercommandofLatin,Greek,French,Italian,andSpanishwasof such high caliber that she composed and conversed freely in each language. Shealso,ofcourse,readtextsintheselanguageswithgreatease,andwasa skilled translator of Latin and Greek literature.^ Out of her interactions wth theseworksQueenElizabethIgleanedinspirationforhercarefullycrafted identity.Fourstereotypes,domina,vir£fin,mater,andmeretrix,constitute theskeletonofQueenElizabeth’spersona.Thesestereotypesofferaglimpse of Elizabeth’s manipulation of classical iconography, and laid the foundation uponwhichshecraftedhercontroversial,yetconvincingidentity.Likea paperdoll,uponwhichonemaylayerasingleidentityoneafteranother,the queentookvariouspiecesoffourstereotypesfoundinclassicaltexts,om ina-virgin-mater-meretrix,andwrappedthemoneupontheothertoasion herownparticularvoice.Asbothmonarchandwoman,Elizabethpuse theboundariesofthesestereotypesbeyondthelimitsconstructedforem in earlier texts. Elizabethrecognizedtheimportanceoftheartsandwasavaliantsup¬ porterofdramaticart,literature,andfinearts.Cognizantoftheinfluence theartswieldedoverthegeneralpublic,shestrovetosteadilymaintaincon¬ trolofthemwhilealloviangspaceforcreativeexpression.Accordingto SheilaFfolliott,oneareainwhichshecravedcompletecontrolwasroyal portraiture(166-67).Shetookapersonalinterest“inhowshewasrepre¬ sented, insisting upon the trappings and appearance of majesty taking prece¬ denceoveranyattemptatrealism”(Weir238).Thequeenhadtobe presentedasotherworldlyandnever-changing;hermottoafterallwasSem¬ perEadem(alwaysthesame).Tracesofthedomina-virgin-mater-meretrix stereotypesmaybefoundinthethreeportraitstobeexaminedinthisessay; the 1569 painting attributed to The Monogrammist Hans Eworth, Eliza¬ beth Iand the Three Goddesses-, the 1579 portrait by George Gower, The Plimpton ‘^Sieve^ Portrait of Queen Elizabeth I; and aparchment from 1603 titled Elizabethan Conceit. These works, produced over the course of Eliza¬ beth’sreign,aresymptomaticoftheever-changingpositionof-womaninthe Symbolic (the dominant system of rules and codes) that traditionally sup¬ presses the marginalized feminine voice Intertexts, Vol. 11, No. 12007 ©Texas Tech University Press 4 4 I N T E R T E X T S The theoretical foundation of this work rests upon that of Jacques Lacan, specifically his conception of the Real, Imaginary, and Symbolic as they stem from the mirror stage. The texts of Julia Kristeva, pupil of Lacan and practicing analyst, also inform the arguments which follow. Simply stated, the Imaginary is amoment in life absent from desire, absent from lack. The introduction of language draws the individual into the Symbolic order which governs all measures of subjectivity. The Real is that which can¬ not be expressed through manipulation of the Symbolic’s rules. It envelops all and is ever-present. The Symbolic is not static and may be changed, but only from vtithin. In Revolution in Poetic Lan^ua^e, Kristeva discusses the semiotic and its relationship to the Symbolic. Here she calls their relation¬ ship a, dialectic. The term dialectic implies abattle of sorts. The semiotic rep¬ resents physical drives imprinted upon the subject, while the Symbolic names the more abstract use of language. It is important to move beyond a discussion of these in terms of abinary opposition. Kristeva stands upon the edge of this but never fills in the gap. Ipropose that in order to push the Symbolic toward change, the semiotic and Symbolic are part of atrian£iulum \ the third position in this structure is X“pa (chora).^ Chora is the space in which something rests, and according to Plato it is aspace that is not determinedbycategories;itmaybefilledwithvarioussortsofthings(22e, 23b,52a-d,53a,57b,58a,79d,82a,83a).Forexample,womanmayfillthe space in the Symbolic through different means of representation while still maintaining her essential womaness.‘^ The relationship is less about the strug¬ glebetweensemiotic/Symbolicandmoreabouttheirnegotiationinan attempt to fill the gaps (xcSpas) contained within the bubble-of-being. This bubbleisenvelopedbytheReal,butthereoccurrenceofxtopasinsidethe bubblesignalsthedriveforchange.Ultimatelythistriangulumbecomesa quadralateral. This evolution occurs at the introduction of the thetic phase. The thetic marks the moment of signification and serves as aboundary betweenthesemioticandSymbolic.ItistheinstantinwhichtheSymbolic foldsbackuponitself,therebycreatingaspaceinwhichanewstruggleof representation may occur. InherdiscussionofKristeva’stheoryofsubjectformation,ShariBenstockrepeatedlyusestheterm “semioticchora,”(23-46).However,Icon¬ siderthechoraafunctionofthesemiotic,notoneinthesame.Thestructure that results from the interaction of the Symbolic/semiotic/thetic/chora is not linear, because the Real hovers above all interactions. The result is a pyramid (Fig. A): These positions are interdependent; they are not fixed.As aresult, var¬ ious pyramids unite to form a“bubble of subjectivity” that is in constant motion (Fig. B). It is impossible for these positions to exist apart from one another (Benstock 32; Kristeva 43^5, 68-71). The equation of subject for¬ mation requires their...