Nothing? In our postmodern world as in Shakespeare's early modern one, the questions posed by sensory interpretation are fundamental and worrisome, with political and ethical consequences. The debates sparked by photographs documenting torture by US military forces at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, especially after Susan Sontag's final medita-tions upon them, starkly reinforced the complexity involved in transforming an image into narrative through verbal representation. So did the disturbing presence of a woman — named, of all things, England — before the camera's eye, and the question of whether her "onstage" presence within some of those consciously composed images signified agency.² The political urgency of performance and interpretive judgments prompted by Shakespeare's written characters is far less obvious but the evaluative processes required may be even more fraught. Here too, more obliquely, the way we read those characters called women informs what we notice and make of their present-day legacy, agency, and representation — with consequences for ourselves, our students, and our reading publics. In what follows, I move between text and image, sight and sound, and past and present in an attempt to capture the multiple — rather than merely duplicitous — signifying potential of one especially elusive figure of femininity. En route, my analysis emphasizes the "multi" in multimedia (whether early or late modern) as well as the responsibility and social location of the interpreter in creating the types of sensory and ideological convergence that become "common sense."