'TisPityShe'sAWhore

byLisaHopkins

7:NewDirections:TheDeconstructing
TisPity?:Derrida,BarthesandFord
MarkHoulahan
AtthefamousclimaxofTisPity,Giovannientersthelastsceneoftheplayand,ashe
knows,hislife,withaheartuponhisdagger,withwhichbeheartedimplementhestabs
hisenemyandbrotherinlawSoranzo,beforehimselfbeingfatallystabbedintheensuing
melee.Theheart,itseems,isAnnabellas,removedfromherafterGiovannisloving,
surgicalsacrificeofhispregnantsister/wifeinthescenebefore.Theseemshereis
crucial,foratfirstthisisnotclear,neithertotheonstageaudience,waitingforGiovannito
arriveatthebanquet,nortoanaudiencewatchingtheplayorthosereadingit.The
eloquentGiovanniexultsinprovidingtheexplanationtobothgroups.Tobegin,hesounds
likeadilettantewhohasreadrathertoomanypoemsbyJohnDonne,whoseSongsand
Sonetswasalsopublishedin1633:[]Idiggdforfood|Inamuchricherminethangold
orstone|Ofanyvaluebalancd[][1]GiovannisrhetorichereisclosetoDonnesatthe
openingofLovesAlchymie:SomethathavedeeperdiggdlovesMynethenI,|Say,
wherehiscentriquehappinessedothlie:Ihavelovd,andgotandtold[].[2]
Giovannisproclamationisobscure,soheclarifiesthereferent,inagesticmomentaligning
hisgruesomepropwiththefollowing:tisaheart,|Aheart,mylords,inwhichismine
entombed[]|TisAnnabellasheart,tiswhydyestartle?(V.vi.2430).Thisisperhaps
themostoverdetermined,oversignifyingmomentinaplayredolentwithitsdebtstothe
priortraditionofrevengeandlovetragedyontheRenaissancestage.AsQuentinTarantino
assumesthatpostmodernviewerswillrecalltheHongKongcrimeepicsand1970s
blaxploitationfilmsheobsessivelyquotes,soFordassumeshis firstaudiencewillreadily
recallShakespearesOthello(whokillshiswifeforlove),Romeo(whodiesbesideshiswife
forlove)andHamlet,whoseeloquenceisnevermoreabundantthanwhenspeakingof
deathandlove.Giovanniisallthese.HeisTitus,arrivingataThyesteanfeast,determined
tokillandsofeastuponhisenemies.HeisalsoHieronimo,Kydsgreatanguished,
revengingheroinTheSpanishTragedy,aplaythatnoonewhosawitinearlymodern
London,itseems,everforgot.Hieronimostabshisenemy,andthenexciseshisown
tongue.Giovannidoesnotgothatfar,buttheninconventionalmoraltermshavingslept
with,impregnated,killedandanatomizedhissister,hehardlyneedsfurtheroutrageto
sensationalizehisstoryfortheaudience.Hisverbalandvisualexcesscanbeseentofulfil
thepotentialunleashedbyallthesepriortragicscenarios,whichGiovannihimselfappears
tohaveincludedinallthereadingforwhichFriarBonaventurachastiseshimatthe
beginningoftheplay:Disputenomoreinthis,forknow,youngman,|Thesearenoschool
points.Nicephilosophy|Maytolerateunlikelyarguments,|ButHeavenadmitsnojest[]
(I.i.14).Giovannisexcessissuch,however,thatfulfillingthatpotentialseemstoresultin
thosescenariosreferencingmultiplesourceplaysfromtheearlymoderntheatrecollapsing
ontopofeachotheramidstthefrenzyofbloodandsignificationwhichGiovannihimself
unleashes.Thingsarebynomeanswhattheysoluridlyappeartobe.ThemoreGiovanni
callsthemintobeingthroughlanguage,themorewordsandthingsareseveredonefrom
theother.TheobviouspointtobeginthinkingaboutthisprocessisthetipofGiovannis
dagger.Here,hetellsus,isnowperchedAnnabellasheart.
Heneedstoexplainthisheartforarangeofreasons.Firstly,heisproudofhisCaligulalike
skillatcarvinguphissister.Weirdlyenough,heseekstheapprovalofhisenemies.

137

Secondly,ifpresentedwithoneinitsdisembodiedstate,whichofus(cardiacspecialists
aside)couldtellonehumanheartfromanother?Thirdly,whateverweareledtogazeupon,
eitherliveonstage,orinthestageimaginaryofreadingtheplay,cannotsurelybewhat
Giovanniinsistsitis,unlessthatis,asCatherineSilverstoneremarksinherchapterinthis
volume,wearetoimagineatrulyrepugnantsnufftheatre.
Ifnottherealthing,whatwouldserveasitssimulation?Eitheramammalianbutnot
humanheart,freshanddrippingblood,Isuggest,oracompletesimulation,aharmlessly
luridsyntheticprop.Themoreyouthinkabouteitherkindofpropthelessrealeitherwill
seem,andthemorecognitivedissonancewillappearbetween Giovanniswordsand
deeds.HepromisestotheFriartomakehimselfandAnnabellaOnesoul,oneflesh,one
love,oneheart,oneall?(I.i.34).MichaelNeillhasbrilliantlyexpoundedthepotential
resonancebetweentheplayscardiacobsession,earlymodernanatomyandCatholic
doctrinesofthesacredheart.[3]FromNeillsperspective,Fordfulfilsthepotentialof
anatomytheatre,bringingemblemsofthehearttovividstagelife.Fromtheperspectiveof
deconstruction,however,itcanbeseenthatFordonlyappearstodoso.Ratheritcanbe
seenthat,inafurthermove,Fordturnsthosetermsinsideout,renderingthem
incompatible.TheverybrillianceofFordsstagingandrhetoricundoesitself.Oneheartis
playedbynoheartatall.Thescorebecomesnilall.Thisthenisthetrulystrangeriddle
(V.vi.29)inquiredintobyVasques(Soranzosservingman)andisthentherealbasisfor
themocking,tendentioushollownessoftheCardinalslines,nowsofamousasthetitleof
theplayitself.Thefirstpublishedtextoftheplayusestheemergingcapacityofprint
culturetogesturetowardsthis,literallyunspeakable,hollowness.Iwillcomebacktothese
lines,aswellastotheplaysverythoroughpreparingofthegroundsofitsownundoing.
ButfirstIwilldealwiththeissueofwhatwemightmeanbydeconstruction.
Todeconstructatext,OEDtellsus,istoanalyseandreinterpretinaccordancewiththe
strategyassociatedwithJacquesDerrida,[4]inotherwordstofollowthroughthe
implicationsoftheepochalreadingsofphilosophicalandethnographictextsDerrida
initiatedinWritingandDifferenceandOfGrammatologyinthe1960s.[5]Deconstruction,
sincethe1960s,hasbecomeafashionableallpurposesignifier.AsthefirstOEDcitation
fordeconstructionismremarksaslongagoas1980,thecoincidenceofvulgarwitherudite
deconstructionismisacircumstanceworthremarking.[6]Iwillcallthesetwoformsweak
andstrongdeconstruction.Thesecoexistincurrentdiscourseinawaythatisemblematic
ofDerridasunderlyingmethod.Forweakdeconstructionislazy,almostflippant,yet
prevalent.Strongdeconstruction,atitsbest,incontrast,isunrelentingandexhaustingto
conductandtoassimilate.Sinceitcanbefoundinfewerbooksandarticles,itis
numericallymuchweakerthanitsinferiorsibling.Weakdeconstructionabounds.
Customaryusersoftheterminitsweaksenseusuallyintendtodeconstructasignsystem
oraculturalpractice.TheirmeaningiswellsummedupbytheMerriamWebster
Dictionary,theAmericanequivalentoftheOED,whichgivesfordeconstructtoadaptor
separatetheelementsforuseinanironicorradicallynewway,offeringalovelyexample
fromAmericanVogueofsomeone whouseshismasterlytailoringtodeconstructthe
classics.[7]Intermsofthefashionindustry,VivienneWestwoodisafamousexampleof
someonewhothusdeconstructspriorstyles,adapting,forexample,elementsof
eighteenthcenturycouture,inanironicorradicallynewway.Intermsofculturalor
semioticanalysis,theessaysonFrenchcultureRolandBarthespioneeredinhis
Mythologies,ortheaccountsofglobalmediacultureUmbertoEcooffersinhisTravelsin
Hyperrealityworklikewisetowardsaradical,detached,ironiccritiqueoftheoperationsof
culture.Theydeconstruct,theydisrupt,thebourgeoissurfaceofmodernwestern
lifestyles.Inthisweakersense,Fordinhisplaycanbesaidtodeconstructtheearly
moderndynasticfamilyunit,andtheholdoftheCatholicChurchonRenaissanceItaly.
Whenliterary/aestheticanalysislikewisedeconstructs,mostoftenitaimstodecode,
analyseandcritique.
Initsstrongerandmorechallengingform,however,analysinginaccordancewiththe
strategyassociatedwithJacquesDerridarequiresagooddealmorefromits
practitioners,thoseattempting,ashere,toreadinhisname.Derridawasatrained
philosopher.Inhismostcelebratedandinfluential1960sworksheapproacheskeytextsin
thewesternphilosophicaltraditionfromalinguisticperspectiveshowinghow,bypaying
ruthlesslyliteralattentiontoallatextsays,andreadingitsmetaphoricalfiguresasintrinsic
toitsethicalthought,itcannotreallymeanwhatithasoftenbeenheldtomean.This
readingprocedureisderivedfromtheworkofFerdinanddeSaussuresCourseinGeneral
Linguistics,perhapsthemostinfluentiallinguisticstextbookeverwritten.Thelinguisticsign,
Saussurefamouslytellsus,isdividedintotwoparts:thesignifier,orsoundconcept,and

138

139

thething,orideasignified.Wegraspthesignifiedbydecodingthesignifier.Signifiers,in
turn,canbegraspedbytheirdifferencefromeachother.Therelationshipbetweenthe
signifieranditssignifiedisarbitrary:thereisnofundamental,absoluterelationshipbetween
signifierandsignified.Rather,commonunderstandingwithinlanguagegroupsallows
meaningtotakeplaceor,inDerridasterms,appeartohavedoneso.Asinglesignifier,
suchascat,inEnglish,hasacomparablesignifierinFrench(chat),Italian(gatto)and
soon.Therelationshipbetweenthesesignifiersisanarbitrarysystemofdifferences.
Nowonecannotdomuchwithasinglearbitrarynoun,orevenseveralofthem,beyond
writingareaderfornewentrantsinprimaryschools,asinthefamousDrSeussbookThe
CatintheHat.Formorecomplexsignification,suchas,forexample,constructingor
enactingarivetingRenaissancerevenge/loveplay,youwould obviouslyneedmore
complexandextensivecollectionsofsignifiers.Thesetoooperatethroughreadersor
audiencememberslocatingmeaningorsignificationbyunderstandingthedifference
betweenthetermsmadeavailabletothem.

140

Intherealworld,where,forexample,onemustcallandfeedcatsreliablylesttheysuffer,
thesystemoflinguisticdifferenceSaussurespecifiesisarbitraryyetfixed.Thatis,weallow
ittoappeartobefixedinordertoallowcommonsensecommunicationtotakeplace.
Derridabegstodiffer.InhisrereadingofSaussureheshowsthattherelationshipbetween
signifierandsignifiedisperpetuallyunreliable,perpetuallyopeningagap,aporiaorabyss
betweenthetwohalvesofthesign.Theinevitabledifferencebetweenthetwohalvesof
Saussureansignsmeansthatmeaningisperpetuallydeferredordiffered.HenceDerridas
famouscoinage

difference(differenceinFrench,combiningthemeaningsofdifferenceand
deferral)tocharacterizethoseaspectsofunderstanding,[whichhe]proposed
[]layattheheartoflanguageandthought,atworkinallmeaningfulactivities
inanelusiveandprovisionalway.[8]

OneofthethingsthatmakesTisPityespeciallyavailableoropentoadeconstructive
readingisthewayitattemptstoliteralizeorembodywhatliesattheheartoflanguageand
thought,what,inanothercontext,GrahamGreenenamedTheHeartoftheMatter,orwhat
inTheWastelandT.S.Eliotevokesasbeingtheheartoflightthesilence.[9]
AtthisheartDerridaperceivesnotultimate,fixedmeaningbutonlyelusiveand
provisionaldifference,arealmsomethinglikethatdepictedintheopeningoftheBookof
Genesisbeforethecreationoftheworld,when,inthewordsoftheKingJamesBible,the
earthwaswithoutformandvoid,anddarknesswasuponthefaceofthedeep(Gen.1:2).
TheseversesareacrucialzoneofdifferenceinDerridasreadingpractice,forthey
enunciatewithinthezonewithoutformandvoidaninterfacebetweenspeechandtext,
betweenthewrittenandtheoral.Genesis1isoneoftheoldestwrittentextsintheJudeo
Christiantraditionwepossess,passeddownfromscrolltoparchment,intoprintandnow
cyberspaceinaprocesscontinuoussincethefirstmanuscriptswereproducedaround900
BC.Yetthiswrittentext,whichthepeoplesofthebook(adherentstoJudaicandChristian
culturesandfaith)havepreservedforsolong,privilegesspeechoverthewrittenword,for
itisspeechwhich,inthevoiceofGod,createstheworld.Thewordis spoken,then,before
itiscommittedtotext.Thespokenwordisprimaryandessentialthewrittenisthe
secondary,proliferatingafterglowofspeech,thespeechwhichpromisesfullpresence.
Derridatracesthisdynamicnotthroughscripturedirectly,butratherthroughPlatos
Pharmakon.Writing,heinsists,ispriortospeechthewrittenunderpinstheoral,andnot
theotherwayround,assolonghadbeensupposed.Writing,unlikespeech,willnot
guaranteefullpresence,ratheritisgovernedbyformsofabsence.Thepreconditionof
discourse[]thedisappearanceofanyoriginarypresence,isatoncetheconditionof
possibilityandtheconditionofimpossibilityofuntruth.Andthisparadoxisthealways
shiftingheartofwriting,governedinturnbythegraphicsofsupplementarity,which
supplies,forthelackofafullunity,anotherunitthatcomestorelieveit,beingenoughthe
sameandenoughothersothatitcanreplacebyaddition.[10]
Writingandspeech,absenceandpresence,inDerridasterms,arelinked,dynamic
binaries.Asthisapproachinvitesustodisruptthesmoothlyuntroubledplayofdifference

141

Saussureevokes,so,overthelast40years,ithasseemed,Derridahasinvitedusto
disrupttruly,todeconstructtheorderlysurfaceofclassicalwriting.Thedisappearanceof
thegoodfathercapitalsunisthusthepreconditionofdiscourse.[11]Disruptingthepower
ofthefathersungodcomplexwhichhasgovernedwesternassumptionsaboutthepriority
anddivinityofspeechmightleadthenalsotoRolandBarthessfamousproclamationofthe
DeathoftheAuthor,whosedemisewouldrevealthatWritingisthatneutral,composite,
obliquespacewhereoursubjectslipsaway,thenegativewhereallidentityislost,starting
withtheveryidentityofthebodywriting.[12]Bartheswrotethesewordswithinthesame
culturalmomentasDerridawasdeconstructingPlato,whenBartheswastransforming
himselfintoaprotodeconstructionist,nearly15yearsbeforetheOEDcaughtsightofthe
terminprintinanEnglishtext.
ThecoremetaphorsDerridalinkstogetherinthephrasequoted,theformofthegood,the
father,thecapital(orhead,fromtheLatincaput)andthesuncomeundersustainedattack
throughoutTisPity.Theplay,intheseterms,canbeseentoinhabitsomethinglikethe
spiritofvehementplay(oftencalledNietzschean)whichbothBarthesandDerridabringto
theirplayfulyetearnestrereadingandrewritingsofliteraryandphilosophicaltradition,in
whichnomoment,nomark(grapheme)istoosmallforexamination[and]conflicts
betweenspeakingandwritingareinsinuated[]legalistic[]casuistic.[13]LikeFords
Giovannitheyaimedtodeconstructtheworldoftextssocomprehensivelythattheywould
cometoseempartofaworldturnedupsidedown.ThirtyyearsbeforeDerridaandBarthes,
theFrenchtheatrepractitionerandtheoristAntoninArtaudinhis1938essayTheatreand
thePlaguehaddivinedacomparablespiritinFordsplaywhenheclaimeditasonethat
upsetsoursensualtranquillity,releasesourrepressedsubconscious,drivesustoakindof
potentialrebellion,openingthedoorsofperceptionouttoarealmwherealltruefreedom
isdark,infalliblyidentifiedwithsexualfreedom,alsodark,withoutknowingexactlywhy.[14]
Artaudofcourseproposesafullypotent,essentializingreadingoftheplay.Whenhe
describestheplayhehas,asitwere,becomeGiovanni.Giovanniisadeconstructor,one
whodeconstructsthesocialfacadesofParma,hisfathersambitionsandhissistersbody.
Yetintermsofthebinaryproposedearlier,Giovanniisaweakdeconstructortheplaythat
containshim,Isuggest,hasawiderambit,deconstructinginturnGiovannisownpowerful
deconstructingenergies.Toseethis,wecanreturnwherewebegan,withAnnabellas
heart.

142

Thisclimacticcardiacmomentiscarefullyoverpreparedforthroughouttheplay,itstexture
constantlygesturingtowardswhatweareabouttoseeforwhich,theplayanticipates,we
willbedulyungrateful,nomatterhowwekeepoureyesfixedonwhattheunspeakable
Giovannitakessuchgleefulpainstoenunciate.Beforetheplaybegins,Giovanni,inhis
confessiontotheFriar,has[e]mptiedthestorehouseof[his]thoughtsandheart(I.i.14),
equatinghereheartwithsoul.Heseekstoreplenishtheheartthusemptiedthroughhis
unionwithAnnabella,sothatjoinedtogethertheymaybe[o]nesoul,oneflesh,onelove,
oneheart,oneall(I.i.34).HereagainGiovannisoundslikesomeonewhohasreadearly
modernlovepoetryveryattentively.Hisanatomizingattheendoftheplayshowsthathe
hasconductedhisreadinginanobsessivelyliteralway,linkingtenorwithvehicle,theliteral
andmetaphorical.TheseizureofAnnabellasheartissomethingsherapturouslyconsents
to,asshesurrenderstohimhercaptiveheart(I.ii.266).Thisfollowsthegesticmoment
whereGiovannioffersherthepriorrighttoanatomizehim:

GIOVANNI:
Here!Offershisdaggertoher
ANNABELLA:
Whattodo?
GIOVANNI:
Andheresmybreaststrikehome!
Ripupmybosomtherethoushaltbehold
AheartinwhichiswritthetruthIspeak.
(I.i.22831)

Theprocedureheurgeshereispreciselythathepractiseslater,andwhichhisenemy(and
[15]

143

double)[15]SoranzothreatenswhenhediscoversAnnabellaispregnanttofindthename
ofherlover,hecries,Illripupthyheart,|Andfinditthere(IV.iii.5253).[16]
Inthefictionoftheplay,GiovannithusripsupAnnabellasheartonbehalfofallthreeof
them,emptyingherstorehousebothofheartandtheembryoitwassupporting,thebetter
toexpressthevengefulanguishofhisownheart.Thisprovestobetooextremeatesting
ofthelinksbetweenpoeticmetaphorsoftheheart,thetheologyofthesacredheartof
Jesus(which,asMichaelNeillshows,Forddrawson)andtheheartitself.Theterms
engagedinGiovannisfinalgest,histableaulikeentranceintoV.vi,collapseontopofeach
other.Ifthepointoftheanatomywastobringthingstolight,thenGiovannisgesture
resultsinobscurity.Giovannisexitfromthescenebeforehintstowardsthis
disassemblage:Shrinknot,courageoushandstandup,myheart,|Andboldlyactmylast
andgreatestpart!(V.v.1056).ThetermsGiovanniusesherefoldbackuponthemselves.
Myheartinvokestheuseofheartasatermofendearmentandcompanionshipavailable
intheperiod,aswhen,muchearlierintheplay,GiovanniinstructsAnabellatokeepwell
myheart(II.i.32).Ashisheartcompanionordearfriend,sheshouldkeepwellashis
heart,sheshouldkeepwell,forwherewouldhebewithouthisheart?Herheartishisto
use,whichistheriddlecouchedwithinstandupmyhearthewillshortlybringthisphallic
commandtohisselfdevisedtheatreofrevenge,enteringwithaheartuponhisdagger,
holdingitbeforehimashisweapon.Thisnonheartunmakeshisenterprisetoachieve
fullnessofmeaningandselfactualizationinhisownplayslastscene.Fortheoneness
Giovannisoughtthroughthelanguageandactionoftheheartisratherareturnto
blanknessandnullity.CrashawsuggestsasmuchwithhisepigraphforFord:Thou
cheatstusFord,makstoneseemetwobyArt.|WhatisLovesSacrifice,butthebroken
Heart?[17]CrashawriddleswiththetitlesoftwootherFordplayswhichrevolvearound
sacrificialloveandgruesomelystageddeaths,implyingthatFordhasoutdonehisown
ingenuity,withallthreeplaysarticulatingoneandthesamething.Themammalian(or
otherwisecontrived)heartGiovanniisthencompelledtoprofferasametonymicsubstitute
forarealoneservestoundoallthisfuriousverbalandembodiedplaymaking,making
barealsotheemptinessoftheplays(andGiovannis)devicesforreadersandaudiences
alike.Giovanniistooflushedwithhistriumphstobeawareofthis,buttheplaycoolly
frameshisadolescentexcess.PerhapsthisistherealreasonwhyTomStoppardframed
hishit1982comedyTheReal ThingaroundasubplotwherehisheroineAnnietravelsto
GlasgowtostarasAnnabellainaproductionofTisPity.Thisseemstoplaypartlyasa
jokeagainsttheScottishhinterlands.[18]InScotland,Fordmightplayastherealthing,real
qualitytheatre,realemotionandloveinLondon,wheremostoftheplayissetandwhere
ofcourseitwasfirststaged,audienceswouldknowbetter.InDerrideantermstheywould
perceivetherecouldbethingsprofferedasprops,butthesecouldneverberealandthis
thingcalledlove,thepursuitofwhichbothFordandStoppardmakesocentral,would
remainelusivealso,nomatterhowpoeticallyorviscerallytheirinventedcharactersappear
tostriveforit.[19]
Threadingsoprofuselythroughtheplayandthecasttherhetoricoftheheartservesto
underlinethatelusiveness.Theplaymakesandthenunmakesitscentralverbalpremise.
WhatremainsisascenariothatisrepugnantifyoutakeGiovanniathiswordforwhathe
claimstohavedonetoAnnabellascorpseorridiculousifyouattendtothegapbetween
theseclaimsandtheenfeebledmeansbywhichanystageproductionmustgesture
towardsthem.Thecapacityofthetexttomakeandunmakeitselfrunsallthewaytothe
playslastcouplet,whichIwilldiscusslater.Itmakestheplayseemlikeasplendid
theatricalexampleofthekindofseventeenthcenturytextStanleyFishcallsSelf
ConsumingArtifacts.Inhisterms,toread(orwatch)theplayistouseitup,creatingan
interpretationinwhichtheworkdisappears,[20]sinceworkingthroughtheworkcreatesa
processwherebytheworkconfoundsitsownpremises.Inthisreading,Ford,notGiovanni,
emergesasthestrongerdeconstructor.NeitherFordnorGiovannimayhavereadWilliam
Harveysfamoustreatisepublishedin1628asExercitatioAnatomicadeMotuCordiset
SanguinisinAnimalibus(AnatomicalExercisesontheMotionoftheHeartandBloodin
Animals,itwaspublishedinEnglandin1653),butthecoincidenceissuggestive.Forin
demonstratingforthefirsttimehowbloodreallydidcirculatefromtheheartandthrough
mammalianbodies,Harveyinitiatesanepochofliteral,empiricalexplorationandverbal
descriptionoftheheartanditsfunctionwithinthebodymachine.Thisnewscientific
perspectivethenmaderedundantthepreviousmetaphoricalgraspofthemotionofthe
heart.[21]Giovannitriestounitebothperspectives.Theplay,publishedfiveyearsafter
Harveystreatise,showsthistobeunsustainable.
Thereactionsdepictedfromhisfatherandsister(theonlyfamilytheplaygiveshim)

144

suggestastrongergrasponthewaytheundoablemightregisteralsoastheunsayable,
eithereschewingwordsaltogetherorusingthemtoworkbeyondthemtowhatwords,
whetherwrittenorspoken,couldnotpossiblyfullysay.WhereGiovannicontinuestobe
profuseinhiseloquencetothelast,Annabellaexpireswithadense,deconstructivepun:
Brotherunkind,unkind(V.v.93).Heisunkind,havingbeennotgentleinhisstabbingof
her.Thentoohehasunkinnedher,inaliteralsense,sincekillinghereliminatesherashis
sister.Hehastakenoneofhistwokinaway.Giovannithinksnotso,ofcourse,here
literalizingthevowstheymadeearlier:Loveme,orkillmebrother.|[]Loveme,orkill
me,sister(I.i.276,279).Fordclearlyassumedhisfirstaudienceswouldknowbothhow
incestnarrativesunfoldinfictionandwouldrecallthefatesofOthelloandDesdemonaand
RomeoandJuliet.Lovingandkillingfoldoneintotheother.Giovanniisthenanunkind
brotherandtheclosestkinimaginable.Annabellathenreactstotheunspeakablewitha
linethatisunsayableandperhapsnotplayablehowcouldanactoruttersomany
contradictionsatonce?Atthispointthepublicationoftheplayfortheeagerreading
audienceofCarolineLondonmightbereadasagesturetowardsthatunplayability,for
contradictionswhichmaynotbestagedmaymoreeasilybeweighedbyreaders.
ThecancellationofhisfatherFlorioisrhetoricallysimpler.Hediesmidline:Cursedman!
HaveIlivedto(V.vi.61).WiththeevidenceofAnnabellanowparadedbeforethem,the
onlookersareinnodoubtastowhatcausesFloriosdemise:seewhatthouhastdone,|
Brokethyoldfathersheart!(V.vi.63).Floriosdeathistheinverseoftheriddleof
Annabellasheart.ForFloriomayindeedbeheartbroken,andthepathologicalcauseof
deathmayindeedbecardiacarrest.ThecharactersonstagecanseeFlorioisdying,but
theycannotseehisbreakingheart.Theymaketheobviousmetaphoricallinkthatitis
Giovanniwhohasbrokenhisfathersheart,justashegleefullyinformsthemthathis
handshavefromherbosomrippdthisheart(V.vi.59).Theproclamationofthisprevious
unkindactionleadstoFloriosunkinddeath.WithhisfathersdeathGiovannibecomes
fullyunkinned,havingnokinleftinParma.Hisowndeathcancelsthefamilycompletely.
Giovannisassumptionofpatriarchalcontrol,thatitishisdestinytolove,killandrevenge,
undoeshispatriarchalfamilyfromwithin,aselfdeconstructingtriumphmadethemore
completebecauseofthefactthattheirmotherismentioned(evenbyourmothersdustI
chargeyou[I.ii.277])insuchawaythatmakesclearsheisdeadlongbeforethestory
begins.Floriodiesmidlinetomakeclearhisdeathistobeverysudden,andtounderline
theformsofunmeaningGiovannisunkindactionsbringthefamilyto.Noteventheverse
ofthefathercanmakesense,soradicalistheattackofthesonupon thefamily,
conducted,mistakenly,toadvanceitsglory.JohnLanchestercharacterizessucha
deconstructivemomentasliketheactionof

asnakepermanentlyandnecessarilyeatingitsowntail.Thisprocessisfluid
andconstant,butatmomentstheperpetualprocessofdeferralstallsand
collapsesinonitself.Derridacalledthismomentanaporia,fromaGreekterm
meaningimpasse.[22]

IntermsofGiovannisimpulses,thisfluidprocessisintrainastheplaybegins.Thedeath
ofhisentirefamily,includinghisbrotherinlaw,arreststhatimpasse,momentarily.Again
thoughFordtakesawiderviewtheconclusiontohisplayoffersawideraporiathat
encompassestheplayasawhole,suggestingastructurejustlikethatLanchesterfigure
evokes.Justasthesnakeswallowsitsowntail,sotheendoftheplayenvelopstherest.It
happensthisway.
AsiscustomaryinaRenaissanceplay,orderisrestoredatitsend.Theaudienceisinvited
toviewtheruinsofSoranzosfeast,withGiovanni,FlorioandSoranzolyingdeadonthe
stage.Beyondthesedeathsasenseofcalmneedstoprevail.TheCardinaltakescharge,
dispensingjusticeand,inbeinggiventhelastlinesoftheplaytospeak,summarizingwhat
theaudiencehaswitnessed.HeordersthatPutana,Annabellasservant,beburnttodeath
forhercomplicityinthecrimescommitted,andbanishesVasquesonpainofdeath.He
thenconfiscatesallthegoldandjewels,orwhatsoeverfromthefamilyestatetothe
Popesproperuse(V.vi.15759).Withaquatrainoftwoheroiccouplets(rhymediambic
pentameter),theCardinalthenclosestheplay:

145

146

Weshallhavetime
Totalkatlargeofallbutneveryet
Incestandmurdersostrangelymet.
Ofonesoyoung,sorichinNaturesstore,
Whocouldnotsay,TisPityshesawhore.
(V.vi.16468)
HeretheCardinalsblandlyrhymedassuranceprojectsaconfidencethattheaudiencewill
agreewithhisjudgementofthecase,buthiscredibilityisquestionable.Catholicfriarsand
priests(aswithFriarLaurenceinRomeoandJulietandBonaventurainFordsplay)are
frequentlysympatheticfiguresinearlymodernplaytexts.Catholiccardinals,however,are
treatedmoreharshly,projectedassymptomatic ofboththeRomanCatholicChurchand
themorassofiniquityandsexualimproprietywhichisintegraltothewaytheEnglishinthe
seventeenthcenturyimaginedItalytobe.Excellentexamplesofsuchcardinalsinclude
thoseinWebsterstwogreattragedies,TheWhiteDevilandTheDuchessofMalfi,which
Fordclearlyknewwell,andTheCardinalinShirleys1640tragedyofthatname.The
justicetheCardinaldispensesdemonstratesharshnesstowardsunwittingvictims,asinhis
demandthatPutanabeburnt:shemustbepunishedbytransferenceforAnnabellas
crimes,asGiovannihastakenhissisterbeyondtherealmwheretheCardinalcanpass
judgement.Moreover,hisconfiscationsofthefamilysestatesuggestthegreedforwhich
theCatholicChurchwasnotorious,andwhichwasapointofcontentionthroughoutEurope
fromthebeginningsoftheReformationintheearlysixteenthcentury.

147

TheCardinalslastphrase,tispityshesawhore,envelopstheplay,sincethislasthalfline
isalsothetitleofit,andthiswouldseemtosuggestthatiftheCardinalendorsestheplays
titlethen,inreturn,theplayendorsestheCardinalsperspective,onebeingcomplicitwith
theother.Yetthiscatchphrase(somemorableasatitleforaplay)makesacontradictory
kindofsense.TheCardinalinsiststhatAnnabellawasawhore.Technicallythis
judgementwouldbecorrect,sinceshecommittedadulteryandincest.Butreadingthis
judgementoveragainstthepresentationofAnnabellasuggestsitslimitations.Ford
establishesAnnabellaasasympatheticfigure,dominatedbyhelplesspathosand,inher
lastmoments,theunwittingvictimofherbrothersgrandiosedesires.Themodelhereis
ShakespearesDesdemona,whosetragicdeathbecameanoftenrepeatedarchetypeon
theLondonstage.TheCardinalassumestheaudiencewillagreewithhim,butitis
questionablehowcompletethatassentis,thoughofcoursetheyareliabletorememberhis
memorablecatchphrase.Fordhimselfseemstohaveregisteredthisasproblem,inhis
dedicationprotestingthatthegravityofthesubjectmayeasilyexcusethelightnessofthe
title(1920).
TheCardinaltreatshisphraseasirrefutable:whocouldnotsay[].Thequestionrather
seemstobe,iftheydidsayit,whatcouldtheypossiblymean?Ifyoutooktheharshmoral
lineoftheCardinal,youwouldconsiderherawhore.Butifyoudidsothinkofher,how
couldyoupityher?Youwouldrathereagerlycondemnhertoherfate,withasmuchrelish
astheCardinalsentencesPutana.IfAnnabellaisawhore,thenitisnotapity.Ifonthe
otherhandyoupityher,recallinginparticularheruntimely,underplayeddeath,thenyou
wouldnotthinkofherasawhore.Inthissense,Fordtakes advantageoftherhyming
coupletwhichbreakseachlinesoreadilyintotwo,withaclearcaesuraorcutbetween
whocouldnotsayandtispity.Thesecondhalfofthelinebreaksequallyintotwo
components,eachinturngovernedbytheverbalclausewhichprecedesthem:tispity|
shesawhore.Whocouldnotsaytispity.Whocouldnotsayshesawhore.
Atfirstthelineisseamless,andthenitreadsagainstitself.Sheisawhoreandnota
whore.Sheisanobjectofpityandyetnotanobjectofpity.Thephraseofcoursedrawsus
backintotheplayasawhole,returningustoitsbeginning.Hereinafewsurvivingcopies
ofthefirstpublishedquartooftheplay,wefindacommendatoryversebyThomasEllice,
whichseemstograsptheparadoxoftheCardinalsclaim,anditsrelationshiptotheplay
whichthatclaimappearstogovern:
WithadmirationIbeheldthisWhore
Adorndwithbeauty[]
Thynamehereinshallendure
TothendofageandAnnabellabe
Gloriouslyfair,eveninherinfamy.
(12,810)

148

Theplay(andAnnabella)bothareandarenotwhores.Theybothareandarenot
admirable.Theplay,Ellicesearlyreadingsuggests,refusestotaketheCardinalsside,
findingbothplayandheroinegloriouslyfairyetherefusestotakeawaythetitle.It
undoesthenwhatitmosteagerlyseekstoassert.Insomeofhiswritings,Derridasubjects
wordstowhathecallserasure,strikingalinethroughawordhecannotdispensewith,
remindingreadersthattheworddoes/notrepresentwhatitappearsto.
The1633textoftheplayrepresentsthisundecidabilityinvisualform,usingitalicsand
capitallettersforthephraseTispittysheesaWhoore.[23]Itisquitecommonforearly
modernprintedtextstousecapitalsinthemiddleoflineswheremodernusagewouldnot.
Itiscommontooforawordorphrasetobeplacedinitalicforemphasisoveragainstthe
romantypefacewhich,by1633,hadbecomestandard.Fordprovideddedicationsand
otherancillarymatterforhisplays,soweknowhehadsomeinvolvementinseeingthetext
intoprint.Moderneditorsofhisplaysconcurthatthewaythefirstprintedtextsuseitalics
andcapitalsforemphasissuggestsauthorialinvolvement.Suchuseofitalicemphasishas
adistinctivelyauthorialstamp,A.T.Mooresuggests,andisanoutstandingfeatureof
severalearlytextsofFordsworks.Itisthemarkofa dramatistwhogavesomethoughtto
theliteraryformofhisplays.[24]DerekRoperconcurs,pointingoutthatofalltheplaytexts
NicholasOkesprintedbetween1628and1635,itisonlyhiseditionofTisPitythatuses
italictypeinastrikingway.[25]ItisverylikelythatFordoversawthesettingoftheplayinto
type,andthattheplaysfinalwordsappearedthusinprintatFordsrequestandwerethus
madeavailabletothewideraudienceofreadersbeyondthePhoenixinDruryLanewhere
theplaywasfirstperformed,forthepublicationofFordstextispartofthenewlyexpanding
marketforprintedplaytextsinthe1630s.[26]

149

Onafirstreading,youcangraspthevisualpresentationofthephraseasaselfreferential
joke,arcingbackthroughtheplayyoujustread.Wildesfamous1895farcerepeatsthis
device,proclaimingitsthemeanditstitleinitslastlineastheimportanceofbeingearnest.
Wildestexttooiswilfullydeconstructive.InFordscasethephrasereadsasselfrefuting.
ThisispartlybecauseoftheinternalcontradictionswithintheCardinalsclaims.Partlytoo
thishastodowiththegaporaporiabetweenthewrittenandtheoral,whichDerridahas
exploredsosearchingly.Foraplaytextisanamphibiousprintedobject.Wordsonthepage
arepresentedastheymighthavebeensaidonstage,orastheymightbeinfuture
performance.Thescriptcangiveyouthelookofthewords,butnottheirsound.Thegap
betweenlookandsoundisunbridgeable.Inthesetermstheitalicsgrantedtothe
Cardinalsphraseareunsayable.Readerswilltakethemtobebothhiscleverdismissalof
Annabellaandthetitleoftheplay.Youcouldsay(orread)theselinessuavely,urbanely,
evensadly,butyoucouldnotsaythembothasthetitleandthedismissal.Thatis,
audiencememberscouldnotdistinguishthesoundofonefromtheother.Eitherthetitleof
theplayerasestheCardinalsremarks,ortheCardinalsremarkscancelthetitleofthe
play.Readersofthewrittentextareprivilegedoverthosewhomerelyhearit,sincein
readingyoucanentertainthepossibilityofbothreadingsatonce.Theyoccupythesame
halflineofspaceontheprintedpage,butsuggestradicallydifferentreadingsofthetext
encountered.TheeffectisthentocancelthesavageilluminationGiovannistrivestobring
tobearinthelastsceneoftheplay,andfollowthepathbackfromthelastlinetothetitle
pageandthefirstlines,toattemptyetoncemoretheimpossibleyetrewardingtaskof
resolvingtheundecidable,atasknevercompletedbecauseitstermscometousinthe
constantfluxofdeferral.

Acknowledgements

150

ThankstoMichaelNeill,forhisexemplarity,toSophieTomlinson,toSoniaMassaiand
CatherineSilverstone,whofirstinvitedmetorethinkFord,tothemembersoftheTisPity
seminaratthe2006SAAmeetinginPhiladelphiaandtotheFacultyofArtsandSocial
SciencesattheUniversityofWaikato,whofundedtheconferencetraveltothatSAA.
151
1.SelectedPlaysofJohnFord,ed.CohnGibson(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1986)TisPity,s.d.
followingline9V.vi.2430.Allreferencestotheplayarefromthisedition.
2.TextfromPoeticalWorks,ed.SirHerbertGrierson(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1968(1933),p.35.
3.SeehisWhatStrangeRiddlesThis?:DecipheringTisPityShesaWhore,inJohnFord:CriticalRevisions,
ed.MichaelNeill(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1988),pp.15381.Thisvolumeisanexcellent
exampleofcontextualizedformalistandhistoricistreadingsofFordwhichtheessaysherebymyselfand
CatherineSilverstoneseektodisrupt.Foranexcellentrecentapproachtoreadingtheheartinthisperiodthrough

literary,culturalandhistoricallenses,seeWilliamSlightssTheHeartintheAgeofShakespeare(Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress,2008).
4.OEDonlinedeconstructs.v.1.a.
5.ForanexcellentintroductiontoDerridaswork,seetheentryJacquesDerridaintheStanfordEncyclopediaof
Philosophy,online:http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/.
6.OEDonline,Meconstructionisms.v.1.b,citingR.M.Adams.
7.MerriamWebsteronline,deconstruct.
8.DerekAttridgeandThomasBaldwin,Obituary:JacquesDerrida,GuardianWeekly(1521October2004),p.
30.
9.T.S.Eliot,TheCompletePoemsandPlays19091950(SanDiego,CA:Harcourt,Brace,Jovanovich,1971),1.
41,p.38.
10.JacquesDerrida,Play:fromthePharmakontotheLetterandfromBlindnesstotheSupplement,inThe
NortonAnthologyofTheoryandCriticism,ed.VincentB.Leitch(NewYork:Norton,2001),p.1875.Alldirect
citationsfromtheoristsarefromthisvolume.Studentsarehighlyrecommendedtoconsultthereadingsinthis
volume,alongwiththeconsummatelyhelpfulintroductionsandsuggestionsforfurtherreading.
11.Derrida,NortonAnthologyofTheoryandCriticism,p.1875.
12.Barthes,NortonAnthologyofTheoryandCriticism,p.1466.
13.AndrewDuBois,Introduction,CloseReading:theReader,ed.FrankLentricchiaandAndrewDubois
(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,2003),p.35.
14.AntoninArtaud,TheTheatreandItsDouble,trans.VictorCorti(London:JohnCalder,1985),pp.19,25.
15.TheyarebothhusbandandlovertoAnnabella.
16.SeeMichaelNeillsessay,pp.15657,foranecdotesofanatomizedheartsfromtheperiodwhichitisclaimed
couldbereadinjustsuchways.
17.RichardCrashaw,VponFordstwoTragedyesLovesSacrificeandTheBrokenHeart,inhisStepstothe
Temple1646,togetherwithSelectedPoemsinManuscript(Menston:ScolarPress,1970),p.45.
18.ThismightalsodrawonthereputationofGlasgowsCitizensTheatreforits`stronglyvisualandvisceralform
oftheatre,particularlysuitedtotheproductionoftheclassicplaysoftheEuropeanrepertoire,Universityof
GlasgowSpecialCollections:CitizensTheatre,online:http://special.lib.gla.ac.uk/STA/citzcat/index.html.
19.FormoreonStoppardsappropriationofFord,seemyPostmodernTragedy:ReturningtoJohnFord,in
TragedyinTransition,ed.SarahAnnesBrownandCatherineSilverstone(Oxford:Blackwell,2007),pp.24849.
20.StanleyFish,SelfConsumingArtifacts:theExperienceofSeventeenthCenturyLiterature(Berkeley,CA:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1972),p.3.FishsearlierSurprisedbySin:theReaderinParadiseLostisanother
exemplaryapplicationofdeconstructiverhetoricstrategiestoacanonicalearlymoderntext.
21.ForaconciseassessmentofHarveysexperimentsandtheirsignificance,seeAndrewGregory,Harveys
Heart:TheDiscoveryofBloodCirculation(Cambridge:IconBooks,2001).
22.JohnLanchester,MeltingintoAir,TheNewYorker(10November,2008),pp.8084,p.84.
23.ThislineisfromtheScolarPressfacsimileoftheplayJohnFord:TisPityShesaWhore1633(Menston:
ScolarPress,1969).
24.A.T.Moore,inhiseditionofLovesSacrifice(Manchester:ManchesterUniversityPress,2002),p.273.
25.SeeDerekRoperseditionofTisPityShesaWhore(London:Methuen,1975),p.lxiii.Forasummaryof
evidenceforFordattendingsocarefullytothevisualityofhisprintedplaytexts,seR.J.Fehrenbachs
TypographicalVariationinFordsTexts:AccidentalsorSubstantives,inConcordinDiscord:thePlaysofJohn
Ford,15861986,ed.DonaldK.Anderson,,Jr(NewYork:AMSPress,1986),pp.26594.
26.Formoreonthisaudienceanditsreadingpractices,seeMartinButlersTheCarolineAudience,inhis
TheatreandCrisis16321640(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1984),pp.10140.
LisaHopkinsandcontributors2010
AllmaterialsonthisWebsitearethecopyrightofthepublishersorarereproducedwithpermissionfromothercopyrightowners.All
rightsarereserved.Thematerialsonthiswebsitemaybeaccessedsolelyforpersonaluse.Nomaterialsmayotherwisebecopied,
modified,published,broadcastorotherwisedistributedwithoutpriorwrittenpermissionofthepublisher.