In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Chapter 2 Words Made ofBreath: Shakespeare, Bacon, and Particulate Matter When Philip, the conflicted French monarch of Shakespeare's King John, swears to a peace agreement with England, he gives weight to his words by emphasizing their material composition. It is the physical breath Philip uses to swear his oath of peace that lends authorizing force to his words: "The latest breath that gave the sound of words I Was deep-sworn faith, peace, amity, true love I Between our kingdoms and our royal selves" (3-1.230-32).1 Despite his best intentions, however, Philip breaks his vow mere moments later, renewing a conflict with England that will rage and subside repeatedly for the rest of the play. The matter that "gave the sound of words" turns out to be, as King John's Constance puts it, "vain breath" (3.1.8), nothing but wind. As these brief passages from King John begin to demonstrate, breath can index multiple and conflicting ideas about vocal agency for early moderns. On the one hand, writers describe breath as a crucial ingredient in vocal communication; breath is the air that, according to natural philosopher Francis Bacon "maketh the Voice."2 A range of authors maintain that the shape of the vocal organs is determined by their function as conveyers of breath. Robert Robinson's pronunciation manual describes how the throat provides "the greater or lesser restraining of the ayre:' and anatomist Alexander Read notes that "The roofe of the mouth is vaulted, that the aire being repercussed, the voice may be the sharper:'3 Given widely held views of breath as having a key role in producing vocal sound, it is entirely fitting that Shakespeare's Coriolanus insists on the right of his "lungs [to]I Coin words" (Coriolanus 3.1.81-82) and that Falstaffdescribes the word "honour" as but "Air" (1 Henry IV 5.1.133-34). As is evident in Falstaff's quip, however, breath may be not only essential to, but paradoxically disruptive of, vocal agency. In Falstaff's catechism the air that comprises "honor"-the Words Made ofBreath 67 matter that "is in that word"-underscores the futility of honor as a concept : like the air of which it is composed, honor is "insensible;' not heard or felt by the living and therefore not worthy of Falstaff's attention (5.1.133-37). The very pronouncement of the word "air;' with its homophonic pun on "heir;' underscores this point, insofar as it evokes the spectral presence of the heir Hal; much more than he realizes, Falstaff's impossible social aspirations are neatly captured by the unaspirated "h:'4 Longaville of Love's Labour's Lost also recalls the material form of words as a way to mark (conveniently ) their failure. As he rationalizes his decision to violate the oath he has sworn to his friends, he claims, "vows are but breath, and breath a vapour is. I ... I Ifbroken then, it is no fault of mine" (4.3.63; 66). Insofar as breath is an ephemeral vapor, its capacity to work as an agent on behalf of the thoughts and intentions of a speaker is inherently suspect. Such doubts about the communicative power of the voice should sound familiar, for as we have seen in Chapter 1, early modern plays interrogate vocal agency by dramatizing ways the physical attributes of the voice compromise its power. But whereas Antonio and Mellida stages vocal failure as occurring at the site of its production, the unstable humoral body, other plays, like King John, go further to suggest that even if the voice can be produced successfully and articulated strongly, without squeaking, the voice is not assured of success as it travels from speaker to listener. Like the cracking vocal organs of pubescent boys, the unpredictable flow of breath exposes tensions in early modern thought about the agency of voice: when breath leaves the speaker's body, does it still belong to its producer? Since breath is essentially air that interacts with air, can breath be trusted to perform its communicative task when it is no longer under the speaker's direct command ? What accounts for the ability of this vaporous current to transmit voiced sounds from speaker to listener? In short, can matter as transient and ephemeral as breath be choreographed? If reader-response theory prompts critics to question the degree of an author's control over the meaning of a text and to investigate the social contexts that shape...

Share