ࡱ>    { #1bjbjzz \ E0tbرر22z8d=4|e >6>6>6>6>67Zy77+e-e-e-e-e-e-e$rr$uQe-"7 77;AdG4Qe2>6>6~e8yUyUyUJ>6>6+eyU7+eyUyU6[\>68`&O\ee<e\uOu8\\u"X\0yU777QeQeyU777e7777u777777777ر : Whats the Worst Thing You Can Do to Shakespeare? Whats the Worst Thing You Can Do to Shakespeare? Richard Burt and Julian Yates whats the worst thing you can do to shakespeare? Copyright Richard Burt and Julian Yates, 2013. All rights reserved. First published in 2013 by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN in the United Statesa division of St. Martins Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Where this book is distributed in the UK, Europe and the rest of the world, this is by Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave and Macmillan are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries. ISBN: 978-1-137-27048-1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available from the Library of Congress. A catalogue record of the book is available from the British Library. Design by Scribe Inc. First edition: {~?~TN: Month Year } 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Printed in the United States of America. An earlier version of Chapter One 1 appeared as  What s tThe Worst Thing You Can Do to Shakespeare, Renaissance Drama, vVol. 40, ed. William N. West (Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 2012),: 7189. From Richard to Elizabeth From Julian to David and Hilary Contents List of Illustrations Acknowledgments Chapter One1 Whats the Worst Thing You Can Do to Shakespeare? Chapter Two2 Oh, horrible, most horribleHorrible, Most Horrible! Hamlets Telephone Chapter Three3 Romeo and Juliet Is for Zombies Chapter Four4 Drown before Reading: Prosperos Missing Books Chapter Five5 Anonymous / Anony/mess Notes Index Illustrations Figure 2.1 Leni Rienfenstahls Triumph of the Will (1935) appears on-screen in Hamlet 2 Figure 3.1 Televisual prologue in Baz Luhrmanns William Shakespeares Romeo + Juliet (1996) Figure 3.2 Abbas Kiorastamis Where Is My Romeo from Chacun son Cinma (To Each His Own Cinema) (2007) Figure 3.3 Carl Theodor Dreyers Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) as archival effect in Jean-Luc Godards Vivre sa Vie (Her Life to Live) (1962) Figure 3.4 Synching up Abbas Kiorastamis Where Is My Romeo (2007) and Franco Zeffrirellis Romeo and Juliet (1968) via Youtube.com. Figure 4.1 Title page to Vox Piscis: or The Book Fish Contayning Three Treatises Which Were Found in the Belly of a Cod-Ffish in Cambridge Market on Midsummer Eve Llast, Anno Domini 1626 (London 1627) STC 11395 copy 3. By Permission of the Folger Shakespeare Library Figure 4.2 Drowning the book in Julie Taymors The Tempest (2010) and Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1991) Figure 4.3 Bibliocide I: Montage of opening the book as destroying the book in Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1991) Figure 4.4 Bibliocide II: Montage of book destruction as burning, drowning, liquefying, disfiguration, and mutilation in Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1991) Figure 4.5 Bibliocide III: Prosperos library burns; Ariels handprints on Prosperos manuscript; Calibans book-burning fantasy in Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1991) Figure 4.6 Shakespeares First Folio (1623) and Prosperos manuscript of The Tempest surface and are preserved in Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1991) Figure 4.7 Self-citation gone awry in Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1991) Figure 4.8 Opening title sequence of Julie Taymors The Tempest (2010) Figure 4.9 End title sequence of Julie Taymors The Tempest (2010) Figure 5.1 Opening title sequence of Roland Emmerichs Anonymous (2011) Figure 5.2 Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxfords archive in Roland Emmerichs Anonymous (2011) Figure 5.3 Ben Jonson retrieves the archive in Roland Emmerichs Anonymous (2011)or does he? Figure 5.4 Shakespeares signatures in Johns Maddens Shakespeare in Love (1998) and Roland Emmerichs Anonymous (2011) Figure 5.5 Poster and trailer for Roland Emmerichs Anonymous (2011) Acknowledgments If acknowledgements had titles, this coaco-author would call these acknowledgments Disclosure Acts. Not full disclosure, mind you, because the very notion of there being such a thing as full disclosure is a notion that both co-authors would call into question. Disclosure Acts, then, because collaboration may offer, and in our case, has offered, the possibility of creating a wonderfully messy intellectual commons within the enclosures of intellectual property rights established by our proper names and the legalities of copyright. Witness the paratexts of this book in your hands that refer to contracts we signed, and counter-signed. Reading paratexts is a threshold experience, of course, and as such serves as a borderless border, irreducible to any geopolitical residency or transatlantic migrations from the United Kingdom to California and from California to the East coast Coast of the United .States. This coaco-author, who shall remain anonymous, should like to thank his coaco-author for providing an amazing, unprecedented experience of thinking at distances of uncertain proximity. Having met only once in person, the coaco-authors began talking on the telephone about writings one or both had found to be worth discussing. They have been doing so for some three years. About a year and a half before the manuscript of this book was delivered to Palgrave Macmillan, the coaco-authors began cowco-writing an essay at what may only be characterized as telepathic speed. They realized that they had a book to cowco-write, and so they did, by telephone, answering machines, email, and once in person just two months before the manuscript was finished. This anonymous coaco-author feels compelled to write that he felt new kinds of growth pains arising from resistances from an unidentifiable unconscious that arose in the processdo you even own your own unconscious? That part you wrote. Yeah? I see why you / I needed to write it, but now I hope you see that it has to be cut. Ok. Maybe some of it can go in a note. If growth pains are usually intense, this coaco-author has always had a surgeon there capable of operating without the need for an anesthesiologist. Indeed, this coaco-author has felt on numerous occasions that the surgeon was also a pharmacist, a dispenser of writing drugs of the highest order, totally uncut. Thanks to his coaco-author /doctors careful supervision, this coaco-author was able to maintain the manic highs of writing experienced when you make a new connection, which were only multiplied, intensified, and extended by the always unexpected, surprising, and spirited exchanges we had. I confess I still have no idea how this could possibly have happened. But it did, again, and again. Although this publication is the most emergent work this coaco-author has ever cowco-written, he still feels compelled to acknowledge and disclose to you that one crucially important part of the book was his coaco-authors idea. He came up with the brilliant title of the book. The title is his. It is not mine. Truly. Let me say it again. It is his title, and his alone. My modest contribution was merely to persuade our editor, the wonderful Brigitte Shull, to have Palgrave Macmillan allow us to use the title of the book. I salute my coaco-author. It has been a joy and an honor to talk/write a book that we both wrote entirely together (except for the title). Both coaco-authors wish to thank the Medieval and Renaissance Center at NYU, the Graduate Student Colloquium of Tufts University, and the Japanese Shakespeare Forum for providing stimulating audiences for us to present parts of the book to (in person and in spirit). Thanks, hugs, and kisses are due to our two anonymous readers for Palgrave Macmillan, William N. West, John Archer, Judith Haber, Martha Rust, Ryuta Minami, Yukari Yoshihara, and Susan Goodman. Lastly we would both like to thank our wife or partner and our families for their love, patience, forbearance, and support. Chapter One1 Whats the Worst Thing You Can Do to Shakespeare? Reade him, therefore; and againe, and againe: And if then you doe not like him, surely you are in some manifest danger, not to vnderstand him. And so we leaue you to other of his Friends, whom if you need, can bee your guides: if you neede them not, you can leade your selves, and others. And such Readers we wish him. John Heminge and Henrie Condell To the great Variety of Readers The First Folio (1623) Before, or perhaps after, all, the worst thing you can do to Shakespeare is not to read him. Here, at the envoi cum media launch that was the First Folio, John Heminge and Henrie Condell offer an economy of reading that threatens the putative reader / buyer with the manifest danger that unreadability might conjure. This rhetorical unreadability that reflects on you stands surety against a literal, prosaic nonrnon-reading of the book that would render it a media nonenon-event. Against this eventuality, Heminge and Condell recruit the great variety of readers, from the most able to him that can but spell. For it is upon our capacities (heads and purses) that the fate of Bookes depends. As readers, then, we are recruited to become the biocbio-cultural wetware, the life-in-death preservers, that this book and the defunct Shakespeare require to prosper, to go mobile, to survive, to sur-vivre, living on, in, with, and through our successive acts. We become, in effect, the biosbio-semiotic motor that enables Shakespeare to go viral, to remain without a tombe, or rather by our recruitment as readers of the textual corpus, the First Folio somehow becomes a corpse;, we render it lively and alive. We thereby make it possible for certain kinds of critical operations to count institutionally as doing something (worth doing). Our aim in this book is to open a space to think the unreadability Heminge and Condell deploy as a phenomenon, a specter, that has been haunting Renaissance and Shakespeare sStudies for some time nowand which that has been conscripted to do all sorts of work, as the Folio attests. We would like to pick up their modeling of readers as wetware, the living component to media platforms, and think about what the labor of (not) reading entails. Their sales pitch discloses the linkages between text, media, and reader that constitute the phenomenon that was, is, and will be Shakespeare, reore-orienting us from the sense that a play or plays exist in the world as some self-identical entity, to the plays as a mobile, conflicting, conflicted, and partially time-bound set of practices. What happens then, we ask, if we proceed on the assumption that historical fields of study such as Shakespeare or Renaissance drama as well as school curricula, professional Shakespeare theaters, the film industry, and media libraries (on and offline) refer not to a series of agreed- upon texts or performances but instead, as Heminge and Condell imply, a series of differently distributed fetish communities, each of which tunes itself to the shifting auratics of its chosen ritual objects as they are variously mediatedfrom manuscript to quarto to folio, on and off and back to the stage, the movie theater, and the home entertainment systemthe ontology of the thing we study waxing and waning, constantly picking up and dropping actants as it goes?. The distribution of readers into different fields of study (performance, theater history, criticism, theater production, and so on) comes to constitute not a happy holism, but a series of discontinuous and only sometimes intersecting conversations or crowds that converge on variously mediatized forms of Shakespearean texts. The Shakespeare industry, so it turns out, refers not merely to an elaborated infrastructure, but to the industry of so very many readers and purveyors, whose vital juices the Bard requires to keep on flowing. In this model, the labor of all such fetishists (ourselves included) stands in reciprocal relation to the past labors of reading, living, and dying that our work posits as past. It is by our labors that readings and texts continue to circulate and continue also to recruit readers or readers become scrollers or whatever word issues forth from the latest medium in order to designate the activity of its users. So,So what, we ask, would it mean to deactivate this reciprocity and dwell within the figural or stunt unreadability that Heminge and Condell deploy in order in to fund their own launch of the First Folio as a facsimile of an archive, a Shakespearean impression that, dear reader, it is for you and us to recognize? What would it entail to opt out and do no work today but instead to allow the machine to idle and to allow the specter of not reading, of unreadability, to ramify? By posing unreadability as a question we seek to interrupt the prevailing economies for managing the relation between reading and not reading in our various critical acts and so impede a return to business as usual. The structure of a question pertains for unreadability does not exist per se as a positivity but only as a shifting, partial, effect of the process of reading itself. It might be said to unfold at the junctures or limits, as they are drawn, between reaction and response, the dead and the living, the automaticity of the machine and the immanence of the organism, and to resist the ontologizing of those limits. We regard unreadability as the uninvited guest to the surplus of life certain texts and authors are granted by their translation to successive media platforms and their sponsorship by such a great variety of readers. In this sense, the proliferation of textual aids that offer to pull you back up the cliff or spark life in some dead text constitutes a community of friendly readers become textual back ups to see off the specter of literal not reading. In this first chapter, we begin by offering a stenographic rendering of what we take to be some of the most brilliant contributions to the New Textualism and history of the book, drawing attention to their sometimes delirious use of the rhetoric of unrun-readability. We then rewind the clock to 1983, as the soon- to- end Cold War raised increasingly apocalyptic tones in literary theory and nuclear criticism, to stare the manifest danger of Shakespeares irrelevance and unreadability in the face. Along the way we develop a model of how unreadability functions as a crux or crossroads between text and media, concluding with an air raid warning that calls for us all to leave our shelters, and with them the oddly regular announcements of critical apocalypse, and attempt to think unreadability. The book that follows can hardly be said to meet the burdens or to exhaust the endeavor. And we offer its chapters to you as invitations to play out the questions we pose according to yoour ownur particular interests, skills, and requirements. Caution! Media Specificity detectedDetected. Your reading will abort Reading Will Abort in three, two, oneThree, Two, One In the First Folio, Heminge and Condells rhetorical conversion of literal nonrnon-reading into rhetorical unreadability posits a conversion that keys unreadability to the success or failure of different media platforms. That is to say, competing models for managing, sorting, and organizing different iterations of texts, by which their anteriority and referentiality is are produced, tend to rely on the specter of a breakdown to reading, a stalling or interruption. Media manifests in order to interrupt the process. The scene in which most of us encounter this order of stunt or figural unreadability might be the association of approaches to Renaissance drama that corral themselves within the history of the book. Typically, they deploy media specificity to interrupt a reading process that they take to be routinized or reductive. Conjuring the books presence as thing, uneun-editing exposes your reading to the vast array of other historicalwhich is to say nothing more than media- specificversions, inducing vertigo to a reading that detaches readers from their textual moorings. The salutary effect of this media interruption tends to be that every aspect of the book becomes readable, including page layout, fonts, lettering, paper, binding, bibliographic codes, marginalia, paratexts, wormholes, animal hairs and remains (paper), plant remains (paper), mineral remains (ink), the printers urine, et cetera. What gives us pause, however, is the way the media interruption, once deployed, becomes the occasion for an altered regime of description, merely, installing another, seemingly less problematic process of reading that accounts for the media specificity. The quasi-messianic or apocalyptic coming or advent of the book as thing serves, in essence, as the staging ground for this or that narrative of reading- become- book- use that can then serve as an input to yet more readers and the marks they leave in the margins of their books or the marks that once upon a time they recognized as meaningful but youve been writing off. Even in its ostensibly antiranti-redemptive guises, such as when the butt of the reading is some Holy Cow! ideologeme of the field (Shakespeare, the First Folio, anthropocentrism), which we discover is the product of an immanent set of practices (compositor error or the like), the redemptive cast migrates to the immanent sanctity of labor itself. Such readings tend then to eventalize the performances of the critic, enabling us to point to oour ownur labors of reading as somehow proof of life, our lives, your life, their lives as livedlife having become some universal abstract exchange valuethe good(s). Media interruption serves as little more than a blanking out of unreadability, then, installing the figure of not reading as a crossroads or crux, which it then cuts as it passes back to producing a reading. Through a very curious set of operations, the media interruption flickers in out of being to become the ground, say, for a recoverable materiality of a past world of book use or some other social / body / practice which that manifests as if a referent. Close reading (itself always an exercise in reading and not reading) is displaced by the management of the archive, the shuffling, sorting, and necessarily the reduction of an ever proliferating array of facsimiles or back ups to whatever it was exactly that Shakespeare is said to have penned. Reboot:. Reading will resume Will Resume in three, two, oneThree, Two, One Rewind to Randall McCleods ph/fantastic essay Un Editing Shak-speare (1982), and you will see what we mean. McCleod examines a posthumously published (and improperly edited, according to him) poem written by John Keats, On Sitting Down to Read King Lear Again. He points out that Keats wrote his poem in a portable facsimile edition of the First Folio (1804), perhaps the first unedited edition of Shakespeare since it had no notes or other textual apparatus. In a letter addressed to his brothers dated Friday, January 23, 1818, Keats transcribes his poem but drops the word read: On Sitting Down to Read King Lear Again becomes On sitting down to King Lear again. A narrative of Keatss composition exists in the letters, but the media event of the facsimile edition disrupts this narrative for McCleod, leading him to posit a different narrative for the poem. He points out that the title page of the book may also be part of the title of Keatss poem that he relates to Keatss signature written on the title page just above Mr. William Shakespeares and dated 1817 (34). McCleod reads the signature not as a sign of Keatss ownership of the book but as his will, his signing over his copy to Fanny Brawne. McCleod criticizes editors of Keatss poem for ignoring the facsimile as icon, for following a de-iconizing process of editorial transmission (36). By contrast, McCleod resre-socializes the poem by uneun-editing it, putting it back into the context of its material inscriptions and transcriptions. Yet McCleods notion of uneun-editing the social text depends on his turning facsimiles, reproduced in his essay sometimes as small parts of pages, sometimes of full pages of Keatss facsimile, into a blocking of one narrative in order to produce another narrative about the text in the age of photofacsimiles (37). The revelation of an earlier, Keatsian media interruption serves to naturalize anotherMcCleods own use of photofacsimiles. If Keats disappears the word read from his poem, McCleod disappears the question of how to read that elision and its dependence on both a facsimile of Keatss poem and a quotation from Keatss letter. The typography of McCleods neologism is itself a symptomatic distraction: un Editing severs the un by a different font, spacing, and quotation marks from the capitalized and italicized Editing, but the title is then subject to maiming or reforming in the table of contents of the journal that published it, and subsequent citations. Indeed, un Editing, which refuses the irruption of white space, may be read as a condensed auto-immunizing antiaanti-aporia. But,But in the wake of McCleods (non)reading of what he dubs Keatspeare, readers and editors do not know where to begin reading or editingwith print or after the handwritten date? Nor do we know where or when to stop reading. The poem appears on the same page that ends Hamlet (FINIS)it erupts between plays. And precisely because Keatss 1804 facsimile has not been edited, the blank space on the page usually taken up by notes becomes writeable for a poem that is at the same time not publishable as a literary de/composition. Keatss poem becomes excessively literary, therefore, as its position within the facsimile edition renders its composition unnarratable, unreadable, and inedi(ta)bleboth yum! and yuck! How do we handle such irreducible thisness? Reduce the complexity of the fac/faux/simile and you lose everything. Try selling that? In our view, the virtuoso McCleod pulls off a self-disappearing act even before he goes missing in the bibliographies of more recent scholars who clearly know and are influenced by his work: his essay goes missing because it quite corrosively exposes editing to a crisis by showing that the apparent difference between editing and un Editing cannot be kept in place by typography. Because Keats turns his Shakespeare facsimile into writing paper for his poems, composed in unpublished and unpublishable paratextual spaces, the resulting poem thus requires transcription and facsimilation in order to be assimilated into an edi(tab)ble narrative formwhich is what McCleod does. And this imagetexting or what we will name in subsequent chapters Bardoclash derails any attempt to narrate and recover an uncorrupted, unedited material text written by Keats. All encryption models of the social text are wildly exceeded by the posthumographic status of Keatspeare for which McCleod and his readers serve as animating wetware, rendering the textual remains lively once more. Fac/fauxFaux/similes of (Not) Reading Fast-forward to Zachary Lesser and Peter Stallybrasss magisterial essay The First Literary Hamlet and the Commonplacing of Professional Plays on Shakespeares Commonplaces (2008). Lesser and Stallybrass show that the first quarto of Hamlet (Q1; ) (1603) is, much like the second quartoQ2 (Q2; 1604/5), a literary text, and not the record of a theatrical performance it is generally assumed to be. By literary they mean geared to a world of scholar-readers on the lookout for sententiaea model of the literary that emerges out of what represents an emerging community of readerly interest. At the end of the essay, there appears an Authors Correction page. One play, it seems, was inadvertently omitted from Table 1, and Lesser and Stallybrass note that we should have included this edition in our list. These things, it must be said, happen. Given all that they have done, who really could point a finger? It seems fair to note, however, that their brief bibliographical and unpun-paginated paratext serves to fund a belief that the archive may be positivized, errors corrected, and what went missing restored, if not joined. The correction page stands in, if you like, for all the plays that may have existed but which that are lost to record. It creates the sense of fullness. Our aim is not necessarily to question their essays modeling of a particular historical practice of (not) reading Hamlet (scrolling through the text looking for sententiae) so much as to call attention to a lingering symptom of the serious (and totally infectious) case of archive fever that their essay contracts. In a joyful moment, this delirium takes us shopping. We pause with Lesser and Stallybrass to hallucinate the positivity of the first and second Hamlet quartos into a scene of buying. We enter Nicholas Lings shop (Ding-a-Ling) in order to explain why he might have produced two very similar quartos instead of what always seemed like two very different quartos (and which therefore needed less explaining). Lesser and Stallybrass explain the apparent marketing blunder by imagining the scene: Lings title pages have it both ways. A book buyer with enough interest in Hamlet to pay close attention will be alerted to the newer editions superiority over the oldwhich, after all, such an interested reader could already have bought in 1603. This reader will thus be urged to buy the new version (as well). A more casual browser, on the other hand, might miss the distinction altogether, giving Ling a chance to sell off copies of Q1 (perhaps even at a discount) while still asserting the new and improved status of Q2. Lings title page for Q2 thus seems an ideal solution to a particular, local problem: how should a publisher market a new version of a text he had printed only a year earlier, enticing customers to buy the new edition without driving them away from the old? The archive hallucinated here as a scene of book browsing provides a mirror image of the New Historicist anecdote. Instead of being derived from fiction in the archive, the archive itself is fictionalized, converted into a series of calculations the reader with enough interest will get back by converting his attentive reading into comparison -shopping. The mise- en- scne works, and artfully so. Its a gorgeously filmic moment that unfolds just on the edges of their sentences, as we are invited to glimpse at the past from out of the corner of an eye. But these aesthetic judgments disclose the way the essay itself serves as facsimile or back up, a sorting of textual data so as to summon up a past via the very great and much- appreciated labor qua fetish work that Lesser and Stallybrass do but readers then did not. Lesser and Stallybrass produce their facsimile in order to narrativize the data of what is said to happen in textual production; that is, they posit / conjure / hallucinate a scholarly community of readers in Renaissance London who read and write the same way they do without ever having done sothe actual labor of reading then and now differs. The vast labor entailed to produce their essay stands in reciprocal relation to the much different processes of reading that they take to be and so constitute as aan historic historical phenomenon. Q1 and Q2 of Hamlet are therefore re/constructed as a single and wholly reliable media platform for the delivery of sententiae. Value / use value for scholars in their imagined community is located less in the commonplace books and the literary tradition they are said to create than in the cut- and- paste operations that constitute them. The play -text itselfor at least the texts of Q1 and Q2 of Hamletmay safely be forgotten: Lesser and Stallybrass dont have to read Hamlet (and neither do we), because they didnt either. No one, it seems, read Hamlet. And in not reading the play, we come strangely to resemble Polonius as he replays himself replaying the contents of his commonplace book in Act one 1, scene three3, almost making Laertes miss the boat hes been urging him to board. What a while ago Stephen Greenblatt called the touch of the real was, so we now discover, not only a desire for the referent, but always already the touched of the real, a happy hallucination of the referent and the past through the drug of writing seemingly purified through the buffer of facsimiles. Enter Thomas Middleton:. Bio/Bibliography as Fac/Faux/simile Thus far we have treated two exemplary instances of media interruption in the hands of some of their most deft rhetoricians. We turn now to the labor of editing itselfunderstood, following Heminge and Condell, as a moment of recruitment, a moment at which it may be possible, by producing the correct bio/bibliographical object, to orchestrate an event that alters the gravitation of the field. What does it take, for example, to launch an ideological counterweight to what Michael Bristol calls bBig-time Shakespeare? How do you create a fetish object that might compete, that might deliver on the threat of a literal nonrnon-reading of Shakespeare by recruiting readers to bear someone else? It takes perhaps, at very least, the double whammy of Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works (2007) and Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture (2007) and the addition, now, of The Oxford Handbook of Thomas Middleton (2012). Tellingly, the editors inform readers that these editions are both like and unlike so-called complete or collected works of Shakespeare. A game is being played,; a reore-orientation effected. The Collected Works begins by leveling the score and assuming the mantle: Thomas Middleton and William Shakespeare were the only writers of the English Renaissance who created masterpieces in four major dramatic genres: comedy, history, tragedy, and tragic-comedy. Middleton was the only playwright trusted by Shakespeares company to adapt Shakespeares plays after his death. He also wrote the biggest hit performed by any company in London during the period. The narrative oscillates between affiliation and replacement, between the assertion of identity and a rupturing superiority. Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture takes a different strategy. It crafts an editorial apparatus and approach not scripted by previous editions of Shakespeares works. In the handy section titled, How to Use Tthis Book, the editors reverse the temporality of the opening moves of the Collected Works to stage their project from the point of view of the reader. Most modern readers of Middleton, they write, will already have encountered editions of Shakespeare, acknowledging Shakespeare as a filter or model that might interrupt or arouse certain kinds of expectations that are unwelcome. They assert the irrelevance of many of the editorial choices that concern Shakespeare. In describing the protocol for the inclusion of texts in the Collected Works, they note that it contains texts of all Middletons known surviving works, and brief descriptions of what we know about his lost ones. It includes works written by Middleton alone, works written by Middleton in collaboration with other writers, and works by writers which Middleton later adapted. The strategy then, which both is and is not the same as the one that produces the Oxford Shakespeare, subtly rewires the linkage between the figure of the author and his works to include everything that Middleton may reasonably be expected to have had a hand in. The logic makes fine sense but runs the (we think admirable) risk of counterccounter-claims or objections over property rights that will be difficult if not impossible to combat. Implicitly, the historical Middleton serves here less as a retrievable bio/bibliographical origin than as Ursprung or outpouring, the breathing and writing bios, the biological fact of an existence that requires remediation in order to render his textual corpus whole if not holy. The Collected Works, whose self-ruining completeness emphatically overcover-compensates for what is lost, proffers itself as a witting facsimile of an edition that claims to be The Complete Works but which that is riven with writing gone missing. It registers its losses, the ash of the archive, as a series of descriptions that draw attention to the holes. One could, we suppose, choose to read this strategy as a compulsion to find signs of Middleton wherever and whenever is possible, and so to breathe life into him via the inflation of so many textual skins so that one day he may live onbut how could one not to want to join in? How could we not understand this as part of a strategy to alter the ideological field of Renaissance drama and value it as the intensive labor of a particular fetish community that wishes us to apprehend the past differently? The Unintroduction to the Oxford Handbook explicitly notes that for Middleton there is no great tradition. Yetoffering the thirty six36 essays that follow as proof of life, proof of critical traffic around the texts, proof that the world will now be different. As an exercise in bio/bibliography (the comco-making of persons and books) the Middleton project provides no answers to the questions we seek to worry, but it offers a strategically different way of using texts and of conceiving of the edition and handbook as back ups or backing ups to writing that maximizes its heft in our collective presents. The Nuclear Option Thus far, we have rehearsed an all too brief survey of some of our favorite media interruptionswhich we read as deployments of unreadability in the service of an altered sense of the archive, the production of different effects of the past in our various presents. In short, they deploy a set of reading protocols that fundamentally do not change the Heminge and Condell business model of Renaissance drama. And so we come back to the question. What would it mean to confront a literal, brute unrun-readability and dwell within its yet- to- be- discovered limits? What does such a feat entail? A little while ago or almost no time at all, someone tried to do just that. He wondered whether or not there might come a time when Shakespeare might cease to be literature. It isquite possible, he writes, that given a deep enough transformation of our history, we may in the future produce a society which is unable to get anything at all out of Shakespeare. His works might seem desperately alien, full of styles of thought and feeling which such a society found limited or irrelevant. And in such a situation, he adds, Shakespeare would be no more valuable than much present-day graffiti (10). And though many people, he concludes, turning the knife, would consider such a social condition tragically impoverished, it seems to me dogmatic not to entertain the possibility that it might arise rather from a general human enrichment. This is, of course, Terry Eagleton writing in Literary Theory: An Introduction (1983). As you recall, he is out to put literature under erasure, out to deface literature as a sort of liberal humanist gold standard or fetish object and with it the idea that reading made you a better person. Here he enlists Shakespeares unrun-readability to his cause. Un-Shakespeare Shakespeare, he implies, and you may picture what the future holdsa radical, blank future, it seems, a future that is not yet written, but upon which you may like to project a future youd prefer to the present. Deploying a rhetorical unrun-readability become literal nonrnon-reading, Eagleton leaves Shakespeare to be remaindered, moved to the library annex, put in the bin, or at least cancelled from the ideological menu. Shake-who? At the end of the book, in the chapter, Political Criticism, the stakes get even higher. Having taken us on a tour of theory, Eagleton asks, What is the point? Are there not issues in the world more weighty than codes, signifiers and reading subjects? (169). Eagleton inputs the rhetorical launch codes and writes the following: Let us consider merely one such issue. As I write, it is estimated that the world contains over 60,000 nuclear warheads, many with a capacity a thousand times greater than the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima. The possibility that these weapons will be used in our lifetime is steadily growing. The approximate cost of these weapons is 500 billion dollars a year, or 1.3 billion dollars a day. Five percent of this sum25 billion dollarscould drastically, fundamentally alleviate the problems of the poverty-stricken Third World (169). Eventalizing his own text with the pseudodpseudo-deictic as I write, Eagleton goes nuclear, and the future, or one version of it, dis/appears as a blinding flash of white light. But,But the trigger he pulls is a dummy. The nuclear moment passes and serves as a shock tactic by which an altered sense of the archive is installed. For his book, as we discover, serves less an introduction [to literary theory] than an obituary, he writes, and he ends by burying the object we sought to unearth (178). The blast radius of Eagletons going nuclear de-realizes literature and its parasitic theories along with it. His book, then, will have been a crypt, a closing off and down of a set of issues, that might inaugurate a political orientation to the vast archive named simply writing, from which various positive agendas might provisionally arise: emerging national literatures, working- class / ethnic literatures, et cetera. But where there should be a blank, the future drawing a blank, leaving us much like Walter Benjamins angel of history facing bbackwardsackward, gazing out upon the wreckage that remains, it turns out that redemption beckons. Shakespeare, Eagleton tells us, lives, rising like some phoenix from the ashes of literature. He did not, so it appears, have to die (again) for literature to die. The Shakespeare whose unreadability has been mooted was merely a body double for the pernicious literature that is now raining upon us as just so much fall out. The liberation of Shakespeare and Proust, writes Eagleton, may well entail the death of literature, but it may also be their redemption (189). Shakespeare needed killing so that Shakespeare could live again. What needed killing was literatureand projecting Shakespeares historical irrelevance was one of many rhetorical interventions in the ideological switchboard required to pull the trigger. X Mar/s/ks the Spots Eagletons book may be read as already choreographing a particular dance between what is called theory and history (language and reference / outside as mediated via various substrates / archives) and encoding thereby a set of strategies for prospecting or opening up new markets for Shakespeare (read literary) reserves in a series of emancipated futures that are yet to be redeemed and which that therefore offer the prospect of endless surplus values and (joint) stock options. In this sense, Literary Theory: An Introduction becomes readable as a moment of what Jacques Derrida might term nuclear criticism, a set of moves which that tax the present with the fabulation of a referent: either the mutually assured destruction of nuclear oblivion or the postivizing of textual traces in the name of lifean immanent ideology. For Eagleton, then, unreadability remains allied to the crypt or to the grave. It remains keyed to a marker or even a monument to which we could point, to which we could return to pull up the weeds, wipe away the dust or the grime, and read the inscription or write a new one. Or, in the event that the inscription has gone missing, we could exhume the contents and discover what lies beneath, what remains. In No Apocalypse, Not Now (1984), Derrida speaks to such a question of radical, catastrophic unreadability as a question of archivability. In doing so, he posits a mode of unreadability not coupled to the grave. He links literature to the loss of a referent specific to total, nuclear destruction: Here we are dealing hypothetically with a total and remainderless destruction of the archive. This destruction would take place for the first time and it would lack any common proportion with, for example, the burning of a library, even that of Alexandria, which occasioned so many written accounts and nourished so many literatures. The hypothesis of this total destruction watches over deconstruction, it guides its footstepsdeconstruction, at least what is being advanced today in its name, belongs to the nuclear age. And to the age of literature. The only referent that is absolutely real is thus of the scope or dimension of an absolute nuclear catastrophe that would irreversibly destroy the entire archive and all symbolic capacity, would destroy the movement of survival, what I call survivance, at the very heart of life. Under such circumstances, the symbolic work of mourning becomes impossible, for the survivance at the very heart of life, an orientation to the future, to the possibility that our playing will repre-play, vanishes:. This absolute referent of all possible literature is on a par with the absolute effacement of any possible trace; it is thus the only ineffaceable trace, it is so as the trace of what is entirely other, trace du tout autre. This is the only absolute traceeffaceable, ineffaceable. The only subject of all possible literature, of all possible criticism, its only ultimate and a-symbolic referent, unsymbolizable, even unsignifiable; this is, if not the nuclear age, if not the nuclear catastrophe, at least that toward which nuclear discourse and the nuclear symbolic are still beckoning: the remainderless and a-symbolic destruction of literature. Literature and literary criticism cannot speak of anything else, they can have no other ultimate referent. If we are bound and determined to speak in terms of reference, nuclear war is the only possible referent of any discourse and any experience that would share their condition with that of literature. If, according to a structuring hypothesis, a fantasy or phantasm, nuclear war is equivalent to the total destruction of the archive, if not of the human habitat, it becomes the absolute referent, the horizon and the condition of all the others. With the destruction of both the archive and the referent, nothing remains. Such a loss of the referent (of the very possibility of reference) is different from an individual death, a destruction affecting only a part of society, of tradition, of culture, which may always give rise to a symbolic work of mourning, with memory, compensation, internalization, idealization, displacement, and so on. In that case there is monumentalization, archivization and work on the remainder, work of the remainder. By proffering a destruction of both referent and back up, of world and archives, nuclear criticism installs its own restricted practices of not reading, reducing and thereby managing the textual dispersal that an archive effects. Indeed, the effect of such nuclear catastrophe would be to recall and obliterate all the fragments, all the bits and pieces that remain as they have been parceled out, as they have been lost and found. In the event of such an event, the chronological instant of such a cessation of happening, archive and referent would, in a sense, merge, or the distinction between the two would become as fundamentally unclear as it would prove irrelevant. Here, Derridas turn from the unreadability of literature to what we would call its un- or an- archivability depends on a media- specific notion of the archive: Derridas archive is a written archive made of printed texts that are traces of arche-writing. Even in Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression, when he took stock of the impact of new media on the archive, Derrida did not theorize a shift in archive management from a referencing system with its retrieval and return protocols derived from a print archive and the assumed ontology of the book. The shift to a model focused by a facsimile archive, at a further remove from the textual referent, yet constituted also so as to be capable of being processed as or mistaken for the referent, remains to be thought. The surplus value of the facsimile as both facsimile and faux-simile constitutes the literary object, the book, always as an oscillating media event, an event that resre-stitches unreadability in any act of reading. Survivance, the movement of survival, already, if you like, constitutes a winking in and out of being, a recre-crossing and cutting of the relations between the living and the nonlnon-living, the organic, the machinic, and the inert. The backup of the facsimile is thus always in excess of the total destruction of any archive or paper machine. It calls into question the distinctions even between an archive and the world as we live it, the world as already keyed to an auto-archiving of itself as things unfold. Here it seems important to recall that Eagletons book resists itself and signs another road that it does not take. Against the move to liberation become redemption, Eagleton records but does not cite Marx in the Grundrisse worrying the eternal charm (10) of Greek aArt and, though Eagleton does not remind us, of Shakespeare. Marx writes that he will deal with Greek aArt first and then speak to the relationof Shakespeare to the present time but never makes it back to him; forgets to do so; leaves him quite literally unread, citing him approvingly on the essence of money later in the text. Greek art then does double duty. But the question of its charm is complicated. The relation between mythology as the arsenal to Greek art is interrupted by capitalisms growing technical mastery of the natural world. What chance, writes Marx, aligning the Greek gods with their corporate equivalents, has Vulcan against Roberts & C, Jupiter against the lightning rod, and Hermes against the Credit Mobilier? The problem posed by Greek arts and epic, then, and by an offstage Shakespeare, is that they still afford us artistic pleasure. Marx resolves this seeming contradiction by boxing it up in a narrative that reverses the genealogical cast to parenting. If parents derive pleasure from their children by reere-experiencing their own childish naivet, such is the pleasure afforded by Greek art, which serves up beautiful unfoldings summoned from the historic childhood of humanity. By this inversion of genealogical time, our ancestors become our children. Interrupted by technological and media developments, their readability or retrievability is premised on the charm we derive from what is, in truth, their unrun-readability given our present situation and concerns. We recognize them, but they are not readable. We enjoy them, but that enjoyment manifests an apotheosis or exotic derivative of times past. The source of their attraction lies very precisely in how readily their readability is a given, gives itself to us so that it is remains or goes unread. In effect, Marx retains the charm while boxing it up so that it may not speak to or of the futurewhich it cannot thereby infect. The judicious blankness to his model of the future, speaks to us, of the difficulty in knowing whether or not, when we speak, write, and read, we change scripts, and how to reckon with the good and bad ghosts of those who were on the scene but who have departed and yet remain. We will, we know, find ourselves hauntedso how then to own up to our futures as always already revivals, as reanimations of and by acts and thoughts past?; Wwith difference,; or with the same old violence and exclusions, all be they redistributed according to latest demographics of race and species? Marx warns of this difficulty in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: The social revolution of the 19th century cannot create its poetry out of the past, but only from the futurea process he describes as like learning a new language. It is like the beginner, he says, [who] always translates back into the mother tongue, but appropriates the spirit of the new language and becomes capable of producing freely within it only by moving about in it without recalling the old. Such a crossing over gets coded as a forgetting of the matrix / maternal language, as the speaker gains fluency in a language she cannot remember learning or by forgetting that she has forgotten the old onea language that remains merely next, without origin / genealogical link to the father of her habits. As the emphasis on the materiality, difficulty, and potential failure of translation, reanimation, recalling, repetition, and so renaissance, in Marxs brief narrative makes clear, the problem lies in discerning which phenomena are progressive and which retrogressivea salvific lure for utopian energies that lead us to want to make good on an unfulfilled past that has been irretrievably lost. He posits the future therefore as constitutively unrun-readable and necessarily unwun-writable. In our view, Marxs refusal to permit an archive of the future to cohabit with the archive of the dead and dying stands as a caution against dummy deployments of unrun-readability gone nuclear sponsored by media interruption or archival politics that closes out the political. Such deployments rely on the flare of white light generated by the advent or messianic arrival of media -specificity to inaugurate their own reworking or sorting of the archive so as to recuperate this or that fabulation of a referentcall it future liberation, for presentists; call it history in the guise of a referent, for historicists. Torn between both impulses, blinded by the successive flares of white light and drugged up by their juicy referents, we find ourselves stranded in the nonsnon-space where conversion occurs, the x that mar/s/ks the spot. This is (not)Is (Not) a Drill Warning! Media Interruption! Or this medium is newand different! Quick, everyone says., No time to lose. This is it. Look! You better get moving. Put your book down and pick ours up. If you dont youll just be a botched facsimile of a reader. Hang on, we say. Slow down. No need to worry or head into the bunker. But you may want to check your purse. Forget the rhetoric of urgencytherell be another media interruption along in a minute. This time, you dont have to listen to the sirens. This time, watch (out) for the blank space, the blankness thats drawn in order to loop the interruption and return to a reading that does not read. Elude the gerund. Stick with the finite. Blank out. If you can accept that iteration is all there ever was or will bethe effect of the original a retrospective causation of the facsimiles / back ups, and you its wetwarethen what might we learn? Such a critical program would articulate the future as a fundamentally empty set that it is our job precisely not to fill because to fill it would merely be to fill it againe and againe in order to keep canceling it out and cashing it in. And so, instead, we seek to dwell in the blank spots unreadability discloses and covers over and to inhabit the question. These blank spots are neither Marxian nor Derridean. They are best rendered as crossroads and crucescrossed out through data input operations that we perform all too quickly, hurried across by the manifest danger of apocalypse, the proffered hopes of redemption, or by a mode of academic production in which readings must be vendible. Yet the danger of reading is not something that we can secure ourselves against or safely avoid. In their address to the great variety of readers, Heminge and Condell may seek to amass readerly friends and friends of friendsthe First Folio already a prima facie Facebook pagebut no friendly firewall can contain the danger of unreaderly foes. The friending of readers (and friends of friendly readers) already enfolds and inscribes a politics of friend and foe, the reader as p/artisan who is directed to reread, but whose rerre-readings are always after the missing manuscript that the First Foe/lio has apparently left behind in its salvific idealization of itself as Folio, as a print edition that leaves no archive of impressions. Instead of Heminge and Condells instructions for use, we wish to reire-iterate their iterative schema, againe and againe, and receive it as an invitation to play nonrnon-reading out as a blank check/ed. To that end, we find ourselves embarked on a project of un/reading, a project that focuses on sometimes barely visible, often minute manifestations of media- specific interruptions of reading in print editions, film adaptations, and so on, of Shakespeare and Renaissance Drama drama. In this first chapter, we have attempted merely to delineate this project. What it means to read (and not read) from our position necessarily remains to be seen. In Chapter chapter two2,: O, horrible, most horrible Horrible, Most Horrible! Hamlets Telephone, we begin by putting John Dover Wilsons What Happens in Hamlet? on the line with Avital Ronells account of Hamlet in The Telephone Book, to explore the ways in which editing smoothes out a series of interpretive puzzles in the play keyed to the problem of voices that go missing or which that are interrupted, voices that are relayed or recorded, or that appear in the play only as facsimiles of themselves. At the end of the play, Hamlet turns himself into a dysfunctional relay system, turning Horatio, his faithful answering machine, into a relay to the future. Such an ending stands as a stark or perhaps stalking companion to the haunting of the play by Hamlets father, and enables us to identify within the play a conversation about the nature of answerability that inflects current critical discussions of Shakespeares response to matters of sovereignty and government. Ready to listen, we turn to the text of Hamlet, hearing in Bernardos opening question Who is there? a calling of the ghostly sovereign to account, dialing him up, in order to settle outstanding accounts. In chapter Chapter three3,: Romeo and Juliet is for Zombies, we offer a reading of what we call Romeo and Juliets equipment for dying from the vantage point offered by a three- minute film short directed by Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami, Where is Is My Romeo, screened at Cannes in 2007, translated to DVD, and now streaming on YouTube. We examine the orientation to mourning that takes shape in Romeo and Juliet and its founding as a structure of disturbed viewing / reception that requires that our response make or do something, as Capulet and Montague seniors signal by their conservation / the domestication of their feuding by the shared construction of statues to accessorize and archive the story. Kiarostamis short film offers itself not as an adaptation of the play but as spin- off, asking us to watch a series of women watch the end of the play, but refusing to screen Romeo and Juliet. The oscillating presence / absence of Shakespeare, the literal unviewability / unreadability of the off-stage play, as Where is Is My Romeo? unfolds, leads us to read contemporary cinephilia in conversation with the modes of reception that Shakespeares play imagines to the tragic events it stages. The automaticity of mourning in the play figured as an accessorizing of decay, an accessorizing or fetish labor that represents something both more and less than a reading. In chapter Chapter four4,: Drown Before Reading: Prosperos Missing Books, we take up the crux of Prosperos stated intention to drown his books near the end of the play, which, in defiance of the elements, sometimes morphs in commentaries on the play into a book burning. Placing filmic treatments of this crux alongside the play text, its editions, and its reworkings in post colonial contexts, we examine the appearance of books being written/produced in the closing sequences of two adaptations of the play: Julie Taymors Tempest (2010) and Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1995). Analyzing the place of these films, which are concerned with the process of writing early modern books, in relation to two developments in the history of the cinematic paratext: first, opening and end sequences that show the credits printed on turning pages of a book; and, second, the increasing expansion and development of end credit sequences since 1980; we examine the allure that Prosperos books, forever closed to us, forever unreadable, have for us. In chapter Chapter five5,: Anonymous / Anony/mess, we beg raise questions of the so-called authorship controversy as it does (and does not haunt) Shakespeare Studies studies by way of a reading of the controversy turned conspiracy or, better yet, disaster film Anonymous (2011). The film, we think, constitutes a complete mess, modeling the Shakespeare (or is it De Vere?) archive as a messy morass out of which voices are summoned by the variously human or lively presences that breathe their wordsthe wetware to whom we have introduced you, or that we have asked you to consider yourselves to be in this our first chapter. We conclude with a short weather report in place of the resre-shelving operations that we understand a bibliography or even, in our terms, a bio/bibliography, to constitute. Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Oh, horrible, most horribleHorrible, Most Horrible! Hamlets Telephone Barnardo Whos there? Francisco Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself. Barn Long live the King. Fran Barnardo. Barn He. Fran You come most carefully upon your hour. Barn Tis now struck twelve. Get thee to bed, Francisco. Hamlet (1. 1. 15) And yet, youre saying yes, almost automatically, suddenly, sometimes irreversibly. Your picking it up means the call has come through. It means more: youre its beneficiary, rising to meet its demand, to pay a debt. You dont know whos calling or what you are going to be called upon to do, and still, you are lending your ear, giving something up, receiving an order. Its a question of answerability. Avital Ronell, The Telephone Book In our first chapter, we offered you the First Folio (1623) as the scene of a media event. Thus was Shakespeare launched as an ongoing splicing together of texts and readers, a viral recruitment of variously lively hosts, whom the Folio posits as friends to the textual corpus / corpse of Shakespeare. The First Folio stands for us as a strategically imperfect archive. It offers a partial Shakespearean impression that requires you to splice together looking (at his image) and reading (his and others words) and to summon up, by that exchange, a Shakespeare phantom that you take as a referent. Read hard and you will, if you read rightly, glimpse the man, and so receive his impression. His words assume the aura of a code. The living, breathing, bios that he was becomes twinned with the biblion (book but also niche or slot in a library) that you keep circulating, enabling him / it to live on. By this recruitment, we become wetware, the biosbio-semiotic motor or substrate to Shakespeares animation in our various presents. In this chapter we offer an un/reading of Hamlet (16001602) that posits the play as already a response to such recruitment and lesson giving by the un/dead. By its structure and handling of questions of reference the play seeks to capture the peculiar feeling that comes with finding yourself answering the call that John Heminge and Henrie Condell place, picking up the telephone from which issues the reproduction of a voice that is not itself, but which that claims to be so, and whichthat, worse still, you treated as such merely by agreeing to answer. The insistent ring, hum, ping, or drone of your phone, whatever stimulus it is that demands attention, stitches you into the telephonic structure of the call. You find yourself on the line, waiting, on hold to the phone (voice). To write as directly as possible and to risk nonsensicality, we posit Hamlet as already producing what we can name today the effect of telephony, and exploiting (right royally) the telephonic dialing up of distant voices for its dramatic effects. Hamlet is a telephone book. Beyond capturing, in advance of the fact, the peculiar effect of telephony, we argue that Hamlet ventures an order of telephonic resistance or unreadability. It resists the call. Even as Hamlet finds himself (and we) find ourselves) compelled to answer, the play refuses to capitulate to the weak sovereignty of a dead father-king whose voice comes back complaining about something or other he got in his ear. Voices go missing and, get interrupted, dropped, relayed, recorded, rerouted, and augmented through various writing devices such as tables, letters, a and dumb show, and by the human component to writing technologies, actors, messengers, secretaries. Media proliferates and pools. These devices may, or may not, appear on stage as props. Such voices appear then always as facsimiles of themselves, as reports, or reports of reports read aloud, making some voices distorted echoes of themselves and others hallucinations. Hamlet proceeds as a parade of these fac/faux/similes, multimedia renderings or reproductions, the action held hostage by whats not on stage, by what might, or might not, have happened, be happening, and remain to happen, as that is suggested by differently backed forms of evidence. By its ongoing deployment of different media, all of which fail, the play attenuates the call,; strands us in the nontnon-time of answerability, of finding -ourselves -recruited -before -the -call, of being entered into a becoming wetware. It worries protocols of evidence, acts of reading (and not reading) that seek to refer or to touch the world; it draws attention to the way these readings are only as reliable as their backingthe physical substrates of: wax, skin, paper (rags or vegetable), and ink and ; the human witness that offers the report. The play ruins Hamlets own drive for a textual forensics, C. S. I., gotcha moment in the staging of The Murder of Gonzago, both under- and overpover-producing even as Hamlet seeks to shut things down; to set things straight. Such probing yields only phantom referents, fac/faux/similes of things that may or may not have occurred. In offering the play to you as a telephone book, a fragmentary auto-archiving of what it is like to find yourself on the line, we aim to account for the rich and varied responses to the plays resistance, by reorienting critical attention to the plays tactical unreadability. Critics and audiences have long noted the plays obsession with writing technologies, with repetition, revision, reanimation, and revival. But,But largely, such critical and creative efforts, imagining that every exit is an entrance somewhere else or time-traveling un-Hamletings (filmic and critical), have sought to bandage up or smooth over disabling cruxes all in order to reduce the static the play generates. They supplement the play in order to supplant its difficulties, generating a weak sovereignty over the text. The core difference between this wealth of artistic and critical fetish work and our approach lies in the way we resist the urge to minister, positing the play, instead, as a self-rending multimedia archive that will not resolve into a single, sovereign performance or reading. You can try to keep your text of Hamlet straight, lining up the terms, by reading the plays writing games thematically, as Jonathan Goldberg has so deftly done. You can divide the labor; bust the cruxes by editing them away; and then, with the text sedated, hallucinate a performance and simply declare, as does John Dover Wilson, wWhat happens in Hamlet. Like Steven Ratcliffe, you can dwell with the off-stageoffstage world that haunts the play to very productive effect. You can claim the play as the first instance of the whodunit or the first film noir as Linda Charnes has done in a brilliantly anachronistic rezre-zoning of the play. You can stitch the play to the confessional confusion of the period and yoke the mobility of voices to the hic et ubique of Hamlet Seniors ghost. You can even own up to the plays uncanny repetitions and self-revisions,; spell the action and the title bbackwardsackward as Terrence Hawkes does in his still inspiring Telmah, finding therein a jazz aesthetic that doubles as a politicizing jouissance. You can posit the play as a kind of psychoanalytic substrate or psychotropic flypaper on which editors and readers rend their wings, as Marjorie Garber does in her readings of the psycho/bio/bibliographical import of editing. Or you can wax ecstatic and luxuriate in the muteness that comes with finding yourself recruited as wetware and imagine a salvific, new media history to come that would resolve all. But as you do so, realize that you are generating a weak sovereignty over the text by refolding cruxes, managing an economy of reading and not reading, so that Hamlet coheres, and you can end the call, and put this telephone / book down. But try as we might, even as we hang up, put Hamlet down, and tip toe away from its niche in the library / depository / crypt, lest that call come again, were never quite off the hook. hHence all the labor that goes into managing the call and the hallucinations of certainty or reference it produces. The pProblem is that no matter what feats of editing or parceling out of media we attempt, the structure of survivance to which Hamlet responds and which that it archives (badly) sports objections to our attempts to sort the play into a series of mono-media operating on separate, static-free channels. We remain, then, like Hamlet, Horatio, Ophelia, and Marcellus, like Yorick, like aall of ll the various objects pressed to use as imperfect answering machines in the play, going over and over the same telephonic cruxes the play generates. And these cruxes do not derive from some imperfect translation from stage to print and back that might one day be resolved to create a seamless set of reversible passages. Instead, the play exists as an irreducible set of problems generated by its archiving of what was already a multimedia platform, the public theater. Moreover, by its own auto-archiving, the text fractures itself. Always too much and too little, Hamlet repeatedly threatens not to happen even as it repeatedly does so. In this chapter we offer an account of the plays rending or disabling across different media, pursuing lines of questioning that the play paradoxically opens up by closing them down as it becomes a multimedia archive: the text (first quarto [Q1], second quarto [Q2], First FolioF1); the editions; the critical apparatus; the creative elaboration in plays, on film, and so on. For us, Hamlet designates not a play, but a burgeoning archive of the predicament of the citizen-subject forced to sift the differently mediated textual remains of acts past under the demands placed by a spectral sovereign-father whose call you have to take. Radicalizing John Dover Wilsons What Happens in Hamlet, we refuse to hear the declarative cast to his title or even to process it as a question. Instead, we ask perversely what is the meaning of what and what is the meaning of happens? What is the textual referent of Hamlet? These questions may strike some readers as strange. Yet to assume the transparency of the statement what happens in Hamlet or even to turn that statement into a question is to operate still within the impossible forensics framework that drives Hamlet and Hamlets action. What happened? Murder. Who did it? Claudius. Only by questioning the basis of the question can we perceive the choreography by which Hamlet constitutes itself as an archive and its ash. First Words The play begins, as you recall, with the posing of a question that is already an answer, a response to some thing. The action begins in reference to an absent word or sound, the intimation of a prompt or presence that comes before. A voice asks the dark to speak: Whos there? Are you noise or presence? Will you, can you answer? Friend or foe? But already theres a problem, a switch, a reversal. The yet- to- be- named Francisco answers with a question: Stand and unfold yourself. Undo your cloak. Show your face. If I am to answer, you must answer first. We must both agree to be answerable. Barnardo answers the challenge not by name but by function. Long live the King, he proclaims, speaking as he who bears the sovereigns mark. But which king is it exactlyHamlet Senior, Claudius? Do such names even matter? Theres always a King king, isnt there? Perhaps its safest for the likes of you and I me to disappear and present ourselves as soldiers merelyas they who put teeth in the sovereigns mouth, who serve as mediators of sovereign violence. Its safest to hand off the call,; own up to your recruitment, and pass the receiver along to another. Hamlet, we think its for you. Things settle down as Francisco posits the voice as the man hes expecting and names him: Barnardo. Barnardo agrees to be himself. Then theyre down to familiarities, minor recriminations or thanksBarnardos either late or very punctualTis coldnot a mouse stirring (1. 1. 67). Go on, go in, and get to bed. Yet even as the matter seems settled, we know that the two men have merely postponed an installed uncertainty with regard to such challenges and answers, for Horatio and Marcellus are on their way up, coming to settle a question, to speak to a thing that keeps coming back, to a ghost that, so it seems, would be spoke to (1. 1. 44). Already then, by its beginning, the play offers itself as an insufficient archival response to a word or noise that precedes the first words of the play. In terms of the structures of survivance that give us our daily Shakespeares, we might say that Hamlet unfolds quite precisely as a self-rending attempt to remember the word that comes before the first word (what was it again?), ensuring thereby that that word be forgotten, held at bay. The play documents the afterlife of some thing that precedes it, which is finished, but whose facticity of which always exceeds the plays attempts to reconnect its present to a moment that has passed. In Derridean terms, we might say that what happens in the play derives from an event that produces not only an act, a performance, a praxis, but an oeuvre, that is, at the same time the result and the trace left by a supposed operation and its supposed operator. By this completion or terminus, some thing lives on. Indeed, its completion or cutting off was what destined [it] to this sur-vival, to this excess over present life. The absent word or noise to which Barnardo responds figures this cut or cutting off, the trace of something that has past and this cut assures a sort of archival independence or autonomy that is quasi-machine-like, placing us in a realm of repetition, repeatability, iterability, serial and prosthetic substitution of self for self. Within the play, this quasi-machine-like matrix generates a structure of repetition and replay that comes to write what follows:; the action,; its translation to other media platforms, and; its afterlife in critical discourse. The effect is quasi-machine-like, in Derridas terms, because even as we live the madness as our own, which is to say that it manifests as if organic, eventful, human, it responds to the afterlife or sur-vival of an operation (voice / event / noise / word) that appears to us only as a trace which that would render it automatic, machinic, in- or non-human. The challenge remains, we think, to model the play outside or without such terms and so to tolerate the dis/ease it generates. For us, the play resists the naturalization of this ontological network of an always already technologized, hard-wired and so haunted model of Being being into the elaborated forms of sovereign / -subject and, friend / -foe, and the generative familial relations of husband / -wife, father / -mother / and son- / daughter, and so on. All such models are deracinated by the plays telephonic structure, which foregrounds the inhuman cutting that marks any beginning, staging the cut throughout its structure as an interrupted or dropped call, the calls interruption, and the maniacal supplementation of voices by other media in order to keep them lively if not alive. Within the play, it becomes hard to know therefore by what ratio we can distinguish between an event and a repetition, the organic and the machinic, for terms collide. Indexed to matters of voice, to its relay, at a distance (tele/phone), the plays staging of prosthetic substitution produces, on the one hand, a desire for a more complete archive, more and more evidentiary back ups for the missing word, and by the same hand, a competing desire for an archival apocalypse that would cancel out the missing first word, time traveling back to fill in what has already gone missing even before we begin. The action remains hostage to these dual impulses even as the play sabotages both. When, for example, at the end of the play Hamlet posits the rest or what remains as an absence of voices, a deaf and dumb silence, that both he and the theater audience will endure, he turns himself into a dysfunctional relay system to some putative future to which he speaks: Fortinbras, he insists has my dying voice (5. 2. 340), which Hamlet gifts to him, throwing his voice forward into the moment when Fortinbras may speak as Hamlet or augmented by the sur-vival of Hamlets words. But such a voice requires a relay, an intermediary. Thus is Horatio, Hamlets faithful answering machine, recruited as bearer, as he who keeps Hamlets voice lively if not alive, enabling his gift to presence in the future. That is, as long as Horatio gets the words rightI am dead, Hamlet says., Thou livest: report my cause aright (5. 2. 322323)., Bbut such reporting remains an open question, for even Hamlet is loathe to set down more than the impetus of his voice to remain or to come back, mandating nothing more firm than that Horatio sort out which events truly counttell him [Fortinbras] which thoccurrents more and less / Which have solicited.The rest is silence (5. 2. 341342). What Horatio leaves out, what he neglects to relay, the gaps he introduces by his reduction or narration of the play, the transformation of Hamlets cause into story, will be rent by silences, minor oblivions, holes. Already, at the end of the play, it begins. Horatio will speak, so he says of hHow these things came about, but the story manifests by its repetition as no more than a horror movie trailer, promising that we will hear / Of carnal, bloody, and unnatural acts, / Of accidental judgements, casual slaughters, / Of deaths put on by cunning, and for no causeAll this can I / Truly deliver (5. 2. 364369). Such lessons as there are to be learned will only figure a traumatizing replay of a fractured archive. Still, the newly arrived Fortinbras says he will haste to hear Horatios narration, and calls the noblest to the audience (5. 2. 370371). Stay tuned. He has some rights to memory in this kingdom, so he says, and of that Horatio promises that he shall have also cause to speak (5. 2. 375). Rights to memory aside, its always best to arrive with glowing references as well as an army. Cue the Hamlet tape. Speak that voice again. And Horatio promises that the dead Hamlet will speak for he shall provide the missing breath for his mouth whose voice will draw no more (5. 2. 376). Thus the play ends with the launch of the latest sovereign legitimized by the endorsement of the latest corpse animated by the latest witness. Such an ending stands as a stark or perhaps stalking companion to the haunting of the play by Hamlets father. It discloses the way the plays scrambling of evidentiary protocols and their writing machines keys to matters of sovereignty and government. What does it mean for Hamlet to take the revenant fathers call? What is owed to a dead sovereign? What will it mean for Fortinbras to take (up) Hamlets dead voice? We argue that the play offers an orientation to these questions from the position of those who are forced to interrogate the textual remains of a sovereign who is present but unavailable, compelling but unable to deliver a final or a first word. Indeed, we think that it is only by pursuing a double argument that thinks questions of media and mediation in tandem with questions of sovereignty that we can begin to grasp the plays choreography of what amounts to a zoo/bio/biblio/politics that examines the experience of the relay, of finding oneself recruited, of becoming wetware, by and as a multimedia rending of voice.  We take Francisco and Barnardos opening exchange, therefore, to constitute the governing question that Hamlet poses concerning answerability and the responsibilities that attach to itquestions that play out as a scrambling or defacement of matters of sovereignty and succession, of generativity and generation. For already, before he is even launched, Fortinbras s words ring hollow. Hamlet will be taken, he says, like a soldier to the stage, / For he was likely, had he been put on, / To have proved most royal (5. 2. 381382). Now he shall be put on even in death, proved royal by Horatios breath, with Fortinbras as body double, the foil who tropes the protagonist. The soldiers music and the rite of war / Speak loudly for him, Fortinbras promises, effecting Hamlets translation as reanimated speaking property to the staging of another media launch, a rebre-branding. But we end not with speech but with the engulfing of all voices (Horatios promises notwithstanding) by gunfire: Go, bid the soldiers shoot (5. 2. 387)the ceremony of a salute, the ritualized displacement and conservation of the threat of sovereign violence, unless, of course, there are those still to be lined up against the wall and shot. The future, so it seems, never looks brighter than when illuminated by gunfire. But be careful, for your first words, never the first word, may still prove your last. Telephon/e/y If Hamlet is a telephone book, which is to say a multimedia archive, then the word, book, must be registered in its full set of meanings, as biblion or niche in a library or depository. In The Telephone Book: Technology, Schizophrenia, Electric Speech, Avital Ronell posits the play after this fashion, finding therein the traumatized script of telephony, a switchboard of tropic actors that register the uncanny gathering of voices (51) that issue from the receiver. Both more and less than a reading, its lines from Hamlet simply appear from nowhere, as Ronell renders the text of the play as a dis/continuous script that splices together different times and places. Putting through a call that Alexander Bell, inventor of the telephone, placed to Hamlet, she writes,. Hamlet, she writes, was swallowed by telephonics, the fathers umbilical cord couldnt cease naming itself and its ghostly partner. This perhaps explains why the telephones most sacredly repeated declamation before an audience was to be To be or not to be, marking the interstice between ghostly conjuration and the voice of the other (285). Ronell describes how Sir William Thomson, speaking to the British Association at Glasgow, Scotland, on September 14, 1876, recalls the demonstration he witnessed earlier that year at an exhibition in Philadelphia. I heard, so he writes, To be or not to betheres the rub? through an electric telegraphic wire; but, scorning monosyllables, the electric articulation rose to higher flights, and gave me messages taken at random from New York newspapers: S. S. Cox has arrived; The City of New York; Senator Morton. All this my own ears heard, he says, spoken to me with unmistakeable distinctness by the thin circular disk armature of just such another little electromagnet as this which I hold in my hand (284). Truth is, he confesses, he failed to make out the S. S. Cox (283), but happily someone must have been taking notes so that in his dumb show reere-enactment up in Scotland of the historic occasion in Philadelphia, the unplugged telephone he holds in his hand speaks still, its message coming through loud and clear. As Ronell remarks, putting through Thomsons call to Hamlet, (This is why when his father calls up, Hamlet has to write everything down. He pulls out a slate rather than a sword to commit to memory [external memory device] the telephonic inscription (285). Ronells conception of telephony defines the ontological network of an always already technologized, hard-wired model of bBeing. There never was or could have been a moment prior to the mutual embrace of technology and biology, liveliness and life, the apparently inert and the apparently organic. As Thomsons reere-enactment before the British Association in Glasgow makes clear, the organic and inorganic remain caught in an on-going production of fac/fauxsimiles of each other, mimicking each others effects, taking turns, if you like, in the crafting of a telephonic infrastructure. Theres no problem heresuch is merely the way things are and categories of being come to be (made). Such problems that derive do so from the dropping of certain calls and not others, from the static necessary to the transmission of those calls that go through, and from the ways we manage or police the static, attempting to eliminate what is endemic and necessary to the telephonic effect. Politics, therefore, finds itself routed through the telephone, through the various switchboards that connect and disconnect calls from certain groups, and persons. Accordingly, its in the nature of calls to go awry, to connect different discourses and sites of enunciation as the effect gets rezoned or migrates. Its this mobility, the way missing voices and delayed messages pop up in the strangest times and places that proves key to understanding what it is Hamlet has to tell us about answerability and prerpre-recorded Shakespeare effects as we generate them in our various todays. In Thomsons reere-enactment in Glasgow, for example, and at the exhibition in Philadelphia, we can make out already this uncanny gathering of voices. The telephones speaking back of Hamlet recalls actors variously past performing the edited words of a Hamlet text that flickers in and out of Being beingto be or not to betheres the rub. In 1876, in Glasgow, Thomson had to play all the parts, reere-enacting the occasion of the telephones first performance minus the electric speech, phone minus the tele, and revealing thereby the human already as telephone, a telephone to the telephone, whose parts lie dead in his hands, and whose electric speech Thomson renders live/ly by his own differently neuro-electric speech. If, in his rendering, Hamlets monosyllabic weighing of his quietus seems to make the crossing from human voice to electric speech and back more easily than other less familiar proper names (S. S. Cox), this derives, no doubt from the fact that Thomson and his audience already know the lines, have already taken their impression, have been recruited as readers or friends by the friendly readers of the First Folio and its editions. Here, then, in 1876, among friends and readers become listeners, Thomson recruits for the telephone, asking his audience to lend their ears to the voices that will issue from similar thin circular disk armature[s] that come to populate their parlors and offices, even as the one that lies in Thomsons hand seems a bit dead. The circuit was already complete, already equipped to pass from one relay to the next, which is what Thomson does, launching the telephone by speaking back the words he already knew and then heard again to an audience that knows them also. To be or not to be? What else could the telephones first words have been? Taken as read, and so unrecorded in Thomsons transcript, nearly aall of ll Hamlets soliloquy goes missing. We supply the missing lines in our headsbut these lines take no time to read as we skip to the rub. The lines were chosen, so it seems, for their monosyllabic insistence. Enunciate. The rub signals the end to the speech. Hamlet appears only in order to disappear. Graham Bell and Sir William Thomson (soon to be Lord Kelvin) move on, as does their audience. Once upon a time, Hamlet was news, but whats crucial now is the way the telephone accelerates the voice, beating out the newspaper and all the clipping offices that transmit thousands of bits and pieces of newspaper sententiae across the Atlantic every week or month to those eager to follow this or that trend abroad. The telephone, Thomson dangles, puts pay to the earnest cut- and- paste operations of distant readers plugged into an infrastructure fuelled by print and steamboat and so dependent on their Polonius factors abroad. It rewires the infrastructure that translates words from place to place. You may miss the name of the ocean liner first time round. You may need to endure the static, but still the telephone beats the newspaper and its clippings, transmitting the voice across that distance while all those static clippings remain yet to be clipped, or sit inside envelopes on this or that liner, which may or may never arrivewhat was its name again? Such then are Hamlets appearances in The Telephone Book. The play keeps coming back as a telephonic citation of the enervating and exciting being and not-being of a voice that speaks as a distance, playing its part in getting Thomsons listeners to pick up the receiver and help normalize the device, render it just so much furniture in their homes and offices. Given that Ronell announces in the opening Users Manual (in place of a preface), The Telephone Book is going to resist you, we should not be surprised that she does not settle into a conventional reading of the play. On the contrary, along with its innovative and sometimes literally unintelligible typographical play, its index as yellow pages directory, the radical shifts of place and text, and its oscillations between historical moments, the Telephone Books rendering of Hamlet follows the tropic logic Ronell posits for the telephone [which] splices a party line stretching through history (295). Accordingly, she posits the play as telephonic Ur-urtextHamlets response to his fathers otherworldly summons provides the script for what it means to answer the call the telephone issues. Hamlet Senior provides the voice- over for the call that by answering the telephone we activate. This voice trades in whispers, spectral transmissions of a legacy, the currency of charges, electric or legal, whose ghosts refer to the allegory of a lusty self faded into the distance, cut off in the blossom of their sins. We grow tense, Ronell continues, with anticipation to learn the charges; like Hamlet, one beckons it [the ghost / the telephone] to speak more distinctly (303). And so she assembles from the play a set of keys or telephonic cruxes, modeling the play as a set of tele/traumas that undergirds the infrastructures we inhabit. Un/cannily, then, Hamlet keeps coming back, lines from the play emanating from the telephone when other historical persons and actors place or receive a call. Jacques Derrida ends up on the line to Sigmund Freud; Martin Heidegger takes a call from the National Socialist Party; Carl Jung tunes into flying saucers; Alexander Bells inventions become a haunt for his deaf mother; and these calls are routed or connect to cruxes in Hamlet, instances when the text fails or appears to fail as a reliable relay. When, for example, Ronell inhabits a May 31, 1976, Das Spiegel interview with Heidegger on why he accepted a call from the Nazi Party we find ourselves telescoped into the text of Hamlet. So you finally accepted [the call]. How did you then relate to the Nazis? asks the interviewer. Someone from the top command of the Storm Trooper University Bureau, SA section leader Baumann called me up, replies Heidegger (29). The interview moves to matters of philosophy rather than historical circumstance, or worse, to the ways in which matters of philosophy may be cocco-constitutive with historical circumstances, and Ronell renders Heideggers replies tthuslyhus: to prepare to be readyTo be prepared for preparationBut it does seem to me that inquiry could awaken, illuminate and define the readiness weve talked aboutto prepare to be readyEven the experience of absence is not nothing, but a liberation from what I call in Being and Time the Fallenness of Being. To be prepared for preparation requires contemplating the presentand to define the readiness (40). Isnt this close to what Hamlets have to say before their causes are reported, aright or wrongly? she continues. Overcome by the state, they take a tool in hand which is no longer a tool but a moment in the structure of general relatedness. Replay Hamlet (41)which she does, dialing up his exchange with Claudius (5. 2. 197203): H: Theres a special providence in the fall of a sparrow. If it be now, tis not to come; if it be not to come it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come; the readiness is all. Since no man knows aught of what he leaves, what ist to leave be-times? Let be. K: Come Hamlet, come, take this hand from me H: A few days later someone from the top command called (41). And from Hamlet we reere-enter Heideggers response to his interviewerthe script has been established, a collation of differently historical moments via differently historical texts. Claudius becomes a Storm Trooper commander on the line to a Hamlet-Heidegger concerned with his inability to control what is said of him about a call he answered even as he might have not. Accordingly, Hamlet, (or is it Heidegger? (Wwho can tell?), attempts to install his own rumo-control devices aiming to neutralize the proliferation of tabulations around the dead (420). This concern with having ones cause reported rightly, of living on as an object after your ones demise, designates one relay or trope within the circuit of tele/traumas that Ronell constitutes. But the circuit itself was inaugurated by the return of Hamlets father, head of state, overdosed by oto-injection (21), who dies cut off even in the blossoms of my sin, / Unhouseled (1. 5. 7778), forced, that is, to accept a poisonous injection through the ear, when all the time, had he known, he should have been calling on the divine to forgive his sins. For Ronell, this scene of irreversible oto-injection means that the play stages itself as a response or reaction to the trauma of telephonic or oto-addiction. Bells mother was deaf, and he modeled the telephone on the ear of a corpsewhich anecdotally sutures the telephone to the ear, become defunct or un/dead double, a prosthesis that introduces a doubled, defunct ear into the circuit that forms between speaker, telephone, and receiver. No wonder we all end up fucked, as Ronell colorfully puts it, mainlining the telephone,; unable to put it down,; waiting for the call: Youd wait for her call, like the Heidegger boy. Your fathers voice often behind you: Get off the phone. As if one could get off the drug by the same paternal injunction that put Hamlet onto it. Getting off didnt mean then what it now does. You were all hooked up at an early age, even those of you with mothers at home (353). Lets return the scene of alleged oto-injection. Its a story of being supplied with a phone/y while you were sleeping a sleep from which you will not wake, or from which you wake only to find yourself dead, altered, on the line, answering but unprepared to answer, for you were cut off in the blossoms of [your] sin, unprepared for your ending. Fittingly, this scene of addiction exists only as a reproduction or facsimile of itselfthe ghost, who, by his own account, was not present to his death, like Thomson, a telephone to a telephone, recounting, after the fact, a scene to which he was not present. The Phantom Referent Its nighttime again. And we are up on the platform on which the play begins (and ends). Its still cold. Hamlet, Horatio, and Marcellus are all earswaiting and watching, but tuned for sound, counting an off-stageoffstage clock,; a sound effect that we either hear or do not hear,; that comes before or comes not at all. What hour now? / I think it lacks of twelve. / No, it is struck. Indeed, I heard it not (1. 4. 3). Is it time yet? Its that time already. Are you sure? Lets listen very carefully. Trumpets sound. Two pieces of artillery go off. We will not hear anything now. An off-stageoffstage drinking party ensues somewhere below us, Claudiuss custom so Hamlet says. He offers a bit of late- night pop psychology about folks who get caught up in a repetition compulsionthe stamp of one defect (1. 4. 31) and such, earning Danes a drunken nameuntil Horatio shuts him up: Llook, my lord, it comes (1. 4. 38). Enter the ghost in such a questionable shape / That I will speak to thee (1. 4. 4344), says Hamletwho describes the entrance. Back in aAct one 1, scene two2, Hamlet had had to keep quiet, keep an attent ear (1. 2. 92) as Horatio reported what Marcellus and Barnardo said they had seen twice and Horatio hads seen once: a figure like your father (1. 2. 198) whose solemn march went slow and stately by them leaving them distilled / almost to jelly with the act of fear unable to speak to him (1. 2. 200205). The sSame thing happened exactly to me, says Horatio, except he spoke to it, but answer made it none (1. 2. 214)except that it lifted up its head and did address / Itself to motion like as it would speak (1. 2. 214216). It moved in a way thatwhat?leads Horatio to think that it registered his words, his presence, thought about speaking? Then the cock crowed and it was gone. Understandably Hamlet is full of questions, of whats and wherefores. So,So together, he and Horatio compile an identikit cum blazon of the ghosts countenanceeyes, beard, expression, and so on, which passes an unarticulated threshold of evidence such that Hamlet now is here on the platform, splicing looking with talking, speaking back to what amounts to three or more (how can anyone be sure?) messages left in the substrate of looking and talking become more talking that constitutes Horatios report of Marcelluss and Barnardos report, which we may paraphrase as follows: There may or may not be a message from something that looks a bit like your Dad. Its for you (we think). Now,Now in aAct one 1, scene four4, Hamlet names the ghost: Ill call thee Hamlet, King, father, royal Dane. He then reprises Franciscos demand to stand and unfold yourself, imploring that the shape answer me (1. 4. 4445). Say why is this? Wherefore? What should we do? (1. 4. 56). But is this a secular or a supernatural resurrection? Is it really you or what is now left of you that speaks or were you right all along and werent one of those maniacs who demand that they be buried with a telephone, a more or less mobile telephone, in order to tolerate the idea that they mightbe buried alive? Is this you calling? Hold off your hands (1. 4. 80), Horatio, Barnardo, MarcellusI have to answer the phone for still I am calledunhand me, gentlemen (1. 4. 84). Hamlet and the ghost exitHoratio and Marcellus, having agreed not to follow, do so. The call is always addressed, always for you, but everyone registers its presence, and likes to listen in. Whither wilt thou lead me? Hamlet asks;, Ill go no further, he insists. Mark me, says the ghost., I will, replies Hamlet (1. 5. 12). Speak, I am bound to hear. / So art thou to revenge when thou shalt hear. (1. 4. 68). And it does turn out to be quite a story. And it makes so much senseO my prophetic soul! / My uncle! (1. 5. 36). Hamlet always had his suspicions; he has never liked him. Tis given out that, sleeping within my orchard, Hamlet Seniors custom of an afternoon, thy uncle stole / With juice of cursed hebona in a vial / And in the porches of my ears did pour (1. 5. 5962). Lazar-like blistering ensuesan Ovidian metamorphoses become time-lapse decay of the body to corpse. And having narrated the circumstances of his own death, the ghost is off: Adieu, adieu, adieu, remember me (1. 5. 91). What now? How to maintain the injunction to rRemember me? Shall I couple hell? asks Hamlet., Oh fie [Fuck]! (1. 5. 93). The ghost was surprised to find Hamlet so apt to revenge; it had expected to find him duller than the fat weed / That roots itself on Lethe Wharf (1. 5. 3133). He had expected a gorgeous, luxuriating forgetfulness or drowsinessa slow growing vegetal rooting that would produce nothing other than itself. Such was the custom the ghost expected of Hamleta far cry from Hamlet Seniors afternoon nap and Claudiuss nocturnal binges, which seem purposed, entered in some economic relation to the calculus of their respective political daytimes. But in the ensuing scene, the structure of the call, the injunction to rRemember me, to replay voices at a distance within your ownhis being become medium or instrument for revenge, induces this vegetal growth. Hamlet passes very quickly from remembering to having his fellows swear that they will remember to forget,; that all the time he is earnestly performing not remembering by way of an antic disposition (1. 5. 170), generating thereby all manner of noise or static:, they will say, if asked, that they know aught of me (1. 5. 177). Remember me transforms to Remember thee? And then its out with the tablesfor how can he remember? How can he combat the story that is given out except by some order of device that preserves the ghostly call: Remember thee? Ay, thou poor ghost, whiles memory holds a seat In this distracted globe. Remember thee? Yea, from the table of my memory, Ill wipe away all trivial fond records, All saws of books, all forms, all pressures past That youth and observation copied there And thy commandment all alone shall live Within the book and volume of my brain Unmixed with baser matter. (1. 5. 95104). Is Alfred Hitchcocks Mr. Memory in the house? By what back up or support can this injunction to remember me be observed?. Already it is transposed into a remembering of thee figuring a problem of translation. Metaphorizing the theater as his own body; personifying memory as a temporary, insufficiently sovereign audience member in an otherwise distracted globehere for the space of a few hours in the afternoon but then gone homeHamlet starts writing or talking about writing. He wipes the table of [his] memory cleanempties his commonplace book or wax tablet. He figures a complete erasureno ink blots, no knife marks from the razor that would cut away a layer of parchment and so mark the document as altered. All pressures past, all observations becomes impressions will be gone.  Hamlet gets excitedO villain, villain, smiling damned villain, / My tables! Meet it is I set it down / That one may smile and smile and be a villain (1. 5. 106109). So, uncle, there you are, he goes on, capturing Claudiuss essence in the form of the sententia he has written in the wax. Hamlet effectively tables the problem of memory through a writing device. We do not know exactly what he writesinstead, here, the tables script his voice as he and they form a relay or writing machine that produces the note-to-self sententia about smiling villains,; an encrypted moniker that serves as mnemonic device translating the injunction remember me into a remembering of thee. Thus recruited, Hamlet squirrels away a memory device, in case he becomes less apt, in case a vegetal lethe-like rooting beckons. And so he will swearNow to my word. / It is Adieu, adieu, remember me (1. 5. 110111)except that he gets it wrong,; misquotes the ghost, skips an adieu. Ddoes that still count? Then its down to rumor control. Horatio and Marcellus enter on Hamlet concluding somethingSo be it (1. 5. 114). And so he makes them swear never to make known what you have seen tonight (1. 5. 143), the ghost returning as a sound -effect, Swear (1. 5. 149, 155, 179) and, Swear by his sword (1. 5. 160). But memory and its external devices prove insufficient. They require further back ups, a more elaborate set of devices in order to replay the message such that it may be understood to refer to more than itself. Hamlet needs further grounds to prove that Claudius is guilty. He doubts whether the spirit he encounters is his father. But how does one archive a ghost? And what, for that matter, exactly is this ghost? In one sense, Hamlet Senior figures as simulacrum, repeatedly referred to as being like the kKing: In the same figure, like the king thats dead (1.1. 40); Looks a not like the King (1.1. 42); Is it not like the King? (1.1. 59); Comes armed through our watch so like the King (1.1. 109). The ghost is referred to with gendered and neutered pronouns: it recurs frequently and is used interchangeably with him. Similarly, ghost and spirit are used interchangeably. The gGhost spectralizes the specter, making the gGhosts referent in excess of any identification of his body or spirit by collapsing both into an image. Consider Horatios line Our last king, / Whose image even but now appeard to us. The adjective last rather than late works in two contradictory ways: on the one hand, it opposes king to image in order to differentiate them, making image synonymous with ghost and spirit; on the other hand, last does not limit the referent of image to the meaning of ghost, since the last kKing had an image before he was murdered. In this sense, the historical difficulty posed by interpreting the quality or nature of ghostly speech in the period, that which has animated so much criticism, stands as one way of posing a general problem of witnessing as tied to questions of reproduction. As Derrida writes, the experience of ghosts is not tied to a bygone historical period, like the landscape of Scottish manors, etc., but on the contrary, is accentuated, accelerated by modern technologies like film, television, the telephone. These technologies inhabit, as it were, a phantom structure. Cinema is the art of phantoms; it is neither image nor perception. It is unlike photography or perception. And a voice on the telephone also possesses a phantom aspect: something neither real nor unreal that recurs, is reproduced for you and in the final analysis, is reproduction. When the very first perception of an image is linked to a structure of reproduction, then we are dealing with the realm of phantoms. The telephonic effect, here indexed to the phantom, designates a dizzying circularity or circuit between different orders of media. Hamlet progresses from distracted globe, to tables, to composing a sententia, to writing something down, back to swearing, to the present tense apparent surety of his oath, and then to the swearing of Horatio and Barnardo, backed up by his sword, and urged on by the spectral sound effects of the ghost who repeats Hamlets lines. But no backing or substrate proves sufficient, can hold the impression of the phantoms call. Instead, the play turns vegetal, as the ghost had expected, auto-generating phantom referents related to media in the form of writing games that program certain actions: Hamlets unidentified, interpolated lines for The Murder of Gonzago; The Murder of Gonzago itself (there is no actual play, just possibly an allusion to one); Hamlets forged letter sending Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths; the recognition of Yoricks skull by the third gravedigger; Yoricks skull itself calling up a kind of hallucination / flashback by Hamlet; Ophelias ballad-singing -media -madness. Even the ghost as a referent is unmoored. Is he already there before the play begins? Is he there when he tells Hamlet how he was murdered? Is he there in the closet scene? The play ends up rooting itself on Lethe wharf, as conflicting facsimiles of events past and present compete. This spectralization of reference into a relay system by the ghosts call unfolds a problem of readability and audibility that is at the same time a problem of sovereignty in the play. Hamlet asks what happens when the sovereign cant answer, when the speech of the sovereign is spoken from the beyond the grave, when the sovereign may be inaudible. And what happens when the sovereign doesnt take the call, doesnt answer at all? Hamlet routes sovereignty both through the logic of the fac/fauxsimile and through the delayed or replayed and reported speech we call Hamlets answering machine. The play discloses thereby the way media platforms produce temporal and reference effects whose management constitutes the fabric of sovereignty itself. As Derrida points out in Archive Fever, living speech is always inscribed within a technical structure of repetition;: the answering machine, when activated, speaks with a ghostly voice: A phantom speaks. What does this mean? In the first place or in a preliminary way, this means that without responding it disposes of a response, a bit like the answering machine whose voice outlives its moment of recording: you call, the other person is dead, now, whether you know it or not, and the voice responds to you, in a very precise fashion, sometimes cheerfully, it instructs you, it can even give you instructions, make declarations to you, address your requests, prayers, promises, injunctions. Supposing that a living being ever responds in an absolutely living and infinitely well-adjusted manner, without the least automatism, without ever having an archival technique overflow the singularity of an event, we may know that a spectral response (thus informed by a techne and inscribed in an archive) is always possible. There could be neither history nor tradition nor culture without that possibility. In Hamlet, the answering machine effect turns politics into a politics of the scene of writing or inscription (Should we be writing this down?). Phantom voices install themselves via various writing technologies, writ large, with the hope of reactivation. But we can never be sure that they were voices or that they actually happened. Hamlets telephones limit sovereignty then to various forms of dictation and instruction that are prone to dilation, forgetting, as they do and do not quite phenomenalize. All such lessons that Hamlet gives and receives and that Hamlet offers remain incomplete, botched, encrypted as they are by a party line to which you are connecting only just now. Yoricks skull almost provides a model for the respondents predicament. In aAct five5, scene one1, following the Gravediggers knowledge, we suppose, of graves, Hamlet recognizes this Yorick (or claims to do so) and summons him up from memory. Hamlet takes this skull as if and as Yoricks, and his speech memorializes Yoricks missing speech via words that are not remembered but whose effects are registered, rendering Yoricks skull a broken or inadequate play back machine for which Hamlet compensates: Here hung those lips that I have kissed I know not how oft. Where be your jibes nowyour gambols, your songs, your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table at a roar? Not one now to mock your own grinning, quite chapfallen. Now get you to my ladys table and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come. Make her laugh at that (5. 1. 179184). Like Sir William Thomson at that meeting in Glasgow, here Hamlet must do all the voicesrender the remains of this live wire of a clown lively again in his absence, putting Yoricks call through now. We do not know that it is Yorick on the linethe Gravedigger says that it is so and Hamlet decides to agree, trusting to his presence, to voice, but in doing so, rendering himself a playback machine that installs voices in things. The moment follows hard on the emptying out of surety from all forms of textual backingIs not parchment made from sheepskins? Hamlet asks Horatio, Ay, my lord, and of calves skins too, Horatio replies. They are sheep and calves which seek out assurance in that. I will speak to this fellow (5. 1. 107110). Hamlet and Horatio then form a circuit as Hamlet narrates the graveyard, deploying an extended ubi sunt formula that renders each skull that the Gravedigger exhumes talkative by registering the absence of voice, the absence, in the case of the lawyer, of his various legal documents, and; remarking on Alexander the Greats new use values in their present. The parade of skulls, already borders on a game in which each new arrival sets Hamlet talking, striking new poses, impersonating this and that fellow in some passioning archaeology. And this game might be said to capture the essence of conversation in the play, which threatens all the time to reveal itself as dictation or script giving, a lesson, that hopes to program some future action. Like Yorick, Horatio finds himself reduced to a minimal speaking back that enables Hamlets continued speech. But such reduction to answering, to agreeing to become an ear, circulates through the play. It is not reducible to characterthough characters may be reduced to this order of the digital, to speaking or not speakingwhich does not mean that they are listening, hearing, or will agree to what we have heard them hear. Hamlet too had to be quiet and listen carefully back in aAct one 1, scene three3; finds himself reduced to single words and phrases by the ghost in aAct one 1, scenes four 4 and five5; reduces his fellows to the same in the swearing that follows, the ghost serving then as literal play-back machine, repeating his words. After advising the players on how to perform the Mousetrap, Hamlet leaves the first player with just three words:, Ay my lord (2. 2. 475) during his instruction -giving. After the aborted mousetrap, Horatio is similarly reduced to responding to Hamlet, I did very well note him (3. 2. 282). Remember methe injunction transforms the figure of the sovereign, the ghost, into a literal dictator, an enforcer whose spectral fingers can only press replay. But such replaying of what was to begin with a phantom referent spawns only further back ups and desire for back ups that might lay hold of a certainty of reference that, caught in the logic of the freeze- frame, fragments further what was a fragment to begin withthe ghosts narrative, already a facsimile and partial rendering of his demise, rhetorically pitched against the story thats been anonymously given out. As Ronell intuits by her splicing of Hamlet with Heidegger, their words become versions of each others, spliced into a dis/continuous script, and so to understand sovereignty on such terms, as the play invites, is to come up against the limits of our ability to make sense of this play as producing any singular script that might be said to inaugurate the human, our predicament, modernity, and so on. For the play inscribes its account of sovereignty through the spectralization of character, rendering characters not as dialogical units or a network but as vocal functions on a party line without an operator. Such is the static that the play would have us endureprovoking or demanding further supplementation or repair or radical inquiry in every here and now (hic et ubique) that looms. Character criticism, such as would suture Hamlet to Hamlet, and by extension derive thereby a variously historicizing script for us from the play, manifests as a symptom then of the plays telephonic de-centering of sovereignty. The play conserves a desire for a masters voice that can dictate the truth but voids its content by partially revealing such scripts to be only further hallucinations, the further production of fac/fauxsimilies of reading and not reading. To remain within this structure amounts to operating in a world without events, a world of continuous, dissimulated being that disguises the primary antagonism, the event, that was the sovereign states violent articulation of itself and its citizens. But how, other than through a self-rending, auto-production of voices that do not quite coincide with their points of enunciation, voices that always seem to be coming from elsewhere, might we respond? What orders of compensatory or counterpcounter-productions does the play imagine or stage in response to finding ourselves enmeshed within the structure of telephony? Hamlets antic disposition codes his letters to Ophelia and his manner, revealed in aAct two2, scene two2, as further examples of noise or disinformation, rogue eaffect relays that generate static or simulate Hamlets wwhilsthile this machine is to him (2. 2. 121). Such letters and performances amount to facsimiles of facsimiles. But what of The Murder of Gonzago and Hamlets warranting of the deaths of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern?, Wwhat order of writing are these? They seek, so it seems, to alter the relays of his world and to rewrite the text of a sovereign violence that demands an extrajextra-judicial killing. Enter the dumb show. Hamlets Speechlessness Hamlet: Can you play The Murder of Gonazago? 1 Player: Ay, my lord. Hamlet: Well hat tomorrow night. You could for need study a speech of some dozen lines, or sixteen lines, which I would set down and insert int, could you not? 1 Player: Ay, my lord. (2. 2. 474479) The players appear out of nowhere. Hamlet has been running interference with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. Here, he sends them packingfollow him [Polonius] friends. Well hear a play tomorrow (2. 2. 472473). He then turns to his old friend and we learn that The Murder of Gonzago will be collated with a text that Hamlet will write. But those lines go missing; we have no empirical proof of their arrival; only Hamlet and the players can know if theyve been said. The speech arrives quite precisely by not arriving, by splicing one text into another such that it passes as unseen and unheard even as it is seen and heard. This order of anonymous writing aims very precisely to counter the anonymity that signs the passive giving out of stories such as the circumstances of Hamlet Seniors death. The only writing that counts will be writing that is not perceived as such. In aAct two2, scene two2, we watch the creation of this anonymous texta text that we will never have within our grasp the knowledge required to judge whether the text appears, whether the speech was spoken. This speech, so we are told, will be written and inserted. We may judge therefore that it will have happenedbut we will not hear it even as we do. Much like the player, reduced here to Hamlets phone, we serve as ears merely, ears that will listen but not hear, judging that the speech has occurred (perhaps) with our eyes by watching Claudiuss reaction. When The Murder of Gonzago is performed, then, the play unfolds as a facsimile of the collation, a collation that remains forever unavailable even as it is performed. Hamlets speech of sixteen 16 lines going missing in order to prove effective, writing coming back as speech and thus constituting what will prove, he hopes, to be, for the first time, the repetition of an event for which the only referent is a phantom. Rather than default, as critics traditionally have, to psychology and character criticism or its avatars by asking what motivates Claudius to interrupt the performance or deriving a metaphysics or ontology of speech from the scene, we want to insist on the way the play structures the relation between performance and text as a relation between performance and phantom referent. The Murder of Gonzago inverts the relation between the murder and the ghosts facsimile narrationit aims to recreate it in and by this difference. Something occurs, as we all remember, to make Claudius rise and end the performance: Ophelia: The King rises. Queen: How fares my lord? Polonius: Give oer the play. Claudius: Give me some light, away. Polonius: Lights! Lights! Lights! (3. 2. 257262) But that thing, whatever it may be, remains absorbed into a texture we cannot know, that the play renders unavailable. What then is to be made of the dumb show, the crux that animates so much critical traffic? What is the dumb show exactly? What is its status? Crucially it is not a repetition, an equivalent of The Murder of Gonzago, itself the equivalent of the ghosts speech about his murder. Its media relation cannot clearly be sorted out. Its singularity consists in its designating an event. The dumb show happens, and happens only once. Strictly speaking, it reads as a long stage direction: The trumpets sounds. Dumb-show follows: Enter [Players as] a king and a queen, the queen embracing him and he her. He takes her up and declines his head upon her neck. He lies him down upon a bank of flowers. She seeing him asleep leaves him. Anon come in [a Player as] another man, takes off his crown, kisses it, pours poison in the sleepers ears and leaves him. The queen returns, finds the king dead, makes passionate action. The poisoner with some three or four [Players] come in again, seem to condole with her. The dead body is carried away. The poisoner woos the Queen with gifts. She seems harsh awhile but in the end accepts love. [Exeunt] (3. 2. 128ff+) Within the play, the dumb show is not a transcription of a past performance. Neither is it a script. Instead, the stage directions both archive a performance to come and describe a performance that has already occurred. As stage directions not built into the dialogue the dumb show enacts the breakdown or disconnection between text and performance, literally giving an uncertain length of time to an on-stage event that disorients. The effect proves dizzying. For the dumb show calls into question the economies of reading and interpretation that have thus far prevailed in the play. What means this? Ophelia asks immediately after the dumb show ends. But when are her lines supposed to occur? Is she addressing what Hamlet has said to her or the dumb show itself? The nontnon-temporal status of the directions is registered by the editorial habit of not including the dumb show within the line count for the play. It simply occurs during the performancedesignating its timing but not prescribing its duration or exact content. Assuming they know what the dumb show means, W. W. Greg, John Dover Wilson, and other critics who have followed in their wake, formulate the problem as one of redundancy. The dumb show plays as a disposable surplus or worse as static. They justify its inclusion by variously differentiating it from The Murder of Gonzago, despite the dumb shows singularity in early modern drama and the obvious differences between the two versions of the same story: the dumb show has no revenger, and the actors mute. Yet in what structural sense does the dumb show follow, as the textual note dictates, when the players enter? Hamlet provides no advice to the players about the performance, as he does for The Murder of Gonzago; and, as many critics have pointed, out, its not clear whether Hamlet even knows about or wants it to be performed. It voids its origins by and in its appearance. The dumb show simply happens. Even more strictly speaking, the dumb show is not exactly stage directions or even a plot summary.: Tthe king does not die,; instead it registers resultsa dead body is carried away. It serves then as a loose facsimile of whatever a given cast performs or a given reader imagines is performed. The dumb shows resistant status renders it the perfect example of Hamlets recurring spectralization of a multimedia text that does not speak, that does not answer a call or even place one. It stands as an archive to the plays own procedures, its unfolding as an ongoing archiving of its own encryption of events. The Murder of Gonzago can never be the C.S.I. trap Hamlet claims he wants it to be because the trap is already caught, as it were, in this spectral economy where every repetition is like one to come, and in which every performance must constitute its own origin that it is then understood to be repeating. Consequently, no one can actually answer,; all that the players and the audience can do is remain on the line, on hold to a speech that may or may not be happening even as the call ends and Claudius, in this case, disconnects. All we can do is repre-port in fac/fauxsimile form. And here we begin to broach the political implications of our account: no one, so the play seems to say, is ever really in the position of sovereign as Carl Schmitt defines sovereigntysovereign is he who decides the exception.  Instead, like the audience watching the play, clued in by Hamlet to a moment that appears as if it should trade heavily on dramatic irony as some sovereign technology on sale daily at the Globe, sovereignty finds itself disconnected by the telephone. As such the dumb show stands in relation to the missing word that begins the play before it begins. It designates the plays traumatic archival kernel that very precisely is not there, but present only in and by its performance of what is missing. The dumb show remains strictly unreadable. It is not there. It refuses to reside in a single substrate or medium. Lacking even the Ghost to personify its structure, it remains arguably the most deeply haunted scene in the play, the most in need of exorcism if not excision. We may venture, then, that the asymmetrical structure of the dumb show as unrepeatable event that the text archives and the Mousetrap as repeatable happening constitutes the machine, in the plays sense of the word, which generates the copco-production of the fac/fauxsimile and the phantom referent that is Hamlet. The play begins before it begins with a call from beyond the grave:, an unmun-marked grave whose occupant therefore must be remembered, and this quasi-machine-like logic corresponds to the critical crux the dumb show generates by and as its an/archiving of a performance. The two cuts or cruxes stand as the generative core of the plays spectral / telephonic / tele/technomedia economy of hallucinated reading in which speech detaches from is referent and words simply live on and come back. In this sense, the inverted double to the dumb show may be located in Hamlets other key moment of writing, the forging of a letter with which he replaces Claudiuss letter to the King king of England, condemning him to present death. In aAct four4, scene six6, Horatio receives a letter from Hamlet, siphoned off from the packet that is then passed on to Claudius. This letter testifies to Hamlets existence and alludes to a set of circumstances that are too sensitive to put in writing. Horatio, when you have overlooked, it begins;, as Horatio must read aloud, we discover the turn that the plot has taken:; pirates,; jumping ship,; a return voyage. I have words to speak in they ear will make thee dumbwhich, of course, Horatio both is and is not, as here he reads Hamlets words aloud. These words for which Horatios have substituted, as if themselves a dumb show, are delivered in aAct five5, scene two2, as Hamlet concludes the narrative alluded to here in the letter: Up from my cabin, My sea-gown scarfed about me, in the dark Groped I to find them out, had my desire, Fingered their packet, and in fine withdrew To mine own room again, making so bold, My fingers forgetting manners, to unfold Their grand commission; where I found, Horatio, A royal knavery, an exact command My head should be struck off. (5. 2. 1324) Hamlet gives the original letter warranting his death to Horatio for him to read at more leisure (5. 2. 26), but then goes on with his narrative reporting what happened on the ship. He describes, in effect, an off-stageoffstage, scene of writing and revision, a dumb show of writing or a crime scene of writing which that redre-designates bodies by the vacancy to the word bearers (5. 2. 46). Having discovered Claudiuss letter, Hamlet sits himself down and devise[s] a new commission, wrote it fair (5. 2. 3132) even though once upon a time he disdained such secretarial work, the effect of which is that those bearers [of the letter should be] put to sudden death / Not shriving time allowed (5. 2. 4647). So Guildenstern and Rosencrantz go tot Horatio remarks. They are not near my conscience, Hamlet replies, at which Horatio exclaims, Why what a king is this! (5. 2. 62), referring uncertainly to the excesses of Claudius or to the cool, self-governed discipline of Hamlet. Here, Hamlet parasitically inhabits Claudiuss writing structure, becoming, if you like, like a sovereign, producing forged facsimiles of letters warranting a death sealed with his dead fathers signet ring which was the model [likeness or copy] of that Danish seal (5. 2. 50). The letter has gone. It remains now as further instance of writing gone missing, present to the play only in the form of the allusion, the absent narration designated yet to come in the letter of aAct four4, scene six6, that which comes to us through the voice-activated audition of Horatio,; in the reporting Hamlet provides,; and in the dead but uncun-canceled letter that Horatio may read in some putative leisure to come. There remains, as Hamlet observed to Horatio in aAct five5, scene one1, no assurance in writing and its substrates. The elaborated infrastructures of survivance remain intact. They may, as in the case of Claudiuss dead letter that would reduce Hamlet to an object to be handed over into present death, or which that has him hand himself over, be interrupted, but the relays, even if parasitically reire-inhabited, may not be canceled. Your time, finite being that you are, will run, the rest may be silent, but still, your words may be speaking long after you are not: I do prophesy thelection lights / On Fortinbras: he hath my dying voice, says Hamlet, ( (5.2. 339340). And accordingly, from his mouth whose voice will draw no more (5. 2. 376), Horatio will, so he says, summon up the words, Hamlets words spoken still even as he rests in silence. And so, in order to escape this structure, a time-traveling, wish- fulfilling, cancellation serves as the ultimate hallucinatory lure for readers of the playfrom Dover Wilsons What Happens in Hamlet, that which severs editorial matters from performance, to Margreta de Grazias astonishing Hamlet wWithout Hamlet, that which aims to suspend the last two hundred years of Hamlet criticism that would stitch him into a post-Romantic predicament of the modern. Rather than replay or repeat, such apocalyptic editorial or postal cancellations deliver prequels or sequels, whole parallel worlds. They fill in the missing word / world that comes before the first word, exploding the text as they reconstitute it. The un/reading they install must overcompensate, however, must secrete an excess of presence to make up for the phantom referent they see off. The symptoms they generate take the form of an overproduction of sense, a sense that they must constitute over and over again, constantly recre-crossing the crux in order to bandage the cut. They remain hostage then to same logic of the fac/fauxsimile that we have identified. Cancellations: Hamlet 2 This urge to cancel the past, to assert ones agency in the present via a time-traveling return that revises the referent finds filmic treatment in the mall comedy Hamlet 2 (2008), in which Jesus and Hamlet join forces in order to fix their relationships with their fathers. Parodying the inspirational teacher genre, the protagonist of the film, Dana Marschz (Gget it?), is a failed actor turned drama teacher in a High School high school in Tucson, Arizona, which, as the narrator at the beginning of the film announces, is where dreams go to die. Haunted by his bad relationship with [his] father, Dana translates Hollywood films to stage, as in his two-person adaptation of Erin Brockovich to blistering reviews by teen-age drama critic Noah Sapperstein. When funding cuts mean that drama will be cancelled, Dana seeks out Noah for advice. Noah minces no words, telling Dana that he has produced nothing worth saving at which point Dana offers, Tthere is this one other thing. Its a piece Ive been working onIts called Hamlet 2. The gist of the plot responds to Danas insight that Hamlet is so very sad and that had everyone had a lot of therapy, then the story it tells might have been avoided. So much more than a sequel, Hamlet 2 seeks to trump the plays telephonic interruptions with a two- way, static- free or static- friendly conversation with Hamlets father. And if it were to succeed, inserting its prerpre-recorded therapeutic messages into the past, then Hamlet would simply never have been. Hamlet 2 offers an un/making or un/reading that would leave us all with, quite literally, nothing to read, and nothing for Horatio to report: Hamlet without Hamlet. At the beginning of the stage production of Hamlet 2, Jesus, played by Dana Marschz, returns from the dead and gives Hamlet a time machine so that he may go back in time to save the lives of Gertrude, Laertes, and Ophelia, whom Hamlet also marries. Claudius is left out of the plot, but Old Hamlet turns up on a huge movie screen near the end to tell Hamlet he forgives him. After Hamlet forgives his father, Jesus, in turn, forgives his higher Father. The only difference is that God does not respond, but his silence is in effect replaced by the audiences enthusiastic applause. In Hamlet 2, calls go through unimpeded, everyone has the right number, and Jesus becomes a holy switchboard operator whose number is available for the askingor better yet, at the moment you think you might need it, you discover that you already have it: Hamlet: Where are we going? Jesus: 33 AD. Hamlet: Got it! Jesus: Hold on! Hamlet: Okay. Jesus: You know, sometimes even I feel like my fathers forsaken me. Hamlet: Really? Jesus: Good luck. Hamlet: Thanks, Jesus. Jesus: You got my cell number? Hamlet: Yeah. Jesus: Okay. My dad finds out what Ive been up to, hes gonna crucify me. Yet an excess of specters haunts Marschzs salvific sequel. A visual echo of 33 A.D., the time Jesus tells Hamlet to set his time machine for, appears on a large screen at the back of the stage just as Hamlet starts the machine, namely namely, Leni Riefenstahls 1935 film Triumph of the Will chronicling the Nazi Party Congress in Nuremberg in 1934 (Figure 2.1). {~?~AU: please insert figure 2.1} Figure 2.1 Leni Rienfenstahls Triumph of the Will (1935) appears on- screen in Hamlet 2. {~?~TN: from AU: Given the importance of this image we should be grateful if it could be a full page if appropriate} Adolf Hitler appears in the second of three shots, as if hHeiling Jesus and Hamlet. This footage, however, is effectively hidden both because of its brevity and because our attention is directed to the action in the left side of the frame. Hamlet 2 splits the screen in half, letting in, though effectively making invisible, a spectralization that haunts the apparently successful revisitation of Old Hamlet that would exorcize traumas past. A res/insurrection of two world historical crime scenes, the Riefenstahl footage links the crucifixion of Jesus and the Holocaust and, structures the narrative sequencing of Hamlet and Hamlet 2 as unhappy play and then happy sequel (as a do-over of the play). Choose the film over the play, stick with its diegesis that completes the old, and these momentary images, along with the troubling parade of anti-semiticanti-Semitic and misogynistic references, flicker in and out of view like some troubling static that will simply pass. The silent and invisible God Jesus addresses at the end of the stage production is the flip side of the footage from Triumph of the Will. The negative of negation is in turn negated as theological evidence;, however, the ghost of Old Hamlet does not spectralize enough: he appears as a father speaking entirely new lines, but he cannot double as an invisible and inaudible and never incarnated higher Father. Beyond reconfirming the out- of- joint temporality of the play that we have already offered as a symptom of its telephonic structure, by its ending, Hamlet 2 produces a visual structure that depicts the blanking out of a traumatic cut in the service of decoupling the present future from past traumas. But by that blanking out, by the decision to look to the future, a past crime scene lives on in and by the drawing of a blank. Offered under the rubric of forgiveness, of a son forgiving a father, such a moment of elation, comes freighted with its traumatic double, an elision that lets something of the past through. Such moments of forgiveness, the film seems to offer (or maybe it does not), remain connected, then, to a textual apparatus that remains inhumanly neutralrerouting those calls you wish to put through or parasitically allowing still others to go through unwanted. The return to 33 BCE, if you like, calls forth also all the other possible 33s including Riefenstahls, whether you like it or not, by the currency of numbers. The films deployment of time travel, then, its splicing together of Hamlet and Jesus following an oedipal script, remarks the danger we found brooding in our first chapter in Marxs sense of the future in the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon in our first chapter, a future that cannot be imagined. Hamlet 2, of course, turns out to be a success. Fathers and sons are both forgiven. The play is translated to Broadway with the original cast mostly intact. Dana Marschz strolls down a New York street impersonating a Jeremy Irons whos been on the phone to beg for a part in the play. Surprise, surprise, by its Hamlet-fixing finale, Hamlet 2 offers to cancel the old and authenticate the new. Hamlet 2 has launched; it has amassed friends and foes; witness the billboards to the Broadway launch. Within the structures of repetition and revision we have been accounting, the un-Hamleting of Hamlet 2 accomplishes something also that no one else has managed to do. In supplementing the play, it disambiguates the title, quite literally producing Hamlet without Hamlet Senior, Hamlet without Hamlet, as it were, repatriating the Dane, and giving him a play that finally bears his name as successor to his father, the sovereign Hamlet II. Thus, finally, the economy that pertains between character criticism and management of the text via editorial procedures would transform the faulty phantom referent of the title into a true hauntplaying two shows a day, matinees and nights, on Broadway. End of Call Thirty or so years before the media launch that was the First Folio, four hundred years before the fictional translation of Hamlet 2 (the play) to Broadway and the release of Zombie Hamlet (2012) in movie theaters, prose polemicist for hire Thomas Nashe tried out a defense of plays and play -going in his Pierce Pennilesse (1592), that which imagined, somewhat strangely, how the dead might respond to seeing themselves bodied forth on stage. Actor-zombies, if you like, he offered, walked the London stages. The pitch runs as follows:. The pollicie of Playes, writes Nashe, proves very necessary for it generates light toyes that will busie [the] heads of those people who find themselves with too little to do when a State or Kingdome that is in league with all the worldhath no forraine sword to vexe it. Theres just nothing quite like feare of invasion every houre to keep people on their toes, he thinks, to enervate and so animate the multitude and ensure that the sState is confirmed to endure. War, or better yet, feare of war keeps people busy. Plays are not the cause of civil disorder, then;, they do not, as certain detractors may remark, corrupt the youth of the Cittie (214). Instead, they serve a necessary functionto provide one of the four-fold pleasures that men that are their owne masters (212) bestow themselves to during the after-noone, which is the idlest time of the day: game playing, following harlots, drinking or seeing a Playe. It is very expedient, he continues, they have some light toyes to busie their heads withall, cast before them as bones to gnaw upon, which may keepe them from having leisure to intermeddle with higher matters (211). Enjoying himself immensely, the virtuoso Nashe further takes on the counterfactual burden to prove Playes to be no extreame; but a rare exercise of vertue. Follow his argument and play going becomes the privileged writing machine of the sState. It offers up moral lessons that will ensure by their happening that nothing actually happens that has not happened before. Writing of Shakespeares Chronicle chronicle plays, Nashe offers that first, for the subject of them [plays], it is borrowed out of our English Chronicles, resuscitating the acts of our valiant forefathers that have line long buried in rustie brasse and worme-eaten bookes. Reclaiming the acts of the dead from the Grave of Oblivion, as John Michael Archer notes, Nashe proclaims plays (histories at least) reliquaries of aristocratic honor. He summons up brave Talbot (the terror of the French) from Henry VI Part One and asks how would it have joyed the brave Talbot, to thinke that after he had lyne two hundred yeares in his Tombe, hee should triumphe againe on the Stage, and have his bones newe embalmed with the teares of ten thousand spectators at least (at severall times), who, in the Tragedian that represents his person, imagine they behold him fresh bleeding (212). And therein lies the power of plays that Nashe offers as their defense. He proclaims, Tthere is no immortalitie can be given a man on earth like unto Playes (212), offering the public theater to Londons City Fathers as something on the order of a secularized chantry cum Star Chamber, the audiences it draws the biosbio-semiotic affect relays that ensure that Talbot remains a household name, living on, in their mouths and by their tears. Our sighs or our censure will decide who and what lives on and who and what gets forgotten. No reading here, no parsing of a text; just an economy of remembering and forgetting wedded to the continuance of the cCity, its governors, and its theaters. What tends to go unnun-noticed in Nashes repositioning of plays and play going as a kind of virtuous or moral calisthenics, perhaps because it appears so clichdof a piece with the cult of memorialization in the periodis the emphasis on the manner in which plays transport their audience. Momentarily inhabiting the skin of the now defunct Talbot, Nashe freezes the tragedians performance and the spectators reaction as something Talbot does not see but would have joyed to think on. Nashes subjunctive rendering completes the impossible circuit and communicates the joye Talbot never felt, but now we now anticipate for him. The reare-animating power of Nashes katabasis stands surety for the stage as a machine for producing various kinds of pasts in the present, rendered less as a spectacle than as an impossible thought or feeling imagined in the bones of a dead man, newe embalmed with the teares of the audience. Andrew Gurr has written persuasively of this passage as the first description of mass emotion other than laughter in any London playhouse, citing Nashes defense as a key fragment in understanding the shift in stage practice during the Armada years. Nashes logic seems more complicated, however. For if plays are reliquaries, forms that somehow distil or preserve past virtue, enabling it to be reare-actualized in as many presents as there are metonymic shows or showings (at several times in this case), then plays and play -going become the privileged means by which to provide the successive doses of reference once provided by the actual threat of Armada or any forraine sword. For Nashe, then, public theater becomes a device by whose contiguity with the dead, whom it dusts off, and causes to walk again, the sState is able to access the referential powers of violent acts of marking or history making but in idling or leisurely guise. Such resuscitations, he contends, will tend to distract the globe, to replay Hamlets words, to keep their audience quiet, dumb, like that fat weed that luxuriates on Lethes Wharf. After all, there is so very much we needs must forget to remember. Come Judgment Day, of course, the dead will (for Nashe) actually rise and final accounts will be settled, but in the interim, public theater remains your best hope for living on (unless, that is, you can get Shakespeare to write a sonnet about you). By this theatrical technology and its infrastructure, the growing number of theaters in London, the sState, Nashe suggests, may produce simulacral terror effects on the order of a Spanish Armada or a foreign invasion. Support the theater (or simply let it alone), he seems to say, and theater companies will serve up shows that sedate the idle by allowing them to revive past glories. Talbot shall terrify the French daily,; Henry V shall take Harfleur again, and again,; and every day may be St. Crispians Day. Certain very special proper names collecting dust in the Chronicles chronicles will find voices to name them and bodies to flesh them out on stage. And such names and the eaffect relays they form with their hearers will prove so much more effective than tear gas or some such technology of punishment. For theater, Nashe implies, convenes a crowd in order to disperse still other crowds that might one day assemble, producing tears of idiotic joy, now, before the fact, which keep certain names fresh, circulating, newly embalmed. Then again, as Nashes delight in his own performance makes clear, while it may seem that he offers theater to the sState as a tool for revising the past, or writing the present and the future, whats getting sold here is the public theater itself, along with Nashes own pamphleteering, as sovereign media platforms. It is they that constitute the privileged technologies by whose recruitment of watching, listening, and reading or scrolling audiences, the names of Talbot, Henry V, and Hamlet, will continue to circulate, living on in spite of and because of their various states of arrest as objects. Tuned to the currency to be found in proper names and their serial revival, Nashes deal comes with the hardly veiled threat also that if support is not forthcoming, then, those to blame (read: City Fathers) may find themselves tragically unremembered or worse lampooned on stage. Public theater may offer up doses of awe and terror, but it can also produce deforming laughter and worse. Whats at stake, then, ( (and it remains unclear how high or low those stakes actually were in the 1590s) is the business of keeping readers reading,; theater audiences showing up,; and the City Fathers regulating rather than closing theaters. Nashes defense naturalizes the fact of theater in relation to a collective archive, asserting its sovereignty as a framing device, a neutral or tactically unstable technology for summoning up names, their stories, and their aphoristic or ideological quotient. Such performances may prove edifying. They may find imaginary labor for idle hands and minds. They may incite a riot. Admittedly, Nashes defense gets high on a discourse of anticipation, written from within Talbots tomb. Here, Talbot is summoned as a kind of exotic derivative from times pasta repeatable future which that the plays access in order to make sure that nothing can finally happen. To borrow a phrase or two from Richard Doyles reading of the rhetoric of contemporary cryonic technologies and the complex financial arrangements they require in order to maintain the un/dead, we could say that the contract Nashe proposes here between the sState and its players offers up theater as an engine of anticipationan anticipation here felt by the dead Talbot, kept freshly dead, sur-viving, by the production of affect in the tTheater of Nashes today. Time appears here as a reversible and contingent effect of a particular technology, making Nashe, Shakespeare, and Theater more intensely present here, today in a debate about its future. In effect, then, Nashes policie of plays depends on positing the stage and its plays as part of an extended multimedia platform, a generalized structure of survivance that forms between the grave, official histories, the public theater, and its plays, backed in quarto and, folio, edited, translated now back to stage, to film, to your home entertainment centers, or to the clouds where you archive such things, and serve them up in classrooms. If today, the rhetoric of cryonics, whose feasibility remains to be decided, has no choice but to exchange an economy of reference for an engine of anticipation, Nashe has it much easier. As self-appointed rhetorician of a viable technology, already pulling in bodies left, right, and center, such that the City Fathers are protesting at the traffic generated by just two operating theaters in the early 1590s, Nashe subtly offers public theater up as an agent of distraction, an enervating recipe or confection that will provide the cCommonwealth with the doses of phantom referents it needs in order to remember to forget. Of course it is all very improving. Virtuous action will be worthy of replication and reere-embalming, producing fake (i.e. (i.e., animal) blood and real (i.e. (i.e., human) tears. In addition, spectators (City Fathers included) will be chastened in the present by the negative examples as well as the virtuous. But,But dont get too distracted. What you have been reading will have been Nashe, Shakespeare, and the whole company engaged in a project that they hope, and which that did, exchange an engine of anticipation for a valid economy of reference: the existence of so many public theaters in London, plays entered at the Stationers Register, and their collection in the First Folio. By that same token, however, the translation of now defunct human skins from parchment to stage, reanimated by the shadows of the company, whose performances cast off variously backed texts, generates still a host of figural possibilities as each iteration fails to agree. There never was or will be a Hamlet, only variously unreadable and irreconcilable Hamlets. It has been this order of resistance that we have sought to discern in Hamlets self-rending archiving of itself in different media, the texts themselves resisting and inhabiting the lures of what Nashe describes as a technology of secular resurrection, theater as telephon/e/y. Fittingly, the crux offered by Hamlets dying words as delivered by the First Folio serve as an emblem for the life- and- death effects produced by a multimedia archiving of the end of the call. O, I die, Horatio, he announces (5. 2. 336). The rest is silence (5. 2. 342), but he continues to emit sound effects that the Folio captures via a series of Os. Typically, this crux (what is Hamlet doing at this moment in the play?) is simply suppressed by editorsHamlets trailing O, o, o, o excised from the play. What, then, is the status of such a crux? Is it the archiving of a particular performance (by Richard Burbage, perhaps?)?; Iis it a missing stage direction that has been folded into the play, requiring a further disambiguation by the addition of the editorial Dyes? We end by sponsoring no particular reading, but instead by offering this O, o, o, o, as a very particular symptom of the textual monstrosity that is Hamlet (with Hamlet) and that is produced by the glitches and hang-ups of media translations and our attempts to generate weak sovereignty over them. I am dead. Yet still I shall speak,; make noise. I may even prove royal. The fetish labor of textual editing and critical reading remains bound to this crux, to the virtualization of speech, a virtualization that resists our attempts to assert sovereignty over a text other than by its reduction and refolding. There really is no assurance to be found in media (or their histories), and for this reason we assert a disabled, aporetic , politics of the crux against the parceled- out sovereignty of the editorial crutch. But we have to go nowtheres another call coming through: its Juliet. Shes on her own up in her bedroom and shes feeling rather low. She tried calling the Nurse back, but stifled her own call, for what should she do here? My dismal scene I needs must act alone (4. 3. 19), she says, but fFaint cold fear thrills through my veins (4. 3. 15). Vial and knife before her, she previews waking up in the Capulet family tomb-cum-movie theater, and finds herself terrorized by a spectral montage of disgruntled Talbots become Tybalts. How she feels about Nashes offer of theatrical reere-embalming we do not know, but joy does not quite describe what she expects when she wakes or finds herself woken. Shrieking like a mandrake torn from the earth, instead she imagines that she shall madly play with [her] forefathers joints, / And pluck the mangled Tybalt from his shroud / And, in this rage, with some great kinsmans bone, / As with a club, dash out [her] desperate brains (4. 3. 5154): Where is my Rome/O, o, o, o (5. 3. 150)? Chapter 2 Chapter Three3 Romeo and Juliet Is for Zombies 38. Another series, which cuts across all the others: the name, the law, the genealogy, the double survival, the contretemps, in short the aphorism of Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeares play of that title. It belongs to a series, a still-living palimpsest, to the open theater of narratives which bear this name. It survives them, but they also survive thanks to it. Would such a double survival have been possible without the title, as Juliet puts it? 39. The absolute aphorism: a proper name. Without genealogy, without the least copula. End of drama. Curtain, Tableau (The Two Lovers United in Death by Angelo dallOca Bianca). Tourism, December sun in Verona (Verona by that name is known [V. iii, 299]). A true sun, the other (The sun for sorrow will not show his head [V. iii. 305]). Jacques Derrida, Aphorism Countertime At the end of our last chapter, we left Juliet up in her bedroom, imagining what it might be like to wake in the grave world from which Thomas Nashe claims public theater summons up the dead. As you recall, Nashe imagines that such a wake- up call will prove highly satisfactory to all concerned. Londons authorities shall witness the distraction of its idle multitudes; said multitudes shall get high on successive hits of affect; public theater and its avatars shall grow and prosper. Nashe summons up brave Talbot (the terror of the French) from Henry VI Part One to illustrate theaters appeal and invites his readers to contemplate the joy Talbot would have felt, had he known, that two hundred years on his bones [are] newe embalmed with the teares of ten thousand spectators at least (at severall times) provided by Londons theaters. For Nashe, theater becomes akin to a mode of archival tourism or touring. It takes you everywhere and nowhere. Its chief currency lies in the proper names it keeps in motion and the stories they condense. By its recruitment of biosbio-semiotic wetware (its spectators), public theater keeps the likes of Talbot freshly dead, periodically opening the grave for successive revivals. The companys shadows or actors body forth such names and deeds whose bones were long since picked clean. And, come the end of the play, those names, twinned with the faces and names of certain actors, perhaps, find themselves inscribed in the memories of the audiencethe audience become wetware to theater as a mnemotechnic relay to the grave. By their theatrical translation, Talbots dust-bound deeds are rescued from the kinetic dead zone or media purgatory of the untun-turned, worm-eaten pages of a Chronicle chronicle. Welcome, we might say, fanfare, please, to the public theater:, that latest, new- and- improved, apparatus of secular resurrection. Thats Nashes pitch, anyway. But Juliets not so sure. Up in her bedroom, vial of sleeping potion beside her, shes still wedded to the thought of actually waking up. Shes turned off by the thought of Talbot Tybalts. Revivals, she thinks, prove scary: a faint cold fear thrills through [her] veins. She wants to live,; plans on dying so as to live. Unfortunately, the play shes in seems headed into Nashes tomb -world, and she worries that she and it might get stuck there, that the theater might become, in effect, a crypt. We join her at the moment she wakes or rises, as the stage directions have it, in the tomb (5. 3. 147). But we do so obliquely, via the cinematic delegates recruited to her survival in Iranian director Abbas Kiarostamis Where Iis My Romeo (2007). This short, three-minute film depicts a series of women in an unidentified movie theater watching the last minutes of Franco Zeffirellis Romeo and Juliet (1968). At no point in its three minutes does Where Iis My Romeo give us direct access to the Zeffirelli film. Neither does it deliver its soundtrack. Instead, we watch the film as mediated by the women in the movie theater. We hear the soundtrack by way of a muted, muffled, distanced rendering of the dialogue and music but with no guarantee that this accords with what the women hear. Juliets suicide unfolds, therefore, through the films succession of reaction shots, through these womens faces, as we listen in on the auditory stimulus that augments the screen images they see and we do not. Even as it completes a set of familiar circuitsRomeo and Juliet may be recognized; Zeffirellis film comes to its end; the audience emotes on cueWhere Iis My Romeo disallows us to move beyond the scene of cinephilia (the on- screen image of an audience watching a film) that it takes as its habit and its haunt. We do not make it out of its movie theater. We struggle and fail to motivate the images it offers, to transform them into the semblance of a narrative. Our aim in this chapter is to inhabit Romeo and Juliet (15951597) from within the uncertainties, the mis/recognitions, and mis/directions that Where Iis My Romeo produces by its off/staging of the play, by its summoning of Shakespeare to a scene of metacmeta-cinematic commentary and reflection. We are interested in the films own investments and contexts, but more so in what might be said to be its unintended or chance consequences for the play. Crucially, for our purposes, we think the film represents back to us the function of the spectators in Nashes sales pitch, offering to our eyes one iteration of the so very many audiences that have served and serve still as the biosbio-semiotic relays to what Derrida names the still-living palimpsestthe open theater of narratives which bear the name[s] Romeo and Juliet and so also the title, Romeo and Juliet. The film attenuates our access to the play, this yoking together of two proper names to form a third, a third that takes on the form of a title, a title keyed to a story, to a niche in our archives and libraries become tombs. It asks us to approach the play by way of the emoting wetware that we both are and now, by the films cinephilia, are not. We watch Romeo and Juliet , but the tears we cry are cried for us by the women it screens, tears that, once upon a time, Nashe offered to Londons City Fathers in order to sell public theater. We are interested in this partial estrangement, this awareness of media as a relay, which strands us in the cut or crux of not reading, in a moment that remains strictly unreadable. Where Iis My Romeo invites us to focus on the role of successive audiences become substrate to the program Romeo and Juliet installs and so to redre-describe the play from the vantage point they afford. The scene of cinephilia it screens serves as a moment when film as medium loops back on itself, coming to serve thereby as a substrate to the play. And this cinematic capture or hosting of the play as it has been translated to film enables us to foreground Romeo and Juliets own formal properties and peculiarities. In what follows we dwell with what we take therefore to constitute the films deforming or partial wrecking of the play even as it renders it recognizable. Its title, for example, misquotes Juliets waking line, Where is my Romeo? (5. 3. 150), )dropping the form of a question so that the line takes on the role of a figure or topos, a declaration of the films haunt, the moment from which it will not move on. Such a deformationperhaps an accident, perhaps a signature;, how should we tell?seems of a piece with what we take to be the distancing of the play signaled by the withholding of the film image and the attenuation of the soundtrack to Zeffirellis film. But the effect of these disorientations remains unclear. We take such instances of partial wrecking or wrec/k/ognition as an examples of what sociologist Bruno Latour names iconoclash. With iconoclasm, he writes, one knows what the act of breaking represents, and what the motivations of apparent destruction are. The icon is broken because it is taken as a false idol. The act of breaking demystifies; it breaks one relay in order to promote what it takes to be a healthier attachment,; a better icon or idol. Accusations of fetishism or a pathological relation to things or objects fly. But,But for iconoclash, he Latour continues, one does not know: one hesitates, one is troubled by an action for which there is no way to know, without further inquiry, whether it is destructive or constructive. Where Iis My Romeo, we think, inhabits this zone of hesitation. It troubles the play, but it does not break it. It enables us to sidle up to Shakespeare, to watch as we reach a threshold at which a minimal unit or particle of Shakes/appears,; in this case, proffering one of three proper namesRomeo, but not yet Juliet, or Romeo and Juliet. For, even as we may fill in the missing names in our heads and so complete the title, the film refuses to deliver them,; leaves them tactically un/read,; pushes the play away as it invites it in by retarding our ability to eliminate the medium that backs the story in the iteration we encounter this time. If for Latour, we can define an iconoclash as that which happens when there is uncertainty about the exact role of the hand at work in the production of a mediator, we go further and suggest that an iconoclash, or here more precisely a Bardoclash, serves to foreground the presence of media itself, in this case, in the proliferation of this still living but dead-alive palimpsest, Romeo and Juliet. Unlike Latour, we are not particularly interested in attempting to judge whether or not the hand ready with a hammer [plans to]expose, denounce, debunk, show up, disappoint, disenchant, dispel ones illusions or if, on the contrary, [it is]a cautious and a careful hand, with palm turned as if to catch, elicit, educe, welcome, generate, entertain, maintain, or collect truth and sanctity. We understand that, from his point of view, he wishes to defend models of reference and translation that proceed on the basis that deformation or transformation are necessary to any act of mediationno transport [translation] without transformation might constitute a slogan to this effect. We understand also that he considers interrupting a cascade of images, breaking the chain of mediators, and forcing one freeze-framed instance to stand impossibly for the whole, to constitute an act of critical violence or stupidity. We remain sympathetic to these positions, but what intrigues us is the way the successive remediation of a text across several platforms may generate deforming effects, serial iconoclashes, that are not reducible to a strong, agentive, intentional act of critical breaking or postcpost-critical loving. Media transfers or migrations tend to add and drop actors all the time. The recognition they produce comes with a certain wrecking of what they transport. Indeed, we venture that Romeo and Juliet might be understood itself to constitute a programmatic breaking of an image or refusal to produce a particular order of iconographic effects. And by that breaking, it inducts its audiences into a quasi-automatic, compensatory set of iconophilic or iconophobic gestures. Where Iis My Romeo, we speculate, marks one spinning off and away of the Romeo and Juliet thing that renders this program visible, the structure of the play a delivery mechanism, the film, in effect, siphoning off the play to serve as the occasion for its own image -making. For us, then, an icon or Bardoclash manifests as the momentary retarding of the actualization of a text in cascade, as it is performed, and as a making available of the variously lively (human and not) mediators that translate or transmit some thing (text, story, image) to inquiry. Bardoclash signals the intervening function of the media that mediates, which permits the Shaky translation, and raises a question therefore as to its functions. It is political in the strict sense that it requires us to decide on its status, but it communicates also the madness of decision, the way in which deciding relies, as its Latin root recalls, on an irreversible cutting. An iconoclash raises the stakes of reading and deciding but offers no mimetic political program. Instead it acknowledges that whatever we decide will have consequences and so impedes the act of deciding, the act of knowing. For example, we tend to share Juliets concern about the uncertain status of revivals, and the epistemic violence that may attach to them, and so we are tempted to find in Where Iis My Romeo something on the order of a prophylactic inoculation against the bio/bibliographical program that the yoking of Romeo to Juliet to Romeo and Juliet installs. The play is a virulent mode of survivance that keys the biopolitical management of sex lives to the bibliographical living on of books and media. As Derrida writes, in addition to missing one another, Romeo and Juliet both surviveone another. And,And by missing one another, they both live to see the other dead, coming to serve therefore as each others substrate. Thereafter, both, in Derridas terms, live on and over, and aboveinto a succession of forevers, backed up by the plays title such that we cannot fail to recognize them and it, and find ourselves, like it or like it, reviving this un/dead, never living, always lively, super- or supracsupra-couple. The plays eponymous self-naming creates, in this sense, an auto-referential, self-grounding program that it will not be possible to disinter. Romeo and Juliet remain tangled with the title, yoked togetherto each other, and to the play, by what seems like a mutely serial and. And this program begins and ends, as Juliet guesses, in the tomb, the archive cum vault of stories, that which the public theater circulates and which today migrates to successive media platforms via serial revivals. Its power lies in the fact that the only bones at stake are ours, as well as those of the actors that body their proper names forth. For, if Nashe was able to predicate theaters viability on the supposed referential outside grounded on and in brave Talbots bones and deeds, then, in Romeo and Juliet, theater subsumes the grave, eats it, such that its program, that Romeo and Juliet thing, becomes unmoored from State or sovereign, and takes on the heft of an apparatus or writing machine. The tomb it stages is always empty even as the theater may be full. But were not sure. We hesitate. It remains to be seen and not seen. In order to find out, we need first to embark on a redre-description of the play on our way to Kiarostamis movie theatera redre-description tuned to the cascade the play sets in motion, by its own act of breaking, by its self-interrupting, self-ruining structure of survivance, its equipment for dying. Accessorize That! At the end of Romeo and Juliet, the watch raises the city, and Verona converges on the Capulet tomb. The people in the street cry Romeo, / Some Juliet, and some Paris, and all runtoward [the] monument (5. 3. 191193). The ballistic clamor of these as yet singular proper namesParis, Romeo, Julietpunctures Veronas early morning air as the names explode serially from anonymous mouths. The names remain unmoored. The three have yet to enter into a significant relation. They hang in the air without conjunctions, but by their naming they signify that something has happened. Verona congregates. Those who bear the names Capulet and Montague or who, like the Prince, stand with Paris, find themselves summoned by the watch or are drawn by the clamor. They are presented with the bodies: County Paris slain, / And Romeo dead, and Juliet, dead before, / Warm and new killed (5. 3. 195197). Capulets wife says she will die. Montagues wife, so we learn, is already deadRomeos outlawry and exile killed her. Accordingly, the Prince seals the tomb, till we can clear these ambiguities (5. 3. 216217). Clear the crime scene. Silence the cries. Inquire into the syntax that we lack and that will enable us to enter these names into some set of relations that we may understand. Nothing, so it seems, was as they thought. The Capulets woke two days ago to find Juliet dead. They buried her. They choked down the baked meats that would have been the wedding cheer, and felt the word cheer (food that is happy, akin to happiness) fracture into the sad feast of mourning (4. 5. 8485). They did not understand, but still they grieved and buried their daughter. Now they find her warm and dead. Again. Now they must revive their grief. Montague suffers also. Romeo? Is he back? Come home to die? How comes he here dead, already? He offers the scene uncertainly as a pedagogical, parental, or filial failurehow could his Romeo, untaught, press before [his]father to a grave (5. 3. 214215)? Likewise, the Princedoes he know that Paris frequents the tomb, plans, nightly, to strew [Juliets]grave with flowers and tears (5. 3. 1217)? Probably not, for Paris would not be seen (5. 3. 2); gets spooked by Romeos torch (5. 3. 21); and has his page keep watch though hes almost afraid to stand alone / Here in the churchyard (5. 3. 1011), what with all that loose ground with digging up of graves (5. 3. 6). Now all that remains are the three bodies. What can the Prince do but seal up the mouth of outrage for a while (5. 3. 216)? A voice supplements the scene. Friar Lawrence turns epilogue,; confesses,; apologizes. His words come quickly to enumerate the plot that the parents have missed and so to parse out the agents involved in the errant course events have taken. Juliet was suicidal and; came to him alone in his cell; he gave her a sleeping potion and; wrote a letter to Romeo explaining everything about the form of death he wrought on her (5. 3. 244246), but Friar John / Was stayed by accident (5. 3. 250251); he came to the tomb himself, but there was a noise, within or without, and he was frightened; Juliet would not leave; her nurse is privy to the marriage (5. 3. 266). If it is his fault, punish him. Besides or before this minimal revelation of the turn events took, Friar Lawrences words serve to couple and uncouple bodies, to provide the syntax that the Prince and surviving family members lack. Friar Lawrence rewrites the scene and reanimates the corpses and in doing so we witness a scene of writing, the writing of the plays title, Romeo and Juliet, the title we already know, whose composing we may never encounter for the first time even as we do so: Romeo, there dead, was husband to that Juliet, And she, there dead, that Romeos faithful wife. I married them, and their stoln marriage-day Was Tybalts dooms-day, whose untimely death Banished the new-made bridegroom from the city. For whom, and not for Tybalt, Juliet pined. You, to remove that siege of grief from her, Betrothed and would have married her perforce To County Paris. (5. 3. 231239) If the watch was able to produce the bodies, to summon up a static tableau, but not to provide an animating narrative that explains the scene, the Friars pseudo/deictically emphatic theress and thatss suture his voice to the scene. His voice- over re/couples Romeo and Juliet; decouples Juliet from Paris; recodes Tybalts role in the drama. He provides the syntax, reinstates the dropped or missing relations. The first two lines fold upon one another, rendering Romeo and Juliet in and by their relation to the other. Romeo and Juliet come to figure a singularity as Friar Lawrences words and perhaps hands gesture to where they lie together, the phrase, there dead, there dead, by its repetition, punctuating the lines. Tybalt enters as the first agent in the chain of their destruction. Their marriage-day was Tybalts dooms-day. He figures as the occasion for Romeos exile, not for Juliets pining. The parents also figurefor by marrying her to Paris they sent Juliet to mewith mad looks (5. 3. 239240). Interruptions and errors mount. But,But the Prince says he trusts the Friaror, reprising Juliets earlier trust back in aAct four 4, scene three3, says, Wwe still have known thee for a holy man (5. 3. 270). Balthasar corroborates with the letter Romeo sent to the Friar. The Prince reads and reports. Some shall be pardoned and some punished, he ends. And so, the play returns to its beginning as he offers up its title in reversed form, recognizing thereby the constitutive yoking or coupling and uncoupling of bodies that Friar Lawrence sets in motion: For never was a story of more woe / Than this of Juliet and her Romeo (5. 3. 309310). Moments prior to the Princes estranging couplet, Capulet offers Montague his hand for this [his hand] is my daughters jointure, for no more / Can I demand (5. 3. 296297). But Montague goes further: For I will raise her statue in pure gold, That whiles Verona by that name is known, There shall no figure at such rate be set As that of true and faithful Juliet. To which Capulet adds,: As rich shall Romeos by his ladys lie / Poor sacrifices to our enmity (5. 3. 299304). And so it begins. Icons shall be raised. Rival icons, perhaps. Its hard to say, as the play ends, what order of peace this morning with it brings (5. 3. 305), or how we are to reckon with the incipient iconophilia that Capulet and Montague set in motion. As Jonathan Goldberg comments, tempting as it is to wax lyrical and insist on the purity and transcendentality of their love, and, by extension, of Shakespeares art, Capulet and Montagues lines may be read as disclosing that the corpsescontinue to have a social function: indeed that they make possible the union of the two opposing houses. It remains almost impossible, however, to judge their gestures, the quasi-automatic supplementing of the dead couple by a parade of coupled copies into successive mediastatues; puppets; action figures, courtesy of Mattel; movies; and so on and so forth. Capulet and Montague may play at dress- up; they may enter into a tit- for- tat accessorizing of the dead; but so what? In one register the demystifying revelation that the corpses acquire a social function seems upsetting, but where, exactly comes the surprise? Corpses have social functionsotherwise there would be no need for tombs, or libraries, or archives. Perhaps all that remains to do at the end of the play, when presented with this dismal crime scene, is to enter into some order of blocked mourning that needs must unfold as fetish labor. After all, where were you and what were you doing the night before and morning of the Juliets un/wedding to Paris? The Capulets were wrapped up in the arrangements: the burgeoning guest list, the fray of hiring twenty cunning cooks so skilled that they cannot help lick[ing] their fingers (4. 2. 14) while they make pies for the wedding cheer (4. 5. 87). They had to send the Nurse off with the keys to fetch more ingredients. Come morning, they rose to find Juliet dead: Shes dead, shes dead, shes dead, (4. 5. 25) wails the Nurse (4.5.25). But now all thats cancelled. Moments ago, Juliet woke from the form of death only to die, again, for the first time, and so now they must grieve again, begin again to grieve all over, as if for the first time. Juliet revived in order to die. No wonder they all end up hooked, embarked on rival feats of icon making. Accessories to the crime scene, they accessorize the dead couple by and in their translation to a different order of media than flesh. Set aside the ideological heft the story is said to have as the ppreereeminent document of love in the Weststraight, queer, otherwise, with time, inter- or transstrans-species, we have no doubt. Forget the way the play may be said to stage a conflict between the lovers individual desires and the reigning demands of family, civic, and social norms in relation to which those desires are formed. None of that was primary or constitutive. Indeed, it might be said that whatever ideological quotient or predicament you wish to derive from the play has been the legacy we have constituted by our rendering and augmentation of the plot to which it recruits us. The play begins and ends in the crypt, it detours into the crypt, before its time, playing a shell game, with which all of us now have to reckon, breaking or emptying itself, so that we are left to pick up the pieces. The play ends and begins wedded to an infrastructure of survivance that Derrida names a groundless ground from which are detached, identified, and opposed life- and- death effects that we think we can identify under the name of death or dyingas opposed to life. Romeo and Juliet constitutes a living-dead machine, sur-viving, the body of a thing buried in a library, a bookstore, in cellars, urns, drowned in the worldwide waves of a Web. But the survivals it programs constitute the spinning or sloughing off of a series of freeze-framed images, holiday snaps, and video nasties, as it breaks itself to pieces. Before Shakespeare, there come the folk tales; Italian and French versions follow channeling Ovids Pyramus and Thisby; Arthur Brooke freely translates Matteo Bandellas Giulietta e Romeo (1554) as The Tragicall Historye of Romeus and Juliet (1562); Shakespeares The Most Excellent and Lamentable Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet (15951597) appears, adding the balcony scene. That play endsCurtain (well, no curtain at the time, but still the play ends, insert your desired frame effect, and the audience leaves)then come paintings, operas, guest appearances in novels such as Nicholas Nickleby; films, so many films; Broadway showsWestside Story; animated features such as Gnomeo and Juliet (2011); songsby the Angels, Dire Straits, Lou Reed, Melissa Etheridge, the Indigo Girls, and more. The touring, the fetish labor, the accessorizing begins and continueswrit large or small. For, maybe, on occasion, you find yourself rerre-reading certain scenessneaking off to the library or to your bedroom alone or with a friend. Eventually, your fingers might wear out certain must rerre-read pages like some worn icon of a saint whose hand the lips of the faithful have kissed away. As anecdote has it, when the First Folio that had been chained to the shelves of the Bodleian Library in Oxford in the seventeenth century for students to use was returned to the shelves and opened in the early twentieth century, having been switched for a third edition Folio in 1664, it was found that the most handled page of all was the lovers poignant parting at dawn in 3.5. Such is the form that bio/bibliographical intimacies takepleasures of the flesh conjoined with those of the text. And so, like Juliet, we find ourselves continuously kissing and kissed by th book (1. 5. 109). Or, maybe, if youve a bigger budget, one year, you find yourself taking a trip to Verona, planned or on spec, and decide, for a lark, to find the couples haunt, their balcony. When you get there, of course, you find them already gone or supplemented by mannequins, their absence, amended or marked in the form of plaques quoting lines from the play, street signs, a stunt balcony, which, from time to time, all require maintenance and repair from the traffic. Or, maybe, you allow yourself to play mannequin, and wake up one morning to find yourself Juliet to someones Romeo (ooh! Ah!Here comes the sun). Ever fallen in love (wWith someone you shouldntve,)? If so, no worries;, the Friar mixes a heady brew. Understandably, the news that when we love, we play zombie to a possible revival of this un/dead couple, that, in fact, when we love, we continue to mourn them still, produces a confusing mix of pleasures, including desires for cancellationssuch as the happy ending in Nicholas Nickleby, in which, even Tybalt makes it out of the play alive. Critical readings likewise share in this confusion, attempting to reprogram the play so as to derive from the pair of lovers a different orientation: a more historical, which is to say less hetero-normative account of desire, for example, that fractures the couple into a series of substitutions,; or a script that manages to recognize, for once, two free individuals where we had mistaken a single pair. But its hard to pull the two apart, for, as Juliet knows already, by the irony of her demand in the balcony scene to what she thinks is an absent Romeo to doff or refuse his name, uncoupling persons and names proves impossible, even as the two do not properly coincide (2. 2. 3850). Romeo and Juliet, Romeo and Juliet, constitute an absolute aphorism, a proper name, which itself couples two names with the name of a play. And by this coupling, which the play wrecks, by this folding together of the proper names that designate characters into a title that tropes or trumps them, the series appears without genealogy, without the least copula. The title figures an irreducible, inexhaustable structure, unfolds as a story and a semiotic chronology, that always turns out the same. Such, then, is the impression Romeo and Juliet and Romeo and Juliet make on each another that subsequent iterations may only replay the terms or seek to transpose them. The two lovers serve already, in and by the story, as each others substrate. The biopbio-political yoking of sex lives to state formation comes bound to a bibliographical coaco-articulation of persons and texts that crafts a niche or slot in the library / archive become crypt. Each actualization, ruined from the start, broken as a condition of its coming into being, ends by returning the story to its niche. As Friar Lawrences voice- over in aAct 5, scene 3 makes clear, the two coeco-exist there dead, in the non/space to which he points. So,So raise her statue in pure gold, if you want; make one as rich for Romeo, too. Choose whatever frame or medium you will to summon them back. You may even decide to go looking for themDecember sun in Verona, your vacation their holy day. What may we do other than continue the serial augmentation and memorialization of this doubled proper name across differing biombio-media, living on, by, over, and above, our lives and loves contributing to the plays on-going amassing of equipment for dying? The play has already broken its icon and in offering us this broken, fragmented, defaced, story, it recruits us to successive acts of iconophilia/phobia. So,So no worries;, everyone who watches or reads the play becomes a fetishist. The play itself telegraphs a caution against charges of fetishism at the very beginning of aAct five 5, scene three3, as Romeos breaks open of the Capulet tomb to gain entry to the vault. Paris looks on from his own interrupted equipmental mourning, as Romeo begs Balthasar for a mattock and a wrenching iron (5. 3. 22) to break open the vault. He Paris recognizes that the man before him is the banished haughty Montague / That murdered my loves cousin, with which grief / It is supposed the fair creature [Juliet] died (5. 3. 4951). Paris then wonders why Romeo has come and what his breaking open of the tomb intendsor worse, he assumes that the gesture betokens some further violence, some urgent and compulsive mutilation or desecration that he must prevent: here he is come to do some villainous shame / To the dead bodies (5. 3. 5253). Paris, bent on what he assumes to be the opposite course of action, extending and prolonging his own order of mourning, intervenes to stop him. Can vengeance, he asks, be pursued further than death (5. 3. 55)? The act of breaking and entering, the violence of the act that needs must Romeo must accomplish in order to keep his appointment, to make it to the grave on time, here gets mis/read as a compulsive, frightening, violent order of fetish labor. Paris, who augments, whose hands adorn the tomb, looks on and judges that the hand with the mattock intends to break, and to do violence to the bodies within the tomb. He misjudges the affect, the velocity of Romeos blows. Paris intervenes. Romeo kills him. Paris begs for admittance to the tomblay me with Juliet (5. 3. 73). Romeo obliges and only then looks at his face, identifying him as Mercutios cousin, noble County Paris (5. 3. 7475). He breaks into the tomb too early, and, missing Friar John and the letter, finds Juliet, so he thinks, dead (so he thinks). By these several mis/readings, that of Paris ands, that of Romeo, the act of making or is it breaking?assumes an impossible, specular status. The two men become misapprehended mirror effects. Indeed, their serial mis/readings stage the process by which the madness of decision renders their recognition of the nameMontague, Capulet, Paris, Julieta convulsive wrecking in the name of right reading. The play permits nothing more than the production of these wrec/k/ognizable figures / fragments, smashed icons, summoned from the archive-crypt that theater has become. Under such circumstances, charges of fetishism cease to signify. For, everything depends, and must be played for, still, but by and in the crafting of an altered set of objectssuccessive, differently mediated, statues that seek to program Romeo and Juliet, Romeo and Juliet, differently, but for which the story, the play, stand not as referent or occasion but merely as a cascade that we keep in motion. What Derrida calls the still-living palimpsest, the open theater of narratives which bear this name constitutes a cascade across different media that Romeo and Juliet formalizesthe play itself a strategic rendering or icon -building that splices the failure and wrecking of its own image to its attempts to render that couple anew. The tomb was and remains empty. There are no bones to the story. Miss and Mend Rewind; start again; maybe this time things will turn out differently. But even before the play begins, by its prologue, the process has already begun, the program complete. [Enter CHORUS]. Just voice this time, bodied forth. Or, rather, an actors voice figuring that of the company or the corporation that brings us this play and which that editions render now as a variously paratextual prologue folding it into aAct 1 or not, as the case may be. The lines we know alreadywe complete them in our heads even as the prologue may stutter them, as in the tailor plucked to fame in Shakespeare in Love (1998). We may all variously nod in agreement, then, as to the facts of the case. Cue the opening lines: Two households, both alike in dignity, In fair Verona, where we lay our scene, From ancient grudge break to new mutiny, Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean. From forth the fatal loins of these two foes A pair of star-crossed lovers take their life, Whose misadventured piteous overthrows Doth with their death bury their parents strife. The fearful passage of their death-marked love, And the continuance of their parents rage, Which, but their childrens end nought could remove, Is now the two hours traffic of our stage; The which, if you with patient ears attend, What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend. (114) Its slow going at first,. tThe rhymes too close,; the syntax overly exact. And yet, already, the prologue tunes an audiences ears to the sonnet speak that will characterize Romeo and Juliets encounters and the accelerated, syncopated temporality of their bid to exit normative and normalizing chronologies underwritten by familial, social, generational, and generative programs. It posits the form but estranges the pace. Focus on the plot for now, on lining up the terms. The prologue posits the pair of star-crossd lovers tak[ing of] their life as the biopbio-political loss or trauma necessary to bury their parents strife. Household enmity endures, especially when both households are alike in dignity, and, except for their childrens end, nought could remove it. The as yet unnun-named pairs death, their coming to nothing, figures a traumatic interruption of the generational and reproductive cycles that lead to the automatic enmity of the ancient grudge between Capulets and Montagues, suggesting something on the order of a biopolitical balance sheet underwriting the return to health of a city in which civil blood issuing from fatal loins breeds uncivil i.e.that is, bloody bloodyhands. Such then is the regimen the play recommends. Generative and generational loss, so the prologue declares, may void the uncivil scripts that wreck Verona, and makes possible something new that would be also a return to something lostthough it remains uncertain come the end of the play with Prince Escaluss words all are punished echoing in our ears the extent to which the play offers anything more than a dead loss or dead end. Telescoping from the city, which is one, a single thing, that fractures into the two households from which the pair issuethese families, the loins of the city, turned fatal, such that reproduction becomes an outpouring or loss of bloodwe encounter the lovers, who never appear singly and, who, from the beginning, from before the beginning, are already a pair. The prologue treats them collectively, positing their life (two lives impressed into one course), their death (two deaths, two survivals of each death), as the necessary condition of fair Veronas renewed singularity. Already the prologue programs Friar Lawrences voice- over in aAct 5, five scene three3, where he narrates the crime scenewhere he points to the pair there dead on stage. But,But in the last three lines, theres a pause. The prologue advertises the play that is coming; recruits the audience (which stands already recruited); and, in doing so, asserts the efficacy of the theatrical medium as host to what the prologue misses. The prologue, so it turns out, was a stunt or stunted sonnetit lacks something essential to this story or loses it in its telling. The enervated temporality of the star-crossed pairing hovers uncertainly, then, in the conjunction of sonnet -media and theatrical performance, which do not quite connect and; which that serve as different frames for launching a story that plays always, from its first telling, as a revival, a bringing back to life, on the condition of a death, a naught, a nothing, an encryption, the aphorism, the proper name, the program already little more than an archive and a crypt, an empty tomb. AAll of ll this is now the two hours traffic of our stageit will take place here. And,And if you listen carefully, patiently (ears), or sit still (arse), what here [in and by this prologue, this sonnet] shall miss, our toil [on stage] shall strive to mend. The prologue ends with a moment of sensory recruitment, listen and sit still, that stands in relation to the toil by which the actors shall minister to and perhaps mend what goes missing. And in doing so, it appeals or shunts an audiences attention to the theatrical medium, which, merely by coming second, aims to mend what has been missed. Pitching itself as a remediation, nodding, perhaps, to the currency of the story, already, the prologue programs the action and its aphoristic certainty, keying the outcome to a generational and generative politics that yokes scripts for loving, living, dying to the life or facticity of various media: the lyric countertcounter-time of the sonnet and the linear unfolding of a play in performance. It does so within the balance sheet of biopolitical loss and gain that the prologues sonnet calculates. Incompatible or variously compatible frames intervene, superisuper-imposing themselves on this story whose temporality is measured already as ancient, cosmologically underwritten, and yet also as the spans of two lives, the few years the lovers live, and the few days they spend together. Already, then, the prologue produces an order of freeze-framing that reduces the proper names, cuts them off from the series as still lively, un/alive nodes to be performed, taken as inputs to oour ownur acts of making or simply acting outyoure such a Romeo! The story never phenomenalizes exactly in any of the successive heress offered by media platforms, but migrates to the next available frame effect. Miss and mend; miss and mend. Baz Luhrmanns rendering of the prologue in William Shakespeares Romeo + Juliet (1996) offers a compelling instance of how the migration of the play to film further complicates its layering of media. In his film, the last two lines of the prologue are cut or, better yet, translated into the en-framing devices of the televisual broadcast as figured by the TVtelevision set on which an African American newscaster offers a monotone exaggeration of the iambic pentameter of the sonnet, spliced with the cadences of her profession, transforming the story into the empty casting or shell of an event (Figure 3.1). {~?~TN: Insert Figure 3.1} Figure 3.1 Televisual pPrologue in Baz Luhrmanns William Shakespeares Romeo + Juliet (1996). The TVtelevision hovers within the frame of the film as William Shakespeares Romeo + Juliet asserts its sovereign ability to deliver the story, to amp up the eaffect and sensory routines necessary to let you feel their life and their death. The camera slowly closes on the TVtelevision set such that when the announcer speaks her final lineIs now the two hours traffic of our stagethe image on the TVtelevision set merges, synchs up, or is eaten by the frame of the film and we are catapulted into its diegetic world with its kinetic, syncopating, fast cuts. The prologue then repeats as an end-stopped, male, voice- over, ghosts the modes of repetition that characterize TVtelevision news programs (in case youre just tuning in) as they cater to and attempt to capture an audience. Key phrases such as Fair Verona, Grudge, Mutiny, Civil Blood, appear as subtitles on screen, in various fonts, miming the captions of print media alongside words that have for us, by their appearance in our built word, the force of proper namessuch as the way Police appears on a black and white police car. The civil disturbance of the ancient grudge appears as a close- up of so much stock footage of burning buildings and the like captured by an eye-in-the-sky camera from one of the Princes or the networks helicopters. The fatal loins are personed as we see newspaper and magazine photographs of the Capulets and the Montagues; the prologue is now unpacked to produce a dramatis personae,; the film then introducing its own signature font in which the letter t appears as a cross in the blazoning of certain phrases, such as star crossd lovers against a black background,; the sequence ending in the appearance of its own title,: William Shakespeares Romeo +Juliet. In Luhrmanns rendering, the noncnon-correlation between prologue and performance on the stagethe way the prologue offers the performance as a supplementing, mending, or reparative act, of what here shall miss in the prologue, is translated into a cinematic omission of the lines that plot the noncnon-correlation. The eventalizing language of performance goes missing but is conserved in the multiple frame effects generated by the citation of TVtelevision and print media (eye-in-the-sky cameras; news programs; features; newspaper headlines; a host of static print media). Whats missing from these kinetic dead zonesakin to the dusty pages of the cChronicles from which Nashes public theater rescues brave Talbotshall be provided, indeed, is provided immediately by our explosive entry into the in medias res beginning of aAct one1, scene one1, by way of the films fast cuts. Uncivil blood spills quickly within the films mutinous choreography. But if the film introduces itself, inaugurates itself, as, an immersive experience that delivers the death-seeking couple whose story the TVtelevision misses, its fullness remains predicated on the presentation of TVtelevision, the impossibly deracinated, extratextra-terrestrial, TVtelevision set, held there by the media of film. Entering the movie, giving oneself over to the film, entails a discarding or media ingestion of the TVtelevision set. And yet, the film remains haunted by the televisual in that the first sounds we hear and the first images we see are something that even the film may not capture or render: three short bursts of dyspeptic static; and three images that dissolve before they are able to take shapethe TVtelevision coming to life and going silent of its own accord. Iconoclasm or iconoclash, we may ask.? But,But lets not decide. Llets hesitate, for like Nashes defense of public theater, like the plays advertisement of the serial replacement of the prologue or extratextra-textual sonnet by the play itself, with its dialogic production of sonnets, as in aAct one 1, scene five5, William Shakespeares Romeo + Juliet transposes the life and death of Romeo and Juliet into the serial generation of successive orders of media that enable an audience to reere-experience the hits of affecteffect on which the story trades. It seeks to prolong, to amp up the equipment for dying (ooh! Ah!) by pitching the storys transmission as the correlative genesis of different media that revive key proper names and the stories or aphoristic programs for being and not being that they designate. Here, film delivers the televisual broadcast up to view, mending what it misses, recruiting its audience by positing its own technical enframing of the star crossed lovers against a televisual absence or stasis. Romeo and Juliet are dead; never lived; but from their proper names issue forth whole orders of media deaths and birth d/effects, as successive orders of media archive one another according to a nonlnon-linear, looping chronology that renders them old and new by their serial replacements. The founding or generative trope of Romeo and Juliet, then, as it successively mediates its protagonist pair, manifests as a strategic enframing of one medium by another: sonnet to play,; TVtelevision to film,; lively to dead,; corpse to statue; in which whatever media precedes that which mends is pronounced dead or old and newness a product of the sequence and parasitic upon it. The capacity of one medium to deliver or to revive, more vividly, to veridicate, the Romeo and Juliet thing, to reire-inflate their proper names, which migrate so easily because they are empty, aphorisiticaphoristic, never arriv[ing] by [themselves but]part [always] of a serial logic, depends on the willed forgetting or ingestion of one medium as it enfolds another. As Derrida shows in The Truth of Painting, frame effects of this order are never medium specific, even as they take on different forms as canalized by the technical possibilities of a medium. Consider the case of the 3D animated feature film Gnomeo and Juliet. Like many films, Gnomeo and Juliet was simultaneously released in three digital editions, the most expensive of which says on the cover that you can watch the film four ways: on blu-rayBlu-ray 3D, on blu-rayBlu-ray 2D, on DVD, and on digital copy. (Another, cheaper edition includes the blu-rayBlu-ray DVD and digital copy, and another still cheaper edition includes a DVD and digital copy). Such multiple releases require the production of a technological pedagogy for would-be users in order to optimize their viewing experiencereplay the prologues recruitment of your patient ears or arse, lest you miss what the latest medium mends. Just as Bblu-rays include stickers telling the potential buyer that they would do not play on a DVD -player, so 3D Bblu-rays include information about the new equipment they require: a 3D- enabled HD flat-screen TVtelevision, an HDMI cable, a 3D- enabled blu-rayBlu-ray player, and a special set of wraparound dark glasses, different from the ones used in movie theaters (which dont work with 3D Bblu-rays that one can play without a 3D- enabled blu-rayBlu-ray player) and that differ depending on whether they have been made by SONYSony or Disney. AAll of ll this equipment is now on the market. In order to market a product that requires marketing new equipment, however, Disney and SONYSony 3D Bblu-rays begin with what we call media trailers that showcase the benefits of the new upgrade of the disc (some DVDs did the same thing in relation to video when DVDs first arrived on the scene, and the DVD edition of Gnomeo and Juliet begins with a media trailer about blu-rayBlu-ray, and the 2D blu-rayBlu-ray begins with a trailer about 3D blu-rayBlu-ray and 3D equipment since each disc is also sold separately). The media trailers promote the format of DVDs and 2D Bblu-rays by using clips from existing releases and then identifying them by name at the end. 3D blu-rayBlu-ray trailers go a step further, however, taking narrative form, showing characters or people watching the blu-rayBlu-ray on a home theater. The aim of the trailer is convince the buyer that Sony 3D brings the theatrical experience back to your home. Yet the trailer makes that case by differentiating the home theater from the movie theater. A TVtelevision set is shown in both the Disney and SONYSony media trailers, for example. More interestingly, the home theater experience is reproduced through various kinds of special effects. For example, Sony shows a family at home watching a blu-rayBlu-ray: shot from behind the family, the image shows us the TVtelevision image from Toy Story 3 (without its soundtrack audible) they are watching in front of them and placing us, in effect, in a row of a movie theater behind them. The media trailer compensates us for our greater remoteness, however, by making the family and the living room almost invisible and the TVtelevision frame extremely visible. The special effects make the media trailer into something like a simulation training film, helping us understand how immersive 3D blueBlu-rays are by making the world in the films far less visible and by bringing the film frame toward us. Yet, by detaching the TVtelevision frame from its location on the wall in the living room, the trailer creates a double frame, with the real but less visible frame, exposed behind the imaginary but more realistic frame foregrounded for us. The dimensionality of the image in the frame gets distorted (there is no single vanishing point). The better image is being sold not only by returning the image to the frame, but by dividing the frame in two. The frame thus becomes as much an obstacle to clarity of the imagean obstacle you may overcome by allowing the new medium to toil on your behalf. The frame is not medium specific;, in short, and the multimmulti-media formats through which film is presently delivered are permutations, re/divisions within and between film and media. Accordingly, the story of successive media and their media citations cannot completely be historicized as a linear sequence or accommodated by existing accounts of the history of film and (new) media. The ontology of different platforms (play, print, film, digital image, etc.), their metaphysics, can only be imaged and imagined by and through their capture by other media. If you like, we are and we were never seeing a play, or watching a film, even at the Globe or in a movie theater that projected nitrate or celluloid prints that made up what self-described new cinephilics call old cinephilia. For that media- specific experience was and remains grounded in nothing more than a series of variable frame effects predicated upon other media. Rumors of media deaths (and births) have, as the saying goes, been greatly exaggerated. For, instead, they constitute technical relays within a generalized economy of living on. To anticipate Juliets self-medicating suicide, they constitute only the form of death (and life). Its from within this story of media replacement or succession, as forms migrate across platforms, that Where Iis My Romeo emergestuned to the metacmeta-cinematic genre of film moments that screen the movie-going audience back to itself (cinephilia / cin-off), sometimes granting access to the film image they watch, sometimes not, sometimes enabling us to hear the sound track, sometimes not, layering sounds, layering frames, and so causing film to close on itself. The film plays host to Romeo and Juliet as a citation within its own metacmeta-cinematic commentary as film goes global and digital,; as film might be said to die or already to be dead. Bardoclash Where Iis My Romeo belongs to the genre of world cinema. It addresses itself very deliberately to cinephiles, but the worldness of the world cinema it enters is not easily circumscribed by the words global or universal. The film was screened at Cannes in 2007 as one 1 of thirty-three33 films edited together as a Cannes-pilation film titled, Chacun son cinma: Une dclaration damour au grand cran (To Each His Cinema: A Declaration of Love to the Big Screen), and then released on DVD in a one- disc edition and a two- disc French edition. Both editions are out -of -print, though still for sale on various websites. Kiarostamis three-minute film has been extracted, compressed into streaming video, and uploaded by multiple versions onto YouTube.com. The status of the film remains complicated therefore. Each of these iterations, the multiple editions, the successive migrations and extractions of the film from DVD to YouTube, itself a commonplace practice, complicates our sense of the ontology of film or media generally. What is the status of this film? Does it constitute already an adaptation or a spin- off from Shakespeares play or from a filmic adaptation of the play? Do the multiple YouTube extractions constitute editions or further adaptations insofar that as they isolate the film from its cinematic source? The title Chacun son Cinma serves as a pre-emptive exercise in ontological damage control. The title cancels out a thinking of the global in favor of a universal assumption that we already know what cinema has been and still is, dividing cinema up into discrete units of narrative films directed by single persons from single nations: each person, whether a director, cast or crew member of a film, or spectator gets his or her own singular cinema. And that cinema is available, if not at Cannes, then on DVD. The universality of world cinema thus celebrated is composed of a nationally bounded geopolitics, each film exchangeable in the same universal currency. Indeed, we could reasonably say that the entire film is a compilation of cin-offs since each film is in some way about film.  Unlike spin-off, or full-scale film adaptation, the cin-off is limited to a single sequence in a narrative film in which characters watch a single sequence of a film in a movie theater. All have scenes in movie theaters, though one of the thirty films stops at the ticket window and another ends at a bar after the film is over. One film shows clips from the cin-off in Jean-Luc Godards Vivre sa Vie (Her Life to Live), in which the prostitute Nana (Anna Karina) and her john go to the cinema to see Carl Theodor Dreyers Jeanne dArc (a.k.a. The Passion of Joan of Arc, 1928), shifting the narrative focus to the Antonin Artaud playing a priest away from Maria Falconetti playing Joan. And the film plots a course ttowardsoward a happy endingfor film we take itoffering its final title in the DVD menu as the emphatically promising Happy Ending. If you choose this option, however, you go to a comedy directed by Ken Loach about a father and son standing in line deciding which film to see only to change their minds at the last second and to go to a football match instead. The last fade- to- black shot of Loachs film carries over a roar of soccer fans from the last shot, with credits in white type. Yet the Happy Ending title and the happy ending arrives in the form of a short clip from the end of Ren Clairs Le Silence est dOr (a.k.a. Silence Is Golden, Many aAbout Town, 1948) that shows Emile (Charles Boyer) asking his young date, Lucette (Dany Robin), while they are watching a hand-cranked projection of a silent film, if she likes happy endings. She replies, Yes, and he says, So do I. Play music, fade to black, followed by a thank you to Rene Clair and then by a citation of the films French title. Endings, terminations, fade to black, and death effects, become thereby a matter for cinephilic discussionwhat order of ending do you likehappy or sad? Where Iis My Romeo significantly contributes to the cine-wreckage of Chacun son cinma by interrogating the ontology of the film medium. The title of Kiarostamis film is conspicuously missing the question mark that follows Juliets question in the play. By improperly recre-citing a question from Romeo and Juliet as an unpunctuated and nonsensical declarative sentence, Kiarostami pressures the viewer to hallucinate the question mark and hear the silent title as a question. Indeed, the French subtitle underneath the films title on the two- disc DVD edition succumbs to this pressure and supplies the missing question mark, as if emending the film, repairing and correcting its unwitting error. {~?~AU: Insert Figure 3.2} Figures 3.2a and b Title sSequence to Abbas Kiorastamis Where Is My Romeo from Chacun son Cinma (To Each His Own Cinema) (2007) and closing, Thank You to Mrs. Kheradmand. This correction is itself something of an error, however (Figure 3.2a). For Kiarostamis film puts cinemas ontology into question by reproducing yet disturbing the citation practices that underwrite its apparently specular economy. {~?~AU: insert figure 3.3} Figure 3.3a, b, c, and d Carl Theodor Dreyers Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) as archival effect in Jean-Luc Godards Vivre sa Vie (Her Life to Live) (1962). Much the way Jean-Luc Godard cuts from Dreyers close-ups of Falconetti in Vivre sa vie (1964) (Figure 3.3c) to Nana (Anna Karina) watching her in a movie theater (Figure 3.3d), both of whom shed tears, Where Iis My Romeo lets us identify with the anonymous women in the audience who are identifying with Juliet, as in a hall of mirrors. Kiarostami follows Godard in making film spectatorship into an archival and auratic effect. In Godards Vivre sa vie no extradextra-deiegetic music plays on the Dreyer soundtrack of Dreyers film, nor does any extradextra-deiegetic music sound play on the Dreyer soundtrack of Vivre sa vie as the central character Nana, shot in close, watches mirroring close- up shots of Joan (Maria Falconetti). The theater showing Dreyers film seems to be in disrepair. Only the neon letters cine of cinema to the left of the marquee are lit (Figure 3.3a). Only three people are watching Dreyers film (one woman walks out just as Nana and her john sit down) (; Figure 3.3b). Godard represents the specularity of two beautiful, young women actors in two different films as a cinepehilic effect, a fantasy of auratic immediacy that is no longer, perhaps never was, available, and that is grounded in the total silence of the soundtrack of Vivre sa vie. Godard did not say that cinema was dead until the 1980s when he filmed his eight- part Histoire(s) du cinema (Histories of Cinema), but he had already seized on a kind of cinematic death in Vivre sa Vie, adding the title Le mort a second time to his rendition of Dreyers film (it appears only once in Jeanne dArc). A different analogue medium, which Godard deployed in Histoire(s), made it possible to keep cinema intact, something that had a history that began and ended even if what cinema was remained an open question. In Where Iis My Romeo, Kiarostami goes further, staging film spectatorship as a tropic, archive effect that constitutes a curious form of mourning. Like Vivre sa vVie, Where Iis My Romeo focuses on a series of women (eighteen18) in a movie audience who are shot successively in close-ups of approximately the same length. They watch a woman (Juliet) commit suicide near the ending of Franco Zeffirellis film adaptation of the play. The crucial difference is that Kioraostami never shows the film the women are watching, intensifying the auratic immediacy of the emotional responses we see on the screen by withholding the image of the film to which they react. The reaction shots pose a problem, then, inviting us to sift the faces for an implied narrative or progression even if they are randomly ordered. The first and last women we see are quite old, in contrast to the other women, all of who are all young. Some women stare fixedly at the screen. The last actress turns her head to her right as if looking at the person seated next to her, but we cant tell what she sees, or if she is seeing anything. This final actor gets a line of text at the bottom of the frame thanking her by name:, Thank you so much Mrs. Kheradmand (Figure 3.2b). Most of the women cry as the film gets more dramatic. Juliets line, O happy dagger (5. 3. 169) provokes tears. These shifts from many young women to one old woman, from women sad to women sad enough to cry, may be interpreted in a number of ways (for example,(e.g., even a very old woman may still young be enough identify with a fourteen14- year- old teenager; women may be deeply moved by a film about a woman; the film is really a tribute to the Iranian actress it names who appears to accept this tribute by turning and nodding her head in reference to the succession of reaction shots to which she reacts). Yet these shifts do not constitute a narrative shift: their multiplicity and heterogeneity prevent one either from totalizing Where Iis My Romeo either as a random series or as a narrative film. The films last shot is not an ending (no one gets up to leave), and the music from Zeffirellis film plays over the two credits that end KiarostamiKiarosotamis film. The initially diegetic soundtrack of the film becomes extradextra-diegetic during the end title sequence. By redre-dividing Where Is My Romeos cuts in their relation to the content of their images and its film soundtrack and by dropping the question mark to the films citation of Juliets line, Kiarostami invites us to read the film in philological terms. Whoever added the question mark after Romeo in the French subtitle was not merely resisting the film. Philology is essentially a reparative operation, emending texts, preserving and saving them, making sense of them, rendering them readable. And in this case such a discourse of repair would plug up all the cuts and divisions, mending what goes missing. Using YouTube, we could, if we were so moved, restore the unseen Zeffirelli film. All you have to do is to open two browsers and place them side by side, almost as if the film had been shot in split screen, to see the one clip and the other at the same time. {~?~AU: insert figure 3.4} Figure 3.4 Synching up Abbas Kiorastamis Where Is My Romeo (2007) and Franco Zeffrirellis Romeo and Juliet (1968) via Youtube.com We have the technology to complete the circuit that Where Iis My Romeo interrupts. Synchronizing two browsers and screening both filmsimaging, thereby, precisely what the film refusesenables a certain order of philological inquiry into the process by which Zeffirellis Romeo and Juliet adapts Shakespeares play. He cuts Friar Lawrence; and also two lines from the Princes summation, reassigning the lines that remain to the male voice-over narrator who delivered the prologue, the lines serving as the films epilogue. And such a focus on the restoration of what has been cut, on the violence to adaptation, may prove very powerful. Kiarostamis use of the Princes lines shorn of Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things; / Some shall be pardond, and some punished (5. 3. 307308) so that All are punished (5. 3. 295) resonates most loudly and has been read as keying an audience to the films deeper topical allegory, offering up the series of emoting women as a symbol of the universal oppression experienced in his Iran. The reading is supported by the fact that the film replays in small the strategy of Kiarostamis feature Shirin (2008) in which aA hundred and fourteen famous Iranian theater and cinema actresses and a French star appear as mute spectators at a theatrical representation of Khosrow and Shirin, a Persian poem from the twelfth century, put on stage by Kiarostami. The development of the textlong a favorite in Persia and the Middle Eastremains invisible to the viewer of the film; the whole story is told by the faces of the women watching the show. Shirin Ebadi, happens also to be the name of the Iranian human-rights activist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003. As compelling as a topical reading of Where Iis My Romeo may prove, even as it tends to universalize the series of reaction shots the film offersthe philological become ally to a roman a clef decoding ringthe strategy that Kiarostami describes, of having its 18 actors stare at a blank sheet of A Four4 paper as opposed to watching Romeo and Juliet (1968), illustrates the purely technical function of actors as biosbio-semiotic relays or wetware to a media platform. Kiarostami says he shot the women looking at the paper first, and then added the soundtrack from Zeffirellis film later. Romeo and Juliet quite literally remains unsun-screened, therefore, unseen, and unread throughout the course of film, its presence supplied as supplementary and supplanting intertinter-textual circuit completed by certain of but not aall of ll the films audiences. The film, the play, reduced to the moment of Juliets suicide, become citation, becomes a point of transfer between different media and a set of political concerns both to do and not to do with Iran today. Indeed, even as the film invites this order of philological repair and allegorical transcoding, its hard to see that it authorizes such modes of philological archive fever or mal du cinema, accessorizing the wrecking upon which it embarks. In this sense, the films formal fracturing of itselfimage from sound,; intertinter-text from audience,; audience from on-screen audiencedesignates a problem at the center of cinephilia, namely,namely, the relation between readability and mourning. As Anselm Haverkamp the death of Mnemosyne exhausts the possibilities of lyric in that it grounds the impossibility of reading in the inability of mourningWithout memory and the defensive abilities of understanding (to re-collect), there is no possibility left for a future hermeneutics. Where Iis my Romeo stacks a series of noncnon-coincidental terms or terminuses: the death of cinema; the death of human rights in Iran; the literal, prosaic death of the actor it memorializes, Mrs. Kheradmand, become proper name;, and the death of Juliet hard upon the death of Romeo. The film might be read, therefore, as a kind of funeral procession, anticipating the mourning of the Mrs. Kheradmand who, perhaps, already mourns, in advance, for her own death as she watches Juliet end hers. Along the stations of this parade, we mourn for all that the film splices together, in discontinuous series. But any such thematic reading (privilege whichever death you like) runs aground on the fact that Where Iis My Romeo has already serialized mourning. Kiarostami returns to a film that ends with mourning, but the shots of Zeffirellis Romeo and Juliets funeral are registered only through music and hence cannot be registered in Where Iis My Romeo other than in the audiences recognition of Olivia Husseys voice on the soundtrack singing the Where Iis Love? theme turned pop song as it plays at the end of the film. The referent of mourning, whether that referent is alive or already dead, fictional or real, finds itself forestalled. In refusing to make mourning into an entirely knowable or narratable sequence with a single object, Kiarostamis film deconstructs the presumed ontological integrity of cinema, the central issue being whether or not film is indexical. Where Iis My Romeo offers us both a specular deafness (the film we watch has no soundtrack; the actors in the film heard nothing) and blindness (the film we hear has no image track; the women in the movie theater are staring at a blank sheet of paper). Yet blindness and clarity, deafness and hearing, do not map exactly to what is on or off screen. Under such circumstanceswhether we encounter the death of cinema, of civil society, of an actor, or of Juliet, for that matter, reading may continue, narrative may reare-appear only by way of an allegorical, philologically fuelled detour, an iconophilia/phobia such as takes shape at the end of Shakespeares play. By withholding Romeo and Juliet (1968) from view, Kiarostami collapses the movie theater into the screen the films women are watching, directing our attention by using the film soundtrack of a film adaptation of a play to a difference between theater and movie theater audiences we ordinarily cannot see. Yet phantom effects of a frame return. If you assume (mistakenly yet correctly), for example, that the audience in Where Iis My Romeo is watching Romeo and Juliet, you may find yourself scratching your head and wondering where the camera has been placed even though you know it has obviously been placed in front of them. The film so totally resists the diegesis diegesis-completing convention of shot reverse shot that instead of the camera becoming a static given, more and more pressure gets placed on our understanding of each shot that unfolds as a fragment itself rather than as one segment in a series that may be replaced or interchanged with any other. The women never look at the camera or acknowledge it in any way so it is clear we are not watching a documentary of a live performance. But it is clear that the immediacy of the womens responses depends on something like a phantom fourth wall:, an invisible proscenium arch between the camera and the women, shown on- screen, that the women cannot see, just as we cannot see what they are (not) watching. In effect, for the films three minutes, the movie theater becomes a tomb, empty, refusing to acknowledge or to deliver up a complete circuit by which we may mourn properly, and instead forcing us to sift its fragments, and to risk, in allegorical or philological mode, breaking them further. Such a nonpnon-plus or breakdown, we suggest, serves as the conditions that Romeo and Juliet sets in motion, staging the process by which mourning is translated into successive orders of broken media and frame effects. Such also are the productive effects of Where Iis My Romeo, when modeled as Bardoclashas an uncertain object within the cascade that Romeo and Juliet sets in motion. For by its broken quotation become title and withholding of the film it watches, Where Iis My Romeo speaks back to the plays own engagement in the practice of citing other mediaespecially of the (anti-) Petrarchan sonnet tradition, which the prologue begins and which that Romeo and Juliet enact at their first meeting: Romeo: If I profane with my unworthiest hand This holy shrine, the gentle sin is this: My lips, two blushing pilgrims, ready stand To smooth that rough touch with a tender kiss. Juliet: Good pilgrim, you do wrong your hand too much, Which mannerly devotion shows in this, For saints have hands that pilgrims hands do touch, And palm to palm is holy palmers kiss. Romeo: Have not saints lips and holy palmers too? Juliet: Ay pilgrim, lips that they must use in prayer. Romeo: O then, dear saint, let lips do what hands do They pray; rant thou, lest faith turn to despair. Juliet: Saints do not move, though grant for prayers sake. Then move not while my prayers effect I take. (1. 5. 92105) You kiss by th book, Juliet replies to Romeos begging that she give me my sin again (1. 5. 109)citing both the rules of the sonnet tradition as script but and also perhaps troping the prompt-book from which actors recite their lines. But what speaks herebook or person,; biblion or bios? And by what ratio or rationale should we ever decide, ever manage to decouple the biopolitical from the bibliographical coaco-articulation of life and death and love effects? Where is mMy Romeo? The question, real or rhetorical, by Kiarostamis logic of faulty citation, becomes a haunt, a topostoposWhere Iis My Romeo. One half of the title designates the other half whose absence it registers. The film advertises but also holds at bay the auratic function that yoking of Juliet to Romeo by the plays title effects. And so, following Where Iis My Romeos logic of faulty citation, its transformation of citation into a cul- de- sac or dead ending, we ask who or what should we understand as speaking Juliets question and reere-enter the play by way of her suicide, her revival into a thing-like death. A thing like deathThing like Death So,So Juliet rises. She wakes in the tomb, wakes to find her Romeo goneWhere is my Romeo? (5. 3. 150).? Friar Lawrence bolts. She staysI will not away (5. 3. 160). She moves in,; takes the tomb as her haunt,; and proceeds to narrate the scene: Whats here? A cup closed in my true loves hand? Poison, I see, hath been his timeless end. O churl! Drunk all, and left no friendly drop To help me after? I will kiss thy lips. Haply some poison yet doth hang on them, To make me die with a restorative. [Kisses him.] Thy lips are warm. (5. 3. 161166) Winking, Juliet reads Romeos death as a failure of hospitality, an overiover-indulgence. He has feasted without her. So she kisses him, condensing the variously erotic senses of die such that it will become a restorativerestoring her not to life but to death. She renders her death thereby lively, enlivening, revives into death. But the watch interrupts. Yea, noise? Then Ill be brief. O happy dagger, she continues, tThis is thy sheath; there rust, and let me die (5. 3. 167168). Cut! We never know if the poison works, if enough remains that the kiss would indeed have killed. Cue the noisethe noise that trumps the scene, that spoils, that would interrupt. And so, Juliet calls for the cut, a cut that completes, which that ends the circuit, and penetrates her own body with Romeos happy dagger. The act of cutting here assumes an unstable valence. On the one hand it will kill, cut her offfreeze- framing her in this moment, and by that freeze- framing escape of the return to the sovereign syntax of Verona, of the world beyond the tomb. But by the same hand, this cut repairs what has been broken, cut off by the absence of Romeo, by his too early coming and his too early dying. Capulets first words in the scene take up Juliets metaphor but are unable to undo the cut that she completes. O heavens! O wife, he says, look how our daughter bleeds! / This dagger hath mistaen, for lo his house / Is empty on the back of Montague, / And is mis-sheathed in my daughters bosom (5. 3. 202205). Even as his words draw the dagger out, seek to undo the cut, tracing the blade back to the absence, the empty scabbard, that marks Romeos body, the dagger remains: his daughter bleeds. His recognition of the act whichthat is not yet readable, replays Juliets words, catches them at a remove, but wrecks the sense, registering the dagger as a misplacement, a wrecking of sense. But such is the view from without the closed circuit that Juliets calling for the cut completes. The metaphorical exchange or aligning of terms in Juliets lines leads to the mutual coding of life and death, of dying and restoration. This metaphorical circuit, which never rests, which can only keep on shuffling the terms, replays the logic of Romeos suicide moments earlier. Arriving both late and early, and always, always, on time, he toasts Juliet and drinks: O true apothecary, / Thy drugs are quick [lively, fast]. Thus with a kiss I die [by which he means die, but also come, and live on] (5. 3. 119120). Romeo narrates Juliets body, misrecognizing it as her still lively corpse, playing the scene out with mock jealousy: Ah, dear Juliet, Why art thou yet so fair? Shall I believe That unsubstantial death is amorous, And that the lean abhorred monster keeps Thee here in dark to be his paramour? For fear of that, I still will stay with thee And never from this palace of dim night Depart again. Here, here will I remain With worms that are thy chamber-maids. O, here Will I set up my everlasting rest, And shake the yoke of inauspicious stars From this world-wearied flesh. (5. 3. 101111) Romeo cant quite believe that Juliet looks as good as she does in deaththat beautys ensign yet / Is crimson in thy lips and in they cheeks (5. 3. 9495), so he fantasizes death as his rival, a rival he can only out do by joining Juliet in death, detouring into death with her such that he and she may live on. Romeo and Juliet, we know, miss each other, but they also survived, both of them, survived, one another. Here, in the tomb, they bear witness to each others deaths, and in doing so come to serve as remainders, delegates to each others survival, living on in and by their deaths, positing death itself as a restorative, a remedy. Neither mourns exactly, but neither do they exactly forgo any funerary rite for one another, as Paul A. Kottman suggests. Instead, their transcoding of life and death renders mourning indistinct from the living on into death that marks their choice, indeed, which that marks the dying on we all live or die out. Each of their suicides functions as the substrate by which and within which to register the life / death of the other. Each death serves as a way of entering into a closed relay with the other, such that each lovers suicide serves as a revival into death. Death, it seems, requires a medium. It does not mark an end exactly nor a cancellation of the problems of material backing. Here, in the tomb, Juliet calls for the cut, a cut that defines, ends, and begins. We watch (and live out) the decisions,; the on-going production of cuts, successive orders of framing necessary to preserving the cut. But how can this be so? Our thoughts of our death are always, structurally, thoughts of survival, writes Derrida, to see oneself or to think oneself dead is to see oneself surviving, present at ones death. No wonder, then, to return to where we began this chapter, that up in her bedroom Juliet has doubts,; worries as to what will happen in the event that she wakes in the tomb, and; projects herself forward into the tomb become screen for a traumatized sense of futurity. The plan as pill-pushing Friar Lawrence told her was to enter a thing like deaththat copst with death himself to scape from it (4.1. 7475). To cope means Juliet shall meet, face, battle, buy off, dwell with, or detour with death in order to make possible a literal survival. Death or death effects prove necessary, he counsels, to cancel out the marriage to Paris upon which her family insists. Death will enable her to rise again and as if for the first time as Juliet. She must enter, so the Friar thinks, into a becoming dead to her family in order to wake to a future that is not scripted by them or the conflicts of their present. She must embark upon a becoming corpse, a becoming thing, gathering her family to her, so that by their handling of her, by the care they take of her body in mourning, they shall unwittingly become delegates not to her memory but to a literal survival. If, as Derrida suggests, death figures a blanking out or erasure of habeas corpus, the legal writ which accords a sort of proprietorial sovereignty over ones own living body, Juliets thing like death works in reverse. Only by becoming corpse may she attain some measure of sovereignty over her living corpus. At Father Lawrences urging, she enters into a literal, impossible, emptying habeas corpse so that, two and forty hours on, she shall awake from a pleasant sleep (4. 1. 105106) and a full habeas corpus. In the interim, she will have lived on as if dead, having given up any control over what will have happened to her body when she finds herself woken. Back in the Friars cell, this prospect renders Juliet eager, reckless. Bent on suicide, high on the strong sovereignty of deciding her death, she demands that Friar Lawrence hide me nightly in the charnel-house, / Oercovered quite with dead mens rattling bones, or bid me go into a new-made grave, / And hide me with a dead mans shroud (4. 1. 8185). She wants the drug now. Give me, give me, she demands (4. 1. 121)give me the drug that will give back my family to me such that by mourning, by caring for me in my thing-like death, they become unwitting delegates to my literal survival. Fearing that she may self medicateself-medicate too early, Friar Lawrence demands she Hold and Getgone (4. 1. 122). He will have the vial sent round. But,But up in her bedroom, like it or not, she cant help but fantasize about the living death she will have endured when she revives. She worries that the poison wont work,; that she will wake in her bed to the living death or zombie wedding to Paris. She worries that Friar Lawrence is merely out to dispose of her. She doubts the narrative the Friar supplies for what will happen to her in her thing-like death. Back in act 4, scene 1, he tells her as is the manner of our countryThou shalt be borne to that same ancient vault / Where all the kindred of the Capulets lie (4. 1. 109112). In the meantimeagainst that thou shall wakeRomeo shall by [Friar Lawrences] letters know [their] drift (4. 1. 113114) and the two will watch thy waking (4. 1. 116). But,But such assurances do not assuage the thoughts that race on to fill in the void of sleep that a thing-like death entails. She wonders also how if, when I am laid into the tomb, / I wake before the time that Romeo / Come to redeem me? Theres a fearful point (4. 3. 3033). She shall stifle, strangle, in the foul mouth of the tomb that breathes no air (4. 3. 3435). Worse still, she may not suffocate; she may, in terror, run mad And madly play with my forefathers joints, And pluck the mangled Tybalt from his shroud And, in this rage, with some great kinsmans bone, As with a club, dash out my desperate brains. (4. 3. 5054) In the event, she drinks because she thinks she sees Tybalts ghost seeking out Romeo that did spit his body / Upon a rapiers point (4. 3. 5557). Death comes calling but not for her. Stay, Tybalt, stay! But Tybalt wont wait or cannot hear her. And so she drinks. Toasts Romeo. Passes over into a thing like death (4. 1. 74). Juliet goes after Tybalt,; blacks out,; blanks outa delegate to a spectral revenge plot she hallucinates and aims to prevent. But here, in the tomb, the tie of the human subject to an automatic projection into the will have been of the future anterior (this is what my death will have looked like) comes unmoored from its speaker as the living body that speaks the words projects its future in reference to the corpse of the loved one mis/apprehended as still living and lively. The proper names, if you like, shed their actors, their hosts. And by this shedding, they take each other as host, name for name, medium for medium, both insufficient and in excess of the other as their death becomes an enlivening iconoclash that freeze- frames the other dying into life, living into death. Instead of reading the suicides as an individuating process, then, we read them as the moment at which, by positing each other as substrate to the death of the other and so living and loving on into death, Romeo and Juliet enter into a bio/bibliographical circuitthe fatal conjunction by which the two couple to form the title of the play,: Romeo and Juliet. What we witness therefore in aAct five5, scene three 3 will have been the production of the serial conjunction, the and of the plays title, the mechanism that constitutes the play as a third thing, a quasi-machinic survival. Such a script as we find rehearsed in the play, what we have called the plays equipment for dying, is neither exactly human nor is it a personification of the life or death of media itself. Instead, we take the play to serve as notice that it will prove impossible to decouple the biopolitical as articulated in terms of plot and eaffect from the bibliographical. As Derrida puts in the title to an interview, Paper or Me, You Know, the choice between paper and me will prove impossible to make or to decide (cut). And this script, this equipment for dying, runs no differently than the very many prosaic routines we inhabit already within the infrastructure of survivance: come your death, for example, shall you be burned or buried? What do you plan to do with all your stuff? What will happen to all your data, on websites, in the cloud, in your home, your storage unit, in all the adumbrated extensions in space that describe the circuits we travel? And how do you like to picture yourself being handled, waking, reviving, or living on into death, dying on? But choose as you like, as the play shows, the terms will merely circle back on themselves: corpse and corpus, bios and biblion, become substrates to the other, a mutual, coeco-extensive enframing, such as we have seen constitutes Romeo and Juliets generative matrix as it parleys out across different media. What would Nashes Talbot make of the scene? Was he, in fact, the lurking presence in Juliets bedroom that she mistook for her departed cousin? Who knows? If the living remain wedded to imagining themselves living into death, entering a living death, living on and over and above as a series of variously mediated thingsanimate only to the extent that we are hostedthen, even as Romeo and Juliet offers us a script for living on in the wet death of theatrical revival, your name hosted by so many wormy actors playing chambermaid to your corpse and corpus, such questions, in an irony that our next chapter explores, find themselves shelved, put on hold. For when Romeo and Juliet end, when Romeo and Juliet ends, its program complete, the bio/bibliographical relay returns to its niche, or reveals itself to be a storing of a potentiality and a corralling of an enlivening series of trace- effects that, from time to time, we summon from the library or archive. Then again, there might be some way to stop the dust from settling, to have the story run continuously, and so to escape the confines of the book or whichever medium plays host. Perhaps, to reprise a line of Romeos, it will be possible to give us our sin/ema again, and again, and again. But such a translation or migration to a yet- to- be- imagined medium might require or manifest obliquely, for us, in our successive presents, as an archival loss or injury, a total loss or oblivionbios and biblion become bits and pieces of bio/bibliographical flotsam and jetsam floating on the floodall wreck and no recognition. Cue the special effects: A tempestuous noise of thunder and lightning heard; enter a Shipmaster and a Boatswain. Cue the line: Boatswain! We split, we split! (1. 1. 60). Chapter 3 Chapter Four4 Drown before Reading Prosperos Missing Books It is a tribal habit in certain reserves of the B.B.C. to pay for the Resurrection of the Dead. The ritual is expensive; but it describes a need. It relaxes our hearing. It keeps us in touch with the past, and provides us with subjects for future conversation. Through the perfected necrophily of the living, we are allowed to tune in on the forgotten secrets of the Dead. The Dead are now honoured by their absence; preserved in our memories, summoned by engineers to inhabit the little magic box of sound. Prospero may have thrown away his Book; but the art of radio will rescue his weariness from despair; immortalize his absence; remind us that poetry is a way of listening. The art of radio may be too mortal for belief, but sound has its echoes whose future is eternal. In the meantime, the divers loiter, bribing the sea to release its Dead for an interview with the livingProspero may have thrown away his Book; but the art of radio will rescue his voice from the purgatory of the Ocean which is and may always be a neighbor to eternity.. Announcer: Tomorrow, at nine-thirty, you can hear again Studio Engineer: Stand by, stand by, we will go ahead in ten seconds from George Lamming, The Pleasures of Exile (1960) Like every trace, a book, the survivance of a book, from its first moment on, is a living-dead machine, sur-viving the body of a thing buried in a library, a bookstore, in cellars, urns, drowned in the worldwide waves of a Web. Jacques Derrida, The Beast and the Sovereign, vol.2 II For those of you just tuning in, there has been a storm. Things have gone a bit awry. There we were moments ago in Juliets family tomb-cum-movie-theater, watching her and Romeo die (again and again), but then there was all this noise and now were wrecked. We thought that the phrase wetware was only a metaphora way of insisting on the living, fleshly, liquid, animate component to media platforms. But now were well and truly soaked, just bits of variously animate, deracinated flotsam. There might once upon a time have been a ship, but if so, its gone. We heard talk of an island, but instead, we seem to have been landed with this book. It certainly feels like a book, looks like a book, but were not sure;, every time we start to try to read it, it multiplies or goes missing. Theres no title on the cover. No author. And were really not sure whats in it. When we try to open it images take shape and then dissolve, but theres a lot of audio, a lot of noise. The thing is radically, literally, prosaically, unreadable. Might be wisest to keep your eyes closed and listenjust to get oriented. Tuning In (and Out) All sorts of noise and noises coming through now, a lot of static; but the signals getting stronger, coming through loud and clear: ambient effects of rain, instruments, voices, but at a distance, just on the edge of hearing: Be not afeard. The isle is full of noises, Sounds and sweet airs that give delight and hurt not. Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments Will hum about mine ears; and sometimes voices, That if I then had waked after long sleep, Will make me sleep again; and then in dreaming, The clouds methought, would open and show riches Ready to drop upon me, that when I waked, I cried to dream again. Caliban, we know, speaks these lines, speaks them back to Trinculo and Stephanos unnun-nerving by the invisible Ariels sonic effects: This is a tune of our catch, played by the picture of Nobody (3. 2. 127). If thou best a man show thyself in thy likeness (3. 2. 128), demands Stephanoor, if a devil, do as you please. Trinculo is scaredready to repent: forgive me my sins (3. 2. 130). Stephano will have none of itHe that dies pays all debts. I defy thee, but he doesnt quite convince, entreating, Mercy upon us! (3. 2. 131). Caliban, however, is habituated; consoles; waxes lyrical; reports on his own out- of- and into- body experiences as he passes between waking and dreaming, dreaming and waking, waking to wish that he might dream again. The noise wont hurt, he says. Relax. May as well allow the noise, the acoustic effects the islands full of, to recalibrate your bodily rhythms, the way you take your sleep, live on in and through dreams. They will do so anyway. Give in; give over. By the end of the scene, they do: This will prove a brave kingdom to me, where I shall have my music for nothing (3. 2. 144145), ventures Stephano, which Caliban takes as a goad to their present laborthe destruction of Prospero. He says,: Lets follow the noisesand after do our work (3. 2. 149150). And so they exit, taking the remote- controlled playing for a soundtrack, an accompaniment to the labor of their revolt. But why begin here? Why begin in aAct three3, scene two 2 with sounds that ambiguously differentiate themselves into variously technologized, sonic, musical, and vocal effects, which sync and do not sync up to the action? Why tune in and out to the noises to which Trinculo and Stephano reconcile themselves with what amounts to a boozy, metaphysical shrug, and that Caliban takes as a given, a fact of the island, agreeing, if you like, both to hear and not to hear them? The lot of them agreeing to endure what amounts to a variously experienced form of suspended ignorance. Why stage the island and the play as some sort of ham radio or series of broadcast effects? Here, we take our cue from West Indian novelist George Lamming, who opens the first chapter of The Pleasures of Exile (1960), his reckoning and reversal of The Tempest (1611), by quoting Calibans lines from aAct three 3, scene two 2, which describe the noises the isle is full of. As Lamming makes explicit, but we, disoriented as we were from the storm, were slow to recognize, he offers the islands noises as somehow indexed to the book that Prospero says he drowns or will drown near the end of the play. Prospero may have thrown away his Book, he writes, but the art of radio will rescue his weariness from despair, bring back his voice or voices from the purgatory of the Ocean. Taking on the disinterested and distanced tone of the mock ethnographer observing the islands natives, he remarks the tribal habit by which the B.B.C.BBC functions as a technology of secular resurrection or necrophily, allowing or making or insisting that the dead continue to speak in and by their absence. Such a habit world, having the dead speak through the borrowed voices of so many Ariels, voices projected at a distance, voices severed from bodies that remain invisible, even as, once upon a time, they might still have dressed for the occasion, newsreaders on the radio, musicians, actors, et cetera, suiting up for the occasion, costs money, but it relaxes and calms, he thinks. Still, the radio does not quite convince. Its nice, its pleasurable, but the dead dont quite sanction its serial summonses or prerpre-recorded repetitions. It remains beset by problems of absence. The announcer and the studio engineer who work the magic become technicians merely, or, better, divers [who] loiter, bribing the sea to release its Dead for an interview with the living. And we, the listeners, constitute the crowd gathered on the seas edge, gazing out not at a shipwreck but in anticipation of an act of bibliographical salvage. Lammings prose oscillates positions,; locates this sea in our various kitchens and living rooms tuned in to the set from which the announcer speaks,; transports us into the control booth where the studio engineer counts down until the air turns live. The program? Who knows? Its withheld. What do we assume: a reading or performance of The Tempest,; an interview with an increasingly famous West Indian writer,; the latest chapter in a Book for Bedtime? It really doesnt matter. The radio figures the noises of this islanda box that speaks and which that has some relation, posits Lamming, not to the drowning of a book per se but to some generic act of throw[ing] away, discharging, ejecting, or projectingan outward movement that nevertheless, like it or not, comes back,; turns back on itself. In terms of the memoir, the scene before the radio sets the stage for Lammings description of a world programmed in relation to voices that code or intrude upon the island he explores. When the announcer reare-assures, for example, that if you have missed something or tuned in late, the program may be heard again tomorrow at nine-thirty, Lamming comments that its good to know that Tomorrow will not desert us; that Tomorrow cannot refuse our habitual waiting, but still this programming of our days, this temporality lived in relation to the technical relays that enable voices to speak to us, at a distance, remains haunted by a desire for something else. That drowned, or, as Lamming has it, thrown away book still beckons, remains out there, forever gone, forever (not) coming back, even as it does so. Dont worry if you miss it, ; you can catch it, or miss it (all over again), tomorrow. Lammings aim in the memoir is to speak back to his earlier use of the Caliban / -Prospero dynamic in crafting his aesthetic. He does so by inhabiting or troping the plays trajectory. The island in question is England. The natives are English. He arrives as an exile from another island. I am a direct descendent of Prospero, he writes, even as I am [also] a direct descendent of slaves. But such exile that as he experiences is hardly without pleasuresamong them the world of books, broadcasts, interviews, poetry readings, performances, and so on and so forth that make up the literary scene of late 1950s London. The memoir unfolds as a series of bibliographical topoi, anchored by the initial radio broadcast. The withheld script of the broadcast comes back as so many other voices recorded in scenes from the everyday life of the working writer, Lammings interlocutors walking books or bibliographical effects. To read Lammings memoir is, in effect, to watch books accumulate around him, to watch the way he negotiates the adumbration of bibliographical circuits that a visiting writer lives within. In the same chapter, for example, he narrates his experience as the guest in the house of an English family, finding himself entertained by their nine- year- old son whose first question was: Where are you from? I replied, The Caribbean.. At which this point, the boy abruptly gets up, leaves, and, returning momentarily, set[s] about spreading a great carpet of paper over the floor. Without explanation or apology, he simply said[says]: Now lets see where we are talking about. He had brought a map. Lamming addresses the rest of his memoir to this boy, rendering his experiences as a bio/bibliographical impressiona life lived through and in relation to the circulation of different forms of media, a life lived in relation to a conflicted, sometimes abusive, sometimes ecstatic archive. Throughout The Pleasures of Exile, Prosperos Book, always capitalized, remains thrown away, never drowned, though the ocean remains a key figure, alwaysa neighbour to eternity. The act of drowning becomes therefore more of a launching or projection or jettisoning of a text or program that keeps on coming back in encrypted forms, its reactivating returns constituting the bio/bibliographical circuits in which Lamming lives his exile and takes his pleasures. The memoir inhabits this aftermath to the play, the time that comes once The Tempest ends, completes, cuts itself off as thing, with Prosperos book continuously drowning and emitting voices that arrive in a variety of forms and locations. That book remains, for Lamming, an unreadable, submerged entity that governs all, its presence registered only by its imperfect arrivals or in the variety of bibliographically mediated experiences he recounts. For Lamming, then, Prosperos book drowning functions as the constitutive act of the plays generative matrix and to which he must himself write back. The book drowning comes first or before all: it inaugurates the play. Caliban and he (and we also) approach it through the figure of a compensatory, only partially readable, sometimes melodic, sometimes cacophonous, sometimes painful, sometimes, just plain, missed or unregarded noise or static. Like Lamming, whose radio we tune into, our aim in this chapter is to replay The Tempest from this uncertainly phrased scene of book drowning, hearing therein an invitation to think through the plays relationship to the figure of the archive and the conjoining of bios and biblion, of life and book become library, filing cabinet, dossier, file, shelf, radio, or storage device. Like Lamming were tuned to the way in which The Tempest acquires a burgeoning para-textual addenda of books and sources, but whereas Lamming crafts his own writing as an attempt to rezre-zone the play, to write through its storm, we remain focused on what we take to be the generative crux of what it means to speak the line Ill drown my book. It remains hard for us to understand exactly what is at stake in Prosperos stated intention (perhaps, at some yet- to- be- determined and unsun-staged point in the future to drown his book). For how and by what logic of metaphorical transfer may a book be said to drown, to find the lungs its does not have inundated by a foreign medium, by water, to suffocate, or, as the Oxford English Dictionary allows, to find itself overwhelmed? To what, we wonder, could such a sentence refer? Does Prospero do it? If so, how, where, and when? And what, we ask, does such a putative, metaphorical drowning have to tell us about the coaco-articulation of different forms of life (human and not) and different forms of media, especially when media are themselves said to die and find themselves born? What order of metaphorical, which is to say material-semiotic, transcoding is at work here? Its no coincidence, we think, that bibliographical metaphors surface in the decolonizing responses to The Tempest as colonialist enterprise. As Jonathan Goldberg has argued, Prospero and Mirandas description of Caliban as a failed pedagogical project, as a being which any print of goodness wilt not take (1. 2. 354)Caliban, if you like, proving resistant to Prosperos inscriptive regimelocates the play firmly within the circuits of humanist educational projects. Not surprisingly, then, the matter of impressions and of printing qua media effects come back in the plays biopbio-political afterlives as enacted on countless actual islands. If, the entire project upon which Prospero embarked, showing kindness or humane care to Caliban, figures a misapplication or misrecognition of Caliban, who by his resistance reveals himself, from Prospero and Mirandas point of view, to be some order of self-predicating filthFilth that thou art (1. 2. 346)then, The Tempests bibliographical metaphors are primed, from their inception, by the biopbio-political capture of life that marks and makes distinctions between persons by the articulation not simply of races but species. Indeed, Prosperos sovereign command of the island, by this gesture, comes to look very straightforwardly like the accumulation of various technical and administrative advantages backed by the media that underwrites his attempts at printing. The mode of sovereignty he enjoys derives from the comparative advantages of technology and resources that allow him to broadcast his effects. While Prospero and Miranda may regret that their Caliban pet project does not work out quite according to plan, their pedagogy cannot be judged, even by their own standard, a failure. It remains cruelly productive. For it comes to serve as the litmus test by which they may come to know the boundaries of what deserves and does not deserve humane care. In the terms Michel Foucault develops in the lectures at the Collge de France published under the title Society Must Be Defended, The Tempest opens a window on to the procedures by which a population [may be treated] as a mixture of races, or more accurate, the state may treat the speciessubdivide the species it controls, into subspecies known, precisely, as races. That is the first function of racism: to fragment, to create caesuras within the biological continuum addressed by biopower. And beyond or beside or within the question of species lies the constituting of serial differences between so-called human animals and their nonhnon-human animal compeers. What The Tempest offers, then, is an opportunity to think through and with the bibliographical quotient or backing to these biopolitical articulations of living and dying in ways that suggest how the caesuras that constitute a biological continuum as an internally divided line spit out, at different historical moments, variously papery or mediated non/persons. Such an orientation to the play, we think, discloses an awareness of the ways in which the life and death of books, technology, and media cohabit with the lives of persons and animalslife lived, read, stored, and archived in the form of some proliferating, hybrid, dead- alive zo/bio/bibliography or writing machine. The book Prospero throws away surfaces also in a variety of media- specific guises in texts that share in Lammings counterpcounter-pedagogy. In Black Skins, White Masks (1967), when Frantz Fanon describes the de-structuring of the psyche that colonization provokes, he offers this anecdotal idiom: In any group of young men in the Antilles, the one who expresses himself well, who has mastered the language is inordinately feared; keep an eye on that one, he is almost white. In France one says, He talks like a book. In Martinique, He talks like a white man. The book that talks, the figure of embodied fluency, disappears or dematerializes only to come back as a figure of whitenessthe book drowning in one particular pool of racially marked wetware, and reversing thereby the technological progression from wax, to skin (parchment), to paper (rags then paper) in what amounts to an epidermalization of the bibliographical become racial metaphor. Fluency becomes equivalent to a tattoo that you lack or cannot get, but to which your voice or vocal prowess belongs. And such a tattoo, or skin ego recalls quite precisely the figure of the print that Miranda says Caliban will not take. You find a similar orientation to the play in Aim Csaires A Tempest (1969), whose dramaturgy carefully resists the script it sees The Tempest as installing. The dossier is, as Csaire writes in another context, indeed overwhelmingand so A Tempest opens tactically with the ambience of a psychodrama. The Actors enter singly, at random. Each chooses for himself a mask at his leisure. The Master of Ceremonies narrates the costumingCome gentlemen, help yourselves. To each his character, to each his mask.. Ready? Begin. Blow winds! Rain and lightning ad lib. Csaire begins as he does with the Master of Ceremonies inducting and announcing the arrival of the cast because hes out to deprogram or to reveal that there may be more (and less) to the Prospero- / Caliban dynamic than the figure of linguistic and cultural dependency upon which Octave Mannoni insists in his Prospero and Caliban. Accordingly, Csaires Master of Ceremonies insists on the fungible and so transferable quality of all the roles. They decouple from their expected designees and move around, actors picking them up and putting them down in a mode that seeks to de-essentialize the paradigm. The casting scene with which the play begins comes complete with mock commentary from The Master of Ceremony on his surprise, admiration, or consternation at the actors choices and his commiseration on the roles left over for latecomers. This alienating, prophylactic coding of theatrical performance as psychodrama, hopes Csaire (the title of his play already posits an indefinite Tempest, a serializing of the play), will open the text to something other than a deadly reire-iteration of a mMaster / -sSlave dialectic. And, as Csaires deforming or rewriting of the plays title reveals, such an altering of the paradigm or resre-shelving of the dossier as it is understood to write the relations between populations as well as individualized bodies, proceeds by a calculated strategy of bibliographical intervention that seeks to alter the biopbio-political circuit that attaches to The Tempest as it is summoned to and from its niche in our archives. Goldberg notes, for example, the way Csaire transfers the language lesson [Caliban is said to receive from Miranda] to Prospero in the play allowing Caliban to refuse the point: You didnt teach me a thing! Except to jabber in your own language. And,And like Csaire, Goldbergs own modus operandi in his Tempest in the Caribbean unfolds as the rewre-working editorial or bibliographical cruxes, opening a crux, in order to open the text to other signifying possibilities. The ending of A Tempest remains instructive in this regard. Prospero enters, as the stage directions outline, aged and weary. His gestures are jerky and automatic, his speech weak, toneless, trite. He stands on stage defending civilization from the encroaching peccaries and opossums that take over this now less- trafficked island. He lets off volley after volley in every direction. The jungle is laying siege to his cave. Hes cold, and he calls for Caliban to make him a fire. But hes only got himself to talk to now. Just some old, loony castaway, shouting Calibanits just us two now, here on the islandonly you and me. His voice falters. The Prospero- / Caliban dyad dissolves, or better still, turns out all along to have been the mutterings of the senile monad of a Prospero who will not prosper. The whole problematic of codco-dependency gets eaten by Prospero as the pronouns You and me coalesce into the empty sound sense of You-meme-you. As the play ends, you might say that we watch Prosperos theatrical extinction. His last word names a Caliban who is no longer even there on stage. For in the distance, above the sound of the surf and the chirping of the birds we hear different noises now, snatches of Calibans songFreedom Hi-Day. Freedom Hi-Day! Thus the off stage, unsun-staged Caliban- become- sound- effect decouples from Prospero, who searches the dial of his island / radio in vain for anything more than his own voice on its way to a break down, a becoming noise or static. We dont get to see the new Caliban. That future remains uniun-imaged. But we are able to listen in on it, the soundtrack to a marooned dead end, as if the play becomes a radio tuning in to a future it does not stage, and that Prospero cannot hear. Waking from the wet death of theatrical revival that we inhabited in Romeo and Juliet to The Tempests ship/w/rec/k/ognitions, we tune in to Lammings radio, to Fanons book-tattoos, and to Csaires Master of Ceremonies who recommends that we ad lib, though tread water might be closer to The Tempests idiom. Accordingly, we drift with its noise and try to listen carefully as the channels change. Thats the best way, we think, to approach the Book that Prospero throws away, loses, reserves, or shelves, even as it might be drowned. The Master of Ceremonies instruction to ad lib invites us all to direct our course at our pleasure (ad libbitum), each of us a sovereign in small, taking liberties, if you like, loitering, siphoning off all those bio/bibliographical effects to oour ownur ends. Let the future take care of itself. Lets stay tuned to the noise or noises this islands full of and see what listening very carefully to Prosperos mooted drowning of his book may lead us to discover about the coaco-articulation of bios and biblion, of (human) life and its various forms of backing that we sometimes call books. Oh, but the signals shifting. Theres another voice coming throughsometimes a mans, sometimes a womans, sometimes perfectly androgynous. It tends to change with the passing of time. Did you miss it? Dont worry, as the Announcer says, tTomorrow, at nine-thirty, you can hear again Stand by, stand by, we will go ahead in ten seconds from Biblioclash Now. B a bunch of stuff coming through about elves and spirits and graves and whatnot what not that we didnt quite make outwe figure itll repeat in a momentbut heres a bit that makes an odd sort of sense. Its Prospero minus the peccaries and opossums on his way to quitting the island: But this rough magic I here abjure; and when I have required Some heavenly music (which even now I do) To work mine end upon their senses that This airy charm is for, Ill break my staff, Bury it certain fathoms in the earth, And deeper than did ever plummet sound Ill drown my book. (5. 1. 5057). This passage usually provokes a question about Prosperos character. Why does he give up his magic? What is at stake in the acts of breaking his staff and drowning his book and how should they be understood? Do these actions represent a surrender of control, a return towhat? Is Prospero even to be believed? More recently, the passage has provoked a question about the kind of the book Prospero says he will drown: is it a magic book? We want to ask a different question: why does Prospero say he is going to drown his book? Why does the play go out of its way to differentiate or to introduce a set of yet- to- be- determined differences between burials on land (inhumation) and at sea (drowning). And what does such a constellation of terms have to do with the biopolitical quotient to the play? Inhumation makes a certain amount of senseit comes freighted with a terrestrial grounding. You can point to where the thing lies buried. You can even exhume the staff to prove a point. But drowning augurs in a stranger fashion. This mode of disposal, if that is what it is, remains clouded by the ooziness of the ocean bed into which, moments after this speech, Alonso will offer to sink if that would save Ferdinand, his son, and Miranda, Prosperos daughter (5. 1. 150153). Curiously, the word drown has remained partially submerged to editors and critics of The Tempest, periodically bobbing into view but usually slipping back beneath the surface of a reading as it speeds up to find itself becalmed by the linear. Editors of the play tend not to comment on the word choice. Now classic, New Historicist criticism tended to be concerned with the generalized modes of linguistic colonialism it found in the play and possible resistance to such mechanisms. Accordingly, Prosperos putative drowning of his book takes a back seat to the more readily processed book burning that Caliban ventures as his preferred method of prosecuting Prosperos destruction. Calibans biblioclasm represents Shakespeares treatment of the startling encounter between a lettered and an unlettered culture as is thought to have occurred in moments of contact between Europeans and the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Calibans warning to the lower class and presumably illiterate Stephano and Trinculo reads as canny, prescient, something he has learnedt the hard way: Remember First to possess his books, for without them Hes but a sot, as I am, nor hath not One spirit to command. They all do hate him As rootedly as I. Burn but his books. (3. 2. 9095). Stephen Greenblatt identifies a possible source for the attack, the story told by Claude Duret in his Thresor de lhistoire des langues (1613) about an encounter from 1607 in which the Hurons were convinced that we [Europeans] were sorcerers, imposters come to take possession of their country, after having made them perish by our spells, which were shut up in our inkstands, in our books, etc.inasmuch that we dared not, without hiding ourselves, open a book or write anything. Calibans imperative that Prosperos books be burnt comes to register then either as an astute attack on Prosperos magico-technological tokens of power or as a sad instance of fetishistic misrecognition in which he misunderstands the efficacy of writing as a technology. Such a reading remains fairly stable even in more recent criticism that attends to our fields newfound fluency in the matter of the codex. In her essay Prosperos Book, in which she reads the magic back into Greenblatts secularizing account of the play, Barbara A. Mowat offers a starkly polarized choice for readers and audiences. When, she writes, as in [Peter] Greenaways film, we see Prosperos booksleather-bound, gorgeous, their pages yielding all the worlds mythologies, its temples, its art, its historiestheir destruction seems, to lovers of books and admirers of Western civilization, both problematic and poignant. To those who instead share Calibans view of Prospero, who see Prospero as little more than a tyrant and Western civilization as little more than tyranny, the destruction of the book may be more a matter of celebration. Such a divided response to the play today seems almost inevitable. This poignancy echoes also through the equally richly researched observations in James Kearneys reading of the play, which identifies the topostopos of the talking book as an anchoring trope of the Caliban episodethe talking book serving as a kind of ethnographic shorthand [in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries] to explain the ways in which the primitive and illiterate misunderstood the all important technology of reading and writing. Splicing this topostopos with Claude Lvi-Strausss famous account of the writing lesson he offered to (and was offered by) members of the Nambikwara tribe in Brazil in Tristes Tropiques, who responded to his note- taking by miming his gestures and producing wavy lines in place of his script, Kearney reminds readers of Lvi-Strausss conclusions: the primary function of written communication is to facilitate slavery. Kearney also aligns Calibans biblioclasm with class- marked book antagonism in other of Shakespeares plays, such as the Jack Cade sequence in Henry VI, Part Two in which Jack and Dick the Butcher embark on what looks like an antiwanti-writing riot set in motion by Dicks memorable lines, The first thing we do, lets kill all the lawyers. In the end, for Kearney, the play recognizes that books are both sign and instrument of one mans mastery of another, and its ending moves to relinquish the illusion of transcendence that authenticates mastery, a story about relinquishing the book. The Tempest appears to present us, then, with a choice between a, book-burning-bound Caliban, out to destroy his master along with his books, and a bibliophilic Prospero whose magic books condense European humanist book -culture with magical booklore and colonial agendas. And depending on who and when we are, we will find our selves torn between competing identifications, unable, perhaps, to settle into a ready reading or decision about the ending of play. Its not clear to us, however, that the choice remains so relatively restricted. And it seems crucial to point out that this polarizing reading manifests as the bibliographical form of the same closure to the Caliban- / Prospero dynamic that we found Lamming and contemporaries attempting to open earlier in this chapter. As poignant as the image of books floating away or of books being burnt or, for that matter, of writing as an index to enslavement, may be, this poignancy depends on ignoring or boxing up the interpretive difficulty that attaches to Prosperos stated intention to drown his book even as it assumes the transparency or immediate readability of Calibans imperative that others than himself (Stephano and Trinculo) burn but his books. The choice, we think, is a false one, of a type with the other ideological lures in the play and works to linearize what remains for us an uncertain parallel that the play orchestrates whereby two mooted acts of possible violence to books, book burning and book drowning, unfold in series, or, more exactly, do not, for both fail to materialize on stage. No books are burned. No books are drowned. At the heart of the play, then, Prospero and Calibans stated intentions regarding books and an increasingly singularized book constitute a moment of what, to adapt further Bruno Latours term iconoclash, we name biblioclash: several scenes of projected transformations of books (and so of the persons to whom they are attached) that we are at pains to know and understand. For us, this means, emphatically, that Caliban the biblioclast may not be opposed to Prospero the bibliophile. Indeed, given the story Prospero tells Miranda as to how they arrived on the island, his estrangement from the day- to- day government of Milan as he remained rapt in secret studies (1. 2. 77), casts him as bibliomaniac, giving up the management of his state to his brother while he remained in his study or library. In the play, this absorption in books (or devotion to the liberal arts and self-improvement) costs him his dukedom and, in Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1991), it costs him his library as well (Alonsos soldiers are shown destroying it). Both he and Caliban remain cathected to books or to a book in discontinuous and overlapping modes that do not constitute something that we can safely oppose. In each case, we think that earlier critics of the play have identified key tropes or moments in the archiving / forgetting of scenes of encounter between Europeans and indigenous peoples as they may be said to mark The Tempest, but that, following Lammings caution that leads him to claim the conjoined patronymies of Caliban and Prospero, no single tropesuch as that of the talking book or the status of a violent book burning as opposed to a gentle book -lovingcan settle this biblioclash. Its more productive, we think, to endure the uncertainty and to maintain strictly that we are unable, in Latours terms, to decide whether the hand[s] at work burning or drowning are ready to expose, denounce, debunk, show up, disappoint, disenchant, dispel ones illusions, or let the air out and so do violence or, on the contraryelicit, educe, welcome, generate, entertain, maintain, or collect truth and sanctity. Caliban is not exactly unlettered, even as Prospero and Miranda may judge him not to have taken their print: he has been taughtlanguage (1. 2. 364), which by his own account took the form of naming (1. 2. 337). At issue, then, we think, is the question of differential, and, in some cases, insurgent literacies, of competing, if mismatched, writing machines, whose products are not so easily archived as writing worth keeping. Here its worth recalling also Derridas response to Lvi-Strausss Writing Lesson in Of Grammatology that, contrary to the anthropologists assumptions, the Nambikwara already had access to writing albeit in a different mode than that of Western forms that follow the ratio of the line and the linear. Moreover, such pluri-dimensional, symbolic modes of writing (wavy lines, patterns, symbols, forms), moments when language involves itself in and as the physical, already mark and invest a broad range of writing practices in The Tempests England. Lets loiter, then, and ad lib a reading of Caliban and Prosperos parallel articulations of the fate of his books and book, hearing in both clashing soundtracks to the play and its endingthe throwing away or projection of Prosperos book, its drowning, rippling through the text via the production of other possible fates, other possible outcomes. So,So stay tuned for the channels changing, music coming through this time, of a sort, raucous, drunken singing. Radio Free Caliban Three voices form a trio. They tussle over who shall sing the lead. By the end they take on a dubious drummer whom they agree to follow along with even as they figure he might just be a drum machine. I shall no more to sea, to sea / Here I shall die ashore (2. 2. 4243) sings Stephano staggering into the play, bottle in hand. Caliban fears that one of Prosperos spirits has come to torment himand its funny, Stephanos terrible, terrible singing a torment indeed, a whole new order of noise for the isle to be full of. In comes Trinculo and after a bit of suggestive stage business involving two men under a blanket, the two share their survivor stories. How didst thou scape? How camst thou hither? asks Stephano. Swear by this bottle, he continues, how thou camst hither. I escaped upon a butt of sack, which the sailors heaved oerboardby this bottle which I made with the bark of a tree with mine own hands since I was cast ashore (2. 2. 117121). Caliban drinks and swears. Trinculo confesses to aquatic avian expertiseSwum ashore, man, like a duck. I can swim like a duck, Ill be sworn (2. 2. 125126). He drinks, or as Stephano now offers, kiss[es] the book, the butt of sack he rode ashore requiring the reverencing represented by the act of kissing a Bible, the bottle made of bark standing in, with no loss of efficacy, for the butt thats stowed elsewhere. Caliban figures theyre space aliens dropped from heaven (2. 2. 135) as the liquor is not earthly (2. 2. 123). And soon he too kiss[es] the book with increasing regularityeach kiss or swig lubricating the musicality of the three. Caliban swears fealty,; says he will kiss Stephanos foot (2. 2. 149),; and exits to fetch provisions singing his own song,; syncopating his own name: No more dams Ill make for fish, Nor fetch in firing at requiring, Nor scrape trenchering, nor was dish, Ban ban Ca-Caliban, Has a new master, get a new man. Freedom, high-day, high-day freedom; freedom high-day, freedom. (2. 2. 176181) The three reere-enter in aAct 3three, scene 2two, Calibans tongue drownedin sack (3. 2. 11) and Stephano impervious to drowning at sea for, as he tells us, I swam ere I could recover the shorehis head drowning already in sack (3. 2. 1213). When the butt runs dry and theres no more book to kiss they shall drink water. They plot murder, rape, and revolutionRemember / first to possess his book (3. 2. 9192), but find themselves haunted or interrupted by the static interference from Ariels ventriloquism as he or she adds lines to their script that none of the three can quite person. But, assured by Calibans offering that the isle is full of noises (3. 2. 135), they exit marching in time to the unseen taborer (drummer) that is Ariel. In the event, they reach Prosperos cell but not before Prospero remembers that the minute of their plot / Is almost come (4. 1. 141142) having apparently forgot about it up till nowtuning in, as he did, to the resolution of the marriage plot and the celebratory masque, which he now voids, summoning Ariel to meet with Caliban (4. 1. 166). Thus dismissed, the spirits depart, exiting perhaps to recre-costume for their zootropic transformation into the shape of dogs and hounds that set Caliban, Stephano, and Trinculo roaring (4. 1. 25254). This drunken insurrection, a plot that fails, that forgets Calibans instructions to burn[Prosperos] books, plays as low comedy but does so in the complicated, unstable mode of the Jack Cade sequence in Henry VI Part Two. In that case, editors have to decide, by their use (or not) of asides on whether to deliver a flat text, a script that makes no show of layering in the ironic distancing that is frequently assumed to be at work in the scenes. Arguably, the same instability inheres to the scenes we have just described, steeped as they are in bibulous bio/bibliographical verbal play. Books cohabit with butts and makeshift bottles crafted from the bark of trees. Stephano swaims in sack before he ever risked drowning in water. Now they all drown on land. Moreover, Calibans marching exit to aAct two 2, scene two 2 reads to some as a pseudoipseudo-idolatrous parody of the presentation of the English Bible to Elizabeth I at her coronation, a bible that she kissed, writing her own sovereign claims into the text of Biblical authority in quasi-sacramental fashion. Likewise, the bearing of the bottle recalls also the carrying of the monstrance at Corpus Christi. Liquid allegiances coalesce in and around the butt of sack that finds itself dispensed via the backing of a bottle fashioned out of barkand Caliban takes this celestial liquor as the profit of this new encounter, to reprise the technical humanist term he hurls back at Prospero and Miranda back in aAct 1, scene 2, when he reminds them that he has learned to curse (1. 2. 364). So,So what then should we make of Calibans urgent reminder to Stephano and Trinculo first to possess and then burn Prosperos books? Calibans lines posit an unhappy, exploitative set of labor conditions underwunder-written by Prosperos books. Take them away, he says, and Prospero will become but a sot (silly person, drunk) as I am. Hell have not / One spirit to command for they all do hate him / As rootedly as I (3. 2. 9095). Burn his books, therefore, and all Ye elves of hills, brooks, standing lakes and groves, / And ye that on the sands with printless foot / Do chase the ebbing Neptune (5. 1. 3335), all those demi-puppets (5. 1. 36) and sleepers waked by their graves (5. 1. 4849) upon whom Prospero calls in aAct five 5, scene one 1 when, getting in touch with his inner Medea, he speaks her lines from Ovids Metamorphoses and says hell break his staff and drown his book, will fail to show up, depart, play their own tunes, make their own noise. Drunk on sack and the possibility of a different script than the one to which hes used but unable to picture a future other than as the negation of his present conditionsNo more dams Ill make for fish, / Nor fetch in firing at requiring, / Nor scrape trenchering, nor was dish (2. 2. 176178)Calibans book burning will have the effect of a leveling, rendering both Prospero and he him as sots, drunks, idiots, both conditioned by books, be they figured now as butts or bottles. Burn the book and the spirits will fail to show up. Burn the book and we all shall be revealed as prosaically wet, bodily forms, rendered variously high or variously traumatized by our uptaking of different orders of information (the script or spell in a book, the sack or celestial spirit in a butt or a bottle). If the topostopos of the talking book does underwrite the constant reference to and failure of books to appear as such in The Tempest (they are never there but nevertheless we hear them) then here, Calibans book- burning venture might be understood to effect a liberation (of all sort or sots) from their function as the wetware to media platforms. All those invisible mediators whose feet leave no prints in the sand for their effects are rendered as variously enrapturing or tormenting aesthetic effects (pinches, noise, music) shall find themselves suddenly let go. All the voces in the topostopos of the voces paginarum (literally the voices of the pages) shall find themselves lip- syncing to their own lines, voices without script to follow, going quiet or bellowing. The talking book has become now a radio on which every turn of the dial finds the air alive with competing voices or stunned into a dead silence. As Roger Chartier reminds, the voces paginarum usually referred to the elimination of voice and ear in favor of silent reading but also to books that could read themselves aloud as well as the relaying of the voices of the dead. For him, at certain historical moments, the trope is indexed to the victory of small- size- format books which that can disappear into a pocket, giving the user access to information on the go (much as today a smart phone renders the user smart). But the ideality of a book that reads itself remains predicated on the embedded presence of so many different forms of wetwarethe print shop capable of making small- format books, or in its origins, the monks mouthing words while following a text as a mnemonic exercise or as part of their function as the ears, hands, and heads that funded the writing device that was a Medieval scriptorium. Calibans book burning figures an attempt to rewrite the biopolitical quotient to a particular media platformthe magic-technical resources figured as Prosperos books, a relay that has allowed Prospero to control the airwaves as well as the waves themselves. Possession of Prosperos books followed by their burning figures a mode of archival violence, an attack on an archive whose ash or remainder will reveal the sottishness or animate wetness of all concerned. His action marks an order of writing that aims to intervene in a writing machine whose infrastructure eludes him and to whom it manifests only in privileged sites or nodes, Prosperos books, that are reserved, set apart, and to which he has no access other than via an invasion or a theft. In The Book to Come, Derrida elaborates on the status of the book or biblion as backing, the material support or guarantee whichthat, in purely physical terms, permits portability and, linearity and , enables a manuscript or a person to travel into the hands of readers, to find a slot or niche in the physical, ideological, and semiotic world of its today. For biblion we may also read person, the book now the backing of a particular way of configuring an identity, a mode of citizenship, belonging, and the privileges it they affords. As Derrida observes, the Greek word biblionhas not always meant book or even work,; instead biblion could designate a support for writing (so derived from biblios, which in Greek names the internal bark of the papyrus and thus of paper, like the Latin word liber, which first designated the living part of the bark before it meant book). Biblion, he continues, would only mean writing paper, and not book, nor oeuvre or opus, only the substance of a particular supportbark. But biblion can also, by metonymy, mean any writing support, tablets for instance or even letters: post.  The extension of biblion as book represents the development of one particular metonymy, that equates the backing of writing, the underpinning of writing by a physical substance with the figure of the book, collating, if you like, writing and book, text and material support, and linearizing the biblion as book. For Derrida, the book to come signals not something new, so much as something held in abeyance by the repetition and so adoption of one particular metonymy. This repetition makes a world indexed to a particular order of library or archive. And yet, as Calibans orchestration of a mass labor revolt or general strike of all Prosperos s/we/a/tware indicates, and his syncopating reare-articulation of his name in his song or march, Ban, Ban, Ca-caliban / Has a new master, get a new man (2. 2. 179180) )confirms, there remain other infrawinfra-worlds, other forms of writing, inhering within the order provided by the book. Indeed, we may go further, and suggest that if by his refusal to take Prosperos impression or print of goodness, Caliban becomes an order of self-predicating filth, something close to Giorgio Agambens category of bare life, then such a status seems predicated on his resistance to a particular infrastructure of the book, to one mode of archiving, to one infrastructure for producing papery persons or variously imprinted persons, to use the plays own idiom. And further, the putative book burning signals also that where one bureaucratic state filing system (Prosperos island) might derive satisfaction and closure from positing such nonpnon-persons as paperless and so without an authorizing archive or bibliographical backing, still other forms of bio/bibliopolitical backingvia butts and bottles and the bark of treesremains possible, thinkable. Repair Of course, the same gestures of leveling and universalizing conditions become the governing moves of the play itself as it moves to closure. Evidence of Prosperos own incipient self-identified sottishness appears quickly after the mooted drowning of his book and the scenes of recognition and repair in aAct 5,five where the play moves to closure. Prospero plans, he says, to retire me to my Milan, where / Every third thought shall be my grave (5. 1. 311312), but the text doesnt allow his bones to rest long. Promising a full narration of the circumstances that have led to this ending, he asks all to draw near, and the cast exits. There follows an epilogue spoken by Prospero. He asks to be sent off, to disembark with the gentle breath of the audience to fill his sails, as if he were a boat, set free, as if he were a spirit like Ariel, whom he set free only a few lines earlier. Lacking spirits now to help, we assume, perhaps, that his book has been drowned, for it has not been burned, and so its up to us, the wetware of the theater to fill his sails with the breath of our applause. The moment is complicated, however, at least in the First Folio (1623) by the fact that the EPILOGVE occupies a strange paratextual space on the final page, on which, transferred from the beginning of the play appears a list of the Names of the Actors and, bleeding through from the verso part of the sheet, part of the title and text of The Two Gentlemen of Verona. The editors of the Arden edition speculate that this list was probably compiled by the scrivener Ralph Crane, and the descriptive terms to the Names of the Actors may reflect his knowledge of contemporary stage practice and perhaps, too, his personal assessment of the characters performed at the time. But the effect, in part, is to render Prospero as phantasm, a revenant, who comes back as the plays speaking function, the voice to its pages. Whoever speaks under the name Prospero in the epilogue exercises a weak sovereignty over the play, and this sovereignty manifests in stagings or readings of the play that retro-project his presence into aAct 1one, scene 1one, disclosing the guiding hand that controls the storm. The epilogue serves then as a kind of guarantee or placeholder for the drowning of a book and the burial of a staff that fail to appear even as it they serves also as a remainder or conservation of the voice that Prospero now should be felt to lack. The play ends, if you like, by sorting or separating voices from books, bios from biblion, actors from roles, just as Caliban attempts, but strategically fails to complete or to authorize the separation. As the final lines of the epilogue adduce, if we wish to be pardoned from oour ownur crimes, then we needs must we grant Prospero our indulgence (1819), a word that oscillates between figuring a friendly favor and a piece of paper that, once upon a time, remitted the sins of a good Catholic in return for a donation to the Church. Calibans book possession turned book burning figures a radical redrawing or leveling of the bio/bibliographical infrastructure to the playa utopian mode of negation that might manifest as a cessation of happening, the opening of the island radio to the risk of dead air, unscripted or differently scripted noise, aall of ll its inhabitants variously sottish or wet. But so also the plays own ending, by delivering on a voluntary book drowning that does not take place but whose effects it figures, decoupling thereby bios from biblion, or seeming to do so, disappears the possibility or even the desire to ask Calibans questions, for Prosperos self-demotion remains predicated on our recruitment to his embarking. The lines, after and before all, were spoken by Prospero. The work the epilogue accomplishes, this sorting or separating out of persons from paper, defines very precisely the moves in aAct five 5 ttowardsoward a program of generalized repair and reversal. The ship that was wrecked shall not have been, and we will shortly reere-embark, homeward bound. Moments before this renunciation of rough magic, Prospero instructs Ariel to release (5. 1. 30) Alonso, Antonio, Sebastian, and Gonzalo from where he left them in aAct three3, scene three3. All, as Ariel reports, are prisoners, sir. They cannot budge till your release (5. 1. 910). Ariel inquires as to Prosperos mood and tells him that his charm so strongly works em / That, if you now beheld them, your affections / Would become tender (5. 1. 1719). Or so Ariel thinks, : Mine would, sir, were I human (5. 1. 20). Taking Ariels inhuman compassion as a mirror, Prospero decides that They being penitent / The sole drift of my purpose doth extend (5. 1. 2829). And so he decides that My charms Ill break; their senses Ill restore; / and they shall be themselves (5. 1. 3132). Ariel exits just before the soliloquy. Prospero traces a circle and speaks. The circle will mark the zone of recognition within which Alonso, Antonio, Sebastian, and Gonzalo are brought out of their distraction and back to the selves they will take up by Prosperos leave. They enter the circle and stand charmed. Prospero observes them; greets them each according to their role in his exile; forgives them; and, on his way to discas[ing] himself (5. 1. 85) sends the still invisible Ariel to fetch the mariners who have been sleeping the whole while under the hatches (5. 1. 99). Prospero brings Ferdinand back from the dead, troping Alonsos irreparableloss (5. 1. 140) with the dear loss (5. 1. 146) that he feels in the marriage of Miranda. The dramatic irony kicks into high gear as he allows Alonso to misunderstand this loss and so to wish that, were the two children living both in Naples / The king and queen there (5. 1. 149150), he should lie mudded in that oozy bed / Where my son lies (5. 1. 150151). Then comes the big revealFerdinand and Miranda playing chessas Alonso discovers that hes won the proverbial biopbio-political jackpot: hes not just regained not just a son, but a daughter also, and with that, the end that eludes the Capulets and Montagues of Romeo and Juliet, a reunited state. The wonder Miranda expresses finds itself variously generalized, as, for example, in the oddness which that Alonso remarks that I / Must ask my child forgiveness (197198). Alonso notes the strangeness of Ferdinands reading of what has happened to himthat by marrying Miranda and finding a second life from her and a second father in Prospero, Ferdinand reverses the genealogical cast to biological reproduction and so re/fathers Alonso (5. 1. 194196). The scene, as we said, figures a generalized repair or re/pre, to discase the intralingual pun on which Shakespeare trades in several of his sonnets. Gonzalo, a bit like Father Lawrence, notes that hes inly wept in hopes of such an event (5. 1. 200). Hands are given and joined. The Boatswain returnsGonzalo gets to reprise his comment from aAct 1, scene 1, that if a gallows were on land / This fellow could not drown (5. 1. 217218)! Ariel gets successive pats on the head for a job well done; Caliban, Stephano, and Trinculo wander in and are not pinched to death (5. 1. 276)and everyone else goes off to Prosperos cell to hear the full story, returning thereafter, we suppose to Milan and Naples. So,So it all ends rather well! We rehearse the ending that unfolds upon Prosperos mooted drowning of his book in order to demonstrate the economy at work. The book shall be drowned, but the play systematically denies drowning to the living. The leveling or revelation of sottishness that Caliban orchestrates figures here as a systematic sorting of persons from books, a biopolitical salvage operation predicated on a bibliographical disposal. Ferdinand did not drown; Alonsos stated desire that in order to have their children return he would sink in the ooze functions precisely because he did not and will not have to; the Boatswains now lamely funny marking for dry death, on land becomes a bit of gallows humor thats now lightly as opposed to luridly funny. Such an ending marks more, we think, than an instance of generic recoding or tragedy taming as the play decides to end as comedywith marriage and social reproduction. The book shall be drowned. The living shall live. Thus bios decouples (or appears to do so) from biblion (or appears to do so). Its worth remarking, however, the way this return, this inversion of the shipwreck or catastrophe of aAct one 1, scene one1, proceeds by Prosperos considered decision to allow all to live, to continue living, the play now become an exercise in reproductive health and biopbio-political management, a husbanding of resources. Prosperos reserving of judgment on Antonio and Sebastianhis marking of them as less than friends only by an aside to remind them that were I so minded, / I could pluck his highness frown upon you / and justify you traitors (5. 1. 127128) confirms, if you like, the biopbio-political underwriting of the plays ending and his Prosperos return to Milan. If the island figures a state of exception, a place within which literally anything could happen according to the whim of the sovereign, then Prosperos sovereignty operates still on the condition and possibility of an overwhelming violence but will unfold in and by the plays closure as the power [instead] to make live and let die. Such moments of radical repair or rebooting tend, of course, to disorient those of us naturalized into familiar or normalized circuits of family or individual belonging. The articulation of persons not merely as resources but as vectors to be managed in order to establish a sort homeostasis, and compensate for variations within[a] general population and its aleatory field such that the biological processes of man-as-species may be regularized as opposed to managed makes for an enlivening spectacle. No wonder they are all a bit beside themselves, overcome, prone to mood swings, violence, glee, and blisstheir ignorance is suspended between the two poles, life and death. The characters moods swing accordingly. Such an ending enables us to hear Mirandas famous linesOh brave new world / That has such people in it (5. 1. 183184) as a literal remarking of the making up of persons with which the play ends. Look who we all will be now. Hopefully, everyone will feel a lot better when Prospero explains everything. Cue the voice. Set the play to audio. The audience is hookedI long / To hear the story of your life, which must / Take the ear strangely (5. 1. 312314) says Alonso and Prospero says he will deliver all / And promise you calm seas, auspicious gales (5. 1. 314315). The weather shall be lovely. And heres that voice again, the only voice that seems by the end to matter even as everyone settles into what seems like conversation. Lets listen very carefully and ask what it is it about the drowning or putative drowning of a book that enables such a programming of the relations between bios and biblion and which that installs a biopolitical fix, rendering Prospero sovereign narrator and weatherman?. Soundings But this rough magic I here abjure; and when I have required Some heavenly music (which even now I do) To work mine end upon their senses that This airy charm is for, Ill break my staff, Bury it certain fathoms in the earth, And deeper than did ever plummet sound Ill drown my book. (5. 1. 5057). Projecting fforwardsorward into a future that no longer requires such sonic effects as heavenly music to work his end upon their senses, that end, we suppose, at an end, Prospero says that he shall break his staff and drown his book. His language gestures forward but fails properly to close on an image. The lineaments of an image take shape but then dissolve. The staff shall be broken, but its burial certain fathoms in the earth, sea terms (fathom designates a unit of six feet and was and is used most usually of sea depths) momentarily coding the land, loses focus. How deep shall the staff go? The act of decision, the strongly agentive act of breaking, falls prey to an uncertain inhumation, a burial that even as it locates the staffs fragments specifically in a certain spot remains uncertainly deep, the word fathom rendering the land watery. Likewise, the book shall drown deeper than did ever plummet sound, the sonic returning now as the technical term for measuring depth or finding bottom with a lead weight. The agentively strong specificity of the act of drowning (go on, throw a stone, feel the projective force of your arm, picture the stone entering the water) loses itself in the impossible cast to the depth. To drown a book comes to constitute a permanent condition of the book, a continuous drowning that vanquishes forever the tactile specificity of the hand holding the line attached to the lead weight that never hits bottom, that never therefore feels the line slacken, the friction on the hands (as opposed to the ears) cease. Before it even happens, the decision to drown the book finds itself transformed into a permanent condition of waiting, a gerundive conditionality of living on, dying on, as the book keeps on drowning. No more noises then; no more sonic effects that we can person with the wetware that is Ariel, elves, demi-puppets, and so onthey have vanished, which is not to say that they have departed. No more rustling pages,; mouthing wordsinstead a minds eye image of a silent, sinking book. Moreover, here, it seems worth recalling that Prosperos distinction between inhumation and drowning remains muddied, however, by the way the phrase deeper than did ever plummet sound echoes three words Alonso uses when speaking of the drowning of his son, Ferdinand: Therefore my son ithooze is bedded, and / Ill seek him deeper than ever plummet sounded, / And with him lie there mudded (3.3. 100102). Alonsos first, soul- destroying voicing of this intention follows hard on the winds or billows or organpipe that he says sung the name Prosper in his ears (3. 3. 95102). Prosperos repetition of three words Alonso used to describe the burial of Ferdinands corpse (deeper, plummet, and sounded) create something like static interference in the distinction between burying his staff and drowning his book. The biological metaphor that attaches to or derives from Ferdinand, even if all humans resort to clay or earth, does not quite translate to either staff or book. Ferdinands corpse is structurally parallel to Prosperos book, but it seems mistaken to conclude that Prosperos book will not be buried because its drowning is opposed to the burial of Prosperos staff. Instead the image and the repetitions create the aura of a sinking or gradual enfolding in an oozy medium. If drowning the book is not a burial at sea, we may think of this third kind of disposal as a marination, since characters always mistakenly think others have drowned and, marination signifiesying something on the order of a cryonic storage, or unknowing wetware. In Prosperos lines the future seems marked by a set of uncertainties that prevent the generation of complete images. The word sound compensates; it takes on a vibratory heft that resonates across them and their levels of sense, condensing the auditory and the tactile. The vibratory effects of the heavenly noise named music by human, or more properly, Prosperos ears, cohabits, then, with the silent sounding of a depthdrowning figuring here as a passing beyond the range of hearing and seeing, accessible only by a kind of blind hearing or deaf seeing that corresponds very closely to what Lamming seeks to capture in the range of strange vocal effects he attributes to the play as island radio. This splicing of the tactile and the auditory, the musicality of certain orders of noise taking on an efficacy in the pursuit of ends, enters into a strange relation with the vanishing of the book, whose fate lies beyond the reach of Prosperos language, other than his inability to render the image. It begins to feel that we might mistake the whole tenor of the linesthere is no loss here, no regretperhaps drowning the book proffers a gleeful solution, a casting off that will recuperate Prospero in successive futures, as Lamming recognizes, as broadcaster. If the play ends still in what plays and seems a register of bibliographical disposal and biopolitical repair, separating out bios from biblion, burning, it must be said, makes a lot more immediate sense. The image generates easily. The symbolism worksusually books, like witches, were burned, observes Haig Bosmajian. Since fire was the power that could cleanse the farms and communities of their witches, he continues, moles, vermin, disease, and pestilence, and since heretical, blasphemous infections, plagues, and poisons could be destroyed through book burnings, the cleansing, purifying, dreadful, magical fire was also ignited to rid the land of seditious and impure obscene works. There is the ash, however, evidence of the madness and the violence of the archive fever, the arson at work. Likewise, burial, however deep, however many fathoms down, comes with the possibility of exhumation and retrievalthe coming back of the thing thats buried. The word drown, however, projects the book into an inhuman realm and calls forth a submarine world where eerie transformations take place, beyond the reach of the human. The conditions of such an act of casting forth or off will produce no ash, no burial sitemerely the moment of contact, the printless spot where the book hits the waters and the waters close. What happens thereafter, of course, remains to be seenwill the book float, will it sink, will it wash ashore and be taken as some long- lost message in a bottle, a bottle, such as the one Stephano crafted out of bark? Although there is no way to trace a direct connection, the only other instance of book drowning we have been able to trace comes from the feverish account of book disposal found in the story of Saint James the More (or Greater) in the Golden Legend, the thirteenth-century compilation of sSaints lLives by Jacobus de Voragine, which was Englished by William Caxton in 1483. The drowning occurs as the resolution to Saint Jamess encounter with an enchanter named Hermogenes (born of Hermes) who had sent his follower Philetus to prove [Saint Jamess]preaching false. Such was the plan, but Saint James wows Philetus with several miracles and sends him back to Hermogenes to tell him that hes the real deal and that they should both convert and becomes his disciples. Understandably, Hermogenes doesnt take the good news too well. He petrifies Philetus with his enchantments. But the now immobile Philetus manages to send his child (or servant) to Saint James who sends him his sudary or keverchief (napkin / handkerchief) to tell him that our Lord redresseth them that be hurt, and unbindeth them that be enmeshed; and as soon as he said so, and touched the sudary, he was unbound and loosed from all the enchanting of Hermogenes. Hermogenes gets really angry now, calls many devils, and commands them to bring Saint James and Philetus to him so he can be revenged upon them. But Saint James forces the devils to do his bidding instead, and they bring Hermogenes to him with his hands bound. The devils ask Saint James to give them Hermogenes, but he refuses to do so, letting him go his own way instead. Hermogenes is now totally confused and so Saint James explains that its not to our discipline that any be converted against his will. Hermogenes figures the devils will try to catch up with him when Saint James is gone and asks for a token of his power. So Saint James gives him his staff for protection and then Hermogenes gathers up all his books of his false craft and enchanting for to be burnt. But because that the odour of the burning might do evil or harm to some fools, Saint James made them to be cast into the sea. And after he had cast his books into the sea [Hermogenes] returned, and holding his feet said: O thou deliverer of souls, receive me penitent, and him that hath sustained till now missaying of thee. And then began he to be perfect in the dread of God our Lord, so that many virtues were done by him afterward. While there is much to comment upon in the story of Philetuss and Hermogeness conversions, whats most striking to us is the way the story attends to the efficacy and counterecounter-efficacy of different magics, those that are authored by diabolical aid as opposed to belief in a Christian god. Hermogenes, who personifies and treats in one portmanteau name a divinity of magical apprentices, possesses a series of books that enable his false craft and enchanting, which in the story take the form of his immobilization of Philetus and devil summoning. The first act is countered at a distance merely by a postal delivery of Saint Jamess napkin or handkerchief, Philetus already, by his returning with the wrong message, his postman. When the devils beset Saint James, they find themselves hopelessly mismatched and are immediately inducted as his factors. Finding himself the victim of a superior efficacy, Hermogenes is confused but initially unrepentant until Saint James lends him his staff, at which point he embarks on a self-appointed book burning against which Saint James intervenes. Beyond the ash that remains, Saint James fears that something of the false craft shall be conserved and disseminated by the odour of the smoke and that it may do harm to the foolish or impressionable. Better then to cast them into the sea in what reads as an act of dilution and disposal but also storage without hope of retrieval. Throw them into the sea, cast them forth, and you will have demonstrated the desire to convert, to bear the technological tokens of our writing machine, and so you will find yourself among us. But lets not burn your books, oh, no, that would be dangerous;, it would produce various ashen and vaporous remainders that might infect still others. If burning cleanses but does not completely erase, offering the diabolical program still other modes of backing, drowning figures as at once a nonsnon-specifying dilution and a hypershyper-specific decision on the part of Hermogenes, who, it must be said, has, until now, found himself confused for much of the story. The book disposal stands in direct relation to the production of susceptible subject, a willing convert, who has undergone some form of askesis or voluntary detachment from one mode of media-technical apparatus in preparation for his reare-attachment to another, superior model. Witness the virtuous makeover to which the story then testifies. On the face of it, then, the figure of a book drowning manifests as an act of disposal and storage allied to what seems an impossible retrieval. The waves close. The book or books sink and vanish from view. But the book or books remain. They continue to exist as books, but in static mode. Arguably, following Saint Jamess logic, we could keep dumping books upon books in the sea and it would make no matterjust add them to the wrecks that sink into the ooze. The sea comes to function then as a limitless container or receptacle, a closed archive or library of banned books. It swallows all impressions but does not erase them. Instead it conserves and confirms their existence even as it fails to make them available for reading. In the case of The Tempest, the sea receives a book that we will never read,; that was never accessed in a mode that manifests as reading in the course of the play. The books throwing away, in Lammings terms, becomes a prerpre-requisite for its own self or auto-audition. The structure of disposal we read in Prosperos line resonates quite distinctly with one particular practice of removing writing in the period: the practice of whitewashing walls in Tudor and Stuart houses. Juliet Fleming reads the whitewashed wall, a wall perhaps bearing successive layers of wash with various occasional inscriptions, designs, and wavy lines, sandwiched between them, as aan historic historically specific instance of how to model of a writing apparatus that fulfilled the functions of [unlimited] receptivity and retention that Sigmund Freud sought to metaphorize in his A Note Upon the Mystic Writing Pad. To wash a wall, in the period, writes Fleming, is to clean it not by removing what was on it, but by covering it with a fresh surfacewhitewash. Crucially, she adds, beneath the new surface and whatever contents it may acquire, the original writing remains and may still, with sufficient expenditure of time, care, energy and resources, be recovered. And for Fleming the whitewashed wall representsconsciousness as the reactivation of memories and perceptions that have been stored within writing. Drowning a book, in the sense we develop it, corresponds closely to the infinitely receptive and retentive model of walls that retain their successive layers of inscription even as they no longer show them. The sea fulfills these functions, removing not merely two-dimensional lines of script or images from view but whole books. That said, the extreme instances we have identified in Prosperos uncertainly stated intention to drown my book and Hermogeness voluntary execution of an order from Saint James push this representation beyond its limits. Drowning figures a total loss, a throwing forth or forward that turns a wash into a flood in the case of Hermogenes, who disposes of one mode of telephonic efficacy because he has switched providers, gone over to a broader, more comprehensive network. Accordingly, the older network is engulfed but not erased. It remains,; finds itself archived,; but the effects it once generated are superseded. For Prospero, the act remains harder to read, offering either a similar act of disposal or perhaps a solution to a problem of local particularity. Does the act of drowning come as an inspired solution to a problem or as a renunciation, or as something else? How to leave the island, to cast off, but to retain the efficacy that his book provides? Does Prospero, in other words, repudiate Medeas invocation of spirits in these lines or does he outdo her? Are we witnesses to the closing down and cancellation of a network of sonic effects or the indundationinundation of the world by a static-free infrastructure that no longer plays as noise? Nevertheless, in both instances, the word drown might be heard to register a flooding or inundation of a surface that obliterates its ability to take impressions or to retrieve layers that lie beneathless a whitewash than a wash out, or what, in the language of limning or miniature making in the period, resonates in terms of all that can go wrong in the application of paint to parchment. Color, instructs Nicholas Hilliard, chief miniaturist to Elizabeth I, should be applied flowing, but you must avoid flooding your parchment card. The movement required of the hand in limning is challenging because it is qualitatively different from that of Oyle worke, distemper or washing in which the color is driven with the flat of the pensel [brush]. The word flow designates a specific rate of application that will cover but not blemish or overwhelm a surface as opposed to the filling in of surface imperfections implied by the word wash. Get the rate wrong,; misjudge the consistency of your color,; overload your pensel,; and you may drown your parchment, rendering it unusable. To drown in this sense deterritorializes whitewashing from its everyday scenes of use and posits a flooding out of sense that saturates the medium, the wash, perhaps even coming to figure as a mobile medium itself, but one which that renders anything it subsumes unreadable even as it continues to be there. To drown then takes on a relation to a general archiving or storing up of successive orders of media and their effects, subsuming their efficacy under the sign of noise and music in the play, auditory effects coming to signify as a privileged, and, in the context of the theater, media- specific, sensory mode that registers the fact of a book (not) being read. What Lamming represents as an island radio, then, activates what we might describe as the archival function that attaches to the word drown in the playa strange mode of archiving, mind you, storage predicated on irretrievability, living on as a mode of blocked access. Underwater Archive So,So were sunk. A wave just claimed our radio or book, of whatever the thing is. Weve hit rock bottomor rather, weve sinking in the ooze. You see we jumped in after it, just as Alonso says that he will ll do in order first to follow Ferdinand (3. 3. 100102) and then that he would have done in order to retrieve supracsupra-couple Ferdinand and Miranda (5. 1. 150152). What else is a father to do when his son dies, removes the genealogical cast to parenting in the play that renders him or re/fathers the father? Thank goodness the play reverses his putative suicide and repairs the two, father and son. In our case, though, the book drowning seems to have altered the composition of the sea, unhinged what seemed like a stable set of relations between burning, drowning and burial, and the elements (earth, fire, wind, water). We find ourselves in an altered relation to what it means to store something, to store a book, to put it back on its shelf. The plays sorting of bios from biblion, denying drowning to the living but assigning it instead to a book, makes everyone, as we saw, feel w/oozy. But it also lowers the temperature on the question of the archive and the ability of a hyperahyper-attention to questions of medias ability to solve as opposed to replay problemsof sense, of sovereignty, of collectivity. If you find yourself getting feverish, closing in on this or that bibliographical key, relax; the play has already poured a long dose of cold water in your lap. And so, rather than salvage an emphatically singular book, we sink down into the ooze, where we find a generalized question concerning what it means to archive something, to retain it, but, in this instance, to take no impression or to forget something crucial in the impressing. No survivance, as Derrida phrases it in the second epigraph to this chapter, no living on without drowning, without loss by and as retrieval. If in Archive Fever, book burning remains the privileged way of representing archival lossthe books we will never know if Freud has burned and the ash the secret of every archivethen The Tempests book drowning renders the distinction between preservation and destruction, inscription and erasure, unreadable, but in a purely productive if discontinuous sense. Inscription, of course, and erasure; preserve and destroy. Archiving becomes indistinguishable thereby from remainderless destruction of the order we investigated in nuclear mode in our first chapterthe very condition of living on, of living at all. This indistinction gains the name anarchivity, a word Derrida coins to mean the violence of the archive itself, as archive, as archival violence. The play names such a condition, which it locates at the unfathomable bottom to the sea, the ooze into which Alonso twice thinks hell settle: the; first time, to reunite with his son, the; second time round, in exchange for getting Ferdinand and Miranda back. And this ooze or slime or scene of slow decay but also of coming into life is also a scene of bio/biblio-processing, the parceling out of bio/bibliographical forms such as The Tempest imagines as it first de- - and then rezre-zones the distinctions between persons, animals, spirits, the living, and the dead. But,But as we have seen such distinctions prove reversible, even as they remain fixed, kept in place by specific bio/bibliographical forms that endure. At the end of the play or by the end of the play, death by drowning, so it appears, suits only a book. The rest of us live into or on into a dry death such as Gonzalo wished for in aAct one1I would fain die a dry death (1.1. 6768). Yet Ariel collapses this distinction when, appearing at the illusory banquet of aAct three3, scene three3, dressed as a harpy, he or she equates hanging with drowning. Alonso, Antonio, and Sebastian are greeted with these words: I have made you mad; / And even with such-like valour men hang and drown / Their proper selves (3. 3. 5960), essentially undoing Gonzalos earlier staking of his hope on the fact that the Boatswain hath no drowning mark upon himhis complexion is perfect gallows (1. 1. 2829). The state reserves the right to drown you; storage without retrieval. Dig deeper and distinctions will muddy. The ooze lies beneath. Even the driest of dry deaths turns wet as bodies enter into a becoming soil or earth and we drown in the stomachs of worms. Surfacing Up top we know, the divers still loiter, bribing the sea to release its Dead for an interview with the living. Lets look up now, from below, and see whats rising. The Tempest ends with a sorting or separating out of bios from biblion, but by that gesture it almost demands that the book that was (not) drowned be retrieved and that that retrieval anchor all manner of variously papered sonic effects or scripts become persons. When we look up from the ooze below, we see so many books, veritable libraries that divers salvage, floating above usthe sea less a library than some ph/fantasmatic print- on- demand operation whose produces ignite a fever when they come topside. The book, we know, may be a grimoire. But beyond or beside such singular non/identifications, the book multiplies. Whole libraries it seems were sunk off the shores of the island. Almost as though the bark Prospero and Miranda were hurriedaboard (1. 2. 145), that rotten carcass of a butt (1. 2. 46; ) (Stephanos butt and bottle of sack coming back, before they are named, in maritime mode) went downas was, Prospero thinks, intended. All the books, then, that Gonzalo furnished (1. 2. 166) him with from his libraryGonzalo making a selection, pick those most loved (used?)have or are drowning also, vaguely taken by the currents, washing up here, there, nowhere. Out of the blue, in a section on alchemical colour, in Chroma: A Book of Colour, filmmaker Derek Jarman announces, these were the books that Prospero brought to the island: The Pimander and Orphic Hymns, Plotinus on the soulThe Book of Life (Ficino). Conclusiones (Pico della Mirandola). Paracelsus, Roger Bacon. The Secret of Secrets, a best-seller in the Middle Ages, Agrippas Occult Philosophy and Dees Hieroglyph Monad. Shadow of Ideas (1592) by Bruno who was burnt for heresy in 1600 in the Campo de Fiori, Rome. More famously Peter Greenaway decides, thereThere are twenty-four books that Gonazalo hastily threw into Prosperos boat as he was pushed out to sea to begin his exile. Why not? Its precisely in the nature of such wholesale losses to animate the various wetwares Prospero lets go at the end of the play, leading us to re/back voices we hear as books. Such is the rreason whyeason Lamming cautions us that the noises of the isle are still there but now naturalized as the infrastructure of broadcast radio in the case of the 1950s Britain he visits. Such salvage operations are diverting and work their own kind of magic. In Poul Andersons fantasy novel, A Midsummer Tempest (1974), for example, we discover that Duke Prospero did not really bear away his book to the middle sea, above abysses. He feared thered be a risk of theft en route. And so our hero Rupert dives down in an improvised bathysphere,; raises the book, and uses it to put pay to the awful monster that besets the conjoined worlds of The Tempest, A Midsummer Nights Dream (159395), and earth. Oberon and Titania act as librarians or custodians at the end of the novel, taking the book back to their forest for safekeeping. The book was not drowned then. It can be retrieved, even if it may not exactly be read. Instead, it may only be summoned in order to generate a certain unfathomable efficacy or agency in your presentbe it to vanquish a monster or to sponsor a reading you wish to establish as historical. So, of course, the drowned book become toy or minor machine describes a circle, salvaged in order to be redre-drowned; available for successive nonrnon-readings. Of course, sometimes, surfacing the book occasions more complicated questions regarding what the fate of a drowned book may be, what happens to a book in the sea, how it got there, how it moves, how long it lasts, ? And why it comes back now, and what it has to say at a particular moment. Some fifteen 15 or so years after The Tempest, for example, on June 23, 1626, it so happened that a Codfish being brought to the Fish-Market of Cambridge and cut up as usually others are for sale yielded something wondrous and perhaps, depending on how you were oriented to such things, miraculous. In the depth of the mawe of the fish was found wrapped in a piece of canvase, a book in decimo sexto, containing three treatises bound up in one, which are reprinted soon thereafter, prefaced by images of the fish, a short foray into the emerging field if ichthyology and a thorough working through and over of the possible veracity of what the book names the Book-Fish. The treatises that the fish carried in its mouth, and which that had returned from their uncertain fate in the sea, were attributed to English reformer John Frith, who was martyred in 1533. And within the world of 1620s Cambridge and the changing fates of religion and political affairs at the Caroline court, the appearance of a talking fish who spat out a series of untimely or only too timely treatises that held within them a critical appraisal of issues still alive and kicking seems, as Alexandra Walsham, puts it rather wittily, reprising G. R. Elton but in a more thoroughly fishy context, a piece of piscatorial politics. What remains striking about the prefatory materials to the reprinted treatises, though, is the description they yield of the quasi-forensic parsing of oddities that emerged from the sea in the period. Bywords for such chance or providential appearances include accident, wonder, marvel, and miracle, indicating the potential for revealing noise effects to orchestrate signs of the righteous or wrongful conduct of the world and state. Indeed, as the anonymous author of the volume cautions, all miracles are marvellous things, but all marvellous things are not miracles (11). It pays to keep your Miranda straight from your miraculas. And so, plucked by chance from a scene of fishv-buying, the Bookebeing much soyled and defaced, and couered ouer with a kinde of slime & Congealed matter (9) was taken to Daniel Boys, a bookbinder, who carefully washed(10) the leaves. The books it contains are identified, which provokes a series of further questions, not least of which includes why it might be that a fish, the creature chosen to illustrate the Latin proverb, Tam matus quam piscis, as dumb as a fish should suddenly become so vocal (4)? Given the Christian associations to the sign of the fish, its appearance as backing to a set of lost books of topical importance seemed both convenient and miraculous. In effect, this hybrid book-fish or fish-book comes to serve as an instance of Lammings radio, constituting a writing machine that restores lost things, that speaks with the inhuman cast to Providence, and which that does so, as it were, in the person of nobody. Prosperos book or its like comes back, then, but when it does, it returns as a strange, hybrid, zoo/bio/bibliographical entity that fishifies the rhetorical complexity of prospopoeia (the giving of faces or voices to things). Figure 4.1 depicts the fish and its contentsthough it has been cut open so that the book may be properly revealed, having migrated from its mouth to its belly. {~?~AU: Insert Figure 4.1} Figure 4.1 Title pPage to Vox Piscis: or The Book Fish Contayning Three Treatises Which Were Found in the Belly of a Cod-Ffish in Cambridge Market on Midsummer Eve Llast, Anno Domini 1626 (London 1627) STC 11395 copy 3. By Permission of the Folger Shakespeare Library. Inquiring further into the circumstances that might have led to such a strange reare-appearance of these books, the author of the treatise writes that it seemeth most probable that vpon some wrack this booke lying (perhaps manie years) in the pocket of some man, that was cast away, was swallowed by the Cod, and that it lay for a good space of time in the fishes belly. For the booke was much consumed by lying there, the leather couer being melted and dissolued and much of the edges of the leaues abated and consumed, and the rest very thin and brittle hauing beene deepe parboiled by the heat of the fishes mawe (1314). The scenario narrativizes the condition of the book whose condition might best be described as cooked. nNot drowned so much as parboiled in the oven that is a fishs belly. But no virtue has been gleaned from this nondnon-digestion. The cod in question has not faired too well either, being very underwunder-weight from having its mouth blocked and so unlikely to fetch a good price at market. The fish itself seems to have been cast into a surfeit or consumption (14). It takes no profit from the encounter. Instead it becomes a mode of conveyance, a condition by which the book that was lost goes mobile once more. As the text announces the identity of the treatises, prefacing them with a prayer to preserve its readers from storms and shipwreck, it begs presents the following rhetorical question, hoping that by reading themit, by decoupling the fish from the contents of its mouth, severing bibliography from ichthyology, we can fish out the reason why these treatises should bee so strangely preserued in a living dumbe speaking library in the sea (17). The metaphorical transcoding offered by the vox piscis offers an almost irresistible set of rhetorical resources, as here comes through in the almost involuntary or winking invitation to fish [the truth] out. Aside from the difficulty posed in separating the book-fish from its scene of emergence and the political or ideological work it may or may not have done in 1620s Cambridge, the lesson we find floating above us as this fish is reeled in lies in the strange status of a fish that becomes backing to a book. For what order of entity or wetware is this book-fish, upon whose death the revelation of the treatises it stores depends? What strange paratextual creature has it become? Did this cod feed on human flesh, taking the canvass package from a mans pocket? If it did, it found that it could not eat this new food, let alone digest it. Instead, the book, by its new-found mobility, by the fact of its storage in a mouth that cannot speak its lines nor eat their backing, consumes the fish. The library of the sea yields up its secrets only in a divided and dividing manner. Such books as fish keep in their mouths, mouths which that cannot speak the lines of the pages, remain strictly unreadablebecoming so only when pried forth and the fish tossed in the garbage or back to sea. The pages of the book represented in the mouth of the cod have been unwrapped, but such writing that appears there remains unreadablethe wavy lines, or fact of symbolic representation that we have seen before, awaiting a linearization that will both reveal and reduce their sense. The Vox Piscis serves, if you like, as an occasion for depicting the underwater archive we have identified as the ooze into which Prosperos book may or may not sink. The images it offers establish the involution of media required to render up the aquatic survivals that news of such drownings to view. Here, the retrieval is premised on a transstrans-species, bio/zoo-media specificity that trades on the things fish can and cannot say, rendering this historical cod, if there was indeed such a cod, a living dumbe speaking library in the sea (17). And such a hybrid zoo/bibliographical creature serves as an emblem for the kinds of effects generated in order to imagine the afterlife of Prosperos book after it has sunk. All sort of images taking shape now, the surface becomes a multiplex that represents back to us the partial, folded bio/bibliographical forms that recombine what The Tempest, by its ending, parts. Books and such rain down around us now sprung from Julie Taymors Tempest (2010) and Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1991) both of which figure the drowning of Prosperos book explore book in their own peculiar fashion. {~?~AU: Insert Figure 4.2} Figure 4.2a and c Drowning the book in Julie Taymors The Tempest (2010). Figure 4.2b and d Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1991). Prosperos Books In Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books, Prospero drowns his book, breaks his staff, and throws it in after the book. The title of the film is complicated, however, for it has a double referent to a book or shooting script of the film as well as to the film itself. In different ways, both the book and the film are unreadable: the film engages in a radical fetishism of the book macro- and microdmicro-dimensions, as if the film were made for an audience of book historians who had gone off their lithium and turned hardcore bibliomaniacs alert to subtle differences between filmed books and print books. Small differences that do not consistently differentiate books or parts of books are introduced through inversion, reversal, above and below the surface, open and closed books, inside the frame and outside it, and through open and closed books, inversion, reversal, doublings, pairings, sequence and serialization, and numerous books that are often unnumbered. The shooting scripts odd temporality, coming both before and after the film, its status as source text and as film paratext, makes it impossible to read the one as the source of the other. The shooting script may be said to archive the film, but if it does, it does so badly for the two fail to sync up. They are radically discontinuous, decoupled mediaeach, we might say, drowns the other. Indeed, it might be safest to say that in the film and the book, Prosperos books just keep on drowning. Drowning becomes, in effect, the preferred, engulfing mode of book use, the film migrating the biblioclash we located in the play into the multimedia circuits constituted by its doubled reference to a book and to a film. In the film, some books float on top of other books that have yet to sink. Some books are flotation devices, while others sink; one book sinks intact, while the pages of another are torn and disintegrating; sometimes pages froorm one of Prosperos inventoried and filmed books are superimposed over a material book with its pages open (See Figures 4.3, 4.4, 4.5). Some of the books float on the surface while others are shot from below the surface. Some shots show the entire book that has been thrown in the sea; others show a page or a detail of a page. They are destroyed not only through drowning, however, but also by fire, sometimes by spontaneous combustion, and by acid. The pages of the Folio are framed above a large book at the bottom of the screen floating on the surface of water. Drowning and burning books merge in this sequence. Yet the drowning sequence stops short of supplying an inventory of the books, as does the shooting script. {~?~AU: please insert figure 4.3} Figure 4.3 Bibliocide I: Montage of opening the book as destroying the book in Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1991). {~?~AU: Insert Figure 4.4} Figure 4.4 Bibliocide II: Montage of book destruction as burning, drowning, liquefying, disfiguration, and mutilation in Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1991). {~?~AU: Insert Figure 4.5} Figure 4.5 Bibliocide III: Prosperos lLibrary bBurns; Ariels handprints on Prosperos manuscript; Calibans book- burning fantasy in Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1991). Indeed, the narrative sequence of books being destroyed is interrupted by the last inventory taking of Prosperos books, arguably the most wild and unreadable of all in that it presents two conventional, bound books made of paper, one printed and the other handwritten, that we know therefore were published in forms they were never published. The last book is divided into two books: A Book of Thirty-Five Plays and a manuscript of A Play Called The TEMPEST. {~?~AU: Insert Figure 4.6} Figure 4.6 Shakespeares First Folio (1623) and Prosperos manuscript of The Tempest surface and are preserved in Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1991). There are thirty five plays in the book and room for one more, the narrator says; nineteen pages have been left for its inclusion right at the front of the book, just after the preface as the camera shows the First Folio page with the poem entitled To the Reader. (See Figure 4.6). The second of the two books then appears as the narrator says, And this is the thirty-sixth play, The Tempest. Though these books are recognizable, what the shooting script calls Prospero / Shakespeares books cannot be placed either in the narrative sequence of book destruction nor in an isolated, inventoried book. If The Tempest has been preserved, it has not yet been published. And, strictly speaking, neither has the First Folio as it appears in the film. Both books are not only props but also fac/fauxsmiles of books that do not exist. Though separately bound, the two materially distinct books are destined to be integrated into one book, itself a collection of books. Yet these two books can never be integrated as such since the First Folio will never have been published without The Tempest (its place is already marked despite the pages being blank). Moreover, they cannot be integrated in terms of authorship. The Folio has the initials W.S printed on the cover, but neither Prosperos name nor Shakespeares appears on the cover or the title page of the Tempest manuscript. Hence Prosperos book is irreducibly heterogeneous to Shakespeares Tempest; Prosperos unsigned manuscript cannot be added to Shakespeares, contained within it as a ghostwritten text. To be sure, The Tempest is imagined as something like a supplement to the Folio, but it is recovered only as a fantasy text that never existed in that form and which that perhaps resembles the lost manuscript of the play. The lLast shall be fFirst, we might say, but this prophetic destiny is destined, as it were, only because we know the lLast already was and was not there, the fFirst from the beginning, the F first Folio losing, before and after all, its handwritten sources. Such a voiding or looping of citation and practices of signing or countersigning a work are thematized throughout the film as quotations from the play, having become lines in the film, migrate between voice and image, morphing as they do so (see Figure 4.7). {~?~AU: Insert Figure 4.7} Figure 4.7 Self-citation gGone aAwry in Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1991). When the narrative sequence resumes after the last two books are inventoried, the already complicated distinction between destroying books and archiving them is further complicated by the manner in which they are preserved. The boundary between publication and unpublished materials comes under the most intense pressure. Caliban, though unnamed in the film, is said to have rescued these two books even though he had earlier rather urged that they be burned. However, we see Caliban surface, take the two books, and then diveing back under water rather than take them on to shore. We may wonder if Caliban didnt drown them once again. Some divers that loiter might have still other motives than Lamming suggests. Reading Underwater In Julie Taymors Miranda- centered The Tempest (2011), Prospera breaks her staff and, throws it into the sea (see Figures 4.2a and c), and then the film cuts to the end title sequence as the epilogue is sung by Beth Gibbons, accompanied by her British band Portishead (see Figure 4.9). Books begin to drop through the water, slowly falling down the screen. This ending speaks back very deliberately to the opening title sequence, known as an integrated title sequence because the title of the film does not precede it but is part of a prologue. Here Taymor meshes the title sequence seamlessly with a prologue about Miranda. After three- page production credits, the last including Miranda Films, Taymor begins the film with a single, long take of a close- up of a sand castle that starts to dissolve as rain begins. The camera remains stationary as the title, reduced to Tempest appears in glittery capital letters and then fades out (See Figure 4.8). {~?~AU: Insert Figure 4.8} Figure 4.8 Opening tTitle sSequence of Julie Taymors The Tempest (2010). The camera slowly dollies back to reveal a hand holding the melting castle and then pulls back further to reveal that the hand is Mirandas. After this single take integrating Miranda and the title, the film cuts to the shipwreck from her point of view. In Taymors Miranda-centric film, the shots of the shipwreck are intercut with shots of Miranda running at full speed in a state of alarm. Prospera is still raging when Miranda first addresses her. Here Taymor fills in a phantom ellipsis regarding the beginning of the play by placing Miranda where she is not and motivating her alarm about the fate of people who were on board the ship she has just seen wrecked. This is not The Tempest nor is it William Shakespeares The Tempest. It is suspended between the definite and indefinite article. Only in the end title sequence does Taymor reclaim The Tempest as the films title. The first end title is Directed by Julie Taymor followed by Adapted from the play by William Shakespeare, the referent of the plays full title still missing, an ellipsis most viewers will silently fill in, of course. At the end of the above- the- line credits, as The Tempest is followed by A Julie Taymor Film. Is Julie Taymors film a Tempest or The Tempest? Or is there a difference? In any case, the division between the partial title and the full title divides the film from itself and then spectralizes the film by adding an ellipsis and then filling it in. Taymor also integrates the end title sequence by reassigning the epilogue to a voice-over female singer. In the book The Tempest, published as a companion piece to the film, Taymor says she originally cut Prosperos epilogue from the film script but ended up restoring it: The films last image of Prospera on the ocean cliff, her back to the camera, tossing her magic staff to the dark rocks below, and the staffs subsequent shattering, is the ending. But when all was cut and timed and scored and mixed, the rhythm of the end of the film felt truncated, incomplete. I asked Elliott [Goldenthal] to take these last great words [the epilogue] and set them to music for the seven-minute-long end-title sequence. And to that haunting female vocal, sung by Beth Gibbons. The credits rolled and we drowned the books of Prospera in the deep dark sea. Taymors account of drowning the books is exceedingly brief, perhaps because she out-sourced it, as directors customarily do, in this case to Kyle Cooper, and does not, in our view, do it justice. We think the end title sequence deserves sustained critical attention even if most viewers do not watch end title sequences, leaving the theater before the film ends or ejecting the DVD or blu-rayBlu-ray disc before the film ends. The integrated epilogue creates a strange order of sonic effectwe listen to the decontextualized epilogue, not delivered by a character while reading the credits, and we wait until the credits are nearly finished to discover that the singer is Beth Gibbons. The books that float by are unreadable (see Figure 4.9). {~?~AU: Insert Figure 4.9} Figure 4.9a, b, c, and d End tTitle sSequence of Julie Taymors The Tempest (2010). The scene of drowning becomes a paratextual space on which the film writes its credits. The film takes the script as its writing surface, drowning the play in its own paratext. The fish eats the book. The vox or voces, eat the pages. But the books do not just sink. They undergo some further kind of transformationthe water animating them. The slowness with which they fall and the way pages of many of them open may remind some viewers of jellyfish. Moreover, they appear to breathe, letting off streams of bubbles, and it is not clear that they die. The seven-minute-long epilogue, or coda, as Taymor calls it, unfolds as a single take: the camera is submerged under water and, as the credits roll, we watch Prosperas books, not her book, fall serially and slowly through the ocean entering from the top of the shot and exiting from the bottom. Tiny air bubbles the size of bubbles a scuba diver would exhale from an diving tank pour out of each book, as if it were a bio/biblios, still alive and yet also a machine (Figure 4.9a). An air tank has also been placed below the shot and intermittently emits even more bubbles that float up around the books, as if the books we no longer see were exhaling. Drowning produces a bio/bibliographical remainder in the form of the bubble that is yet to rise to the surface and disappear into air, thin air. The epilogue continues in the end title sequence after the books have drowned and the credits below the line (text on an all- black background) scroll down just after the final credits. The sung epilogue ends just as the copyright credit appears. This much of the films end title sequence is conventional. Films made since the 1960s with two- part end title sequences typically end with a declaration of the copyright date and copyright holder. Taymors Tempest follows this convention, at least partly. After the below-the- line credits begin, just after the final credits The Tempest and a Julie Taymor film, books continue to fall, although less frequently (Figure 4.9b). Halfway through these titles, books stop falling altogether. However, Cooper adds an ending after the ending. He shows one last book, the largest by far of any we saw drown, after the below- the- lines credits end with the copyright. None of the books has a title or an author, and Prospera is never shown throwing any of the books in the ocean. This last book offers a condensed moment of biblioclash, however, in that it is the only book that is not intact. The temporality of its destruction is unclear: apparently someone had already torn out some pages, but that person or someone else then reinserted itthem. Some torn pages from the book have drifted off, others are falling out of it, and others remain reinserted. This book also stands apart from the others in that it is accompanied by a sound like wind blowing, a final moment of impossible audio in which the drowned book is blown off, so to speak. The book as a book, this large- scale book, is metonymic, we might say, of the drowned book as the sending off of the play, or in this case, the film, after it has already been seen off. Still emitting air bubbles, its unexpected last- minute return amounts to a reprieve: returning after the destruction of books appeared to have finished. The book is not yet dead, not unbound and yet not quite rebounding. The DVD and Blu-ray menus are designed in a way that may invite further reflection on The Tempest as a drowned book. Shots from the film are superimposed over the end title sequence shot of underwater, with bubbles rising and books falling, as if everything were occurring underwater. Some actors appear to be breathing underwater (Ffigure 4.9d). The images simply circulate while you make your selection, set up the audio, pick a language or opt out, and sneak a peek at things to come. In the tie-in screenplay book, the last two pages show a still taken from the films closing credit sequence of a book opening up after it has been plunged into the water with the production and cast credits superimposed over the left-hand page. In a paratextual space usually left blank, namely,namely, the inside back cover and facing page, the film credits for the director and actors are printed just to the left of an uncredited book falling though water, little bubbles surrounding it. The book of the film thus showcases a book displaying neither title nor author while simultaneously recording Taymor as the films author (asserted via her writer, director, and producer multiple credits here in combination with the Julie Taymor Adapted from the Play by William Shakespeare authorial designation on the volumes front cover): the interesting double move in which Taymor claims a kind of hybrid authorship, crediting Shakespeare as her source, appears and disappears as one turns the page and then, presumably, closes the book. Thou art inclined Art Inclined to sleepSleep Yawn! Sorry. But,But weve come over all sort of sleepy now. Wherever, whatever it was, we landed, book, radio, island, it seems to have gone dead or perhaps the sounds and images have just multiplied beyond the point that we can recognize them. Taymor and Greenaways films will no doubt provide the dream images for the sleep that is coming, a sleep that wakes to or understands The Tempest as a moment of bio/biblio/processing. Were fighting itbut this ooziness is so inviting. We thought we heard someone say that tis a good dullness (1. 2. 185). The voice whispers that its a giftand knows thou canst not choose (1. 2. 186). It aims to save us from all our questions and so now we watch from below as we find ourselves lulled to rest, our ignorance suspended, much like Mirandas in aAct one 1, scene two 2 when we meet her for the first time uncertain as to whetherwhether the storm is real or not (wonder or miracle or murder?). The play recruits us all, spectators to an event whose eventfulness we may not judge, read to us from a book in which we drown. Chapter 4 Chapter Five5 Anonymous / Anony/mess What happens when social science tries to describe things that are complex, diffuse, and messy[?]The answer, I will argue, is that it tends to make a mess of it. John Law, After Method: Mess in Social Science Research Arthur had jammed himself against the door to the cubicle, trying to hold it closed, but it was ill fitting. Tiny furry little hands were squeezing themselves through the cracks, their fingers were ink-stained; tiny voices chattered insanely. Arthur looked up. Ford! he said, theres an infinite number of monkeys outside who want to talk to us about this script for Hamlet theyve worked out. Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy So,So were awake. Feeling very refreshed, we must say (all that sea air). Never slept so soundly. Cant fathom it. Ready, in fact, to take on something that thus far we have avoided: the question of authorship, of who or what it was that is said to have written all those plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare. The candidates, you may remember, run as follows: William Shakespeare, the actor turned writer from Stratford-uUpon-Avon; Francis Bacon, the writer, scientist, philosopher, and statesman; Edward De Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, who has proved the most popular alternative candidate to Shakespeare since the 1920s. Then, of course, there are the outliers, the multiplied host of collaborators (Thomas Middleton, John Fletcher, and so on) as well as the other variously textual remains that now augment the contents of the First Folio and complicate matters further, such as the lost play, Cardenio, which was performed apparently by the Kings Men in 1613 and which may, in some shape or form, find itself archived in Lewis Theobalds Double Falsehood, or The Distrest Lovers (1728). Of course, in the case of Cardenio, things are a bit of a mess. No manuscript. No print record. No play. But,But still, the compulsion to return what goes or went missing (even if it did not) to its supposed source proves overwhelming. Such is the force to the bio/bibliographical yoking of texts and persons that the proper name become author or author function fixes in place, organizing, so to speak, successive relays in our archives, libraries, and imaginary realms. Such is the compulsion to bear witness, to serve as archon to the impression, the traces, the archive that the First Folio (1623) as monument and money/mint, to recall Ben Jonsons lines from his memorial to Shakespeare as bio/bibliographical entity. But that question of witnessing, of finding oneself recruited and so caught up in a massy, messy on-going transubstantiation of the bio/bibliographical proves exhausting. Theres just too much to do,; too much to consider,; too much still out there to be foundwhen we have the technology. Must the whole world, finally, bear witness, in Jonsons sense for Shakespeare to live on? John Miltons anonymous and untitled dedicatory poem On Shakespeare that appears in the Second Folio (1632) addresses this need, or the lack of a need, for a witness to Shakespeares name. Answering the question as to why Shakespeares lack of a pyramid for a tomb or Star ypointing pyramid to house his honourd bones poses no problem, Milton restates the opening line of the poem as a problem of witnessing before proceeding to spend the rest of the poem answering it: What needst thou such weak witnes of thy Name? Thou in our wonder and astonishment Hast built thy self a live-long Monument. For whilst to th shame of slow-endeavouring art, Thy easie numbers flow, and that each heart Hath from the leaves of thy unvalud Book, Those Delphick lines with deep impression took, Then thou our fancy of it self bereaving, Dost make us Marble with too much conceaving; And so Sepulcherd in such pomp dost lie, That Kings for such a Tomb would wish to die. Shakespeare does not need the weak witness of a pyramid for his name not only because of his fame but because the Folio is his tomb. Yet Shakespeares name is not self-evident; Shakespeare still needs a witness; or, his own witness (the Folio) recruits them. Milton posits a closed circuit in which the live-long Monument sustains itself by the flow of easie numbers (poems, poetic lines) that impress each reader. These numbers migrate from the leaves of the book to the minds and bodies of his readers as we come to serve as the substrate or backing, the wetware, to Shakespeare. But these readers are not all that different from pyramids. Our excessive receptiveness (too much conceaving) makes the reader an archive, a storage unit in which the Folio is sephulcherd as its deep impressions become as unreadable as the lines of his unvalued book. The impressions we take have the effect of killing off oour ownur fancy or imaginative powers. And so we become marble, tomb-like, immobile. The referent of sepulchered is slightly unmoored, referring to what, the circuit that the Folio forms between readers and numbers? Miltons anonymous sonnet implies that reading the Second Folio will not exactly constitute a witnessing of Shakespeares name since the reading or impression taking petrifies the witness. We become, if you like, a living tombbut as we do so we may not share Shakespeares sepulcher. We will die. And no one will remember. Milton portrays the reader of his poem as just another petrified, nameless remainder exteriorized by the book rather than a subject who interiorizes and maintains it. The Folio, then, becomes a crypt that encrypts its reader. As if responding to Heminges and Condells dedicatory poem to the First Folio, Milton glosses the meaning of reading Shakespeare againe and againe. The problem here is not, as far as we are, or Milton is, are concerned, the death of the author, or that writing is always posthumous. It is instead twofold: both that the proper name of the author needs a witness and that any witness, any reader who witnesses, ends up, thereby anonymous, and so becomes incapable of testifying. Witnessing then becomes a universal condition, a permanent present, being without event. You can begin to understand, therefore, the desire to posit another Shakespeare, to un/Shakespeare Shakespeare, by denying the necessary, formalizing link between the historical William Shakespeare (bios) and the bibliographical corpus of the First or Second Folios. Posit the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, or an an infinite number of monkeys as the author and you resre-shelve Shakespeare elsewhere, reconstituting an entire infrastructure. Oh what a massy mess! In this chapter, we approach these questionsthis conflict over what might be described as the quasi-Eucharistic function of William Shakespeare as a relay that couples aan historic historical person to a series of texts by way of a proper nameby way of Roland Emmerichs Anonymous (2011). Now,Now most, if not all, Shakespeare scholars may think that this film is just so wrong, so pernicious, so just plain tacky that it is not worth mentioning, much less discussing. In a way, we agree. The film is a mess. Yes, it is really a mess, even as it is not quite a miss, and much less than a Mass. We assume that very few of you reading this chapter haves seen the film, so weve watched it for you, so you wouldnt have to, or, perhaps, to induce you to watch it anyway, against your better judgment. You see, we think Anonymous does something very interesting with anonymity, and the ways itin which it does that something badly make the film especially interesting and worth critical scrutiny. Anonymous, as you may or may not recall, weaves a story of apparent conspiracy. Our Shakespeare, our Shakespeare, intones Derek Jacobi in the Broadway play with which the film begins, Not a single manuscript of any kind has ever been found written in Shakespeares own hand, and yet he remains, as do his plays, testimony to the heights of human expression. Jacobi proposes to tell another more interesting storyabout monarchs, nations, violence, and intrigue. We segue to London in and around 1599. Elizabeth I is old. Essex plots his regime change (or regime conservation if you favor Tudors over Stuarts). The Earl of Southampton takes his friend and mentor the Earl of Oxford to the public theater, which is promptly closed on order of the evil Cecils (senior and junior). Afterwards, as he referees a consolatory game of tennis between Southampton and Essex, Oxford asks how many people go to a single performance. Two thousand or so is Southamptons reply. Oxford does the math and registering the thought of reaching 10,000ten thousand souls all listening to the words of one man, tells Essex, thats powermore power than words. So,So Oxford writes a play, recruits Ben Jonson to stand as his cipher, in a perverse reversal of patronage, and his plays take to the stage, sponsoring Essex for King and subjecting the Cecils to a good trouncing in caricature. Along the way, we learn that Oxford wrote the epilogue to A Midsummer Nights Dream (159395) and played Robin Goodfellow (Puck) as a boy for an appreciative Elizabeth I, or Bess as she becomes. The two becomes lovers and produce a child, a son, who we later discover to be their child, the incestuous product, in fact, of their union, as Oxford is himself Elizabeths son. (We said it was a mess). By accident, and then increasingly by sleight of hand combined with drunken self-interest, William Shakespeare, then an actor, takes the stage as the author of all the plays and poems that Oxford writes. Shakespeare basks in the glory, the fame, and the money. He gets a coat of arms. He builds the Globe. He gets laid. All the while, the building of the Shakespeare monument / money/mint unfolds against an uncertainly chronological montage of the plays, which sync up to significant moments in Oxfords lifesuch as his rash murder of a servant or spy who hides behind a curtain in his chambers where he has been writing. Then a foster child to the Cecil family, Oxfords crime is concealedbut comes out on stage in Hamlets murder of Polonius, only this Polonius, so it seems, is recognizable by all and sundry as Sir Robert Cecil. Plots thicken. Elizabeth ages. James VI of Scotland covets the Tudor throne. Essex revolts and; fails; and Oxford dies, leaving Ben Jonson as his literary executor and sole witness to his authorship. Pursued to the Globe by Cecils men as they search for Oxfords manuscripts, Jonson sets off some fireworks that burn the theater down. Do the manuscripts survive? Were not exactly sure. The film ends showing us Jonson recover what appears to be a bundle of scorched but readable papers bearing the title Julius Caesar, but its not clear what else remains. Whats curious, we think, about the film is the way it repeatedly refuses to bear witness to Oxfords authorship even when showing him holding a quill, dipping it in ink, and writing words. Like the monkeys that beset Arthur Dent in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Oxfords fingers may be ink stained, but the act of writing remains tensely off camera, off stage, in the other room. In Anonymous, anonymity is not merely, like pseudonymity, a subset of onymity (name bearing), a clandestine or secret truth; anonymity is something else, a mess of writing that lacks not only a signature but also an I witness. Anonymous authorship is not reducible to a hidden proper name, nor is it just a mask behind which a unified agency operates strategically within a network that lacks any kind of unconscious or media-related interference or static. The film sponsors Oxford as the writer of the plays in what appears to count as a full- on Bbardoclasm, but then the film repeated refuses to bear witness to the fact of that writing. The hand that holds the quill that would break the icon, reveal it to be an idol, unfolds its fist, lets the quill that would cut figuratively go slack in its grip, and turns into what, in our previous two chapters we named a Bbardoclash, an uncertain, unreadable fitting or retarding of our relations to Shakespeare. We attend to Emmerichs film, then, in order to ask what happens to the archive, the witness, and the bio/bibliographical codes governing attribution and authorship studies when the word anonymous becomes both a title and a proper name. While Anonymous is readily personed by the filmwhen informed that there is a new play in London, Queen Elizabeth remarks, Anonymous? I love his versethe films successive refusals to connect person to page treats anonymity as a governing condition or state into which texts or an archive may fall. Deriving from the Greek anonymos, the word anonymous enters English as an adjective that accords very much with the second sense in which the film deploys the term, voiding or complicating thereby the nominalization of the word into the clandestine proper name Oxford. Where the film proceeds and delivers on an alternative Oxfordian renaming of Shakespeare and reare-attribution of the plays, it ruins its own act of naming, it withholds a sufficient witness, in Miltons sense, and leaves the archive a massy, messy, morass of paper and ash. Signature Secretions To begin, it is important to understand what kind of a film Anonymous actually is. It has been widely mistaken for a conspiracy thriller. But,But if Anonymous were a genuine conspiracy film, the title wouldnt be Anonymous. The title would name or refer to a person such as Edward de Vere, or his title, the Earl of Oxford. Emmerich could easily have adopted a variation of titles of Oxfordian books modeled on The Da Vinci Code such as Jonathan Bonds The De Vere Code (2009), Virginia M. Fellowss The Shakespeare Code (2006), and The Shakespeare Secret (2007), or precursors like Graham Phillipss book entitled The Shakespeare Conspiracy (1994) and an Oxfordian film of the same title directed by Michael Peer and narrated by Sir Derek Jacobi. Obviously, Emmerich chose not to do so. Unlike generic conspiracy thriller films such as The Da Vinci Code (2004), Anonymous presents no mystery to be solved. It remains always perfectly clear that tThe Earl of Oxford, not Shakespeare, wrote Shakespeares plays. There is no detective figure in the film, and nothing like detective work gets done. There is no Oxford Code, no Oxfordian version of the Fibonacci sequence or the Sir Francis Bacons bilbi-lateral cipher, no tomb, no gravestone, not even an unmarked grave (a scene of Oxfords funeral was cut from the film but is included as a deleted scene on the DVD). In our view, Anonymous is a disaster film, a disastrous disaster film, not a conspiracy thriller. If we regard Anonymous from an auteurist perspective, we can place it without much difficulty in line with earlier of Emmerichs science fiction, disaster blockbusters such as Stargate (1994), Independence Day (1996), The Day aAfter Tomorrow (2004), 10,000 B.C. (2008), and 2012 (2009). Although Anonymous might seem, on the face of it, to differ radically from these earlier sci-fi films, you might almost predict that would make Anonymous since most of these earlier films in many ways concern the archive and its destruction. Anonymous makes a critical advance on these films not only by turning the archive into a mess, a mess from which all attempts to derive a Mass, a relay by which to suture bios to bibliography, will remain partial, spectral, presence, but by archiving itself in ways that make it a catastrophic mess. We will not attempt to decide whether the film is, among other options, a brilliantly and finely executed mess designed to succeed at failing or just a messily executed mess that fails, fails again, fails worse. Please feel free to make yoour ownur call. Who/wrote/it? Anonymous uses the disaster film genre to figure anonymity as an archive, thereby scrambling the generic and forensic codes both of Shakespeare attribution studies and of the authorship debate. In our view, Anonymous indirectly puts deconstructive pressure on some uncritically held, assumptions that both Stratfordians and Oxfordians share about anonymous authorship, writing and other media, testimony, and the archive and that are funded by the genres of detective fiction and the conspiracy thriller. In the preface to Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare, for example, the confirmed Stratfordian James Shapiro remarks,: Much of what has been written about the authorship of Shakespeares plays follows the contours of a detective story, which is not all that surprising, since the authorship question and the whodunit emerged at the same historical moment. Like all good detective fiction, the Shakespeare mystery can be solved only by determining what evidence is credible, retracing steps, and avoiding false leads. My own account in what follows is no different. In the passage, Shapiro does our work for us by showing, albeit indirectly, that Oxfordians and Stratfordians differ only on the narrow issue of who the real author is. They share the exact same set of assumptions about the right way to reach that conclusion, a way that also deconstructs the distinction between legal detection and detective fiction. Any account of authorship in Shakespeares case will necessarily be one story among others. Critically unexamined binary oppositions between biography and autobiography, biography and bibliography, forgery and authentic text, history and fiction, secret and revelation, criminal and creative all may gradually be seen to self-deconstruct in that the author is already positioned as a criminal even before his or her work is discovered to have been forged. The seemingly central question of attribution studies, namely,namely, Who wrote it? ?bypasses more fundamental ontological and epistemological questions about authorship: who is the subject of the writing? (Does the subject have an unconscious? Is that unconscious already hard wired, a mystic writing iPpad?) And what kinds of writing bear the marks of a graphic unconscious? (Where does one draw the line between writing and drawing? Is writing reducible to alphabets, ideograms, hieroglyphs, and so on? Can cryptonyms be written in nongnon-graphic forms?) Hence,Hence attribution studies takes for granted that reading is limited without establishing what the limits of reading are. Thus, despite their sometimes vociferously stated differences, Stratfordians and Oxfordians agree on just about everything about the plays apart from the proper name of the author who wrote them: both sides agree that everything by either author is archived, that everything is readable, and that everything is to be read in relation to rules of evidence as established in detective fiction. For Stratfordians and Oxfordians alike, the archive is fully opertational, without what Derrida calls anarchivity, the violence of the archive itself, as archive, as archival violence, the radical destruction of the archive and the remains of what can never be archived, the ash of the archive.  We maintain that AnonynmousAnonymous is a radically anarchivic film in that it figures the archive as a total mess, as a set of texts that are always already finished and stored manuscripts in a library and yet that have also always already have been destroyed. bBoth fully present and available and yet always unavailable, always going up in smoke before your eyes, leaving you with nothing but a bunch of ash. Emmerichs disaster film turns anonymity into a graphic mess that cannot be cleaned up by viewers: at a number of points, it is not necessarily clear what may be recognized as a crux and even a cryptonym, as a graphic mark, nor is it always clear where the films paratexts draw a line dividing writing from drawing. What we will call various kinds of overwover-writing in Anonymous and its paratexts spill out in a surplus of writings, writing in overplus, writing that blots, scratches out, or stets items rather than accretes, sorts, and stores them in an economical, easily accessible, rational order. Under the heading of the archive, we put the related issues of media, data storage, inscription and preservation, erasure and destruction, the signature, testimony, and witnessing. The results can, as Milton warns, prove petrifying. Mess This Manuscript Around: In the Name of the Title We may begin to grasp concretely how Anonymous scrambles the generic and forensic codes of attribution and authorship studies by attending to the films confusion of the referent of the title, film or play. The opening title sequence conspicuously shows only the films title, not the stars and the director as opening title sequences typically do. Roland Emmerichs name appears only at the end of the film in the second- to- last shot. The last shot scrolls the rest of the credits. {~?~AU: Insert Figure 5.1} Figure 5.1a, b, c, and d Opening title sSequence of Roland Emmerichs Anonymous (2011). The opening title sequence also makes the referent of the films title momentarily uncertain. The title first appears on a theater marquee we see shortly after Derek Jacobi hastily gets out of a New York city taxi, presumably near Times Square (Figure 5.1a). (Perhaps in a humble fashion the film does not say if the theater is on 42nd Street or somewhere off-Broadway or perhaps even off-off-Broadway.) The exterior shot of the theater marquee then fades to black while leaving the same white letters in place (Figure 5.1b). This dissolve may produce at least momentary semantic confusion for some viewers. Is Anonymous the title of a play and the title of a film? An adaptation of an off-Broadway play youve never heard of before and wonder if you missed? In addition to this momentary confusion, some viewers may notice that the title on the marquee is a digitally produced special effect. The letters have a kind of spectral effect, the referent having been effectively blacked out in a way that is similar to black and white splotches on the film poster. Derek Jacobis familiar face, which refers back also to his Chorus in Kenneth Branaghs Henry V (1989) (Ffigures 5.1c and d) both calm and enervate the effect further. Perhaps even more anarchivically, Anonymous becomes something like a proper name. The anarachivity of the title sequence is writ large in Anonymous as a whole. The films narrative is structured by a paradoxical archive structured by two polar opposites: on the one hand, the archive is fully intact; on the other, and the archive is also destroyed. This opposition between the complete, preserved archive and its apocalyptic destruction, is neatly captured by two sets of archival scenes in the film: the first, de Veres library and wonder cabinet where nearly all, or apparently aall of ll, his plays have been written and stored; the second, Ben Jonsons rediscovery, near end of the film, of the singed manuscripts intact, not the more apparently opposite scene near the beginning of the film that shows these mansucriptsmanuscripts apparently burning up along with the Globe theater, an inference strengthened when Jonson shortly thereafter tells, while being tortured, tells Queen Elizabeths chief adviser Robert Cecil that the manuscripts all burned. We will examine the library scene first (Figure 5.2). Jonson visits de Vere after Shakespeare claims, after a widlywildly popular production of Henry V, that he is anonymous. Oxford takes several manuscripts down before settling on Romeo and Juliet and handing it to Jonson. {~?~AU: Insert Figure 5.2} Figure 5.2 Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxfords aArchive in Roland Emmerichs Anonymous (2011). The plays de Vere gives to Jonson and in a later scene gives to Shakespeare to perform on stage have already been written. When deciding which play to give Jonson, he pulls several notebooks off the shelves of a bookcase, opening each in turn to reveal a manuscript contained inside it. The title of each play de Vere holds and examines is shown in close- up. The anarchivity of de Veres archive is figured by the mess that fills out the mise-en-scene. To be sure, de Veres manuscripts, like the writings on his desk and rolled up in bowls, form an apparently highly disorganized archive;, de Vere, may nevertheless have organized it, in the fashion of many practicing academic scholars, in a way that only he knows. The limits of the archives anarchivic disorganization are not clear, however. The mess of papers testifiesy to the continual availability of the plays, of all the plays, even perhaps Cardenio, but only in the form of such a mess or morass of papers. We never get an index of the plays or anything approaching an inventory, only a later montage of Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, and the manuscript of a play he does not take down froorm the shelf, namely,namely, Hamlet. The film does not bother to establish whether Hamlet has already been written or was written after this scene. Richard II , the play revived for a special performance on the even of the Essex Revolt in 1599, turns into a staging of Richard III that permits the lampooning of Richard Cecil in the form of the hunchbacked Richard III. Knowledge of the plays unfolds literally and figuratively as a given. To make things more confusing, De Vere does not use a coherent filing system. The manuscripts are enclosed in identical leather folders, none of which is labelledlabeled. After quickly glancing at the title pages, De Vere throws the discarded manuscripts on a desk behind him instead of resre-shelving them, and it is not clear he has a back up copy of the Romeo and Juliet manusciptmanuscript he hands over to Jonson. We cant tell if the order of the plays de Vere pulls off the shelf is also the order in which de Vere composed, nor can we tell if de Vere was searching for Romeo and Juliet from the start or settles upon it after looking at the other manuscripts and discarding them one by one as unsuitable for performance. Nevertheless, the remnants of de Veres filing system are shown in two scenes, one in which De Vere, on his deathbed, is shown writing King Lear. As he closes the leather folder over a text we cannot read, a little piece of paper with the words King Lear written on it is visible stuck slipped into the manuscript like a Ppost-it note. The same kind of note appears when Jonson finds the manuscripts in the burned- down Globe theater. Jonson places a detached piece of paper with the words Henry V on top of the singed manuscript, as if the title were not only a filing label but something akin to a bandage or skin graft covering up the burns on the title page of the manuscript of Henry V (see Ffigure 5.3d). We take both poles of the opposition the film draws between complete and completed archive and its anarchivic deconstruction to be so unstable that the opposition self-deconstructs, or remains under construction. De Veres messy space we call, perhaps messily, an archival library approaches a paradoxical state: it appears to be complete, the manuscripts collected and shelved, written perhaps when he was a boy, given that he already at that point had written A Midsummer Nights Dream, or written perhaps before he was even born, given the incestuous emptying out of lines of filiation and reproduction in the play. The anarchivic force driving these questions about the archive emerges also in the titles of plays. Just before de Vere examines the manuscript of Romeo and Juliet, the camera cuts to Jonson peering over de Veres manuscripts and dropping on the title page of Twelfth Night. The shot is parallel to the close- up shots of the title pages of the manuscripts, making it seem to be one of a series and hence comparable to the completed manuscripts of which we also see only the title page. Has Twelfth Night been written? Or is yet to be written? If it is in progress, is it any further than the title page? (We will return to the writing on this particular page.) The opposite number of the archival library scene is not, as one might reasonably expect, the anarchivic destruction of de Veres manuscripts the viewer is initially meant to think were burned along with the Globe theater but Jonsons recovery of the manuscripts, an event we see in the second narrative frame of the film; the most anarchivic scene is paradoxically the one in which Jonson recovers intact the de Vere manuscripts hed stored in a fireworks box he emptied out while hiding underneath the stage of the Globe theater while evading Cecils guards (Figure 5.3). {~?~AU: Insert Figure 5.3} Figure 5.3a, b, c, and d Ben Jonson rRetrieves the aArchive in Roland Emmerichs Anonymous (2011)or does he?). Jonson opens the box, the contents reflecting light from the inside of the lid on Jonsons face, as is he were looking at a computer screen, or perhaps as if he were opening the ark recovered by the Nazi archaeologist at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark (Figure 5.3a). On top of Oxfords singed but intact manuscripts Jonson finds Henry V. The recovery of the manuscripts leads to the immediate reanimation of Henry V, the first play we see performed in the film in the form of a montage, albeit that the Prologues voice rather than music provides the continuity between shots (Figure 5.3b and c). The extinguished fire in the globe catches flame in the words O for a muse of fire. As when we first saw the play, the Chorus is speaking the first lines of the prologue Henry V, dressed just as he was before; the newly crowned King James watches the play being performed at court and engages Robert Cecil in a conversation about theater as the Chorus continues in voice-over to recite the prologue sotto -voce, including a shot of Shakespeare back stage watching James watching Henry V. While this montage sequence effectively renanimatesreanimates de Vere by repeating the same play, it is somewhat confusing. The shot of the Chorus appears initallyinitially to be a shot of him in the Globe; only after we see King James do we realize that the ChrousChorus is performing on a royal stage. Furthermore, the montage leaves some holes in the totally recovered archive unfilled. We are left to wonder, for example, how Jonson or someone elsethe printer, perhaps?lost the manuscripts, especially since de Vere personally gave them to Jonson and told him to watch over them. MoroeverMoreover, Jonsons reliability is put into question by Robert Cecils mistaken conclusion that Jonson speaks the truth when saying the manuscripts were burned. Since Jonson immediately goes to the theater in search of the manuscripts, he must have been lying, however. And Jonson only creates further problems in witnessing their recovery. The Prologue had pointed out in the first narrative frame that Shakespeare left no manuscripts behind. Yet since there are no manuscripts for any of the plays and poems in the Shakespeare canon, we may wonder how and why these manuscripts went missing. So the archive winks in and out of being, in out of the shot. Both there and not there, a given to be assumed but not fully screened. It figures as pure potentiality that nevertheless constitutes a done deal, to be linked to successive proper names as indexed at one time or another to aan historic historical person. But the film then messes this structure up further in two distinct ways that we shall describe. It amps up the radical anarchivity of the condition of anonymous authorship in scenes that figure the archive in thematic and generic ways, as more or less messy kinds of writing that we saw in the messy library scene above: these figures include the proper name and the title, with respect to the medium of paper, the circulation of handwritten manuscripts and published works, and the medium of stage performance, witnessing, wills, and legacies. These archival figures appear in the films representations of Oxford composing, reciting works, signing his work. But beyond such thematic and generic involutions, the linear plotting of the film disturbs any timeline on which we could clearly and easily place the events as the film narrates them. Excessive formal repetitions constitute a specific kind of messy anarcharcity, an anarchivity that disrupts the capacity of Anonymous itself to serve as an archive of de Veres authorship. If, for Derrida, the archive is oriented to the fuuture, not to the past, to a set of operations for disseminating the past in various presents, Anonymous uses repeated shots, text giving the time, not the date, during which the action is set, and flashbacks in ways that disrupt the coherence of all grammatical tenses. The linear narrative the film tells, or tiries to tell, in nonlnon-linear fashion through the use of flashbacks, is contantlyconstantly disoriented by cinematically incoherent shifts in time. While certain kinds of formal repetitions in Anonymousthe two narrative frames that bookend the film and; the same shot used to begin flashbacks that different characters have, among othersmay be characterized as obsessive, they never attain a signature effect that would authorize them as properly meaningful. They are not compulsively repetitive, in Freuds words, neither fully Fort nor Da, and so they end up proving to be neither here nor there, just gone. Shakespeare Unsigned We proceed with our focus on thematic archival figures of what we take to be the fully paradoxical and self-deconstructing, messy, anarchivity of anonymous authorship in Anonymous, an anarchivity that reaches through storage spaces like de Veres library or Jonsons fireworks box to the paratexts in the film, such as the titles of de Veres unsigned manuscripts, the titles of posters and playbills, media, names, signatures, and so on. While the posters for Twelfth Night, Romeo and Juliet, Hamlet, and Macbeth all include the name William Shakespeare, no other work in Anonymous bearing a title we recognize as Shakespeares bears any signature whatsoever. Similarly, neither the title page nor the cover of the published Venus and Adonis bear Shakespeares name, even though Oxford tells Shakespeare in the scene immediately preceding the scenes of the printing of the poem, Shakespeare reading, and two ladies in waiting reading it aloud, he, Shakespeare, has had a poem published today. When Shakespeare reveals to the crowd that he is Anonymous, Shakespeare also reveals his own anonymity with respect to publication. The props he holds are an ink quill and a prompt book; we never see a book with his name on it. The book cover of Venus and Adonis is not shown and cannot be seen until the scene ends with one of two ladies in waiting caught reading it aloud by Elizabeth handing it over to her. Sometimes paratextual information drops out. When the older Elizabeth talks to the younger Cecil about Anonymous writing Venus and Adonis for her in a later scene, the books title is seen in middmid-distance at first, then gradually falls out of the frame as the shots of Elizabeth holding it become tighter and tighter close-ups. Anonymous goes consistently from showing texts authored by de Vere with no name on them to texts not authored by Shakespeare with his name on them. Shakespeares name may appear on posters, but not on books. Scenes involving names in manuscripts prove even more dizzying than names on printed texts. Manuscripts screened are virtually illegible. Consider scenes involving a signature (Figure 5.4). {~?~AU: Please Insert Figure 5.4} Figure 5.4a, b, c, and d Shakespeares sSignatures in Johns Maddens Shakespeare in Love (1998) and Roland Emmerichs Anonymous (2011). Anonymous includes a scene in which Oxford does write a signature on a piece of paper. However, the name he signs is not his (Figure 5.4c). As if intending to recall the opening title sequence of Shakespeare in Love, Oxford signs Shakespeares name on a blank page. The title Shakespeare in Love appears on the screen in red ink as if invisibly handwritten, moving from left to write (Figures 5.4a and b). The title of the film appears over a close- up of Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) continued to cover the second of two pages with his signatures, each time using different abbreviations for William, many of them crossed out. The shot with the title Shakespeare in Love ends when Shakespeare writes Will Shakespeare. As if taking up where Shakespeare in Love left off, Anonymous shows Oxford writing Will Shakespeare after hes had a visit from Ben Jonson (Figure 5.4c). Oxfords wife enters as Jonson leaves him, and Oxford, still writing, holds out his hand as if to say please wait just a second, Ive almost finished. The next shot shows him rewriting his signature as William Shake-Speare, finishing by carefully inserting a hyphen between Shake and Speare (Figure 5.4d). Oxfords invention is not a forgery (Oxford is not copying Shakespeares signature, and apparently Shakespeare cant sign his own name). It is never shown on the title page of any of Oxfords works (they are all unsigned, as we have seen). And Shakespeares last name is deformed, its syllables separated into words and thereby turned into a pun. Beyond its function within the scene, the shot of Oxford putting the hyphen between Shake and Speare might be read as an animated emblem for the recursiveness of the films narativenarrative structure: Oxford finishes his signature, by going back from the end from the last e at the end to the middle and writing the hyphen from left to right. Furthermore, Oxford finishes not with a letter but with a puncutationpunctuation mark, dividing up into words that stop short of the word play Oxfordians find in Shakespeares name, or supposed pseudonym) (Shake becomes a verb and speare becomes a noun). Yet no scene in the film stands as its master emblem since it can be shown to repeat in some way an earlier scene or anticipate its repetition in a later scene. Another emblem of authorship might be the shot of the title page of Twelfth Night, on Oxfords desk furtively spied by Jonson as Oxford takes down finished plays from his library shelf. This page shows Twelfth Night written near the top and crossed out with a single, continuous strike-through, followed by What You Will in smaller size below, and Twelfth Night at the bottom written exactly as it is crossed out near the top of the page. The page, which is only momentarily visible when viewed, as the film plays 24 frames a second (or its digital equivalent), renders it a genetic critics fantasy come true. Unlike an animated signature or a palimpsest, the page is a record and archive that shows in transparent, linear fashion, from top to bottom, left to right, the history of Oxfords revisions. Yet, like Oxford finishing with a hyphen, the revised text loops back from bottom to top: Oxford apparently changed his mind and went back to his original title. Moreover, the revised title page leaves the title and subtitle in reverse order: What You Will is the title, Twelfth Night the subtitle. If Oxford got around to retitling it (the poster for the play shows Twelfth Night, but not Or What You Will), then we might say that Anonymous has no will, to archive, or, put somewhat differently, has a will to will-lessness. Drawing the Line Anonymous seems wedded then to an economy of diminishing returns that erases authorship in general and makes writing in general anonymous. Rather than revealing a particular author, we may notice that Anonymous also subjects the opposition between the true author named de Vere and the fake author named Shakespeare to anarchivic deconstruction. When it comes to signing ones name, Shakespeare is just as anonymous as de Vere. The film refuses to stick to its (historically unfounded) distinction between illiterate actors and literate dramatists. (Shakespeare wants the play role of Romeo, but Jonson tells him Keep off the stage. Writers do not have time to act.). Although Emmerich portrays Shakespeare as an opportunist and blackmailer, even strongly implying that he murdered Marlowe, the film slightly hedges its bets when it comes to the question of whether Shakespeare can write at all. After Shakespeare puts in an appearance at the Mermaid Tavern feeling very proud at being able to show his theatrical colleagues the design and motto for his newly bought coat of arms. Jonson testily translates non sanz droict as Not without right and thinks he can expose Shakespeare as an illiterate, a supposed dramatist who is unable to write even a single letter or even a mark like an X as his signature. (Jonson first suggests that Shakespeare write e then iI, its a straight line; but Jonson thereby exceeds the limits of alphabetic writing and crosses over into drawing; moreover, Jonson gives Shakespeare a quill but not ink even though the film has many scenes with ink, paper, and quills). No ink, says Shakespeare, off the apparent hook, and shoves the paper and quill Jonson has handed him back at Jonson, and walks out, thereby answering the Prologues (Derek Jacobi) rather rhetorical questions about Shakespeares illiteracy in the affirmative. The same kind of thematic erasure of the proper name is repeated elswehereelsewhere in the film a number of times. Oxfords Shake-Sspeare signature, or forged signature, or drawing of a signature, or word play, is only the icon or emblem of a more general erasure. Instead of a crime scene investigation, the film presents us with anarchivic texts that have unidentifiable authors. One scene showing Oxford finishing writing the manuscript of Richard III makes it perfectly clear that Oxford wrote it. Oxford does not finish the play in a conventional manner, however. The last word he writes before turning the manuscript over is Amen, not Finis. Even scenes in which we see Jonson and Oxford writing, what they are writing or have written is often illegible. For example, Oxfords second flashback includes a scene of him as a young man writing, which that begins after hes just had sex with a lady-in-waiting named Bess. As in the film poster, Oxford and his writing are consistently obscured: we dont see who is having sex, nor do we see the man writing in the next two shots, one of him from behind follows before the film cross-cuts close-ups of a lady-in-waiting sitting on the bed talking to Oxford, who is writing at his desk. When we finally do see that it is Oxford writing, we cannot make out what he is writing. Examples of erasure can be easily multiplied. In the economy of evidence and analysis that governs literary criticism, to provide more examples would generally be counterpcounter-productive since a law of diminishing returns, or less is more, would mean that more examples would be redundant. But given the mess that is Anonymous, and given the way we take its replaying of the question of authorship and the function of anonymity within the medium of film, we want to give a few more examples of the the archives anarchivity in Anonymous in order to demonstrate as precisely as possible the films own anarchivic economy of diminishing returns. In an earlier scene that pointedly recalls the scene in Hamlet when Hamlet murders Polonius, Oxford kills a man hiding behind a tapestry who had been spying on Oxfords writings and spilled ink on part of a manuscript page after purloining a few pages. The film renders the legible parts of the paper with spilled ink unreadable by shooting the page upside down. As the spy dies, he comes out from behind the curtain and lets the pages he has stolen fall on the ground. But we never see or learn what they are or if his theft of those pages in particular has any significance. One of the more enigmatic scenes of writings occurs on de Veres deathbed. After a long shot of him writing, the film cuts to a close- up of what he has been writing. The only thing is that the page as already been written. All we see de Vere is make a very short line next to a word, a mark that bears no resemblance either to an alphabet or to numbers. The shadow cast over the page makes it impossible to read even when played on a blu-rayBlu-ray. The film cuts almost immediately to de Vere folding a leather cover over it. Similar problems appear when other writing desks are shot in close- up and playwrights are shown writing in close- up. For example, a letter sealed with wax has been filed upside down in Cecils writing desk. In an almost parallel close-up shot, Jonsons hand crumples up sheets of paper on which he has crossed out nearly every line of a page of a new (untitled) play he has been writing, and tosses them away in frustration. Even when Jonson presents Henslowe with a completed manuscript he hopes the Lord Chamberlains Men will perform, he does not mention the title or summarize the plot, nor does the manuscript cover have a title or name on it. Shakespeare does not blot a line since he cant write one, but everyone who can write in Anonymous crosses out more lines than not. Again along very similar lines, other major characters refuse to sign documents. For example, Elizabeth Robert Cecil tells the apparently demented, aged Elizabeth seen sucking on the index finger of her right hand, I have brought you something to sign, your majesty. Its the Act of Succession and then commands her to sign., Sshe first reads the document in a close-up, points to her name, Elizabeth Rex written in conspicuously large letters and extravagantly surrounded by numerous calligraphic flourishes, and then, after cutting to a reaction shot of Cecil, pointing to Jamess name in the same position and same size lower down the document, shot in a parallel close- up. Rather than sign, Elizabeth grabs the parchment document out of Cecils hands and flings it at the camera. The film then cuts to a helicopter shot of her funeral, thereby suggesting that Elizabeth did and did not sign -off. Instead of showing characters signing documents, Anonymous includes a number of sequences of fingers pointlessly pointing at names or words. The shots of Elizabeth pointing at her name and Jamess name recalls similar shots of Shakespeare pointing at each of the words Non sanz droict, pointing and of the two posters for Hamlet in which we see a hand pointing an index finger at a the words The Lord Chamberlain in the poster on the right. Rather than giving a signature, the film highlights Elizabeths finger: after sucking on it, she points first to her name and then, two shots later, points to James VIs name, in somewhat less fancy handwriting, before throwing the parchment toward the camera in a final act of defiance. (The title of the document, Act of Succession, is almost buried under Elizabeth Rex, set off to the left in smaller size below the name.) In these ways, among others, Anonymous refuses to attach signatures to texts and the titles of literary works to the proper names of authors. The result seems a strategic projection of anonymity throughout the archive, an anony/mess. Such effects are magnified and complicated further by the films paratexts. In addition to the erasure of the proper name in the trailer and poster we discussed above, additional paratexts of Anonymous extends the anarchivity of anonymity to include the disrupting boundaries between writing and drawing. Consider the theater lobby poster for Anonymous: the same image with slightly different text is used on the cover of the DVD, blu-rayBlu-ray, and pictorial moviebook, Anonymous: William Shakespeare Revealed (2011), the film trailer, and the DVD and blu-rayBlu-ray menus. {~?~AU: Insert Figure 5.5} Figure 5.5a, b, and c Poster and trailer for Roland Emmerichs Anonymous (2011).Shakespeares Signatures in Johns Maddens Shakespeare in Love (1998) and Roland Emmerichs Anonymous (2011). The poster generates suspense well enough, but without making any reference to Oxford (Figure 5.5a). The title of the film presumably answers the question Was Shakespeare a Fraud? Since the man in the image has turned his back to us, we cannot determine whom the man holding the quill, presumably Anonymous, the real author, is supposed to be. Instead, the quill that does not write, that stands aloft like some dysfunctional manicule or index, seems to have discharged its ink on the image itself, though the ink appears to have coalesced into the inky figure of the man who holds the quill. As we have begun to see, Anonymous makes the paratextual link between author and writing unreadable in a surprisingly number of different ways, ways we now want to. Here, the writing that does and does not occur in the film returns or precedes as a mode of plus-size writing. By plus-size writing we mean not only that some writing covers over other writing, but that it figures a graphic surplus that extends beyond alphabetic writing. The black ink splashed on the white background is clearly not text at all. Yet the poster also puts into question the boundary between writing and painting. It is not even clear whether the medium is ink or paint (Figure 5.5a and b). Are the black splotches a kind of figurative writing meant to be read even if they do not form letters? Are they a kind of blotting done by the man holding the quill? The lobby poster literally stages a graphic image, an ink blot test. Who do you hallucinate in the archive? How do you transubstantiate this mess into a Mass? But the interpretive density and confusion enabled by the posters lack of parergonal closure may perhaps best be registered in the way the reader of the poster implicitly occupies the same position as would the implied person who splashed the man in the poster with white ink. To read the image is to deface it, to write or paint over it figuratively, to create a new surface that blanks out the connection between writer, writing, and signature. What is the condition of this unreadability? Plus-size writings, none of which override the others and that together which do not form a palipmsestpalimpsest in the films baroque hall of broken mirrors. Taken together, the graphic design of the Anonymous poster, the film trailer, and the design of the DVD animated menu constitueconstitute an example the films archiving of its own procedures. The trailer for Anonymous effectively animates the posters graphic design. Shots from the film are intercut with shots of text that begin with black ink splashing on a white background in slow motion as a loud percussive swoosh sound effect that matches the image of ink splashesing on the screen. The shot of ink after Essex is beheaded suggests that what looked like ink is now Essexs spurting blood. The medium is fluid. As in all trailers, the text is anonymous. But writing remains anonymous through the trailer: in the first shots, close- ups show the hand of someone writing. Later shots of Oxford do not show him writing. Nor do we see anyone else we can match to the close- up shot of a hand writing on paper on a desk. Such then are the epitexts, as Gerard Genette calls them, to Anonymous. The DVD and Blu-rays similarly have animated menu loops, and Anonymous is no exception. The menu loop develops the graphic design of the poster and trailer. A line of black ink spreads into pools that show part of a shot from the film in black and white before it turns into color. In this case, the line is easy to follow even though, as in all menu loops, the images constitute an abstract montage of shots from the film. Each splash of ink makes progressively recognizable, usually as a face or a manuscript. The DVD extra entitled Who Is the Real William Shakespeare? recuts the first four shots of of the trailer, inserting a few additional shots between them, before showing the title written in the same style of splashed ink that appears in the films other paratexts we have examined thus far. It goes further than they do, however, in suggesting that the line from one point to another has no logic to it and leads nowhere, literally taking the viewer in an endless circle. Flash Flood Such looping or circling figures also in the films use of flashbacks, which do not quite round on themselves, disturb narrative coherence and make history something not reducible to a clear linear narrative. Many films, not just films in remote historical periods, begin and end with flashbacks in bookend fashion: Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, 1944), Sunset Boulevard (Billy Wilder, 1950), and D.O.A. (dir. Rudolph Mat, 1950) are well-known examples. (Lost Weekend ends by repeating the first shot of the film in reverse.) Flashbacks in Hollywood films typically have the main character narrate the events, usually in voice-over, to help the audience understand how the film transitions from to the story in the story and out of it. Anonymous is exceptional, however, in the number of flashbacks it uses. Hollywood narrative films and contemporary narrative films that follow their conventions typically have one flashback sequence involving one character. Anonymous has fours sequences, and they involve four different sequences. Moreover, each flashback is shot in very similar fashion: each begins with a close- up of the person having the flashback as words spoken by someone in voice-over heard are repeated and given an echo effect to indicate that the person on the screen is tuning out the diegetic present. According to Hollywood narrative conventions, a flashback should return to where it began; logically, we should return to the older Elizabeth to complete the sequence. But we dont. In fact, none of the flashback sequences return to where they began. In the case of Elizabeth watching A Midsummer Nights Dream, an extradextra-diegetic parallel between the actresses playing the older and younger Elizabeth, Vanessa and Joley Redgrave, may provide some viewers a sense of continuity: Vanessa Redgrave is Joley Richardsons mother. Instead of returning to the present at the end of flashback forty years earlier, the film cuts abruptly to an entirely new plot development, the time and place of which we have to infer. Some flashbacks are even more disorienting in being internally incoherent. After Jonson tells Shakespeare he cant play Romeo, we cut to a performance of Romeo and Juliet with the leads performing the holy palmers sonnet during the Capulet ball scene. Skipping ahead, the film cuts to Oxford in close- up, sitting in the balcony and watching the performance. His flashback begins as we hear Romeo I neer saw beauty til this night and ends as the film cuts to a high- angle shot of the young Elizabeth dancing with the young Oxford dancing at a ball presumably being held in her honor. The flashback seems to be intentionally confusing as Romeo and Juliet disappears entirely. Elizabeth first compares Oxford to Henry V and then to Puck, the role he actually plays in the performance she sees as a young woman (when Oxford is nine years old). But that happened in a completely different flashback the older Elizabeth had. Jonsons flashback during his interogationinterrogation is incoherent in another respect. It flashes -fforwardsorward precursively, as it were, to an event we will see again later in the film but shot very differently: Jonsons flashbacks transition to two unspecified moments in the past: the flashback consists of five shots, the first two of which briefly show an audience laughing in a theater ends and the last three and longer shots show Shakespeare taking a bow. Anonymous never makes clear what role Shakespeare played in the play the audience is applauding, or what the play was, or when it was performed. As if inverting the conventions of a conspiracy thriller like Oliver Stones J.F.K. (1991), in which mourning John F. Kennedy takes the form of finding his true assassins, Anonymous does not focus on one character, in this case Oxford; rather, the film clarifies, by proceeding obliquely, the condition of mourning an author whose name cannot be named, namely,namely, that the narrative not be reducible to a biopic, that the story not be a biography of one character or his or her bio/bibliography. What is in many respects a simple linear narrative that Anonymous tells gets regularllyregularly derailed due to the films excessive recursiveness, its almost virtuoso display of different semiotic orders to establish parallels through repetition and using the use of different thresholds of legibility when doing soin repetition. The shot of Shakespeare watching James watch Henry V at court repeats almost exactly an earlier shot of Oxford watching Elizabeth watching A Midsummer Nights Dream at court. In addition to employing very similar shots to set up flashbacks and formal repetitions of the same shots with different characters, Anonymous deconstructs its two narrative frames. As do many historical films and biopics, Anonymous uses a narrative frame with Derek Jacobi playing the Prologue in the beginning and end of the film. The ending recalls the beginning in order to provide narrative closure. In Anonymous, formal repetitions recall not just one earlier moment, but also a network of relays between earilerearlier moments that also recall other moments. There are two narrative frames in Anonymous, the second concerning Ben Jonson and the fate of de Veres manuscripts, but both the beginning and the ending of this frame bleed into the narrative of film itself, confusing events that happened in the past and with events that are happening in the present. The Collect Call So how should we understand the mess that anonymous locates in and as its archivean archive that it screens, so to speak, that it constitutes as its cinematic object? In a lively essay about variations on anonymity in modern and early modern culture, Kate Tunstall introduces the telephone book to illustrate a distinction between authored and unauthored books: The name of the author is a crucial element in todays publishing world: the reader expects to see it on the book cover; it is key to the publishers marketing strategy; and indeed what the author is hoping for in publishing his work is to make, precisely, his name. Or at least, that is the case for most books. We would not, for instance, consider the phone book to be anonymous. It may be full of names but the fact that it bears no authorial name on its cover does not make it anonymous, and that is because it does not so much lack an authorial name as raise no expectations that there might be one to publish or, consequently to withhold. Thinking about anonymity thus provides a new way of approaching Foucaults question Quest-ce quun auteur? The phone book does not have an author, and so, like the blank wall, it is not so much anonymous as, we might say, un-authored. Extending our analysis of Hamlets telephone, we want to put Tunstalls distinction between authored and unauthored books under deconstructive pressure: anonymity does indeed have a telephonic structure, but that structure is not reducible to a proper name and the lack of a proper name; rather, the anonymous telephonic relay network provokes the question Whos there? (Is anyone, in fact, there?) and divides what otherwise may be presumed to be the indivisibility of authorship (who is writing?), and with it any notion of attributing an indivisible piece of writing to an indivisible writer via an indivisible medium. If U.S.US corporations are people, my friend, as Republican canidatecandidate for U.S.US President president, Mitt Romney put it in 2012, and if corporations own copyright of the text, they are also authors that are also collective authors. The last credit of the end title sequence of the DVD extra Who Killed Shakespeare? on Anonymous lists SONYSony PICTURES HOME ENTERAINMENT Pictures Home Entertainment as the author of the film. Unauthorized duplication perhaps takes on new meaning here. In an unusually long footnote in The Post Card, Derrida recounts the story of a collect call that indirectly makes clear an archival problem related to this kind of telephonic network having to do with name of the caller, a caller who may be dead. The call was placed by a Martini Heidegger. Its a call Derrida decides not to accept: And Freud has plugged into the answering machine of the Philebus or the Symposium. The American operator interrupts and scrambles: Freud is not paying enough, is not putting enough quarters into the machine. The great symposium, right, the gag on Europe, Eros in generalized telephonic relation. The demon calls, Socrates picks up, wait heres Freudand the demon speaks to Freud, directly, from the beyond, like his ghost which says to him wait, hold on, come back with your spool, dont hang up, heres Heidegger. Myself I tender Heidegger to the pupil: hold on, take, understand, and me along with it, and me first, you too (wait a minute, on to tenderwhat one does, tenders, when one says hold on, there is the thought of the reichen, to porrect, porringer that translators on Heideggers French switchboard sayand here I take it as porridgeon to tender, therefore, to send, to destine, schicken, etc. Zeit und Sein [Time and Being]will have had the power of (knowing) (thinking) plugging everything back in, to think plugging everything back in, all the (a)ways of making ones (a)way, every possible Weg [way], before the Being and time that there is (es gibt) on what there is to give. Derrida notes the date and time of the collect call from the ghost or Geist of Martin. He got the collect call from the United .States., he says, from Martin (she says Martine or Martini) Heidegger. Of course, if it were Heidegger on the line, he would have been callngcalling from beyond the grave. Derrida confronts the problem of being his sole witness, of proving that he actually got this call. He knows he will be suspected of making it all up since it is too good to be true. But what can I do? Derrida continues, claiming, within a book in which he pointedly dares others to prove it, that there are witnesses: It is true, rigorously, from start to finish, the date, the content, etc. Heideggers name was already written after Freud, in the letter that I am in the course of transcribing on the typewriter. This is true, and moreover demonstrable, if one wishes to take the time of inquiring: there are witnesses and a postal archive of the thing. I call upon these witnesses (these waystations between Heidegger and myself) ) to make themselves known. All this must not lead you to believe that no telephonic communication links me to Heideggers ghost, as no more than one other. On the contrary, the network of my hookups, you have the proof of it here, is on the burdensome side, and more than one switchboard is necessary in order to digest the overload. Derridas account of witnesses clearly does not jive with the legal understanding of witnesses in large part because of uncertainty both about the proper name of the caller and about whether the caller is alive or dead. Its not clear whether he has received a call or a crank call. Did the American telephone operator mispronounce the name of the caller who was waiting on the other end of the line and presumably listening to the conversation between the operator and Derrida? Does the fact that Derrida was transcribing Heideggers name matter? In Derridas terms, the condition of anonymity is something like this order of collect call. Its spectral. You never know whos on the line, whos waiting for you, whether the call is serious or a crank. Even as we write, if you have caller I.D. on your telephone or cell phone, you may read the words caller, unknown caller, or name withheld when checking to see who is calling you. And what Derrida calls the archive authenticating the call, the impossibility of proving that he really is not making it all up, is always in need of management, the archive taking a medial form of posting, of written records of calls made and received. If the caller is a phantom referent, the phantom is also anonymous, only plausibly identifiable. Weak Witness To our account of anonymity as telephonic, we wish to add that onymous authorship dependswithout knowing iton a weak notion of witnessing. The authors proper name, whether a handwritten signature or typewritten, always implicitly serves as a witness, as if the name were testifying to the fact that a person with a given proper name is without question the author of a given text. In Demeure: Fiction and Testimony, Derrida complicates an understanding of witnessing that opposes both live to recorded testimony and fiction to testimony. Derrida maintains that the law necessarily proceeds on the assumption that testimony is given by a witness who is a fully present living person. For to testify, Derrida writes, the witness must be present at the stand himself, without technical interposition. In law, the testimonial tends, without being able to succeed in this altogether, to exclude all technical agency. One cannot send a cassette to testify in ones place. One must be present, raise ones hand, speak in the first person and in the present, and one must do this to testify to a present, to an indivisible moment, that is at a certain point to a moment assembled at the tip of an instantaneousness that must resist division. If that to which I testify is divisible, at that moment it is no longer reliable, it no longer has the value of truth, reliability, or verifiability that it claims absolutely. (2000, 3233). Even if Shakespeare could testify at a trial about his authorship, his word would be just that, his word, his side of the story. And since he cannot testify, there is no getting around detective fiction when examining his authorship or de Veres now. All attempts to settle this particular score must somehow navigate the mess that is the authorship question. Witless How then should we process the mess that is Anonymous? It is tempting to offer it up as some order of cinematic Trauerspiel (mourning play). The films doubly nested narrative frames, multiple flashbacks, and baroque mirrorings make who or what is being mourned impossible to I.D. Accordingly, the film could be salvaged as an explicit ruination of allegory, an emptying out of the codes of authorship as they fund its anonymous morass. The film itself makes mourning a maudlin affair. There is no mor(gu)e, no remainder even of a storage container. Nothing like stone is rolled back by de Veres acolytes; there are no memorials, ; only images destined for successive audiences that film might be said, following Milton, to petrify. The soundtrack, derived from like Chinese action films such as Ashes of Time (dir. Wong Kar Wai, 1994), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (dir. Ang Lee, 1994), Hero (dir. Yimous Zhang, 2004), and The House of Flying Daggers (dir. Yimous Zhang, 2004), and turns Anonymous into an unconvincing male weepie. In the second narrative frame, Jacobi makes it impossible to mourn de Vere because Jacobi does not name him. As the Prologue, Jacobi first provides an epilogue of sorts, telling us what happened to various characters in the film: Robert Cecil remained the most powerful man in the Court of King James. And in 1623 [Jonson] wrote the dedication to the collected works of the man we call William Shakespeare. Shakespeare is named, and mention is made of him even though we saw him just minutes earlier watching King James watching Henry V). But William Shakespeare then becomes something other than a proper name. More surprisingly, even De Veres name cannot be spoken;, he is only the referent of the man we call William Shakespeare. The Prologue gives something of a nonenon-eulogy for Oxford, to whom Jacobi refers ambiguously as our poet, and in which he apparently alludes to lines from Henry Vs Saint Crispians Day speech and John Miltons sonnet On Shakespear, and that happens, as we saw earlier, to address Shakespeares name: And sothough our story is finished, our poets is not. For his monument is ever-living, made not of stone, but of verse, and it shall be rememberedas long as words are made of breath and breath of life. But whose breath and whose life? Does Jacobi refer to the eventalizing fact of a performance, a performance albeit captured on filmthe breath an effect of the soundtrack? The film remains hostage to the terms that Milton sets forth in the sonnet with which we beganif it was Milton, of course, for the sonnet appeared anonymously if not anony/messily. The film blocks any possible mourning of de Vere by rerouting lines supposed to be his through allusions to lines we recognize only because they are famously Shakespeares. The authorship controversy becomes, if you like, an indistinguishable mess and Mass. No Shakespeare means no De Vere, as Shakespeare served, so it seems, as his wetware; wetware mistakenly supposed to be the origin of the texts and, like it or not, their conduit, in our successive presents. The Prologues It shall be remembered recalls Henry Vs For we shall be remembered, and the line Monument is ever-living similarly recallsing Miltons live-long monument from the sonnet with which we began this chapter. Beyond lines of dialogue that may or may not strike the ear strangely, Jacobi as Pprologue serves as a ghost witness. According to the films paratext Jacobi is playing a character called the Prologue, but in the film seems to be playing himself as well, as if he were reciting lines from a script but also speaking them in his own name. Unlike all parties in the Shakespeare authorship debate who back one candidate or another by his or her proper name, Jacobi divides the presumably pseudonymous author de Vere from himself, as if de Veres name could only be uttered as a psudeonympseudonym, and, given the absence of a name other than Shakespeares, may momentarily appear to suggest that Shakespeare werent wasnt really Shakespeare, as the referent of the man we call Shakespeare were was Shakespeare, not de Vere, and hence as if Shakespeare were, well, anonymous. If the Prologue witnesses Oxfords authorship, he doesnt really name names. Jacobi does not present the viewer with anything remotely like evidence, much less proof. And any witnessing Jacobi might be said to provide is compromised by the fact that he too is anonymous in the film; his witnessing would thus remain extradextra-diegetic since his name appears only in the end credits. So Jacobi plays an anonymous witness, an unnamed Prologue, even as you may or may not recognize him as the inimitable Derek Jacobi or, for that matter, as the in Kenneth Branaghs Henry V (Figure 5.1c and d). In another case of plus-sizing, Jacobi overwrites Jonsons two diegetic eulogies in the film, the first delivered to Oxfords wife after Oxford dies and the second delivered to Cecil in the immediately following scene just before Cecil releases Jonson from jail. No archon of the de Vere archive then in Anonymous. No witnesses. Guards, yes, but Cecils guards, committed to destroying the manuscripts. De Veres archive can never be witnessed not only because it is never published but also because it cannot even be spoken aloud as such. You can wink; you can know,; you can let your eyes and ears and mind wander as youre petrified by the easie numbers as they work upon you, but you remain a weak and, sometimes, witless witness. Jacobis and the films last audible words run as follows, reprising both Jonsons dedication to the First Folio and Miltons sonnet in the second: So, though our story is finished, our poets is not. For his monument is ever-living, made not of stone but of verse. And it shall be remembered as long as words are made of breath, and breath of life. Shakespeares, by which the Prologue means De Veres, lines live on only for as long as they are spoken. The conversion from words to breath to life ventures a media- specific, or more properly biologically specific, set of conditions for the continued efficacy of verse as monument. The future of the de Vere archive is therefore medium specific and yet has a lifespan that has nothing to do with the material supports of the archive or the lifespan of a text but the possible future extinction of the human species, or more precisely, the extinction of life. No requirement is made that the mouths that speak the verse be human. Jacobi is thus a witness in a way that is quite different from Jonson; he does not survive the death of anyone, nor does he guarantee the perservationpreservation of the archive through publication. The survival of the de Vere crypt depends on the survival of a witness, but the witness can only survive in Anonymous as a revenant, an anarchivic force that recalls by crossing wires, that is already hung up on and hung up by the archive. The closing shots of the audience clearing the theater replicate the same issue. The offish-Broadway theater audience shown exiting in the final shot of the film makes up the films final instance linking anonymity to the absence of witnesses, assuming the viewer bothers to watch the credits roll to the endas the film already models an uncertain petering out of a performance, a slightly muted audience nonrnon-reaction. Shot from behind the stage, Jacobi exits as A Roland Emmerich film appears, then the shot dissolves as the curtains close to a shot at the back of the theater orchestra seats, showing the audience quietly leaving the theater as the rest of the credits roll. The audience, of course, just so many convenient extras, is never credited: its the fate of wetware to remain strictly anonymous. To be sure, some audience members in theater can be heard talking as they leave. But their voices are so soft that one cannot hear what they are saying. Murmur and, rumor live, but as the noise or spectral response to the play we have not seen, remain unable to read, because in its place we have seen the film. Moreover, the end credits, the purpose of which is to align proper names to the actors and crew who in the film may be read as sort of somber and ephemeral epitaph or roll call of the dead whom the viewer is presumably supposed to mourn. Rather like dedicatory Miltons poem on the leaves of Shakespeares book as a crypt that encrypts its reader, Anonymous is itself the unnamed crypt for Oxford that encrypts its viewers from too little conceiving. We may now understand better why Anonymous is both a title and a proper name in the film. De Vere can only be considered the true author of Shakespeares works because those works may only born witness to as texts, never proven to have been written by an author. The ideal viewer of Anonymous remains, apparently, the one who sees everything but who witnesses nothing. * Weather Report The mess that is Anonymous proves instructive, we think, but only if we are prepared to render it precisely as Anony/mess, and so not to reduce the problems it generates or which it archives. As we move now to close this book and the forms of ending beckon (codas, epilogues, afterwoards, variously eschatological and moral philosophical modes of recommending that you and yours do this or dont do that), Anony/mess gives us pause. Whats the worst thing you can do to Shakespeare? Well, theres always something worse than can be imagined, isnt there? But theres also always the comforting, consoling order that comes with the repre-placing of books on shelves, returning them to their respective niches, where they sit quietly. Ah, the quiet that comes with a bibliography. When unreadability looms, writ large on silver screen, in the minds eye, or by the announcement of a rival (Edward de Vere, Thomas Middleton, Francis Bacon, an infinite number of monkeys), it tends to manifest as a momentary rippling or tearing of bibliographies that quickly settles into a tidy reore-ordering of books on to shelves. The books have new names inscribed on them (or do not) so as to enable the resurrection of different zoo/bio/bibliographiesEdward de Vere, Thomas Middleton, Francis Bacon, if not yet all those monkeys. How then ought the zoo/bio/bibliography to our book look? Should it be arranged by author and title (and species?) and so reire-enforce the status quo of canons and their ideological switchboards by which they re/produce whole worlds or should we leave you with something more cloudy? Clouds (technical, literal, mushroom, etceteraetc.) remain keyed to the limits of our perceptual apparatus, to the relation between the visible and the invisible, the phenomenal and nonpnon-phenomenal, presenting as a crossroads or crux in our discourses. They demand to be read and yet always exceed the impressions with which they leave us and so remain unreadable. Accordingly, they assume a spectral quality, generating but also traumatizing our sense of futurity. Beyond those soft and billowy or threatening storm clouds that we name weather or take as an omen, the word cloud refers also, obviously now, to the vast technical relay and agglomeration of terrestrial resources projected as water vapor hanging in the air, liberating your memory and yoour ownur archival anxieties from the massy weight of external memory devices. This seems somehow fitting, for the word clod (earth) cohabits with cloud in Old and Middle and Early Modern Englishthe earth just as massy and messy as those shapes that appear in the sky. While the iCloud (or any such device) offers you data security and storage gently pushing information to all your myriad platforms, that push remains premised on a set of terrestrial relays and its wetware. We remain tied to the ground even as our data floats above and around and through us. Our data shall or may live on, but still we shall die. How else, then, should we leave you than with a closing weather report of interpretive problems, cruxes, ellipses, specters, revenants, the weather cloudy with a chance of Shakes/appearingappearingfor the texts a/live? Chapter 5 Chapter Abstracts for Burt and Yates, Whats tThe Worst Thing You Can Do tTo Shakespeare? Chapter 1 Whats the Worst Thing You Can Do to Shakespeare? models readers of Shakespeare as wetware, the living component to media platforms. We ask what happens if we proceed on the assumption that historical fields of study such as Shakespeare and Renaissance drama as well as to the networks of schools, Universities, REP companies, professional Shakespeare theaters, the film industry, media libraries (on and offline), constitute a series of differently distributed fetish communities. The chapter offers readings of the First Folio as a scene of recruitment,; analyzes the New Textualism and history of the book,; stares the manifest danger of Shakespeares irrelevance and unreadability in the face,; and concludes with an air- raid warning that calls for us all to leave our shelters and with them the oddly regular announcements of critical apocalypse and attempt to think unreadability. Chapter 2 O, horrible, most horrible Horrible, Most Horrible!Hamlets Telephone puts John Dover Wilsons What Happens in Hamlet? on the line with Avital Ronells account of Hamlet in The Telephone Book, to explore the ways in which un/editing smoothes out a series of interpretive puzzles in the play keyed to the problem of voices that go missing. At the end of the play, Hamlet turns himself into a dysfunctional relay system, turning Horatio, his faithful answering machine, into a relay to the future. Such an ending stands as a stark or perhaps stalking companion to the haunting of the play by Hamlets father, and enables us to identify within the play a conversation about the nature of answerability that inflects current critical discussions of Shakespeares response to matters of sovereignty and government. Ready to listen, we turn to the text of Hamlet, hearing in Bernardos opening question Who is there? a calling of the ghostly sovereign to account, dialing him up, in order to settle outstanding accounts. Chapter 3 Romeo and Juliet Iis for Zombies, offers a reading of Romeo and from the vantage point offered by a three- minute film short directed by Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami, Where Iis My Romeo. Kiarostamis short film offers itself not as an adaptation of the play but as spin- off, taking a scene of watching two characters watch a scene from the play as its focus. The oscillating presence / absence of Shakespeare, the literal unviewability / unreadability of the off-stageoffstage play, as Where Iis My Romeo unfolds, leads us to read contemporary cinephilia in conversation with the modes of reception that Shakespeares play imagines to the tragic events it stages. The automaticity of mourning in the play figured as an accessorizing of decay, an accessorizing or fetish labor that represents something both more and less than a reading. Chapter 4 Drown bBefore Reading: Prospseros Missing Books takes up the crux of Prosperos stated intention to drown his books,, which, in defiance of the elements, sometimes morphs in commentaries on the play into a book burning. Placing filmic treatments of this crux alongside the play text, its editions, and its reworkings in post colonial contexts, we examine the appearance of books being written/produced in the closing sequences of two adaptations of the play: Julie Taymors Tempest (2010) and Peter Greenaways Prosperos Books (1995). Chapter 5 Anonymous / Anony/mess begs raises a series of questions of the so-called authorship controversy as it does (and does not haunt) Shakespeare sStudies by way of a reading of the controversy turned conspiracy, or better disaster, film Anonymous (2011). The film, constitutes a complete mess, modeling the Shakespeare (or is it Edward De Vere, tThe Earl of Oxford?) archive as a messy morass out of which voices are summoned by the various human or lively presences that breathe their wordsthe wetware to whom we introduce you earlier in the book. Tuned to recent trends in the authorship debate, we offer the whole affair up to you as what social scientists call a complicated production of variously accredited witnesses to Shakespeare and his rivals (a mess). Notes Index     AU: Correct the slash should also be italicized? AU: Lowerase? AU: Lowercase? AU: The capitalization of this name varies throughout. Please review and use either de Vere or De Vere consistently (using lowercase for de seems to be more common, correct?). AU: Delete this or insert opening quotation mark where necessary. AU: Reword for clarity? AU: Correct this is meant as one noun? AU: society or other noun, since body and practice are both nouns? (ph/f)antastic? Is the ph necessary? AU: Correct that the change in capitalization was intentional? AU: (de)composition? It seems that sometimes parentheses are used and sometimes a slash is used. Subsequent instances will not be marked, but consider using parentheses throughout. AU: This is not included in the title in the note. Please reconcile. AU: 16045? AU: Consider removing the phrase if you like throughout. A colloquialism repeated too often can be distracting in print and does not further the meaning of the sentence. AU: Correct this was not intended as a sub-subhead (to appear under Enter Thomas Middleton)? AU: its if referring to media interruption. AU: or A little while (or almost no time at all) ago or recently? AU: Quotations of fewer than 100 words have been silently run in throughout per the publishers standards. AU: The relation of these phrases to each other is unclear. Is it correct that the slashes show the relation of reference to outside and substrates to archives? If so, please delete spaces around slashes. If not, please reword for clarity. AU: Confirm spelling. AU: Reword? AU: In the note, the is included in the title, and the title is in quotation marks, not italics, as an essay rather than a book title. Which is correct? Please fix where necessary. AU: matrix meant to be a modifier of language or a noun on its own? If the first, please remove spaces around slash. AU: Use or instead? AU: Spelled Barnardo elsewhere. Change or stet? AU: of? AU: In some texts, this is spelled Bernardo. Both spellings are used throughout this book. Please check the text you have cited and make changes to spelling where necessary. AU: Correct punctuation? Or should this be a question mark? AU: Is it important that these lines are displayed reflecting the formatting used in the original manuscript (with special indentation for some lines)? AU: Intended? AU: Correct that c. 1600 or c. 1602 was not intended? AU: to refer to? AU: Because jouissance appears in M-W it could be set in roman rather than italics. I have not made the change, however, because it is obviously of French origin and because M-W marks it as obsolete in English usage. But if roman is preferred to italics, make change throughout. AU: It is not clear what compound psycho would be part of. Rewrite for clarity? AU: challenge or demand? AU: Correct this is intentionally not something for emphasis on thing? AU: Correct this is hyphenated in the original? AU: The notes do not make it clear which source(s) this and following quotations come from. Please be sure all quotations in this paragraph are cited, using ibid. where necessary. AU: has passed or has a past? AU: Sovereign/subject suggests one who is both sovereign and subject. Change made under the understanding that the intention was to refer to the sovereign-subject relationship (that between a sovereign and a subject). Correct that was the meaning in this sentence? AU: Expound on the importance of this? AU: Confirm that quotation marks are now correctly placed. AU: Chicago Manual recommends that 2 or more lines of verse be set as a block quote. If this is not preferable, consider setting any quotations of more than 3 lines as a block quote for readability. AU: Check verb usage: are keys? AU: What compound is suggested by zoo? Possible to clarify? AU: Possible to use an ellipsis to join these two quotes rather than setting them side by side? AU: Earlier this was fac/faux/similes. Change here? AU: at? AU: M-W notes this is often capitalized. Change or keep lowercase? AU: Correct this is used in the sense of boundary or limit? If so, note that M-W lists this meaning as obsolete. OK or change word choice? AU: Although this does not appear in M-W, Oxford lists urtext as one word. AU: tele-traumas or teletraumas? (Forgive me if Im missing the wordplay or double meaning suggested by the slash.) AU: C? AU: Would Hamlet/Heidegger be more consistent with the use of slashes and dashes throughout? AU: Confirm spelling. AU: See earlier query and ensure this is consistent with choice made in that instance. AU: at here and in a scene to which? AU: Correct this is an exchange? If so, consider formatting as a blockquote and including the speakers names. AU: Quotation marks necessary? AU: Consider rewriting to maintain a consistent voice: The same thing happened exactly to Horatio, he says, except he spoke to it AU: Continue to designate change in speaker? AU: Elsewhere, gravedigger is capitalized. Is this a character name/should it also be capitalized? AU: fac/faux/simile? AU: Redundant? AU: impassioning? AU: minimal replies? AU: Italics? Quotation marks? AU: fac/faux/similes? AU: Reword for grammatical parallelism (compensatory is an adjective, and counterproductions is a noun; change so they are the same part of speech). AU: This was capitalized earlier. Check throughout and treat consistently. AU: Rewrite for clarity. It is unclear whether the text or the knowledge is what we will never have in our grasp. AU: Italics necessary? AU: Note mismatch of singular/plural. Does this match the original? AU: comes? AU: OK? AU: Correct this refers to the TV show? AU: fac/faux/simile? AU: See earlier query and treat consistently here. AU: fac/faux/simile? AU: thine? AU: Change the tense of this verb, too? AU: Correct this second Hamlet refers to the play? AU: fac/faux/simile AU: Correct this is in quotation marks rather than being italicized? AU: res/ins/urrection or re/in/surrection? Or, if parentheses are being used, (re/in)surrection? AU: Redundant? AU: Delete so the sentence runs more smoothly? AU: Page number? AU: The majority of references within this book to the multipart chronicles did not include a comma before part. This has been enforced throughout. Should the inclusion of a comma be preferable, please make the change to every applicable instance. AU: Can an ellipsis be used here? AU: Note that this is not listed as an adj. in either M-W or the Oxford dictionary. Confirm spelling and word choice. AU: Os or Os? AU: [her]? AU: Set as block quote? AU: Insert closing quotation mark. AU: This is mnemotechnical per M-W. Unless the use of this word is based specifically on Cohens work, please make change to follow the publishers standards. AU: c. 1595? AU: Rewrite for the clarity? Correct the intent is that appears serves as the verb? AU: Remove italics? If yes, check throughout. AU: Correct that upper case is intentional? AU: Intentional? AU: Correct italics here are intentional? AU: Delete whichever closing quotation mark is incorrectly placed. AU: Chicago Manual would recommend we all. Make change? AU: Correct? AU: Correct? If not, please specify who he refers to. AU: Can this be simplified for clarity? Perhaps replacing commas with conjunctions where possible would be another way to clarify. AU: Are these em dashes correctly placed? If not, consider rewriting or modifying the punctuation to show more clearly how the phrases relate to one another. AU: Or heres. AU: Just framing? If so, change throughout. AU: This word does not appear in M-W. Confirm spelling. AU: d/ef/f/ects or (d)ef(f)ects, since defects has only one s? AU: verify? This does not appear in either M-W or Oxford. Confirm spelling or reconsider word choice. AU: Citation? AU: Citation to quoted phrases? AU: Different from cinephilics (used a few paragraphs earlier)? AU: This was not capitalized when the full title was given. Intentional? Or should this be lowercase as well? AU: Ren? AU: None of the images are labeled with a, b, etc. OK? AU: Lowercase? AU: This is Thank you so much in the image. Change? AU: Lowercase? AU: This does not appear in M-W or Oxford. Please confirm spelling. If a change is made, check throughout. AU: Delete one of these closing quotation marks or insert the needed opening quotation mark. AU: Delete this or add closing quotation mark as needed. AU: Correct this refers to the paper size? AU: Use parentheses, since the em dash is used nonparenthetically later in the sentence? AU: Include verb or otherwise rewrite for clarity. AU: grant? AU: the yoking? AU: Delete for conciseness? AU: Consider rephrasing for clarity. AU: Correct this refers to the act? AU: Insert the closing quotation mark in the correct place. AU: Insert the opening quotation mark in the correct place. AU: Em dashes well placed? If not, can the sentence be condensed or the punctuation modified differently to lend clarity? It is easy to get lost in the string of phrases set off by commas. AU: at as in the note? AU: interlocutors as walking? AU: Citation? AU: Redundant? AU: Does the original include an apostrophe? AU: Include citations to this and other quotations in this paragraph. AU: Delete this slash? AU: muted? AU: If this is to represent the beginning of the line, not included, would it be preferable to use an indentation? AU: patronymics? AU: sort of? AU: accustomed? AU: sorts? AU: Just small-format to avoid redundancy? AU: Is the intended pun on wetware and sweatware? The meaning is not entirely clear. AU: Could an ellipsis join these lines? AU: Consider recasting for clarity. AU: translated to English? AU: Should this also be in quotation marks? Please double-check. AU: the Christian God, since Christianity is monotheistic? AU: Unclear. AU: Can these be joined by an ellipsis? AU: or? AU: Correct? AU: products? AU: If this quotation mark appears in the original, it should be a single quotation mark here and be followed by a matching closing quotation mark. If it does not, please delete. AU: Not italicized? AU: Use c.? AU: Please check use of quotation marks. An uneven number are used here: add or delete as necessary. AU: Unclear. Perhaps there is a verb missing? AU: Unclear. Perhaps both of which, by figuring the drowning of Prosperos book, explore books in? AU: This does not match the figure title given in the List of Illustrations. Please reconcile. AU: Or Prosperos Book(s)? AU: No period follows S? AU: Please fix quotation marks. AU: various? AU: of? If not, a verb should follow the First Folio. AU: Use c.? AU: It is unclear why slashes are used here. AU: This caption should also credit Branaghs Henry V. AU: Correct eve was not intended? AU: Confirm spelling. AU: It is unclear why the parenthetical is parenthetical. Necessary parentheses? AU: Please clarify. AU: Please correct the use of quotation marks. AU: Redundant? AU: This word appears in neither M-W nor Oxford. Please confirm spelling. AU: Was something like usually or typically intended? AU: becomes? AU: Is Billy Wilder the director? If so, add dir. in both instances. AU: Please clarify; from lacks an object. AU: characters? AU: Provide a clearer intro to this specific flashback? AU: Joley Redgrave? If not, who is Joley Richardson? AU: This doesnt seem to fit in this sentence. AU: Delete or provide opening quotation mark. AU: Confusing. Is Mitt Romney your friend or is the reader being addressed as my friend? Either way, is this necessary? AU: Insert closing quotation mark. AU: Insert opening quotation mark. AU: Is this a page number? AU: identify? AU: Consider deleting to avoid redundancy, as this parallel has already been drawn. AU: Supply missing noun. AU: Add a verb to make a complete sentence? AU: bear or have borne? AU: The purpose of this asterisk is unclear. Please specify. AU: Barnardo? See earlier queries and change where necessary. AU: Correct that Juliet should be added? If so, please add. {~?~AU: Please place this footnote in the Acknowledgments section, rather than as an endnote the back matter.}  In the course of composing these acknowledgementsacknowledgments, the coaco-author of this book sent his fellow coaco-author, a draft of the words that appear above.After reading them with the usual care I reserve for such missives, it seemed to me that my substantial revisions would arrive too late to be included and so should be condensed and appended instead in the form of an endnotefootnote{~?~AU: Correct this should appear as a footnote?}. I wish to declare a paratextual state of exception to the tone of much that appears above{~?~AU: Consider avoiding use of above and other directional language as things will shift during typesetting and especially during ebook development.}, and I feel obliged to write that I revised the text but that those revisions have not been included. I shall not say how extensively I did so. I shall not say whether this endnote was revised or if it even was actually written by me, as my coaco-author will have been the last to lay eyes on it. (To be sure, neither of us will know for certain that we will have had the last word.) All credit for anything worthy in this book should, of course, be credited to both authors.However, I think it is only fair to say, in dis/closing, that blame for any remaining errors or other faults in the book should be assigned exclusively to my coaco-author, as he shall have had the very last word, at least as far as I know. Thank you and Good Daygood day.{~?~AU: Should this note be signed?} Chapter 1  {~?~AU: List Shakespeare as the author or list the editors in the authors position, followed by , eds.}The First Folio of Shakespeare: The Norton Facsimile, eds. Charlton Hinman and Peter Blayney (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1996), A3r.  On survival as a surplus or living on, an afterlife lived by others as their lives (and deaths), see Walter Benjamin, The Task of the Translator, in The Selected Writings of Walter Benjamin , vol. 1., 19131926, ed. Michael W. Jennings, 191326 (Cambridge, MA.: The Belknapp Press of Harvard University Press, 1996), 253263, and readings of this essay by Paul de Man, Conclusions: Walter Benjamins The Task of the Translator, The Resistance to Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1986), 73105,; and by Jacques Derrida, Des Tours de Babel, in Psyche, eds. Peggy Kamuf and Elizabeth Rottenberg (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2007), 195225.; and See also, Jacques Derrida, The Beast and the Sovereign , vol. 1, Trans trans. Geoffrey Bennington (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009) and The Beast and the Sovereign , Volvol. 2, trans. Geoffrey Bennington (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011). In the course of these seminars and in particular in the corco-reading of Daniel Defoes Robinson Crusoe alongside Martin Heideggers The Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics, the structure of survivance comes to comprehend questions of archiving, the archive, the book. See especially, vol. 2, 119146.{~?~AU: Volume 2 of which of the books just mentioned? The Beast and the Sovereign? Please restate authors last name and shortened title for clarity.}  For a modeling of human users as wetware see Richard Doyle, Wetwares: Experiments in Postvital Living (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003). For a reading of Shakespeares Sonnetssonnets as rhetorical software for readers becomes biocultural wetware, see Julian Yates, More Life: Shakespeares Sonnet Machines, in ShakesQueer: A Queer Companion to the Works of Shakespeare, ed. Madhavi Menon (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2011), 333342.  For an allied argument that treats the relation of performance studies to theater history as a melancholy misrecognition of their fetish objects, see William N. Wests Replaying Early Modern Performances, in New Directions in Renaissance Drama and Performance Studies, ed. Sarah Werner, ( (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 3049. Focusing on the figure of replaying as a neutral relation to anteriority, West asks his readers to consider performanceless an event than the management of a rhythm of repetitiona practice of filling an ordinary gesture, word, or phrase with meaning through iteration, spacing, and change (35).  The choice is never between having a fetish or not, but between competing fetishes, some bad, some good, some too good to be true. See Peter Stallybrass, Marxs Coat, in Border Fetishisms: Material Objects in Unstable Spaces, ed. Patricia Spyer (New York and London: Routledge, 1998), 184. As William Pietz argues, any accusation of fetish refers only to an irreconcilable difference between competing systems of value, The Problem of the fetish Fetish, 1 Res 9 (1985): 517.  For an energetic contribution that enlarges the scope of media specificity to include animal and vegetable remainders, see Joshua Calhoun, The Word Made Flax: Cheap Bibles, Textual Corruption, and the Poetics of Paper, PMLA 126, no.: 2 (March 2011): 327344.  See William Sherman, Used Books: Marking Readers in Renaissance England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007).  All references are to Randall McCleod, Un Editing Shakespeare, Sub-Stance 33, no. .4 (1982):, 2855. Subsequent references appear parenthetically in the text. Strangely McCleods essay seems to have fallen out of circulation and tends not to appear in bibliographies where one might expect that it should.  Zachary Lesser and Peter Stallybrass, The First Literary Hamlet and the Commonplacing of Professional Plays, Shakespeare Quarterly 59, no. :4 (Winter) 2008): 371420.  See Jacques Derrida, Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1996){~?~AU: All other citations to this work cite trans. Prenowitz and have Chicago as place of publication and 1998 as date of publication. Fix here if necessary.}, especially his discussion of the hallucinated recollection of the impression as a real moment where pen hits paper, where foot touches ground to produce a print:. It is the condition for the uniqueness of the printer-printed, of the impression and the imprint, of the pressure and its trace in that unique instant, where they are not yet distinguished from one another (99).  Lesser and Stallybrass, The First Literary Hamlet, 373.  Catherine Gallagher and Stephen Greenblatt, Practicing New Historicism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 2048. For a critical analysis of this chapter, see Richard Burt, Medieval and Early Modern Film and Media (New York: Palgrave, 2008; rev. 2010), 17785; 23747.  Michael Bristol, Big-timeTime Shakespeare (New York: Routledge, 1996).  Thomas Middleton, Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works,: eds., Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007); and Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino, eds., Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture , eds., Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007);. The Oxford Handbook of Thomas Middleton, {~?~AU: Is this a compilation of works by Middleton? If not, please list the editors names first, followed by a comma and eds., }eds. Gary Taylor and Trish Thomas Henley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).  Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works: eds., Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2007), 25.  Ibid.  Taylor and Lavagnino, Thomas Middleton and Early Modern Textual Culture, 19.  Ibid. {AU: Insert name of author or names of editors based on the choice made in note 14. Check throughout.} The Oxford Handbook of Thomas Middleton, 1.  For a sense of the stakes to choosing Middleton over Shakespeare as an orientation to the past, as it might alter our stories about questions of race, see Gary Taylor, Buying Whiteness: Race, Culture, and Identity from Columbus to Hip-Hop (New York: Palgrave, 2005).  Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory: An Introduction, 2ndnd eEd. (Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1996), 9. Subsequent references appear parenthetically in the text.  Walter Benjamin, On the Concept of History, in The Selected Writings of Walter Benjamin vVol. 4., 19381940, ed. Michael W. Jennings, 193840 (Cambridge, MA.: The Belknapp Press of Harvard University Press, 1996), 389400.  Jacques Derrida, No Apocalypse, Not Now,. Diacritics 14, no.. 2 Nuclear Criticism {~?~AU: What is Nuclear Criticism the title of? If the issues title, it is unnecessary.}(Summer, 1984): 27.  Ibid., 28.  Ibid.  Jacques Derrida, Paper Machine,. tTrans. Rachel Bowlby (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005).  Karl Marx, Grundrisse: The Foundations of Political Economy, trans. Martin Nicolaus (LondonPenguin Classics: Penguin Classics London, 1993), 110112. The equation of the incompatible, as Shakespeare nicely defined money (163) is how Marx invokes Apemantuss address to the gold in 4. 3. 381392{~?~AU: Correct this is act, scene, and line? Consider noting specifically here and using condense form in all following.} of Timon of Athens.  Ibid., 110111.  Ibid., 111.  Ibid.  The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, in The Marx and Engels Reader, 2ndnd ed., ed. Robert C. Tucker (New York and London: W. W. Norton and Co, 1978), 595.  We allude here to Carl Schmitts Theory of the Partisan, G. L. Ulmen{~?~AU: Who is Ulmen? An editor? Please specify.} (New York: Telos, 2007), and Jacques Derridas The Politics of Friendship, trans. George Collins (New York: Routledge, 1997). Chapter 2  Subsequent references will be to William Shakespeare, Hamlet, eds. Ann Thompson and Neil Taylor (London: The Arden Shakespeare, 2006).  Subsequent references will be to Avital Ronell, The Telephone Book: Technology, Schizophrenia, Electric Speech (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1989), 2.  On biblion meaning niche and indexing the book to the library, see Jacques Derrida, Paper Machine, trans. Rachel Bowlby (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005), 46.  Actors themselves, of course, may be described as speaking properties. They serve as relays for the vocal and gesture effects we name character. See Frances Teague, Shakespeares Speaking Properties (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1991).  On the function of writing in the play, see especially, Jonathan Goldberg, Hamlets Hand in Shakespeares Hand (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), 105131; Peter Stallybrass, Roger Chartier, J. Franklin Mowery, and Heahter {~?~AU: Heather?}Wolfe, Hamlets Tables and the Technologies of Writing in Renaissance England, Shakespeare Quarterly 55 (2004): 379419; Robert Weimann, Authors Pen and Actors Voice: Playing and Writing in Shakespeares Theatre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); Margaret Ferguson, Hamlet: Letters and Spirits, in Shakespeare and the Question of Theory, eds. Patricia Parker and Geoffrey Hartman (New York: Methuen, 1985): 292309; Alan Stewart, Shakespeares Letters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).  Tom Stoppard, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Are Dead (London: The Grove Press, 1994).  Jonathan Goldberg, Hamlets Hand, 105131.  In the Epistle Dedicatory to the book, Dover Wilson recounts, uncannily, his telephonic recrutiment to the task of solving Hamlets cruxes. He reads W. W. Gregs, Hamlets hallucination, which posits the ghost as hallucination and the Dumb Show as a moment that reveals Hamlets true madness, murderous intentions, and mistaking of the manner of his fathers murder. Dover Wilsons career unfolds in repsonse to what he perceives as Gregs attack on the linearity of the play, and he describes the way he parcels out the labor of canceling out Gregs reading first into the monumental editing of the text and then the strategic splicing of the text with its performance so as to disambiguate the action. See John Dover Wilson, What Happens in Hamlet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), 123, and W. W. Greg, Hamlets Hallucination, Modern Language Review 12, no. :4 (October 1917): 393426.  Stephen Ratcliffe, Reading the Unseen: (Offstage) Hamlet ({~?~AU: Insert city of publication followed by a colon.}Counterpath Press, 2009).  See Linda Charnes, Hamlets Heirs: Shakespeare and the politics Politics of the New Millennium (New York: Routledge, 2006) .  Stephen Greenblatt, Hamlet in Purgatory (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002).  Terrence Hawkes, that{~?~AU: Should that be part of the title?} Shakespearean Rag: Essays on Critical Process (London and New York: Methuen, 1986), 107109. Hawkess essay sponsors a specular redescription of Hamlet spliced to a symptomatic reading of Dover Wilsons paulinePauline recruitment. Refusing to positivize his reversal of the play as the real Hamlet, Hawkes offers readers instead the plays doubleness of self-reversal as an insufficient product. It should be noted, however, that this self-reversing jouissance is funded by the absolute legibility of Dover Wilsons ideological position to Hawkes. In effect, the textual density to Hamlet is rendered tolerable by the immediate readability of Dover Wilson.  Marjorie Garber reads Dover Wilsons tussle with {~?~AU: Include first name?}Greg as a form of dull revenge, discerning in the compulsive repetition and circulation of roleswe have fought backwards and forwards over almost every line of [the play scene] as violently as ever Hamlet and Laertes passed at foilsa basis of reading literary scholarship and textual editingthemselves [as] species of revenge. Marjorie Garber, A Tale of Three Hamlets or Repetition and Revenge, Shakespeare Quarterly 61, no.: 1 (2010): 44, and Dover Wilson, What Happens in Hamlet, 21.  See Scott A. Trudells well- executed The Mediation of Poesie: Ophelias Orphic Song, Shakespeare Quarterly, 63, no.: 1 (Spring 2012): 4676.  On ash as a figure of forgetfulness, of the archive as also an anarchiving loss, see {~?~AU: Provide full citation at first mention per chapter.}Derrida, Archive Fever, 100101.  Jacques Derrida, Typewriter Ribbon: Limited Ink (2) (within such limits Such Limits), in Material Events: Paul de Man and the Afterlife of Theory, eds. Tom Cohen, Barbara Cohen, J. Hillis Miller, and Andrzej Warminski (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001), 333334. In what follows we bypass Jacques Derridas engagement with Hamlet in Specters of Marx in order to route the play through his engagement with the figure of the archive, new media, and the infrastructure of survivance. Indeed, we go so far as to suggest that the acute attention to temporality in Specters of Marx serves as a reduced treatment of the governing matrix of the play, one, perhaps, keyed to preserving the figure of a messianic futurity that in later Derridean texts receives a very different treatment by way of the figure of the archive and the after/life{~?~AU: Intentional slash? Meaning is ambiguous}. Key texts for us, among others, are Archive Fever, trans. Eric Prenowitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996); the essays and lectures gathered together as Paper Machine, trans. Rachel Bowlby (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005); and The Beast and the Sovereign , vols. I 1 and II2, trans. Geoffrey Bennington (Chicago: Chicago University of Chicago Press, 2009 and 2010). We take Derridas engagement with spectralization and temporality in Specters of Marx to constitute a case study of a larger argument -in -the -making about cultural graphology., Ssee Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, tThe Work of Mourning, and the New International, trans. Peggy Kamuf (New York: Routledge, 2006).  Accordingly, we remain fascinated by and admiring of the work of sociologist of science Bruno Latour and his modeling of what amounts to a translational poetics that would depathologize concepts of mediation and mimesis, but is cautious with regard to the interpretive certainty or even archive fever these models produce when translated to media and literary study. A strategic difference between the likes of Latour and those of us housed in the humanities resides in the way we find ourselves oriented to our objects of study. Tuned to things past, to the fragments of chains of making long severed, partially interrupted, and so to actor networks, to use Latours terms, that have dropped actants as they have added new ones, we are obliged to deal with the objects that result from these dropped connections. It is these texts or traces that we take as our points of departure. Our object remains always the archive of a practice, the remnants of some thing{~?~AU: Correct this is intentionally not something?}, which, by our joining, we re/activate, alive to the ways the figure of the archive itself as actor-network, enables{~?~AU: What is the subject of enables and makes? Should they be either enable and make or enabling and making?} certain modes of joining and disables others, makes certain worlds or prospects un/thinkable. In our modeling of Shakespeare in this book, and of Hamlet, in this chapter, we draw on Latours rich work but seek to do so in a nonsnon-salvific, noncnon-celebratory mode that remains tuned to the stakes of deconstructive reading (and not reading). Convenient points of arrival for first-time readers of Latour might include Bruno Latour, An Attempt at a Compositionist Manifesto, New Literary History 41, no.: 3 (Summer 2010): 472491;, On the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods{~?~AU: Elsewhere this is On the Cult of the Modern Factish Gods. Please fix where necessary.} (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010); and Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005). For an attempt to think {~?~AU: link?} Latours relation to Derridean deconstruction by way of the correlation between recipes and play texts as archival objects, see Julian Yates, Shakespeares Kitchen Archives, in Speculative Medeivalisms, eds. Nicola Masciandro, Eileen Joy, and Anna Klossoska (Brooklyn, NY: Punctum Books, 2013).  On the spectral qualities of Horatio and for the turn to Horatio as privileged locus of critical interest for critics today, see Christopher Warley, Specters of Horatio, English Literary History 75, no.: 4 (Winter 2008): 10231050.  Our modeling Hamlet in relation to an infrastructure of survivance allies itself with many of the insights we find in Lee Edelmans reading of the play in two essays that excerpt work from his current book project, Bad Education: Hamlets Wounded Name{~?~AU: Is BadName one essay title? If so please remove italics. If it is a book title, please use italics for the whole title.} in ShakesQqueer{~?~AU: Change made to match other instances. Capitalization correct?}: A Queer Companion to the Complete Works of Shakespeare, ed. Madhavi Menon (Durham, NC.: Duke University Press, 2011), 97105, that which excerpts Against Survival: Queerness in a Time Thats Out of Joint, Shakespeare Quarterly 62, no.: 2 (Summer 2011): 148169. Like Edelman, we read Hamlet as a structure that anarchives as it archives, that registers the structure of forgetting that obtains {~?~AU: Was attains the intended word?}to any act of remembering, drawing on the same sense of the anarchivic and anarchiviolithic that he locates in Derridas Archive Fever (See Derrida, Archive Fever, 11; Edelman, Against Survival, 155). The question Edelman raises in the last line to his shortened essay and that we take up in this chapter replays Hamlets to be or not to be soliloquy as asking how [we may] resist survivals archive, its consignation, by becoming what lets the future be and by being what lets [hinders] the future (Edelman, Hamlets Wounded Name,{~?~AU: See earlier query and change to italic here if need be. Either way, should the shortened citation be to Bad Education rather than Hamlets Wounded Name?} 105). We read the play as already resisting this infrastructure, narrating its effects, and rending itself into a fragmented multimmulti-media archive and its ash. While we admire Edelmans unfailing critique of what he calls the secularized messianicity of reproductive futurism (ibid{~?~AU: Ibid. is only appropriate when only one source has been previously cited. Please cite more specifically here.}) and are sympathetic to his unfailing pursuit of a negativity that would decouple the future from its scripting by a past, we think it worth pointing out that his subordination of Derridean deconstruction to a Lacanian account of the Symbolic order tends to present as a desire for cancellation in all- out apocalyptic mode (see especially the reading of Archive Fever presented in Edelman, Against Survival). In presenting the play as multimedia archive, we seek to resist the attempt to derive from what remains, as we think Edelman wishes to do, a stable moral philosophical script from the plays fragments, canceling out the play in order to posit a pedagogy [that could] renounce the sublimation inherent in acts of reading, taking seriously the status of teaching as an impossible profession and assault on meaning, understanding, and value (Ibid., 169{~?~AU: Please cite specifically.}). Sympathetic as we are to Edelmans project, we think it is crucial to point out that here it produces a weak sovereignty over the play, leaving Hamlet behind, as it lets in the future constituted as a blank that Edelman begins to fill in. Such sovereignty is underwritten further by a reading that chooses Folio over Quarto in deciding on the text of the play, treating the text therefore as essentially stable. The key lines, in both essays, which capture the tenor of the paternal screwing to which the Child / Hamlet{~?~AU: Meaning is unclear. Could a word be used instead of a slash?} is subject, read as follows: O God, Horatio, what a wounded name, / Things thus unknown, shall I live behind (5. 2. 328329). Live behind captures the temporality of a present hostage to a future that is already canceled out by the repetition of its past. But in Q1 the second line reads shall I leave behind, which parses Hamlets predicament slightly differently. We are not out to derail the political import of Edelmans position with textual quibbles (as if we could?), but we do think that the textual wobble he avoids here suggests that stitching Derridean deconstruction to Lacanian psychoanalysis may prove counter- (which is to say, all too) productive, sedating the text in order to assert an ownership of place that deconstruction will not allow. As Derrida speculates in Archive Fever, returning to the position he ventures in Of Grammatology, psychoanalysis would be very different had Freud had email rather than print as his metaphoric substrate. Under such circumstances, we wonder whether the future as such may be thought of outside of its metaphoric media, which leads us to provincialize psychoanalysis as a media- specific model tuned to the writing machines of one order of survivance. The challenge remains, we think, to read and write beyond and without and within still other terms. See Derrida, Archive Fever, 1618; and also Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974), 8485, where psychoanalysis is offered as a study of the ways in which we are cathected{~?~AU: M-W lists cathexis but not cathect. Please confirm spelling.} to certain writing instruments. On reproductive futurism, see also, Lee Edelman, No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004).  On the rebranding / business model as a way of meataphorizing issues of sovereignty in the play, see Michael Almereydas Hamlet (2000).  On the arbitrary quality of sovereign violence or law-making violence, see Walter Benjamins Critique of Violence [1921] in Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings, vol. 1, eds. Marcus Bullock and Michael W. Jennings (Cambridge, MA.: The Belknap{~?~AU: Elsewhere this is Belknapp. Please reconcile by fixing whichever spelling is incorrect.} Press of Harvard University Press, 1996), 236252. See also key readings by Giorgio Agamben, placing Benjamins essay in conversation with Nazi Jurist Carl Schmitt in The State of Exception, trans. Kevin Attell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), and Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998). See also Jacques Derridas reading of Benjamin in Force of Law: The Mystical Foundation of Authority in Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, eds. Drucilla Cornell, Michael Rosenfeld, and David Gray Carlson (New York: Routledge, 1992), 367. We take the play already to imagine what it means in Agambens terms to live a bare life, a becoming wetware, mediator, or relay to an elaborated infrastructure / media platform that may continue to deploy your voice or body after your death. On the need to imagine such a relation and Agambens inability to do so, see Derrida, The Beast and the Sovereign, vol. 1, 305334.  On biblion meaning niche and indexing the book to the library, see Derrida, Paper Machine, 46.{~?~AU: OK that this is a repeat of note 3?}  It is worth recalling here that here Ronell follows Jacques Derridas staging of the history of life[or] differrance{~?~AU: Note mismatch of single and double quotation marks here and following. Please fix as necessary, using single quotation marks only for quotes within quotes.} as the history of the gramm, which aims to make visible modes of cognition, historical consciousness, and forms of personhood that do not respect the ratio of the line or the linearization of the world that occurs in a phonetic writing system. The story, as you remember, begins with the observation lethal to any metaphysics of presence that life begins with the writing event of genetic inscription and short programmatic chains regulating the behavior of the amoeba or the annelid up to the passage beyond alphabetic writing to the orders of the logos and of a certain homo sapiens. Frequently mistaken for something like a maximal entropy formalism with a linguistic bias, deconstruction instead takes as its object a general or generative text, a generalized question of coding. See, Derrida, Of Grammatology, 8485.  Ronells citations are to a translation of the interview that appears as Only a God Can Save Us Now: An Interview with Martin Heidegger, trans. David Schendler, Graduate Faculty Philosophical Journal 6, no. :1 (Winter 1977): 527. The original interview in German appeared as Nr noch ein Gott kann uns retten, Das Spiegel (May 31, 1976): 193219.  Jacques Derrida, The Beast and the Sovereign, vol. 2., 164.  On erasable wax tablets, writing tables, or table books, see Stallybrass, Chartier, Mowery, and Wolfe, Hamlets Tables and the Technologies of Writing in Shakespeares England, 379419. See also, Roger Chartier, Inscription and Erasure: Literature and Written Culture from the Eleventh to the Eighteenth Century, trans., Arthur Goldhammer (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), 2224.  Goldberg and Edelman are particularly astute readers of this scene. Building on Goldberg, Edelman writes, Hamletbecomes a sort of appendage to this living book, the material substrate of a survival that lives, in more than one sense, in his place. Goldberg evokes this perfectly when he notes that Hamlet voices his fathers text., Edelman, Hamlets Wounded Name, 100, and Goldberg, Shakespeares Hand, 45. We agree with this reading but feel no surprise or scandal at Hamlets recruitment. Being is always hard-wired and; always technologized; places are always constituted parasitically, and no rights of ownership attach to them.  See John Dover Wilson, What Happens in Hamlet, 5286, especially in reference to debunking Greg by offering a more perfectly historiciized account of ghosts in the period.  Jacques Derrida, Specters of Marx, 61.  Trudell, The Mediation of Poesie: Ophelias Orphic Song, 6169.  See Harold Jenkinss illuminating appendix to the swearing in William Shakespeare, Hamlet, ed. Harold Jenkins (London: The Arden Shakespeare, 1982).  On Carl Schmitts Hamlet or Hecuba, see the special issue of Telos dedicated to the text edited by Julia Reinhard Lupton, Telos 153 (Winter 2010), and also Julia Reinhard Lupton, Thinking wWith Shakespeare (Chicago: Chicago University of Chicago Press, 2011).  On time effects (past, present, future) as products of a media platform or actor network, see Bruno Latour, Aramis: Or the Love of Technology, trans. Catherine Porter (CambrdigeCambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1993), 8889.  Derrida, Archive Fever, 6263. See also Maurice Blanchot and Jacques Derrida, Demeure: Fiction and Testimony, trans. Elizabeth. Rottenberg (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000), where Derrida writes, A witness and a testimony, writes Derrida in Demeure, must always be exemplary. They must first be singular, whence the necessity of the instant: I am the only one to have seen this unique thing, the only one to have heard or to have been put in the presence of this or that, at a determinate, indivisible instant (40). The logical requirement of exemplarity installs the necessity of substitutability within the very irreplaceability of testimony. The exemplarity of the instant, explains Derrida, that which makes it an instance, if you like, is that it is singular and universalizableThis is the testimonial condition (41). It is easy, as Derrida notes, to assume that this techne refers to the uncertain agencies of cameras, videos, typewriters, and computers, but as soon as the sentence is repeatable, that is, from its origin, the instant it is pronounced and becomes intelligible, thus idealizable, it is already instrumentizable, and thus affected by technology. And virtuality (42).  On the arbitrariness of the decision to take the skull as Yoricks, see, Warley Specters of Horatio, 10371038.  On the logic of the freeze frame,{~?~AU: Quotation marks necessary? Hyphenate?} see Latour, On the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods, 99123.  For an allied reading of the digital subjectivity that the play cultivates, see Lowell Gallagher, Mise en Abyme, Narrative Subjectivity, and the Ethics of Mimesis in Hamlet: Gertrude Talks, Genre XXVIII28{~?~AU: Include year in parentheses if possible.}: 513532.  Wilson and Greg both note the strangeness of the dumb show in their readings. See also Dieter Mehl, The Elizabethan Dumb Show: The History of a Dramatic Convention (London: Methuen, 1965).  In A Politics of the Scene, Paul Kottman appears to solve the problem of the relation between the dumb show and the Murder of Gonzago by privileging the essential aspect of affirmative speech or actionfor the experience of the theater. Crucially, for his reading, Claudius reacts to the play but not the dumb show because it repeats something that was mimed with speech. It is that fact of speech that gets Claudiuss attentionmaking the play, not the dumb show, effective. In grander, philosophical terms, following Hannah Arendt, for Kottman, what matters is the fact of speech, here and now, as were on the scene, making the scene, inducting one another as witnesses to what is being saideven if we are never able to agree on what it was exactly that we heard. For him, such a colloquy defines the politics of the scene and remains a site of potentially productive political action, for he asserts the constitutive fact of speaking, of presence, of being on the scene, as crucial to the convoking of a community. Its worth pointing out, that, in this model, the argument holds only to the extent that we understand the attribute of speech to be a prevpre-verbal or phatic {~?~AU: Italics not necessary. Remove unless they are for emphasis.}guarantee of the human. Such a position, we feel, appealing as it may be, stores up as many problems for itself as it solves, erasing the problem of noise or static, of phone merely and {~?~AU: as?}logos, as necessary exclusions to a scene of communication. See Paul Kottman, A Politics of the Scene (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008), 126, 139165., Oon the dumb show, see especially 163165.  Gregs commentary remains extraordinarily fine., Ssee Greg, Hamlets Hallucination, 393421.  See especially, Dover Wilson, What Happens in Hamlet, 144163.  For a fine account of how the scene is supposed to go based on a reading of Hamlet as embarked on humanist- fueled understanding of theater as quasi-pedagogical reere-enactment, see William N. West, Theaters and Encyclopedias in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 122128.  Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty, trans. George Schwab (Chicago: Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1985), 85.  Here the play reworks what Alan Stewart calls the oldest letter story in the bookthe story of Bellerophon dispatched with letters naming his death from the Iliad. For Stewarts insightful reading of the scene see Alan Stewart, Shakespeares Letters (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 262, and 261294 generally.  Margreta De Grazias Hamlet Without Hamlet stands for us as the superlative critical enactment of the drive Hamlet 2 stages, exorcizing the materiality of the text from all spectrality, if not all spectral editing. On the x without x formulation de Grazia uses in her title, see Blanchot and Derrida, Demeure, 8889. Other notable unHamletings that supplement and so supplant would include John Updikes prequel Gertrude and Claudius (New York: Random House, 2001) and {~?~AU: specify that this is a movie and provide directors name} Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Are Undead.  The best reading of the film thus far, which attends very carefully to its gender and racial politics and topicality, is Courtney Lehmanns Brothers before Others: The Once and Future Patriarchy in Hamlet 2, Journal of Narrative Theory 41, no. :3 (Fall 2011): 421444.  The Works of Thomas Nashe, ed. Ronald B. McKerrow Rpt.{~?~AU: To what does Rpt. refer?} (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958), vol. 2II., 211. Subsequent references appear parenthetically in the text. Nashes argument seems to transfer St. Augustines reformulation of prostitution as sex or desire -work in De Ordine II. iv to public theater. Understandably, Nashes defense has received much critical attention. For reasons of space it is not possible to provide a list of all the relevant critical commentaries here. Especially notable however, in our view, is William N. Wests discussion of Nashes faith in humanist conceptions of theater as providing exempla in Theaters and Encyclopedias in Early Modern Europe, 11719, and Paul Yachnins pointed reading of Nashe contra Philip Stubbes so as to expose their shared sense of the power of theater to affect its audience. Yachnin will, of course, argue that this efficacy was judged to have been misplaced in the 1590s and beyond, hence his modeling of the later theater as powerless in Stage-Wrights: Shakespeare, Jonson, Middleton, and the Making of Theatrical Value (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997), 12.  John Michael Archer, Citizen Shakespeare (New York: Palgrave, 2005), 84.  On Shakespeares presentation fantasies and the sonnets as an experiement in creating a quasi-human technology of preservation, see Aaron Kunin, Shakespeares Preservation Fantasies, PMLA 124, no.: 1 (2009): 92106, and for an allied treatment, see Julian Yates, Shakespeares Sonnet Machines, in ShakesQueer: A Queer Companion to the Complete Works of Shakespeare, ed., Madhavi Menon (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2011), 333342.  Working through the secularization of theological forms of predication as they migrate into secular forms of governance underwritten, Jacques Lezra argues that the impossible, self-predicating logic of sovereignty requires [an order of statements,]what we may now call a past contingent: the capacity to make statements of fact or descriptionsinto propositions susceptible to revision: because it could have happened otherwise, an act or a decision that I now take, or that the group I am part of now takes, can make it have happened otherwise, can revise and revive, in other words, different pasts in and by our present. The tense form, he observes, is impossible; the concept, unthinkable. And to embark on the decoupling of sovereignty from the onto-theology its performance requires, is to invite madness, conflicting stories, the over- -and underdetermination of cultural narratives, mere literature. Nashes defense, we think, unfolds on this ground, albeit in winking mode, offering up theater as one point of enunciation from which what Lezra calls the modern experience of terror might issue. See Jacques Lezra, Wild Materialism: The Ethic of Terror and the Modern Republic (New York: Fordham University Press, 2010), 109.  Richard Doyle, Wetwares: Experiments in Postvital Living (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), 8687.  Hawkes and De Grazia.{~?~AU: Include shortened title or titles and page number.}  On the sentence I am dead, see Blanchot and Derrida, Demeures, 68; and on the spectral virtuality that makes truthful testimony possible, see 72 and, 75; , and 92.  William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, ed. Ren Weis (Arden Edition Third Series, 2012), 2. 2. 3334. Subsequent references appear parenthetically in the text. Chapter 3  Jacques Derrida, Aphorism Countertime, in Acts of Literature, ed. Derek Attridge (New York: Routledge, 1992), 433.  The Works of Thomas Nashe, ed. Ronald B. McKerrow Rpt. {~?~AU: To what does Rpt. refer?}(Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958), vol. 2II, 211212.  On the phrase word mnemotechnic as an attempt to insist on memory as an extrinsic, technology, see Tom Cohen, Ideology and Inscription: Cultural Studies aAfter Benjamin, De Man, and Bakhtin (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 112.  William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet, ed. Ren Weis (Bloomsbury{~?~AU: Correct Bloomsbury is the place of publication? Should it be Bloomsbury, UK? If so, change throughout.}: Arden Edition Third Series, 2012), 4. 3. 15. Subsequent references appear parenthetically in the text.  Derrida, Aphorism Countertime, 433.  Bruno Latour, On the Cult of the Modern Factish Gods,{~?~AU: Compare with other mentions of the title and correct where necessary.} trans. Catherine Porter and Heather MacLean (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2010), 68. We take the figure of iconoclash to mark an end to the enduring problem of fidelity as it is said to haunt the mal-adapted or only too- well- adapted non- field -or counterfcounter-field of Adaptation Studies. Space precludes an exhaustive survey, but key events along its path might include the following: Brian McFarlane, Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2008); Linda Hutcheon, A Theory of Adaptation, 2ndnd eEd.ition (New York: Routledge, 2012); Thomas Leitch, Twelve Fallacies in Contemporary Adaptation Theory, Criticism 45, no. :2 (2003): 149171, and Film Adaptation and Its Discontents: From Gone wWith the Wind to The Passion of the Christ (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007); as well as Simone Murray, The Adaptation Industry: The Cultural Economy of Contemporary Literary Adaptation (New York: Routledge, 2012) and Phantom Adaptations: Eucalyptus, the adaptation industry Adaptation Industry and the film that never was Film That Never Was, Adaptation 1, no. .1 (2008): 523. For an examination of film adaptation in relation to textual editing, see Hamlet s Hauntographology: Film Philology, Textual Faux-{~?~AU: Is the hyphen included in the title?}rensics, and Facsimiles, in A Companion to Literature, Film, and Adaptation, ed. Deborah Cartmell (Oxford: Blackwell, 2012), 216240.  The term iconoclash stands as an image- specific version of what elsewhere Latour names the factish, an entity that precedes fact and fetish, and from which both derive by a violent act of contestation or breaking. Here Latour builds on a succession of models he has developed by which questions of reference may be weaned off high- temperature arguments about fidelity, distortion, tampering, and interference in favor of an understanding that mimesis remains forward-looking, proactive, and productive of effects that are not moored to an original. For a selection of Latours examples of examples of structures of reference maintained by a succession of altering mediators taken from the sciences, see On the Cult of the Factish Gods{~?~AU: The Modern Cult? Modern Factish Gods? Please compare to other uses and fix where necessary.}, 9394.  Latour, On the Cult of the Factish GodsIbid., 72.  Bruno Latour, Aramis: Or the Love of Technology, trans. Catherine Porter (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1996{~?~AU: Elsewhere this is 1993. Please fix where necessary.}), 119.  For Latours earnest and yet whimsical rewriting of Mosess second commandmentThou shall not freeze-frame the graven image, see Latour, On the Cult of the Modern Factish Gods, 97, and for a fuller articulation, 99123.  On the violence of decision as the cutting or the creation of an edge, see, in different registers, Michel Serres, The Natural Contract, trans., Elizabeth MacArthur and William Paulson (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995), 55, and Jacques Derrida, The Gift of Death, trans., David Wills (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 5382.  On the epistemic violence of revivals, see Timothy Murray, Drama / Trauma: Specters of Race and Sexuality in Performance, Video, and Art (London and New York: Routledge, 1997), 6.  Derrida, Aphorism Countertime, 417.  The phrase equipment for dying attempts to render the peculiar, reanimating, retro-projected force we find in Kenneth Burkes famous equipmental modeling of literature in Literature and Equipment for Living, The Philosophy of Literary Form, 3rdrd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), 293304. By inclining the equipmental reading ttowardsoward death and dying, we wish to foreground the way Derridas model of survivance designates nothing phenomenal but instead constitutes a groundless ground from which are detached, identified, and opposed what we think we can identify under the name of death or dyinglike death properly so called as opposed to life properly so called., {~?~AU: Which of the sources is this quote from?}Ssee, Jacques Derrida, The Beast and the Sovereign, vol. 2 II, eds. Michel Lisse, Marie-Louise Mallet, and Ginette Michaud, trans. Geoffrey Bennington (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 131. Like W. B. Worthen, who offers a Burkean modeling of theater as equipments for living, we are eager to consider the potential agency of drama in the double scenes of page and stage, or for that matter as translated to any media platform, as equipments for living, but we are cautious as to the way what we call the bio/bibliographical copco-production of lives, deaths, and media events may reroute the apparent efficacy of texts as they are variously performed., Ssee W. B. Worthen, Drama: Between Poetry and Performance (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), 23. We are grateful to Julia Reinhardt Luptons characteristically perceptive reading for our thinking on this subject., Ssee Julia Reinhardt Lupton, Response to Paul A. Kottman, Defying the Stars: Tragic Love as the Struggle for Freedom in Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare Quarterly 63, no.: 1 (Spring 2012): 3945.  Compare the Princes lines to Juliets: For he hath still been tried a holy man (4. 3. 29).  Jonathan Goldberg, Romeo and Juliets Open Rs, in Shakespeares Hand (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003), 272.  Dympna Callaghan, ed., Introduction, in Romeo and Juliet: Texts and Contexts (New York: Bedford / St. Martins Press, 2003), 1. Quoted in Paul A. Kottman, Defying the Stars: Tragic Love aAs tThe Struggle fFor Freedom in Romeo and Juliet, Shakespeare Quarterly 63, no.: 1 (Spring 2012): 1. For a signal and still inspiring reading of the play as unmooring desire from gender difference and relocating it as a play of substitutions, see Goldberg, Romeo and Juliets Open Rs; on the endurance of the plot and the couple as transcoded into gay, lesbian, and queer registers see, Carla Freccero, Romeo and Juliet Love Death, in ShakesQueer: A Queer Companion to the Complete Works of Shakespeare, ed. Madhavi Menon (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 2011), 302308. On the popularity of Romeo and Juliet for feline littermates in the elaborated world of human -/ nonhnon-human animal companion species, see, PetPlace.com, accessed November 9, 2012.11/9/12.  Kottman, Defying the Stars, 1.  Derrida, The Beast and the Sovereign, vol. 2II, 131.  Ibid.  For a fuller sorting of possible sources and analogues, see, the introduction to Romeo and Juliet, 3237.  Richard Gottehrer, Robert Feldman, and Jerry Goldstein, My Boyfriends Back, performed by the Angels, on My Boyfriends Back, Collectibles, 1963; Dire Straits, Romeo and Juliet, on Money for Nothing, Warner Bros., 1988; Lou Reed, Romeo hadHad Juliette, on New York, Sire Records, 1989; Melissa Etheridge, No Souvenirs, on Brave and Crazy, Island Records 1989; Mark Knopfler, Romeo and Juliet, performed by the Indigo Girls, on Rites of Passage, Epic Records, 1992. For a passing yet compelling treatment of some of these songs see, Freccero, Romeo and Juliet, 304306,; and for her fuller reading of Melissa Etheridges No Souvenirs, see Freccero, Queer / Early / Modern (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006), 2628.  Catherine Duncan-Jones records this anecdote in Ungentle Shakespeare , 282284{~?~AU: Provide full citation.}, as does Ren Weiss{~?~AU: Spelled with one s in earlier citation. Please reconcile.} in Romeo and Juliet, 57.  Paul A. Kottman notes that in in contemporary Veronaone finds marble plaques fixed to the city wallswith inscriptions of lines, in English, from Shakespeares play, along with the mythical balcony and tomb of Juliet, and even a street named after Shakespeareall, in a city where Juliets balcony receives a constant stream of pilgrims, presented apparently for visitors and cites for confirmation his correspondence with the Verona Tourism Office., Paul A. Kottman, A Politics of the Scene (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008), 166, and 250.  Ever fallen Fallen in love Love (wWith someone you shouldntveSomeone You Shouldntve), written by Pete Shelley, performed by The Buzzcocks, on Love Bites, EMI, 1978.  Charles Dickens, The Life and Times of Nicholas Nickleby, 1838, ed. Paul Schlicke (Oxford: Oxford Worlds Classics [1838], 2009).  See, Goldberg, Romeo and Juliets Open Rs,; and Kottman, Defying the Stars, 36, 3537. We take what Julia Reinhard Lupton describes as Kottmans philosophical dramaturgy to constitute at times a lyrical, moving, reere-enactment, adaptation, or attempt to rezre-zone the play that depends on a quasi-telephonic summoning of voices in the aid of deactivating the plays bio/bibliographical program. We think that such attempts, much as we admire them, need to factor the bibliographical or media specificity that accompanies the plays biopbio-political quotient. See Lupton, Response to Paul A. Kottman, Defying the Stars, 3945.  On semiotic chronology, see Mieke Bal, Lethal Love: Feminist Literary Readings of Biblical Love Stories (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1987), 107108.  Time does not count, writes Bruno Latour, time is what is counted. It is not an explanatory variable; it is a dependent variable that needs to be explained. Networks of actants emit varying time effects by the adding and dropping of actants. See Latour, Aramis, 8889.  In Latours terms, we might say that successive orders of media, by adding actants to a chain of mediators, render the previous term causal. By the same gesture newness is an effect of position within the chain of making. It is a precipitate or product and not an input. In different terms, we might say, following Latours debts to the cybernetic- based models of Michel Serres, that media effects remain always parasitic on one another; they are already prespre-supposedas we suggested in our reading of Hamlet as a telephone book. See Michel Serres, The Parasite, trans. Lawrence R. Schehr (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2007). For an allied account of the false teleology to media histories, see, Lisa Gitelman, Always Already New: Media, History, and the Data of Culture (Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 2008).  Derrida, Aphorism Countertime, 416.  Though referring to the literary object, the points made translate to any medium. Derrida writes, Framed, embedded, bordered, de-bordered, overrun, the smaller becomes metonymically, larger than the largerthat borders and frames it. Such a frame fixes the space and time given, that is, instituted by a convention, a convention which is, by convention, irremovable. But this structure is rather a movement that also overruns and de-borders the coded language of rhetoric, her of metonymy as identifiable figure. For the very identity of figures supposes stable relations between the part and the whole. This relative stabilization always appears possible, to be sure, and it allows for rhetoric and the discourse on rhetoric. But as no natural stability is ever given, as there is only stabilization in process, that is, essentially precarious, one must presuppose older structures, let us not say originary structures, but more complicated and more unstable ones. We propose to call them structures, and even to study them as such in literary processes, because they are not necessarily chaotic. Their relative anteriority or their greater complexity does not signify pure disorder, Jacques Derrida, The Truth in Painting, trans. Geoffrey Bennington and Ian Mcleod (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 9495.  On the claim to universality, see text for Chacun{~?~AU: Use full title and citation here}. The following is from the Criterion Eclipse mission statement: a selection of lost, forgotten, or overshadowed classics in simple, affordable editions. Each series is a brief cinematheque retrospective for the adventurous home viewer.{~?~AU: Was this obtained online? If so, provide URL and access date if possible.}  On the cin-off, see Richard Burt, Sh k es e re Cin-Offs Beyondbeyond Wreckognition: Film Philology, CiNOma, and Abbas Kiarostamis Where Iis My Romeo, in Shakespeare Spin-Offs, ed. Amy Scott-Douglas (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2013). In the majority of cin-offs the authors have seen, the film -in -the -film is shown diegetically on a screen that is a prop, in effect, on the set. It is a film within -a film, a self-reflexive moment in which film reflects on its medium by framing it. However, there are almost as many cin-offs in which the film cuts to the film in it by showing it without a screen. AAll of ll the shots in Jean-Luc Godards Vivre sa vie (Her Life to Live) from Dreyers Passion of Joan of Arc take up the entire screen; they are directly cut from Dreyers film into Godards film (See Ffigure 3.3). Godard does the same thing with the 35 mm rushes of Fritz Langs Odyssey in Contempt (1963), and so does Alain Resnais with 8 mm rushes shown in Muriel, or the Time of a Return (1963). In films like Hitchcocks Sabotage (1936), David R. Elliss The Final Destination: 3D (2009), and Quentin Tarantinos Inglourious Basterds (2009), the proscenium arch over the movie theater screen image appears in the cin-offs and, mmore importantlyore important, the film in the film is shot from a space behind it.  On the cin-off as an archival effect tied to the death of cinema, see Burt, Sh k es e re Cin-Offs Beyondbeyond Wreckognition. For varying accounts of the death of celluloid cinema at the hands of digital cinema, see Garret Stewart, Between Film and Screen: Modernisms Photo Synthesis (Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2000); Philip Rosen, Change Mummified: Cinema, Historicity, Theory (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2001); Lev Manovich, The Language of New Media (Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 2002); D. N. Rodowick, The Virtual Life of Film (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007); Paolo Cherci Usai, The Death of Cinema: History, Cultural Memory, and the Digital Dark Age (London: British Film Institute, 2008); and Giovanna Fossati, From Grain to Pixel: The Archival Life of Film in Transition (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press 2010).  LHistoire(s) du cinma (dir. Jean-Luc Godard 19881998). See also Jean Luc Godard, Youssef Ishaghpour, and John Howe, Cinema: The Archaeology of Film and the Memory of Aa Century ({~?~AU: Insert city of publication followed by a colon.}Berg Publishers, 2005).  As Richard Brody writes, the Princes roar, at 1:51, of the line All are punisheddeparting from Shakespeares text by repeating the phrasespeaks clearly for Kiarostami: the injustices done to women are done to all. The female spectators rapt terror at the spectacle reflects their personal implication in its subject, love rendered illicit. See Richard Brody, Iran, Inside and Out, The New Yorker, August 14, 2009, http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2009/08/iran-inside-and-out.html, aAccessed, November 12, 2012.  Richard Brody, Abbas Kiarostami: The Power of Art, Thethe Art of Power, The New Yorker, March 11, 2011, . http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2011/03/abbas-kiarostami-the-power-of-art.html, aAccessed, November 12, 2012.  Kiarostami used the same device when making his next film, Shirin (2008). He added the soundtrack in postppost-production.  Anselm Haverkamp, The Error of Mourning, Yale French Studies No 69 (1985): 246  On the book topos , see E. R. Curtius, The Book as Symbol in European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages, trans. Willard R. Trask (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953), 302347.  On the uncertain ontology of sleep and, in particular, of drug- induced sleep as regards death and the difficulty of judging the difference between the two in the period, especially in reference to Romeo and Juliet, see Tanya Pollard, Drugs and Theater in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 6065.  Jacques Derrida, Aphorism Countertime, 433.  Kottman offers a lyrical reading of the dual suicides as scenes of individuation in a deeply political sense in which both Romeo and Juliet decouple their lives from the human community (Verona) to which they (no longer) belong. Offering mourning as the superlative definition of a human community, Romeo and Juliets acknowledging the others death without caring for the others dead body becomes a happy act of singularized coming into being by way of bearing witness to the other (33). Each succeeds in seeing in the others deceased body not the calm, cold repose of deathrigor mortis or the foul stench of decaybut an individual warmth and vitality of which each has intimate and singular knowledge (35). See Kottman, Defying the Stars, 3136.  Jacques Derrida, The Beast and the Sovereign, vol. 2II, 117.  The verb to cope condenses a series of possible modes of association ranging from the commercial to the martial, Oxford English Dictionary, aAccessed October 23, 2012.{~?~AU: Please see CMS 14.248 and complete citations to the OED throughout: Include s.v. and the exact entry looked up as well as the URL or DOI if possible.}  Kottman makes this point succinctly: his plan would free Juliet by reconciling her to the Family, letting her be as dead to them as she has always been., Kottman, Defying the Stars, 31. We differ from Kottman in that where he remains trained on the biopbio-political quotient to the two lovers, we see the yoking of the biopbio-political to the bibliographicalthe coaco-articulation of Romeo and Juliet and Romeo and Juliet. Indeed, it might be said that he is able to save the two, separately, only bye forgetting the title, his essay a virtuoso out-running of the logic of the proper name, a forgetting of the titles conjunctive and.  Derrida, The Beast and the Sovereign, vol. 2II, 210211.  On the wedding of the subject to the {~?~AU: Please insert a closing quotation mark as needed in the following.}will-have-been of future anteriority, see Lauren Berlant, Slow Death (Sovereignty, Obesity, Lateral Agency), Critical Inquiry, 33, no.: 4 (2007): 756. Such an ironic orientation to death as the insistence on a hyperphyper-present quality to an act recalls Lee Edelmans emptying out of reproductive futurity in No Future: Queer Theory and the Death Drive (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004).  Jacques Derrida, Paper or Me, You Know(New Speculations on a Luxury of the Poor in Paper Machine, trans. Rachel Bowlby (Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press, 2005), 4165.  On the conjoined phantasmatic structure and false choice that obtains between cremation and inhumation, see Derrida, The Beast and the Sovereign, vol. 2II, 147171.  William Shakespeare, The Tempest, eds. Virginia Mason Vaughan and Alden T. Vaughan (Bloomsbury: The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series, 2011), 1. 1. 1. Subsequent references appear parenthetically in the text. Chapter 4  George Lamming, The Pleasures of Exile, ( (Ann Arbor, MI.: The University of Michigan Press, 1992), 1415.  Jacques Derrida, The Beast and the Sovereign, vol. 2II, eds. Michel Lisse, Marie-Louise Mallet, and Ginette Michaud, trans. Geoffrey Bennington (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 131.  William Shakespeare, The Tempest, eds. Virginia Mason Vaughan and Alden T. Vaughan, Revised rev. Edition (Bloomsbury: The Arden Shakespeare, 2011), 3. 2. 135144. Subsequent references appear parenthetically in the text.  As Paul de Man writes, the inability to distinguish between the rhetorical grammaticalization of semiology and the grammaticalization of illocutionary phrases marks the same state of suspended ignorance. The resulting pathos, he continues, is an anxiety (or bliss, depending on ones momentary mood or individual temperamentthough one might add, as de Man knows, the matters of mood and temperament are deeply real and political., Ssee Paul de Man, Semiology and Rhetoric, in Allegories of Reading: Figural Language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke, and Proust (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979), 19.  Lamming, The Pleasures of Exile, 1415.  Lammings modeling of radio and the effect of its scheduling of programs anticipates Raymond Williamss discussion of the way broadcast technologies program (or used to program) our orientation to time and work in Television. Writing in 1973/74, in reference to a comparative modeling of British and American broadcast television, Williams names this phenomenon the mobile concept of flow., Raymond Williams, Television: Technology and Cultural Form , [1974], ed., Ederyn Williams (London and New York: Routledge, 2003), 77. For a modeling of cultural forms as mediated always by the rerun, see Derek Kompare, Rerun Nation: How Repeats Invented American Television (New York and London: Routledge, 2005).  A Book at Bedtime is the name of a long-running B.B.C.BBC show that aired on Radio 4. It has now migrated to various media platforms and may be accessed online at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qtlx .  Lamming, The Pleasures of Exile, 15. In a conversation with Anthony Bogues, between 2006 and 2009, Lamming explicitly rejected Retamars position that Caliban is caught in something like a prison house of language. Lamming says that if you look at Pleasures [of Exile] again, theres not a closure with Caliban. Sometimes I think Roberto Retamar was wrong, there was not a closure with Caliban; the Caliban theme was left open. See, The Aesthetics of Decolonisation Conversation between Anthony Bogues and George Lamming, in The George Lamming Reader: The Aesthetics of Decolonisation, ed. Anthony Bogues (Kingston , Jamaicaand Miami: Ian Randle Publishers, 2011), 231. For Retamars response to the play, see Roberto Fernandz Retamar, Caliban and Other Essays, trans. Edward Baker (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989).  Lamming, The Pleasures of Exile, 16.  Oxford English Dictionary,. aAccessed December 24, 2012.12/24/12.  We remain indebted here to Jonathan Goldbergs revisionist reading of the play and its afterlives in Jonathan Goldberg, Tempest in the Caribbean (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004). For his redaction of the pedagogical quotient to the play and his reading of Mirandas lines, see 117147, 12225 especially. For a precursor to Goldbergs efforts from the heyday of cultural materialism in the mid 1980s, see Malcolm Evans, Signifying Nothing: Truths True Contents in Shakespeares Texts (Brighton, UK: The Harvester Press, 1986). Evans casts his reading of Shakespeare as an explicit exercise in a counterpcounter-pedagogy, and his reading of The Tempest trades on the possibly true, possibly fictional experiences of Edward Harrison, who taught Shakespeare appreciation in Placencia, British Honduras, between 1929 and 1930 (13) as recorded in his diary. Harrison weaves references and an elliptical reading of the play as grand Hegelian plot into his diary, offering The Tempest as a still living text that reads differently given his location on an island. The diary, in effect, becomes a possibly fictional bibliographical intervention against the play. On the play as a colonial paradigm to be variously explored and sloughed off, see also: Peter Hulme, Colonial Encounters: Europe and the Native Caribbean, 14921797 (London: Methuen, 1986), and; Rob Nixon, Caribbean and African Appropriations of The Tempest, Critical Inquiry 13 (Spring 1987): 557578.  Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, trans. David Macey (New York: Picador, 2003), 255.  Jacques Derrida, Paper or Me, You Know({~?~AU: Insert closing parenthesis?}New Speculations on a Luxury of the Poor in Paper Machine, trans. Rachel Bowlby (Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press, 2005), 4165. And on the biological continuum as so marked, {~?~AU: Please specify the author.}The Animal That Therefore I Am, trans., David Wills (New York: Fordham University Press, 2008). For a crucial calling of the question on the connection between biopolitics and the question of the animal, see Cary Wolfe, Before the Law: Humans and Other Animals in a Biopolitical Frame (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012).  Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, trans. Charles Lam Markmann (New York: Grove Weidenfeld,: 1967),. 2122.  On tattooing see Juliet Fleming, Graffiti and the Writing Arts of Early Modern England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001), 79112.  Aim Csaire, Discourse on Colonialism, trans. Joan Pinkham (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972), 46, and A Tempest, trans. Richard Miller (New York: Theater Communication Group, 1992), 1.  Octave Mannoni, Prospero and Caliban: The Psychology of Colonization (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991).  Goldberg, Tempest in the Caribbean, 133, and also Csaire, A Tempest, 1112.  See, for example, Goldbergs approach to the play through its examination by West Indian and feminist writers in A Different Kind of Creature (337) and Mirandas Meanings (117147) and also the attention to textual cruxes in Calibans Woman, 41114.  Csaire, A Tempest, 68.  On the disappearance of Miranda from the play and the accompanying misogyny, homophobia, and hetero-normative blind spots to Csaires redactions, see Goldberg, Tempest in the Caribbean, 131133.  Barbara A. Mowat argues that the book is a grimoire., Ssee Mowat, Prosperos Book, Shakespeare Quarterly 52, no.: 1: 133. Her speculation proves intriguing and very productive even as it is made without, it must be said, much by way of definitive evidence.  As Michael Taussig puts it, cemeteries exist to ensure at least the appearance of a direct bond between name and body, Michael Taussig, Walter Benjamins Grave (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006), 25.  In his essay, Learning to Curse: Aspects of Linguistic Colonialism in the Sixteenth Century, Stephen Greenblatt attends specifically to The Tempest and to Calibans key lines., Ssee Stephen Greenblatt, Learning to Curse: Essays on Early Modern Culture, New Edition, ( (New York: Routledge, 2007), 3234.  Claude Duret, Thresor de lhistoire des langues(Cologny, 1613), 935., Qquoted in Greenblatt, Learning to Curse, 33.  On the efficacy of writing technologies as recognized by indigenous groups, see also the introduction to Stephen Greenblatt, Marvelous Possessions: The Wonder of the New World (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 912 especially.  Mowat, Prosperos Book, Shakespeare Quarterly 52, no. : 1: 32.  James Kearney, The Incarnate Text: Imagining the Book in Reformation England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 196. Kearney derives his model of the talking book from Henry Louis Gatess reading of slave narratives in The Signifying Monkey: A Theory of Afro-American Literary Criticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), and uses the trope to very productive effect in his reading.  Claude Lvi-Strauss, Tristes Tropiques, trans., John and Doreen Weightman (New York: Atheneum, 1974), 299. and Qquoted in Kearney, The Incarnate Text, 211.  William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 2, ed., Roger Warren (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 4, 2, 71. Quoted in Kearney, The Incarnate Text, 202.  Kearney, The Incarnate Text, 222223  The other key ideological lure in the play would be the allegation of rape made by Prospero and Miranda in aAct 1, scene 2. On the function of this charge and on Calibans response see Goldberg, Tempest in the Caribbean, 20. Here Goldberg draws on Richard Halpern, The Picture of Nobody: White Cannibalism in The Tempest, in The Production of Renaissance Culture, eds. David Lee Miller, Sharon ODair, and Harold Weber (Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press, 1994): 262292.  Bruno Latour, On the Cult of the Modern Factish Gods, trans. Catherine Porter and Heather MacLean (Durham, NC.: Duke University Press, 2010), 72. For our earlier adaptation and explication of the term see the previous chapter on Romeo and Juliet.  Ibid., 72.{~?~AU: Please cite specifically, since the previous note refers to both Latour and a previous chapter of this book.}  For readings that suggest the presence of complicated enfoldings of differential literacy in moments of biblioclasm, see, Roger Chartiers reading of Henry VI, part 2, Jack Cade, the Skin of a Dead Lamb, and the Hatred for Writing, Shakespeare Studies 34, 7887, and Steven Justices reading of rebel biblioclasm as highly particularized attacks on certain types of legal documents during the Peasants Revolt of 1381, Writing and Rebellion: England in 1381 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1994), 1360, and for insurgent literacies, 41. For a totally different model of coeco-evolving writing systems that argues for the coeco-evolution of indigenous and colonialist forms, see Max Cohen, The Networked Wilderness: Communicating in Early New England (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009).  Jacques Derrida, Of Grammatology, trans. Gayatari {~?~AU: Confirm spelling, which differed from other instance.} Chakravorty Spivak (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1982), 8587.  For a careful explication of Derridas response to Lvi-Strauss as it opens up the way modes of assumed linearity are funded by the pluri-dimensional in early modern forms of writing (writ large), see Fleming, Graffiti, 115118.  On the syncopation of Calibans self- naming and the vocal soundscape of the play, see Bruce R. Smith, The Acoustic World of Early Modern England: Attending to the O Factor (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), 338.  In Roger Warrens Oxford edition, the aAct 4, scene 2 of Henry VI Part Two, in which Jack Cades companions enter into a comic lampooning of him, is rendered as a flat text. Warren walks readers through his decision not to reduce the potential for reading the Cade sequence as disruptive or even self-ironizing carnival, finding the marking of asides an unnecessary editorial intrusion. He cites a performance of the play in 2001 in which the comments were overt, mocking statements, relished [and heard] by all Henry VI, Part Two, 52.  Anthony B. Dawson and Paul Yachnin{~?~AU: Include name of chapter or essay.} in Anthony B. Dawson and Paul Yachnin, The Culture of Playgoing in Shakespeares England: A Collaborative Debate (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press), 157.  For Medeas lines, see Ovids Metamorphoses: The Arthur Golding Translation, 1567, ed. John Frederick Nims (Philadelphia: Paul Dry Books, 2000), bBook 7, lines 265284. For a reading of the play as keyed to Prosperos philosophical or metaphysical education, see Michael Witmore, Shakespeares Metaphysics (London and New York: Continuum, 2008), 90126 and passim{~?~AU: CMS suggests instead esp. 90126 to avoid use of passim.} .  Roger Chartier, Inscription and Erasure: Literature and Written Culture from the Eleventh to the Eighteenth Century, trans. Arthur Goldhammer (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2007), 63.  Mary Carruthers, The Book of Memory: A Study of Memory in Medieval Culture, 1990, 2ndnd eEd. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 [1990]), 211.  Jacques Derrida, The Book to Come, Paper Machine, trans. Rachel Bowlby (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2005), 56.  Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995), 112, and throughout {~?~AU: See above note on passim}.  On the plays orchestration by an opening of the question of the universal and the particular in terms of categories of being and creatureliness, see Julia Reinhard Lupton, Creature Caliban, Shakespeare Quarterly 51, no. : 1 (Spring 2000): 123.  William Shakespeare, The Tempest, 127128.  On the availability of the intralintra-lingual pun in Shakespeares Sonnetssonnets see Shakespeares Sonnets, ed. Stephen Booth (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977), xi-xii. And for a reading of this inverted genealogy of father and son in sonnet Sonnet 16, see Julian Yates, More Life: Shakespeares Sonnet Machines, in ShakesQueer: A Queer Companion to the Complete Works of Shakespeare, ed. Madhavi Menon (Durham, NC.: Duke University Press, 2011), 323342.  W. H. Auden, The Dyers Hand and other essays Other Essays (New York: Vintage / Random House{~?~AU: Is the publisher listed exactly this way? If not, just Vintage or Random House will suffice.}, 1990).  Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 241. On the state of exception, see Giorgio Agamben, The State of Exception, trans. Kevin Attell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005) and Homo Sacer.  Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, 246247.  The phrase making up people comes from Ian Hacking, Making Up People, in Reconstructing Individualism: Autonomy, Individuality, and the Self in Western Thought, eds. Thomas C. Heller, Morton Sosna, and David E. Wellberry (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1986), 222236. For an impressive exploration of population modeling in early modern England see David Glimp, Increase and Multiply: Governing Cultural Reproduction in Early Modern England (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003).  On fathoms and sea terms see, Steve Mentz, At the Bottom of Shakespeares Ocean (London: Continuum, 2009), 8.  The word sound quite obviously condenses the sonic and the aquatic, Oxford English Dictionary,. aAccessed December 29, 2012.  Haig Bosmajian, Burning Books (Jefferson, NC.: McFarland, 2006), 31. Quoted in Bruce R. Smith, Dot Dot or Dash: A Strange SOS from Prosperos Island in Shakespeare Withoutwithout Boundaries: Essays in Honor of Dieter Mehl, eds. Christa Jansohn, Lena Cowen Orlin, and Stanley Wells (Newark, DE: University of Delaware Press, 2011), 148.  Dawson and Yachnin, The Culture of Playgoing in Shakespeares England, 158.  The Golden Legend or Lives of the Saints, compiled by Jacobus de Voragine, Archbishop of Genoa, 1275, Englished trans. by William Caxton, (1483), vol. 4, ed., F. S. Ellis, ( (Temple Classics, [1900, 1922] 1931): 4749. We are grateful to Katelyn Nicole Mesler for generously bringing this possible source for the book drowning to our attention and also for sharing the section of her dissertation on the Saint James episode., Ssee Katelyn Nicole Mesler, Legends of Jewish Sorcery: Reputations and Representations in Late Antiquity and Medieval Europe (Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 2012), 230233. Bruce R. Smith mentions the legend of Saint James in passing in his Dot Dot or Dash, 147.  As Mesler notes in several earlier versions of the legend, Hermogenes is also forced to dispose of various idols (idolum; idole) from which he received prognostications (divinationes; oracles), which in The Golden Legend seem to have been absorbed into his books., Mesler, Legends of Jewish Sorcery, 232.  Fleming, Graffiti, 74. See also, Sigmund Freud, The Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, trans. James Strachey (London: 19531973), vol. XXIX29.  Fleming, Graffiti, 76.  Ibid., 78.  As Barbara A. Mowat observes, Prosperos invocation of elves and demi-puppets (5. 1. 3354) preserves the challenging vocabulary of Ovids Metamorphoses , whereas Ben Jonson softens the language considerably in his use of the same moment in The Masque of Queenes (1609). See Ben Jonson, The Masque of Queenes, Ccelebrated from the House of Fameat Whitehall (London, 1609), sigs.{~?~AU: I am unfamiliar with this abbreviation. Will your audience be familiar with it?} C2vC3r, and Mowat, Prosperos Book, 29.  Nicholas Hilliards{~?~AU: Correct his name is part of the title?} tThe Art of Limning, eds. Arthur Kinney and Linda Bradley Salamon (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1983), 34. Limning, miniature -making, or painting from the life was an intense process and used a highly evolved palette in addition to purpose-made parchment cards about the same size as a playing card.  Ibid., 37.  In the last paragraph of the Postscriptpostscript to Archive Fever, Derrida writes,: We will always wonder what, in this mal darchive, he [Freud] may have burned. We will always wonder, sharing with compassion in this archive fever, what have burned of his secret passions, of his correspondence, or of his life. Burned without limit, without remains, and without knowledge. With no possible response, be it spectral or not, short of or beyond suppression, on the other edge of repression, originary or secondary, without a name, without the least symptom, and without even an ash, Jacques Derrida, Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression, trans. Eric Prenowitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 101. On ash as a figure of archival loss, ibid., 100.  Ibid., 7.  Lamming, The Pleasures of Exile, 15.  Derek Jarman, Chroma: A Book of Colour (Woodstock, NY.: The Overlook Press, 1994), 75.  Peter Greenaway, Prosperos Books: A Film of William Shakespeares The Tempest (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1991), 17.  Poul Anderson, A Midsummer Tempest (New York: A Tor Book, 1974), 96.  Vox Piscis: or, The Book Fish Contayning Three Treatises Which Were Found in the Belly of a Cod-Ffish in Cambridge Market on Midsummer Eve Last, Anno Domini 1626 (London: {~?~AU: List the publisher if known}1627), 8. Subsequent references appear parenthetically in the text.  Alexandra Walsham, {~?~AU: Insert closing quotation marks where appropriate.}Vox Piscis: Or The Book-Fish: Providence and the Uses of the Reformation Ppast in Caroline Cambridge, The English Historical Review 114, no. : 457{~?~AU: List in the year in parentheses if available.}: 605, and 574606. Walshams meticulous reconstruction of the commentary the appearance of the unlikely cod generated paints a portrait of Cambridge at the time, reading the resulting treatise as a political instrumentalization of either the true or fraudulent appearance of the fish. The veracity of the book fish remains beside the point. We are grateful to Steve Mentz both for his wonderful blog, The Book-Fish, and for directing us to Walshams essay.  On accident, see Michael Witmore, Culture of Accidents: Unexpected Knowledge in Eearly Mmodern England (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001); on wonder, see Lorraine J. Daston and Katharine Park, Wonders and tThe Order of Nature: 11501750 ({~?~AU: Include city of publication followed by a colon.}Zone Books, 2001).  The book titled Prosperos Books we take to be an archive of the film that is also a memorial, filled with leftovers that now might be DVD or Bblu-ray extras, including the shooting script, (what was planned to be shot, not the screenplay), the record of what was shot, as well as an index of Prosperos twenty-five25 books with brief descriptions of each preceding the shooting script. If it had been possible for the film to have initially been released on DVD, the book might have been reproduced in the form of extras, including the shooting script, photos from the sets, Greenaways sketches, an index of all twenty five25 of Prosperos books, and an account of the Paintbox used to make the books in the film. In other words, the book would have become a DVD paratext.  Greenaway, Prosperos Books, 164  The film follows the shooting script: The books land together on the water and Caliban surfacesspurting and spouting water from a long underwater swimhe snatches both books and disappears again under the surface. The water is calmas though it had never been a witness to the destruction of so many books., Greenaway, Prosperos Books, 162.  Julie Taymor, The Tempest, Adapted From from the Play by William Shakespeare (New York: Abrams, 2010).  Ibid., 21.  The end after the end goes back as far as Nicolas Roegs Walkabout (1971), and was an experimental film effect at that time. A deleted scene inexplicably occurs in Deliver UsS from Eva (dir. Gary Hardwick 2003), a spin-off of A Taming of the Shrew , after the end credits.  On the plays affiliation with the key trope of philosophical inquiry, that of the disinterested spectator observing a shipwreck, see Hans Blumenberg, Shipwreck with Spectator: Paradigm for a Metaphor of Existence, trans. Steven Rendall (Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1997), and Mentz, At tThe Bottom of Shakespeares Ocean, 21. For the key passage in Lucretius designating the trope of gazing out to sea, see De Rerum Natura, trans., W. H. D. Rouse, rev., {~?~AU: To what does rev. refer?}Martin F. Smith (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1992), book 2, 12. Chapter 5  John Law, After Method: Mess in Social Science Research (London and New York: Routledge, 2004), 2.  Douglas Adams, The Ultimate Hitchhikers Guide To Theto the Galaxy (New York: Ballantine Books, 2002), 59. We should like to thank Noah Yates for insisting that we use this epigraph.  The recent Arden edition attributes the play to Shakespeare; William Shakespeare, Double Falsehood, ed. Brean Hammond (London: Arden Shakespeare Third Series, 2010).  The First Folio of Shakespeare: The Norton Facsimile, eds. Charlton Hinman and Peter Blayney (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1996), A4r. On archon as witness and necessary to the formation of an archive, see Jacques Derrida, Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression, trans. Eric Prenowitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 2.  William Shakespeare, Second Folio (London, 1632). Reprinted in most editions of the complete works of the play. See, for example, The Riverside Shakespeare (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1974), 1845.  Bruno Latour, On the Cult of the Modern Factish Gods,{~?~AU: Elsewhere it is the Modern Cult of the Factish Gods. Compare and fix where necessary.} trans., Catherine Porter and Heather MacLean (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010), 72.  On the literary history and etymology of anonymous, see Anne Ferry, Anonymity: The Literary History of a Word, New Literary History 33, no.: 2 (Spring 2002): 193194. See also such studies as Marcy L. North, The Anonymous Renaissance: Cultures of Discretion in Tudor-Stuart England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003), and John Mullan, Anonymity: A Secret History of English Literature (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008). On the use of Anon. as an intervention in the archive, see, of course, Virginia Woolfs famous Anon who wrote so many poems without signing them, was often a woman, Virginia Woolf, A Room of Ones Own, 1929 (SaAn Diego, New York, London: A Harvest Book Company, [1929] 1981), 49.  If nothing else, its the best Elizabethan conspiracy-theory action flick youll see this fall, a New Yorker blogger writes. {~?~AU: Cite the author and title of the article and blog. See CMS 14.246.} . http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2011/10/shakespearean-actors-on-the-oxfordian-theory.html#ixzz208Ey8qNZ, aAccessed January 11, 2013. Similarly, the Washington Post ran a review entitled Anonymous and the Shakespeare Conspiracy Theory that That Wouldnt Die, http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/essay-anonymous-and-thconspiracy-theory-that-wouldnt-die/2011/10/25/gIQAebibPM_story.html, aAccessed January 11, 2013. See also Dana Stevens, Anonymous: The problem Problem with this This Shakespeare-conspiracy movie is that it wasnt dumb enoughConspiracy Movie Is That It Wasnt Dumb Enough,. Slate,. Thursday, October. 27, 2011, at 10:50 PM ET, . http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2011/10/anonymous_reviewed_roland_emmerich_s_shakespeare_conspiracy_ movi.html, aAccessed January 11, 2013.  Jonathan Bond, The De Vere Code ({~?~AU: Include city of publication followed by a colon.}Real Publishing, 2011);, Virginia M. Fellows, The Shakespeare Code ({~?~AU: Include city of publication followed by a colon.}Summit University Press, 2008){~?~AU: Cite The Shakespeare Secret as well?};, Graham Phillips, The Shakespeare Conspiracy ({~?~AU: Include city of publication followed by a colon.}Century Books,: 1994). There are, obviously, a vast number more titles in this burgeoning genre.  The Shakespeare Conspiracy (TMW Media Group, 2008).  The closest Anonymous comes to coding authorship is through repeated shots of two quills arranged in a shape resembling the letter V in the foreground or Jonsons hand resting on Henry V title with a burn mark that looks initially like the letter Y until Jonson puts his hand on the page, making the letter into V (which, incidentally, matches the roman numeral V, which on the page is spelled out as fifth). Of course, the V shape may be a cryptogram. It might mean, assuming it means anything at all, that De Vere was the leader of a group of Renaissance playwrights whose code name is modeled on the computer- hacking group Anonymous that formed in 2003 or perhaps the V is an homage to the Guy Fawkes inspired film V is for Vendetta (Warner Bros, 2005)? In any case, the{~?~AU: Was the intended? Please fix.} do not get anything in Anonymous like DeVere-onica, as it were, a vere{~?~AU: Please add closing quotation mark where necessary.} (true) icon (icon) of Oxfords face or even an image of his writings impressed on a shroud after his death. On Saint Veronica, see John P. Leavey and Georges Didi-Huberman, Confronting Images: Questioning the Ends of a Certain History, ({AU: Include city of publication followed by a colon.} Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005), 18899.  2012 is about the building of a postapost-apocalyptic Noahs Arkive; a central plot of The Day after Tomorrow takes place in the New York Public Library, showing survivors burning books to keep warm); Stargate imagines an archive in the form of cave paintings; and 10,000 B.C. includes a lost, highly developed ancient city. Rather than view Emmerich as an auteur and Anonymous his signature film, however, we would want to emphasize the singular continuities and discontinuities in Emmerichs productions of films before Anonymous and in making Anonymous.  James Shapiro, Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2010), 4.  Archive Fever: A Freudian Impression, trans., Eric Prenowitz (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 7. For a Derrida-friendly positive legal history of the archive, see Cornelia Vismann, Files: Law and Media Technology, trans. Geoffrey Winthrop-Young (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008). For a history organized by the printing apparatus, Ann Blair, Too Much to Know: Managing Scholarly Information before the Modern Age (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010). On the archive and data storage, see also Julian Yates, The Brief Case of Benjamin Walter / Benjamin Walters Briefcase: An Invent/Story, Rhizomes 20 (Summer 2010), http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/yates/index.html; Thomas Middletons Shelf Life, in The Middleton Handbook, eds., Gary Taylor and Trish Henley, ( (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 1631; and Richard Burt, Read After after Burning: Delivering Derridas PostPosthumously (with loveLove, without such limitsSuch Limits), Glossator (Fall 2012) {~?~AU: Include page numbers if possible.}, ed. Michael ORourke; Richard Burt, Shelf-Life: Biopolitics, the New Media Archive, and Paperless Persons, in New Formations 77 (May 2013), special issue on Materialities of Text: Between the Codex and the Net, eEds. Nicholas Thorburn and {~?~AU: If Says is a second editor, provide first name.}Says, in New Formations, special issue on Materialities of Text: Between the Codex and the Net, Eds. Nicholas Thorburn and Says May. No. 77, May, 2013; Richard Burt, Putting Your Papers in Order: The Matter of Kierkegaards Writing Desk, Goethes Files, and Derridas Paper Machine, or the Philology and Philosophy of Publishing After Death, Rhizomes 20 (Summer 2010),. http://www.rhizomes.net/issue20/burt/index.html; and Richard Burt, Duly Noted or Off the Record? Sovereignty and the Secrecy of the Law in Cinema,; iIn Secrets of the Law,w. eEd. Martha Umphrey, Lawrence Douglas, and Austin Sarat (Stanford, CA: Amherst Series in Law, Jurisprudence, and Social Thought, Stanford University Press, 2012), 21156.  Sigmund Freud, Beyond the Pleasure Principle, {~?~AU: Correct this is a book within a book, rather than an essay within a book?}in Sigmund Freud, The Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, trans. James Strachey (London: 19531973), vol. XVIII18.  Anti-Stratfordians regularly play with puns in Shakespeares name activated {~?~AU: Was activated the intended word? Consider clarifying.}when it is separated into two.  The title Anonymous runs across the top of the DVD and Bblu-ray covers, with the tagline Truth is the greatest tragedy of all written in a smaller font size at the bottom; the book, like the poster, puts Anonymous across the bottom and adds William Shakespeare Revealed in a significantly smaller font size.  Gerard Genette, Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, trans. Jane E. Levin (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997); on cinematic paratexts, see also Richard Burt, Medieval and Early Modern Film and Media, 2ndnd ed.ition (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).  The flashback conventions are quite flexible and may sometimes be broken for a clear purpose. Citizen Kane uses a reporter to anchor the flashback of various characters he interviews. In most of That Obscure Object of Desire, the main character tells his story episodically in a train coach. The Edge of the World ends abruptly with a characters death and does not return to the opening flashback. Missing also inventively follows the father of a missing child around and cuts to flashbacks.{~?~AU: Please provide the year and director for these films as for other films.}  On the conspiracy film genre, see Richard Burt, Duly Noted or Off the Record? Sovereignty and the Secrecy of the Law in Cinema, in Secrets of the Law, ed., Martha Humphrey, Lawrence Douglas, and Austin Sarat (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2012), 211256.  Kate E. Tunstall,. Youre Either Anonymous or Youre Not!: Variations on Anonymity in Modern and Early Modern Culture, Modern Language Notes 126 (2011): 671688. Jacques Derrida, The Post Card: From Socrates and Beyond, trans. Alan Bass (Chicago: Chicago University of Chicago Press, 1987).  Ibid., 31,; 21.  Ibid., 21.  Ibid. Elsewhere, the body of the Envois of The Post Card, Derrida twice worries that readers will think he is making his story up, ibid., 63,; 217; Derrida also twice demands that someone else prove it / prove it,{~?~AU: Please correct use of quotation marks.} ibid., 235,; 518.  Maurice Blanchot and, Jacques Derrida, The Instant of My Death / Demeure: Fiction and Testimony, trans., Elizabeth Rottenberg (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000), 3233; . And Jacques Derrida and Bernhard{~?~AU: Bernard?} Stiegler, Echographies of Television: Film Interviews, ( (New York: Polity, 2002), 113132.  Walter Benjamin, The Origin of the German Tragic Drama, trans. John Osborne (London: Verso, 1977).  Compare the messy dissolve to the last shot of Anonymous, in which the candles behind the stage curtains appear suddenly to be in front of the curtains, to the much more neatly edited ending of Roland Emmerichs Stargate (1994). After the last shot, the film cuts to black, and the words The End in very a very large font size appear; in the next shot, cued by a change in music, the credits roll in white type over a black background.   !"#$%126789<=BCHILMPQSTVWcklpqtu{|ŻűűűűűűűűhL|thU0J*hL|th0J*hL|thJu0J* hL|th>W hL|th< hL|thJu hL|thQP hL|thU hL|th hL|thZF2d   } r  b gd'zgdJugdJugdJugdJugdJu;gdJu6gdJu=gdJu       ' ( ) + , / 0 = ? @ H I K L O P V W X Y ^ _ c d g h m n u v y z  hL|th hL|th#hL|thJuCJaJ hL|thn- hL|thU hL|thJuS     ! + , . / 7 8 ? @ F G N O Q R ] ^ j k t u y z   hL|thJu hL|thU`    ! + , 6 7 9 : = > K L M P Q W X ` a g h k l q r     " $ ( * < > F H N P ^ ` p r ~ hL|th# hL|thJu hL|thU]       $ & , . H J N P f h v x ξHh$cGh7h# h7h#Hh$cGhL|th#hL|thUhn-cHdh$cGhL|thJuhn-cHdh$cGjhL|th#PJU hL|th# hL|thJu hL|thU< !"'()*+./2367>?ABFGQR^_ijpqvwxyừȻȝ hL|thZ hL|th#hL|thJuhn-cHdh$cGHh$cGhL|thn- hL|thJuhL|thU0JyhL|thJu0Jy hL|thU h7h#h7h#hn-cHdh$cG; ()01456;DEIJRǥ{{(h7h#hn?B*cHdh$cGph(h7h#hB*cHdhªphh7h#B*phhL|th<hcHdhª hL|th hL|th#HhªhL|th#hL|thZhcHdhª hL|thU hL|thZ hL|th<)),I]hQ>` gdWZgdJugd'zgd'zR[\`aiklrstužܧӊӊӊܷܷs܃ܷܷhL|th<hcHdhª hL|th<hL|thU0Jy hL|th#HhªhL|th#hL|thZhcHdhª hL|thZ hhU hhZ hhhL|thZ0Jy hL|thUh7h#B*ph"Hhªh7h#B*ph*  237;<HIJKRSUVYZ^_efmnpqwxz{밧 hL|th|N;"jhL|thn?0JB*UphhL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thZ0Jy hL|th#HhªhL|th#hL|thZhcHdhª hL|th< hL|thX hL|thU hL|thZ hL|th4{   !'()*,-1޵"jhL|th|N;0JB*UphhWZhL|th0Jy hL|th hL|th|N; hL|th# hL|thZ hL|thUhL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thZ0Jy@12569:@CGHIOPSXY`aghijqrtuyz|}"jhL|th|N;0JB*Uph hL|th hL|thUhWZ hL|thZ hL|th#hL|thZ0JyhL|thU0JyJ   %&*+12349:=>DEKLOPWY\]cdhmnorsuvyz򺫺hL|th#0Jy hL|th|N; hL|th#hWZhU*0JyhWZhZ*0JyhL|thZh|N;cHdh'hL|thU0JyhL|thZ0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thZ:   %&ϽϽ綦hL|thUhWZcHdh hL|thZ#hL|thZh|N;0JycHdh'Hh'hL|th|N;0JyhL|th#0Jy hL|thUhL|thZ0JyhL|thU0Jy<&)*/04578:;EFHILMST_`ghnos{|Ծԫ}hL|thU0JyhL|thZ0Jy hL|th hL|th# hL|thZ hL|thU$hWZhWZ\^J_H cHdh*hL|th#hWZ\^J_H cHdh*hL|thUhWZ\^J_H cHdh*hL|thZhWZ\^J_H cHdh1  #$&',-6789ABCDIJPQWX\fgjkrsuvz{ hL|th#hWZhL|thU0JyhL|th0JyhL|thZ0Jy hL|thU hL|th hL|thZN  '()./01;<>?GHIJUV]^_`delmtuwx}~ hL|th[ hL|th#hWZhL|thU0JyhL|th0JyhL|thZ0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thZK#$%&./0167=>DEIMNVWacdijstuv~ hL|th[hWZhL|th0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thZ0Jy hL|thU hL|th hL|thZ hL|th#K #*+01:<=CDLMNOXY_fgkqrtuv{|"jhL|th[0JB*UphhWZhL|thU0JyhL|thZ0Jy hL|th hL|th[ hL|thU hL|thZ hL|th#G $/012=?@DEFGMNOP[\^_cdjknouv~hL|thU0Jy hL|th#hWZhL|thZ0Jy hL|thS# hL|thU hL|th hL|thZN   $%*+:;к~#hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thKh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|thK_H jhL|thK0JU hL|thKhWZhL|thZ0Jy hL|th hL|th# hL|thZ hL|thU18#L&((((*4*V*o*/7m;?CJDJQRYgdfl&gdJu(gdfl+gdflgdKgdflgdKgdJu:gdJu(gd'z+gd'zgdJu;MNQRVWbcghlmtuxy}~   #)*+./125HhDcGhL|thy-_H #hL|thKhy-_H cHdh;cGhL|thK_H hL|thU_H h7h#_H M56:;<?@GHILMXY[\defgrsxy  "#'(*+/056:;HhDcGhL|thy-_H #hL|thKhy-_H cHdhDcGhL|thK_H hL|thU_H Q;@ACDMNPQWXY\]delmtu~  %&-.01;<?@DEOPRSVW#hL|thKhy-_H cHdhEcGhL|thU_H hL|thK_H WW[\abchjknopvwx}~ʾm[m#hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thKh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H #hL|thKhy-_H cHdhEcGHhEcGhL|thy-_H HhhL|thWZ_H HhhWZ_H #hL|thUhWZ_H cHdh#hL|thKhWZ_H cHdhhL|thU_H hL|thK_H #   "#,-78>?BCGHLMOPWX[\_abcijopwxz{~ͻͻ#hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thKh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|thK_H J  !"$%)*./23<=?@HISTWX[]#hL|thKh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|thK_H J]^_efkloqrsyz|}   &ɺɺHhVcGhL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|thK_H #hL|thKh#_H cHdhVcG#hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcGI&'*+/0239:>?BCIJPQTU_`cdmnrs|}  ͻ#hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thKh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H hL|thK_H hL|thU_H J       " # & ' + , / 0 6 7 : ; F G H I J K L P Q U V Y Z ` a b c d e j k l m n o p q t u x y | } ~  hL|th#_H #hL|thUh#_H cHdhZcG#hL|thh#_H cHdhZcGHhZcGhL|th#_H jhL|th#0JUhL|th_H h7h#_H hL|thK_H hL|thU_H : !!! ! !!!!!!HhVcGhL|th#_H #hL|thh#_H cHdhZcGHhZcGhL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|thK_H G!! !!!&!'!*!+!1!2!5!6!7!8!?!@!E!F!M!N!P!Q!Z![!b!c!f!g!k!l!o!p!r!s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ɺHhVcGhL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|thK_H #hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thKh#_H cHdhVcGI!!!!!"""" " """"" "!"'"("."/"1"2"5"6"9";"<"="B"C"D"J"K"L"M"T"U"a"b"f"g"j"l"ó磜t#hL|thKh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H  hL|th hL|th#hL|thUh#cHdhZcGhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thKh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thKhL|thU_H hL|thK_H +l"m"n"s"t"w"x"|"}"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""### # # #### #*#+#,#/#0#8#9#B#C#E#F#J#K#L#M#ҺHh[cGhL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|thK_H #hL|thKh#_H cHdhVcG#hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcGIM#T#U#V#W#\#]#a#b#d#e#i#j#m#n#r#s#x#y###########################################ͻͻHhVcGhL|th#_H #hL|thhtX_H cHdh]cGHh]cGhL|thtX_H #hL|thKhtX_H cHdh[cGhL|thU_H hL|thK_H <########$$$$$ $$$$$$$$ $)$*$,$-$8$9$<$=$E$F$H$I$L$M$Q$R$U$V$_$`$i$j$n$o$q$r$u$v$z${$~$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ɺɺұhL|th_H HhVcGhL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|thK_H #hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thKh#_H cHdhVcGF$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%%% % % % %%%%%%%%% %&%'%)%*%0%1%=%>%A%B%H%I%K%L%T%U%X%Y%`%a%d%e%n%o%w%x%}%#hL|thKhtX_H cHdh]cGhL|thK_H hL|thU_H S}%~%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&&&& & &ϽޢhL|th#_H #hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thKh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H hL|thK_H hL|thU_H Hh]cGhL|thtX_H @ &&&&&&&&&!&"&*&+&3&4&;&<&?&@&C&D&K&L&P&Q&T&V&W&X&^&_&c&d&f&g&l&m&p&q&y&z&}&~&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&ͻ#hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thKh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|thK_H J&&&&& ' '''''''''&''','-'/'0'3'4'8'9'<'?'@'F'G'J'K'M'N'V'W'^'_'d'e'h'i'o'p's't'w'x'z'{'~''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''hL|thU^JaJhL|thK^JaJHh^cGhL|th|_H hL|thU_H hL|thK_H O'''''''''(( ( ((((( ("(#((()(-(.(2(3(5(6(;(<(?(@(D(E(G(H(O(P(S(T(W(X(`(a(d(e(j(k(p(q(z({(((((((((((»HhҪhL|th#hL|thBShg}cHdhҪ hL|thU hL|thBSHhҪhL|thg}_H hL|thU_H hL|thK_H hL|thU^JaJhL|thK^JaJ=(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))) ) ))))))))))#)$)*)+).)/)2)3)5)6):);)C)D)K)L)O)P)R)S)])^)b)c)f)g)i)j)l)m)r)s)v)w)y)z)))))))) hL|thU hL|th hL|thBS hL|th#Z))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))*** * ****** *!*$*%*+*,*3*4*U*V*W*Z*[*`*a*f*g*m*n*v*w*y*z********jhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|th=] hL|thBS hL|thUU**********************************************++ + +++++++!+"+)+*+/+0+2+3+:+;+=+>+E+F+J+K+T+U+X+Y+a+b+h+i+hL|thUh@wcHdhfcGhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUOi+j+k+p+q+u+v+y+z+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,, , ,,,,,,,,,",#,',(,,,-,2,3,9,:,<,=,>,?,ǷhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUh@wcHdhfcG hL|th#B?,D,E,I,L,M,N,S,T,[,\,`,a,m,n,u,v,y,z,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,----------1-2-4-5-?-@-E-F-H-I-L-M-V-W-Y-Z-`-a-d-e-i-l-m- h7h#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSKm-n-u-v-------------------------------------------..... .........ɧhL|thUhWZcHdhhL|thBShWZcHdhhL|th#0JyhL|thBS0JyHhhWZ hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh#cHdhVcG;.!.".).*.-...8.9.>.?.@.B.C.J.K.M.N.T.U.V.Y.Z.^.a.b.c.j.k.p.q.u.v.}.~.................................. h7h#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBSC.........// / ///////// /"/#/)/*/,/-/3/4/7/8/>/?/A/B/I/J/N/O/Q/R/Z/[/^/_/f/g/l/m/o/p/x/y////////////////////ǷhL|thBSh@wcHdhjcGHhjcGhL|th@wHhicGhL|th@w hL|thBS!hL|thBS0JyR'*0J hL|thUH//////////////////////////00 0 0 0000000 0!0"0-0.0/00070=0>0A0B0F0G0O0P0[0\0_0`0k0l0m0n0t0u0x0y0}0~000000hL|th#hLcHdhmcGhL|thBShLcHdhmcGHhmcGhL|thL hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUG00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001111 1 1111111%1&1/10121318191C1D1G1H1M1N1S1T1X1Y1\1]1b1c1e1f1k1l1s1 h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSHhmcGhL|thLhL|thUhLcHdhmcGQs1t1|1}1~111111111111111111111111111111111111111111222222222!2"2&2'2*2+2021252627282>2?2A2B2hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# h7h#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUFB2I2J2O2P2R2S2V2W2\2]2_2`2d2e2i2j2s2t2{2|2~2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222223333 3 33333$3%3+3,3.3/3435393:3<3HhhWZ hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#V<3=3J3K3M3N3a3b3d3e3i3j3l3m3s3t3~333333333333333333333333333333333333333334444 44444"4#4%4&4-4.4142494:4@4A4B4C4I4J4hL|thUhRncHdhpcGHhpcGhL|thRn hL|thBS h7h# hL|thUQJ4L4M4X4Y4d4e4k4l4x4y4}4~44444444444444444444444444444444444444445555 5 555555555 5!5#5$5'5(5.5/525358595A5B5E5F5I5J5N5O5\5]5g5h5p5q5s5t5 hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS]t5w5x5}5~555555555555555555555555555555555555555555556666 6666#6$6,6-67686?6@6K6L6O6P6R6S6V6W6\6]6_6`6j6k6n6o6jhL|thBS0JUhL|thBShRncHdhqcGHhqcGhL|thRn hL|thU hL|thBSOo6p6q6v6w6}6~66666666666666666666666666666666666677777777777)7*73747577787:7;7@7A7E7F7L7M7P7Q7W7X7Z7[7]7^7h7i7w7HhscGhL|thRnhL|thBShRncHdhscG hL|thU hL|thBSNw7x7y7|7}7777777777777777777777777777777777777777777777778888 8 8 88888'8(818288898;8<8F8G8O8P8R8S8V8W8[8\8b8c8e8f8n8o8v8w8z8 hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBShRncHdhtcGYz8{888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888999 9 99999#9$9&9'9/9094959;9<9A9B9F9G9J9K9Q9R9X9Y9[9\9a9b9d9e9n9o9r9s9{9|9~9999 h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU]999999999999999999999999999999999999999999::: : :::::: :":#:(:):+:,:.:/:3:4:9:::=:>:D:E:G:H:K:L:Q:R:W:X:Z:[:\:HhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|thUjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBSO\:]:f:g:i:j:l:m:u:v:w:x:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;; ; ; ;;;;;;;!;";&;';*;-;.;3;4;7;8;?;@;B;C;F;HhucGhL|thRn h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUXF;G;O;P;R;S;a;b;d;e;l;m;o;p;v;w;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;<< < <<<<<<<<<%<&<'<(<.</<1<2<:<;<=<><D<E<H<I<R<S<U<V<W<X<`<hL|thBS5 hL|thBS hL|thU\`<a<i<j<k<n<o<|<}<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<==== = ==== hL|th#hL|thBShRncHdhvcG!hL|thU0Jyc'*0J !hL|thBS0Jyc'*0J jhL|thRn0JU hL|thBS hL|thUD====#=$=&='=+=,=/=0=6=7=>=?=G=H=K=L=U=V=Y=Z=^=_=b=c=f=g=n=o=r=s=============================================>> > >>>>>>>> >">#>)>*> h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU]*>1>2>7>8>;><>C>D>G>H>O>P>R>S>X>Y>d>e>g>h>r>s>x>y>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>???? ? ? ? ???????#?$?(?)?+?,?0?1?5?6?:? h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS]:?;?E?F?G?H?I?R?S?U?V?^?_?f?g?m?n?u?v?z?{?~????????????????????????????????????????????????@@@@@ @ @@@@@@@@#@$@hL|thUhncHdhcGHhcGhL|thn hL|thBS hL|thUT$@1@2@4@5@8@9@I@J@M@N@d@e@l@m@v@w@y@z@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ξhL|thUhncHdhcGHhcGhL|thnhL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS?@@@@@@@@AAAAAA#A$A&A'A/A0A6A7A:A;AOAPARASAXAYA\A]AnAoAqArA}A~AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABB hL|th h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUhncHdhcGSB B BBBBBBB%B&B*B+B-B.B1B2B6B7B>B?BCBDBIBJBMBNBPBQBTBUBWBXB]B^BaBbBjBkBlBoBpBtBuByBzB}B~BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCCCCHhcGhL|thn hL|thU hL|thBSZC C CCCCCCC C!C$C%C.C/C2C3C5C6C;CM?MBMCMEMFMOMPM[M\MaMbMdMeMhMiMoMpMsMtM~MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNN N N N NNNNNNHhVcGhL|th#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUONNNN N!N'N(N*N+N2N3N5N6N=N>NCNDNFNGNLNMNPNQNWNXN\N]NbNcNhNiNnNoNqNrNxNyNzN~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNķĠĘhL|thU5 hL|thhL|thh/Q0cHdhcGHhcGhL|th/Q0 hL|thBS hL|thUHhVcGhL|th#hL|thUh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGO?O@OAOKOLONOOOROSOTOZO[O]O^ObOcOgOhOjOkOmOnOtOuOyOzO|O}OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHhcGhL|th/Q0 hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPP P P P PPP$P%P'P(P)P*P.P/P4P5P7P8PnPoPtP}P~PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPQQQQQQQQQ Q+Q,Q/Q0Q9Q:QS?S@SASISJSSSTS[S\S^S_SbScShSiSnSoSvSwS~SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTT T h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS] TTTTTTT T!T&T'T2T3T6T7T;TB*cHdhcGph&hL|th#B*phcG*0Jy9hL|th#hg>B*cHdhcGphcG*0Jy7[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[\\\\\\\\\\\\"\#\%\&\*\+\-\.\/\0\9\:\>\?\I\J\O\HhVcGhL|th#hL|th#hWZcHdh hL|th#h7h#0JyB*ph h7h#hL|thBShg>cHdhcG hL|thU hL|thBSAO\S\T\U\[\\\`\c\d\f\g\j\k\o\p\r\s\z\{\|\}\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\]] ]]]]]]]]ؽѶ h7h# hL|thHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGH]]]"]#](])]+],]0]1]3]4]8]9]A]B]E]F]J]K]R]S]U]V]Y]Z]^]_]c]d]h]i]m]n]t]u]v]{]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]^^^^^^ ^ hL|thhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSY ^^^^^ ^#^$^%^&^*^+^/^0^2^3^5^6^9^:^>^?^C^D^G^H^S^T^V^W^X^Y^a^b^d^e^p^q^r^s^x^y^z^{^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^__ _ ___$_ h7h# hL|thjhL|thg>0JU hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUR$_%_(_)_0_1_4_5_7_8_:_;_A_B_F_G_R_S_T_\_]_^___e_f_i_j_t_u_w_x_{_|_____________________________________________``` ` ````` hL|th#h7h#0JyB*ph h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUUY_cdqflWljopyOy J͕؜ߪlgdh]:gdfllgd'z(gd'zgdfl&gdJu(gdfl`````,`-`/`0`4`5`;`<`D`E`H`I`P`Q`U`V`Y`Z`]`^`h`i`k`l`o`p`u`v`y`z````````````````````````````````````````aaaaaaaaaaaa a"a#ah7h#0JyB*ph h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSX#a(a)a+a,a7a8a?a@aEaFaKaLaOaPa[a\aeafajakarasaxaya|a}aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaab b b bbbbbbb#b$b(b)b+b,b2b3b4b5b7b8bAbHhcGhL|thg>hL|thBShg>cHdhcG h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSQAbBbLbMbObPbTbUb\b]bbbcbfbgbkblbzb{b}b~bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbcccccccccccc(c)c/c0c2c3c6c7c=c>cBcCcFcGcMcNcVcWcYcZc]c^cmcnctcuc h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU]ucwcxccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccddd d ddddd%d&d(d)d0d1d7d8d;de?eCeGeʽѴʧъzʊhL|thBSh>zcHdhܑ'Hhݑ'hL|th>zhL|th#hWcHdhcGHhcGhL|thWhL|thBS0JyjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thU$jh7hW0JUmH nH u h7h#h7h#0JyB*ph-GeIeJeKeLeMeNeOeWeXe\e]e^eaebeeefeiejepeqeseteueveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeef h7h#hL|thBSh>cHdhcG hL|thU hL|thBS$jhL|thW0JUmH nH u hL|th#Gfff fffffff f!f%f&f-f.f1f2f4f5f9f:fDfEfGfHfPfQfZf[f]f^fffgfpfqfsftfwfxf{f|f~ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffggggggggggOgHhcGh7h> h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS!hL|thBS0Jy-'*0J POgPgUgVg]g^g`gagegfghgigngogvgwg|g}ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhh h hhhhhhh#h$h%hξhL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUK%h&h,h-h1h2h5h6h=h>hAhBhDhEhQhRhXhYhchdhghhhlhmhqhrhyhzhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhξhL|thUh>cHdhcGhL|th#h>cHdhcG hL|th#jhL|th&>L0JU hL|thBS hL|thUIhhhhhiii i i iiiiiii i"i#i,i-i0i1i4i5i7i8i;iMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijjjjjjjjjj"j#j*j+j6j7j;jj?jFjGjLjMjQjRjWjXj]j^jhjijkjljmjnjtjuj|j}jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj hL|thU hL|thBS`jjkkk k kkkkkkkk k"k#k(k)k1k2k6k7k8k9k=k>k?kCkDkEkFkKkLkNkOkTkUkWkXk_k`kckdkfkgklkmkqkrkzk{k~kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk hL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0JyVkkkklll l llll l#l$l,l-l6l7l>l?lAlBlKlLlOlPlVlWl[l\l]l^lcldliljlnlolqlrlvlwl|l}l~llllllllllllllllllllllllllĻhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jyh7hUB*phh7hB*phh7hBSB*phjhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBSFlllllllllllllllllllllmm m mmmmmmm$m%m+m,m1m2m9m:m>m?mEmFmHmImNmOmSmTmZm[m_m`mdmemgmhmmmnmpmqmtmumxmym|m}mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmh7hB*phh7hUB*phh7hBSB*phXmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmnnn n n nnnnnnnn n!n"n+n,n1n2n7n8nAnBnEnFnXnYn_n`nbncnfngnknlnmnnnsntnxnyn|n}nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnh7hB*phh7h#B*phh7hUB*phh7hBSB*phSnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooo o ooooo o)o*o,o-o0o1o4o5o8o9o@oAoHoIoPoQoUoVoZo[o_o`ocodohoiojomonouovoooooooo hL|thU hL|thBSjhL|thBS0JUh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phQoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppp p ppppppp%p&p(p)p7p8pApBpFpGpHpIpOpPpRpSp_p`pcpdpjpkpoppppppppppppppppppppppp h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU]pppppppppppppppppppppppppppqqq q qqqqqq q'q(q,q-q/q0q3q4q9q:qv?vDvEvGvHvJvKvNvOvQvRvTvUv[v_v`vfvgvivjvtvuv{v|vvvvhL|thBS0JyhL|th#hxcHdhcGhL|thUhxcHdhcGHhcGhL|thx hL|thBS hL|thUJvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvwww w w wwwwwww$w%w'w(w0w1w9w:wxBxCxDxEx h7h# hL|thHhcGhL|thxhL|thUhxcHdhcGhL|thBShxcHdhcG hL|thBS hL|thUHExKxLxOxPxSxTx]x^xaxbxhxixpxqxtxuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxyyyyyyyyyyy'y(y)y*y-y.y:y;y hL|th#hL|thBShxcHdhcGHhcGhL|thxjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSI;y=y>yAyByFyGyMyNySyTyWyXyZy[y_y`ygyhykylyuyvyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyzz zzzzzz"z#z%z$jhL|thx0JUmH nH u!jhL|thx0JOJQJU hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSN%z&z'z(z.z/z1z2z>z?z@zAzGzHzIzPzQzSzTzWzXzZz[zdzezgzhzqzrzuzvz}z~zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz{{{{ { {{{${%{'{({,{-{4{hL|thU5 h7h# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUW4{5{<{={B{C{D{E{F{[{\{]{`{a{c{d{g{h{n{o{p{q{w{x{~{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th#jhL|thBS0JUh7h#hxcHdhcGHhcGh7hx h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU7{{{{{{{{{{{{{{|| | ||||||| |!|%|&|,|-|0|1|7|8|>|?|A|B|H|I|R|S|T|W|X|a|b|g|h|n|o|r|s|y|z|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||hL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUR||||||||||||}}}} }}}}}}!}"}'}(}0}1}4}5}9}:}>}?}B}C}I}J}L}M}S}T}\}]}_}`}i}j}o}p}r}s}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}翯hL|thBShxcHdhcGHhcGhL|thx hL|th# hL|thUjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBShL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyC}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}~~~~~5689=>CDGHOPUV_`bcfgnoqĽĴĤĤĤjhL|thBS0JU h7h#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#;qrxy $%+,34;<ABCDMNWXZ[abdenoxy|}hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUS€Àƀǀ̀̀ԀՀۀ܀݀  !()./1256?@EFHINOTU\]abǷhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jyh7h#h05cHdhcGHhcGh7h05 h7h#hL|thBSh$cHdhcG hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUAbefklnostvwz{ !"'(1245;<CDIJLMYZ^_bcmnostz{~ɂʂ̂jhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSXׂ̂͂؂ۂ܂!"&')*BCDGHPQVW\]abdehiklopstxy{|jhL|thBS0JU h7h#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUPĄń̄̈́Єфׄ؄ڄۄބ߄ '(*+3467;<?@ABFGJKNOTUZ[_`efijnorsvw|}hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUP…ÅɅʅ΅υӅԅօׅ "#)*./346789DEHIXY_`deghpqsthL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|th#h#cHdhVcGLÆĆȆɆц݆҆ކ $%*+,1267>?KLXY^b鴤hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th#hL|thU0Jy!hL|thBS0JyR'*0J hL|thBS hL|thU hh#hL|thBS0Jy>bcdnorswxz{‡ćŇLJȇˇ̇ԇՇڇۇ݇߇ȿȿظHhhL|thWZHhhWZhL|thUhWZcHdhhL|th#hWZcHdh hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|th#h#cHdhVcG2 &'*+./1256>?ABCDJKMNZ[_`denoqruv|}ÈĈȈɈΈψш҈ۈ܈ hL|thU hL|thBS` "#&'013467;<CDIJLMQRUVYZ^_bcghjnorsxy|}‰ÉˉhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSVˉ̉ΉωԉՉ؉ى #$&'()34:;DEIJPQSTVW`adeijvwz{hL|thBSh$cHdhcGhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUQ !"$%*+0134<=DEKLOPVW\]abefklpqtuwxķİˣHhVcGhL|th# hL|th#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUHhcGhL|th$hL|thBSh$cHdhcGhL|thUh$cHdhcG@ËċNjȋ΋ϋҋӋ܋݋  "#)*+,9:CDGHJKPQVWZ[]^hiklopwx{| h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU hL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGMŒƌnjɌʌ͌Ό،ٌ #$*+-.23569:BCHI\]_`deghstvwjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#h7h#h&cHdhcGQƍǍɍʍӍԍڍۍ܍ލߍ  '(1267DEGHKLRSVW^_bcjkstyz|} hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU]ŽÎǎȎʎˎӎԎՎ֎ގߎ #$+,0156:;<=hL|thUh&cHdhcGHhcGhL|th&hL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUB=ABKLRSXY\]_`fgijnoqruvwxÏďŏɏʏΏϏЏя܏ݏޏߏjhL|thBS0JU h7h#hL|thh&cHdhcGHhcGhL|th& hL|th#jhL|th&0JU hL|thU hL|thBSD"#>?BCYZ\]bcɑʑ̑͑בؑߑĒŒ̒͒ϒВْؒߒ hL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thBS h7h# hL|thUO%&+,4589;<BCOPRSTUYZ\]demnrs{|~ȓɓ͓ΓГѓؓٓhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th# hL|th hL|thBS h7h# hL|thUI $%'(014589<=DEIJMNTU\]efklstvw}~سhL|thBShWZcHdh h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh#cHdhWcGhL|th#h#cHdhWcGFƔǔȔɔϔДӔԔՔ֔ܔݔߔ $%),-.56>?EFQRTUWXdejξ򱡑hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS9jkmnqryz•ǕȕϕЕӕԕוؕڕەޕߕ  '(./4578:;<=ABDELMUV h7h#hL|thBSh&cHdhcG hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUTV[\inpqΖϖՖ֖ޖߖ #$./56BCFGJKOPTUXY`fghno|}ĴhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#jh7h&0JUh7h#0JyB*ph h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS=řƙșəʙ˙әԙٙڙܙݙ %&,-0178:;<=BCIJKRSHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUHhcGhL|th&LSUV]^cdfgjkrsuv'(./2389?@BCKLMNST[\^_ghrsvwz{ hL|th# hL|thhL|thUh&cHdhcGhL|thBSh&cHdhcG h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSJ{ěśƛǛΛϛқӛ֛כۛܛޛߛ !$%)*1278>?IJMTU\]efmnst h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSZ̜͜ϜМ֜ۜܜ !"&'+,23;<=>CDFGNOUV򽥽 hL|th.HhcGhL|th&0JycG*0J !hL|thBS0JycG*0J hL|th#hL|thUh<(cHdh.'Hh.'hL|th<( hL|thU hL|thBS>VW`ghiopstxy|}ǝȝНѝ֝םڝ۝  $%'(*+3489;<?@jhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#N@GHKLVWYZ^_bcpqvw͞ΞҞӞ՞֞ٞڞ/067@A h"VhUhL|thUh&cHdhcG h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSTǟȟ͟Οҟӟٟڟޟߟ &'2367:;=>BCMN[\^_bcnoz{ ĠŠɠʠ̠͠Ԡՠ hL|th# hL|th h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSW $%./23<=>?FGIJRSVW^_ijkluvwz{¡ɡʡ͡Ρۡܡ$jhL|thax0JUmH nH u hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSO !$%()+,./78:<ABGPQVWZ[cdfgnovw}~ͽhL|thUh@W0cHdhcGhL|th#h@W0cHdhcG hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thh@W0cHdhcGHhcGhL|th@W0DȢɢТѢ٢ڢܢݢޢߢ  #$&'+-238;<?@GHLMPQ[\^_`ajɹHhcGhL|th@W0hL|thUh@W0cHdhcGhL|th#h@W0cHdhcG hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy=jkqruv~ģţˣ̣Σϣңӣףأڣۣ !"()+,/05689;<?@FGIJQRWXZ[\]cdfgklmnv h7h# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUZvwxäĤȤɤ̤ͤѤҤԤդؤ٤ߤ "#&'2367;<DEGHMNTUXYHhcGhL|th@W0 hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUXYabefnostxy¥åťƥʥ˥̥ͥե֥إ٥  %&)*,-3456:;=>KLOPWXZ[^_efhinoyz|} h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS]æĦǦȦϦЦަߦ *+0156;<?@CDIJNORSUV[\`adeklvw|}h7hUB*phh7hBSB*ph hL|thBS hL|thUW§çͧΧЧѧէ֧ݧާ  !&'23:;?@OPRSYZ]^ghwxz{h7hXB*phh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phX¨ƨǨʨ˨ͨΨѨҨը֨ب٨ $%'(124578@AHITUYZ_`lmtuxyh7h#B*ph(h7h#h@W0B*cHdhcGphh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phO̩ͩѩҩөԩة٩ک  !)*./12:;BCNORSVWYcdѨ hh# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSjhL|thBS0JUh7h#0JyB*phh7h#B*phh7hUB*phh7hBSB*phBªêǪȪ˪ͪΪϪӪԪܪݪުߪ!"%&./9:<h7hUB*phh7hBSB*phhL|thBSh@W0cHdhcGHhcGhL|th@W0hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS9<=@AIJPQSTVW[\_`deqrxy{|~ūƫȫɫ̫ͫѫҫګ۫ )*,-019:Dh7h#0JyB*phh7h#B*phh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phRDEHIMNVWZ[\]efopǬȬԬլ׬جݬެ $%/034ABEFGHPQ\]_`klh7h#B*phh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phXlvwz{íĭ̭ͭխ֭حڭۭݭޭ "#%&)*./78@ACDGHQRU(h7h#hq0B*cHdhcGphh7h#B*phh7hUB*phh7hBSB*phOUVYZdeijopuv{|ɮʮˮ̮ӮԮ֮׮#$&'*+-.1278@ACDKLOPXYbcfgnorh7hBSB*phh7hUB*ph\rsvw¯ůƯϯЯׯد #$&'0156 hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSjhL|thBS0JUh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phL±ƱDZʱ˱ͱαӱԱױر !)*2367>?GHKLST]^bcefmntvw~ hL|th#hL|thUhq0cHdhcG hL|thU hL|thBSVDzȲ˲̲ϲвڲ۲޲߲ !"&'+,01569:@ACDGHOPRSWXZ[abefst{|~ h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU]ųƳ˳̳ͳϳгӳԳ߳ !"'(9:ABCDHIMNQR_`bcmnpquvxy~HhcGh7hq0 h7h# hL|thHhcGhL|thq0 hL|thU hL|thBSP4" h~L\{Ibr{gdQLpgdJu:gdJugdfl&gdJu(gdflgdflôĴʴ˴ʹδѴҴڴ۴ "#)*,-23:;<@ACDKLQRSTUhL|thU0JyhL|th#0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thhL|thUhq0cHdhcGHhcGhL|thq0 hL|thBS h7h# hL|thUDU]^hijnoqrvw|}µõȵɵ˵̵ӵԵ޵ߵ  !()-./056=>ABEFMNVWY hL|thU hL|thBShL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyXYZ]^cdghmnpqrsxyǶȶ˶̶׶ضܶݶ߶ $%,-/023;<?@GHMNPQTU^_a hL|thBS hL|thU`abfgrsvwȷɷηϷշַطٷ޷߷ $ξhL|thBS0JyhL|thh7cHdhcGHhcGhL|th7hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU<$%&'(CDLMOPSTYZefghoprsvwz{}~ŸƸɸʸ͸θҸոָ׸ݸhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# h7h# hL|thUhL|thh7cHdhcGHhcGhL|th7 hL|thBS?ݸ޸ $%'(,-3467=>@ADEJKVWYZ]^efhinowxy{|ƹǹɹjhL|thBS0JUjhL|th70JU hL|thBS hL|thUUɹʹ̹͹ѹҹչֹٹڹ߹ !"&')*/09:<=CDHIQRSTXY`aghklqryz~Ǻ hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUZǺȺкѺغٺܺݺ  #$&',-./1267=>FGKLOPVWZ[]^jkopvw{|~ξξhL|thBSh'cHdh{Hh{hL|th' hL|th# h7h#hL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUK  %&/078>?BCNOQRUV]^`afglmopstyz{jhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUXɼʼͼμּ׼޼߼ #$%&-.78?@BCFGNOUVdeklqrz{~%jhL|thBS0JU hL|th h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSU%&+,./459:=>CDIJMNPQST\]ijžƾȾɾϾоҾӾվ־ؾپھ۾ !"()1267<=EFHIjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thBS hL|thURILNOP[\abefnowx|}ʿ˿ӿԿؿٿ!"'(+,56<=@AJKVWĽĽjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#EWYZghklqr  !#$-.23478<HhcGhL|thb~FhL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSH<=@ADENOQRWX\]^abfgpqz{}~  "#'(*+HhcGhL|thb~F hL|thBS hL|thUT+-.5689=>EFHIOPQUV]^abghmntuwxz{}~ hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUhb~FcHdhcGhL|thBShb~FcHdhcGP &'./1267;<>?EFLMPQVWYZ`ahijmnqrtu{|hL|thBShb~FcHdhcG hL|thU hL|thBSY  #$+,./56=>GHJKWXZ[^_abfgjkstxyz{|}hL|thBShb~FcHdhcGHhcGhL|thb~F hL|thBS hL|thUT  *+-.12<=EFHINOXYZ[y} hw_h# h7h#jhL|th`0JUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyjhL|thb~F0JU hL|thBS hL|thUH %& %&(),-34567?@IJLMPQXY^_fgijkltuxy hL|th#jhL|th60JUjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS h7h# hL|thUP  #$+,./23;<>?BCOP[\_`ijqrtuHhcGhL|th6jhL|th60JU hL|th#hL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUJ #$&-.=>FGKLOPWX`aefjkmnpquvxy}~ hL|th# hL|th hL|thUHhcGhL|th6 hL|thBShL|thh6cHdhcGN "#()-./078:;ABDELMOPSTZ[]^efjknovwy hL|thhL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSKyz}~ !"%&0156ABFGIJMNSTVW\]bclhL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUNlmopstz{}~  !#$,-89<=IJNOQR[\^_b h7h#hL|th#hTcHdhdGHhdGhL|thT hL|thBS hL|thUQbchiklmnwx{| !%()*./45?@GHKLhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUMLMNOPTUXYZ[]^abghlmopuwx}~ h7h#HhǪhL|thhL|thUhocHdhdGhL|thBShcHdhǪ hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thhkcHdhdGhL|thBSdG*0Jy0hL|thhkcHdhdGdG*0Jy2 !")*/0<=BCEFGHOPTUZ[^_bcdeijlmstvwz{ hL|th hL|thBS h7h# hL|thUhL|thBShocHdhdGHhdGhL|thoN !")*/04589@AFGKLNORSVW]^bclmopstyz~ hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSZ  !()./9:=>DEGHIJWX]^abfgijlmpqtu~hL|thUhocHdh dG h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU hL|th#T  %&(),-2389FGPQTU[\`adehopsHh!dGhL|tho h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSXst}~  !$%-.56<=?@CDUVXYdehirsxy{| h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU] !"$%+,2356;<CDFGfgnorsz{~ h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSX  *+2367BCEFMNRSZ[]^fgopwx hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU!hL|thU0Jy$dG*0J !hL|thBS0Jy$dG*0J L  $%()./2367:;EFSTVWZ[cdpqstz{}~ h7h# hL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSH  '(<=@AHIKLNOQR\]_`de h7h#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thjhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBSCeilmntuxy{|}~ !"$%*˽˽ hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#E*+,45BCEFMNPQVW`aefrsvwyz}~ hL|thBShocHdh&dG hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUhocHdh&dGHh&dGhL|thoM"#+,78?@BCEFNOVW^_bdefjŵtg` hh#h7h#0JyB*phh7h#hWZcHdhHhh7hWZHh&dGh7hoh7h#hocHdh&dG h7h#hL|thUhocHdh&dGhL|thBShocHdh&dGHh&dGhL|thohoHh&dGhL|tho hL|thBS hL|thU% %&(),-67;<=?@GHKLPQRYZabjknopq hL|th#hh#hWZcHdhhL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSIqwxz{ ˾HhhWZhL|thUhWZcHdhhL|thBShWZcHdhHh'dGhL|thohL|thUhocHdh'dGhL|th#hocHdh'dG hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS: !$%)*./12<=?@KLNORSVWYZ]^cdjkpqxy}~ hL|thBSPJnHtHhL|thUPJnHtH hL|thU hL|thBSU'(*+./78:;>?CDFGMNOPVWX[\cdfgijrsyz}~+hL|thBShoPJcHdh(dGnHtHhL|thPJnHtHhL|thBSPJnHtHhL|thUPJnHtHM"#()+,3467;<>?BCGHJKQRSZ[]^fghijqrz{»ش h7h# hL|thjhL|thsl0JUhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSPJnHtHhL|thUPJnHtHG  1245:;<=DEGHLMOPTUZ[^_efgh}~򾱾򨟨 hL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jyh7h#0JyB*ph h7h#Hh)dGhL|thohL|thUhocHdh)dGhL|thBShocHdh)dG hL|thU hL|thBS< &')*./2367@ACDñHh)dGhL|tho0Jy#hL|thUho0JycHdh)dG#hL|thBSho0JycHdh)dGhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thUhocHdh)dGHh)dGhL|tho hL|thBS hL|thU8DLMOPWX[\ghjkstxy~'(/06 hL|th#hL|thUh[ycHdh)dGhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSO679:?@LMNOS`acdijqrtuxy Hh+dGh7h[y h7h# hL|thHh*dGhL|th[y hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUJ "#%&+,-.4578=>CDGHKLNORSXY\]efhiopuvyzڸڸ hL|th#hL|thUh[ycHdh,dGhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#h7h#h[ycHdh+dGF  !#$()56@ACDPQUVYZ_`bclmqr}~оٝ hL|thHh-dGhL|th[y0Jy#hL|thUh[y0JycHdh-dG#hL|thBSh[y0JycHdh-dGhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|th#h[ycHdh,dG hL|thU hL|thBS; #$./89=>BCFGKLPQRS^_fghL|thUh[ycHdh-dGhL|thBSh[ycHdh-dGjhL|th[y0JU hL|thBS hL|thUHgosuvw !"%&/09:@ACDPQSTWǺγγγγγγγγγγγγγγγγγγγγγγγγγγγγ hL|th hL|thBSHh.dGh7h[y h7h# hL|thUHh.dGhL|th[yhL|thBSh[ycHdh.dGHh-dGhL|th[yDWX\]abcdhiqryz '(*+./67@ACDGHSTV hL|th#hL|thUh[ycHdh.dGHh.dGhL|th[y hL|thBS hL|thUQVWZ[`afgmnopwx~!"$%()5689<=DEGhL|th0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thURGHKLUV^_`aghopstwx !"%&,-hL|thUh[ycHdh/dGhL|thBSh[ycHdh/dGHh/dGhL|th[y hL|thBS hL|thUN-12:;<=CDKLRSUVYZabmnrsvwz{}~˾۾򷪷}Hh{hL|th'hL|thUh'cHdh{hL|thBSh'cHdh{h7h#0JyB*ph h7h#Hh/dGhL|th[yhL|thUh[ycHdh/dGhL|thBSh[ycHdh/dG hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS1"#+-.124567>?ABEFSTZ[efhijpqtuv~˾hL|thBS0Jy h7h#Hh0dGhL|th[yhL|thUh[ycHdh0dGhL|thBSh[ycHdh0dG hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUD !"%&./1256?@EFHIOPYZ^_efglmvw~Hh0dGhL|th[y hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSX !"$%(),./078BCGHJKUVWXdeghmnpqhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSNqtu{|}~ УУw$jhL|thsl0JUmH nH uhL|thBS0J hL|thhL|thBS0JyHhʪh7h#h7h#h!cHdh3dGh7h#hcHdhʪ h7h#HhҪhL|thg} hL|thfl hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS."#)*-.3478>?IMNRSWX[\bfopqrv{ռhL|thh|cHdh'Hh'h|1jHh3dGhL|th!0JUmH nH uHh3dGhL|th! hL|thaD hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBS0J@{+h K}k#(I.'3B7<<<KFgdfl&gdJu(gdfl+gdflgdKgdh]:gdQLp)*34=>KLPQXY[\^_dehimnqrvw̼̼̯ hL|thjhL|thBS0JUhL|thUh!cHdh3dG hL|th# hL|thUhL|thBS0JyhL|th=]0JyjhL|thaD0JU hL|thBSB  !'(+,/078<=ABHIRSVW`acdjkmnopqrz{}~ hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]~ #$,-/023:;CDLMOPUVY̿ h7h#jhL|th=N0JUjhL|thBS0JyUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|th=] hL|thBSHYZbcdejkvwyz'(*+1234;<IJ h7h# hL|th#hL|thUh=NcHdh5dG!hL|thBS0JyR'*0J hL|thBS hL|thUMJTUYZbcfgijpqyz #$&'*+/089@ADEIJMN hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS]NPQXY\]hilmrsyz}~ Hh5dGhL|th=NhL|thBS0JyhL|thBSh=NcHdh5dG hL|thU hL|thBSP"#+,/0124578<=@ABDEIJVWYZ`akloptwxy hL|thhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# h7h#jhL|thBS0JU hL|th#hL|thUh=NcHdh5dG hL|thBS hL|thU: %&'(013489DEHIOPVWYZ]^`aǸЫТhL|thUPJjhL|th< 0JUHh6dGhL|th< PJhL|thFgPJhL|th#PJhL|thBSPJhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS@afgijmnwx{| &'-.5689<=FGJQRXY\]ijlmnotuyz|} hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS]} !"&'-.67˻ˮHh9dGhL|th< hL|thUh< cHdh9dGhL|th#h< cHdh9dG hL|th#hL|thBSh< cHdh9dG hL|thU hL|thBSD7?@BCEFJKRS]^fgjkopst~ !"hL|thUPJhL|thBSPJhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSP"()+,34=>BCEFIJNOTUXY_`bcmnqr|}  hL|thBS hL|thUhL|th#PJhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJhL|thBS0JyPJP%&,-/0:;=>CDHIOPXY[\abdeopz{}~ hL|thBShjccHdhTjgHhTjghL|thjchL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUN#$&'()-.459:?@EFKLPQ\]bclmopuvxy|} hL|thBShU cHdhYjgHhYjghL|thU hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSQ $()-./23569:?@IJLMTUbcjkvw hL|thUhU cHdhajghL|thBShU cHdhYjgHhYjghL|thU hL|thBS hL|thUN "#%&-.0189=>DEKLPQWXabhiklvwz{  hL|th hL|th#hL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUT !#$()/02389=>BCLMOPZ[^_efhipqstxy{|hL|th#hcHdh' hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUhQcHdhijgP !"&)*+./12@ACDKLMVWXabcijknopuvxy~ȸhL|th#hQcHdhijghL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBShQcHdhijgHhijghL|thQ hL|thU hL|thBS<!"$%(),-23;<?@DEGHPQSTYZefnoy|}~hL|thBShcHdhjjgHhjjghL|thjhL|thQ0JU hL|thBS hL|thUO 0hL|thBSh/6cHdh''*0JyhL|thBS'*0Jy hL|thjhL|thBS0JUhL|thUhcHdhjjghL|thBShcHdhjjgHhjjghL|th hL|thU hL|thBS2 !"*+124589@ACDGHNOQRYZ[_`efgjkptؿد~qahL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#HhhWZhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh/6cHdh'0hL|thBSh/6cHdh''*0JyhL|thBS'*0Jy0hL|thUh/6cHdh''*0Jy&tuv~  !*+-.67:;?@hL|thUPJhL|thBSPJ hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|th#h#cHdhVcGH@BCFGIJKLUV[\]^ijnoxy{| hL|thPJh7h#PJHhljghL|thPJhL|th#PJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJM"#'()*23ABIJMNWX\]abghklpqrs|}  ƷHhVcGhL|th#PJ#hL|thBSh#PJcHdhVcGjhL|thBS0JUhL|thPJhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJE<=?@DENOQRX\]dehistxy  jhL|thBS0JPJUhL|thBS0JyPJhL|th#PJhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJh7h#PJL$%/01267BCGHKLQRUVZ[efmnrsyz|}  !%&hL|th#PJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJZ&*+./67;<=>EFOP[\^_ghklopstvw{|  hL|thhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUPJhL|thBSPJM   $%)*-.4578?@DEJKNOTUYZ]^bcklwxyz׼!hL|thBS0Jyqjg*0J 4hL|thBShy0JycHdhqjgqjg*0J HhqjghL|thy hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JU? !$%)*,-12<=CDEFIJMNST²Ž hL|th#HhrjghL|thyhL|th#hycHdhrjghL|thBShycHdhrjg hL|thUjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS!hL|thBS0Jyqjg*0J !hL|thU0Jyqjg*0J 8TWX\]_`cdijrsuvyz򼬜hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#!hL|thU0Jysjg*0J !hL|thBS0Jysjg*0J h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS9  %&(),-3478<=@AIJLMSTVWZ[\ijkmntu{|}~ hL|thh7h#0JyB*ph h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JUO  !&'01:;BCJKLM]^bcjkmnop|}hL|thBS0Jy h7h#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBShycHdhtjgHhtjghL|thy hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS= "#'(*+./78:;>?EFGJKZ[abdemnoqru hL|th# hL|thUjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBSjhL|th`0JURuvyz}~   $%&)*,-013478?@DEHILMWXYZ^hL|thUPJhL|thBSPJjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUS^_jkopstxy{|            ! " hL|th#PJ#hL|thUh`PJcHdhjg#hL|thBSh`PJcHdhjghL|thBS0JyPJhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJH" ( ) - . 0 1 3 4 8 9 < = @ A G H M N Q R U V Y Z ^ _ c d g h m n p q t u | } ~                               hL|thPJhL|th#PJ#hL|thUh-PJcHdhjghL|thBS0JyPJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJE                                  ( ) + , 5 6 8 9 B C H I O P R S W X Z [ a b f g l hL|thBSh-cHdhjg hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh-cHdhjgHhjghL|th-HhjghL|th-#hL|thUh-PJcHdhjg#hL|thBSh-PJcHdhjg:l m o p w x z {                                                      # $ ( ) - . / ¸HhhL|thWZHhhWZhL|thUhWZcHdhhL|th#hWZcHdh hL|th#hL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUC/ 0 6 7 9 : > ? D E N O Q R [ \ b c g h q r t u | }                                                   ξξhL|thUh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUK   # $ ( ) , - 1 2 5 6 : ; E F L M P Q U V ` a d e j k q r t u x y                                                         % & ( ) + ,  hL|thU hL|thBS`, 7 8 ; < > ? G H Q R T U X Y b c e f j k n o v w x y                                          !"$%+,0hL|thBS0JyPJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJ hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSQ013467ABFGJKMNRSZ[]^cdfgnoqruvz{|}hL|thU0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSPJhL|thUPJR%&)*./0>@ABCRTUVWbdfgjktuxyhL|thBSh#tcHdhjghL|thBS0JyhL|thBSh>zcHdhߑ'Hhޑ'hL|th>zHhݑ'hL|th>z hL|thBS hL|thUE  $%,-3467;<?@KLTU\]deghlmqrwx{|hL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSS    !"&')*-.3467;<>?FGIJLMNOXYabdehistxy{|ï&hL|th#B*phjg*0Jy9hL|th#h#tB*cHdhjgphjg*0Jy hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBS0JyhL|thU0Jy@   "#&'3467:;DEVֹhL|thBS0Jy&hL|th#B*phjg*0Jy9hL|th#h#tB*cHdhjgphjg*0Jy h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU(hL|th#h#tB*cHdhjgph;V\]^`aefhimnrs|}    $%'ò!hL|thBS0Jyjg*0J !hL|th0Jyjg*0J hL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#h7h#0JyB*phF'(3478=>@ADEMNQRTU]^abnopwx~  jhL|thBS0JUhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUT !%&+,-0178>?ABKLNOQRXY]^`aghklvwyz{|   h7h#hL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUY !&'()*+3456=>?@IJMNQRSUVWYZ[`ajkrswxyz h7h#$jhL|th/?0JUmH nH uhL|thUh/?cHdhjgHhjghL|th/? hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUG"#&'014578<=@ACDMNcdfgqrz{}~ hL|th# hL|th h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUW  "#%&'(./2367<=?@CDGHIJMOPYZ]^efoprs{|˾۾HhjghL|th/?hL|thBSh/?cHdhjghL|thUh/?cHdhjg hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUK    #$(),-56;<>?GHIJQRTUZ[]hL|thh/?cHdhjgHhjghL|th/?hL|thBSh/?cHdhjgHhjghL|th/? hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thF]^_`cdhijkqrxy}~()+,;<=>D h7h#hL|thh/?cHdhjgHhjghL|th/? hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thNDEIJLMQR[\]^abjklmrs{|}~ǷǷhL|thUh/?cHdhjg hL|th# hL|thhL|thh/?cHdhjgHhjghL|th/? hL|thBS hL|thUH  !"$%)*4589ABEFMNQR[\_`bchilmpqwxz{ hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSZ    !'(./1245ABJKSTVWXY]^`afgkltuxy~ȽhL|thBS0JyPJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJ hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th#hL|thUh/?cHdhjgJ"#*+-.67:;?@DEJKQRUV[\`afgjkmnvwhL|th#PJhL|thBS0JyPJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJV  $*+2367;<=>FGIJSTWX_`bcdeklpqϽhL|thPJHhjghL|thUPJ#hL|thUhUPJcHdhjg#hL|thBShUPJcHdhjgjhL|thU0JUhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJAqtu|}hL|thBS0JyPJjhL|thBS0JPJUh7h#0JyB*PJphh7h#PJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJJ678;<BCGHJKPQRYZbcklstxy|}  Hhjgh7hslPJh7h#0JyB*PJphhL|th#PJjhL|thsl0JUjh7hsl0JUhL|thBSPJh7h#PJhL|thUPJ@         ! " ' ( * +                                     !! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!*!+!-!.!3!4!9!:!C!H!I!J!M!#hL|thBSh%iPJcHdhjgHhjghL|th%iPJhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJh7h#PJMM!N!W!X!Z![!c!d!n!o!r!s!y!z!|!}!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!һҮhL|th#h%icHdhjgHhjghL|th%ih7h#h%icHdhjg hL|th h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSPJhL|thUPJ>!""""""""!"""#"$"%"'"("0"1"3"4"7"8"A"B"D"E"P"Q"S"T"V"W"`"a"g"h"i"j"o"p"q"r"w"x"y"z"""""""""""""""""""ξhL|thUh%icHdhjg hL|th#hL|thUh%icHdhjgHhjghL|th%ih7h#h%icHdhjg h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS?""""""""""""""""""""""""#### # #########%#&#(#)#0#1#5#6#;#<#?#@#B#C#E#F#N#O#R#S#V#W#[#\#^#_#i#j#ĽĽ˶Ľ˶˩jhL|thBS0JU hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSHhjghL|th%ihL|thUh%icHdhjghL|th#h%icHdhjgAj#k#n#o#r#s#v#w#{#|########################################$$ $ $$$$$$ $"$#$,$-$ɹHhjghL|th%ihL|thUh%icHdhjghL|thBSh%icHdhjghL|th#h%icHdhjg hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSPJ>-$.$/$0$7$8$<$=$>$D$E$F$G$H$K$L$M$P$Q$T$U$_$`$h$i$r$s$u$v$}$~$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$˾ˡ˚˚˚˚˚˚ˊz˚ˊz˚z˱hL|th#h%icHdhjghL|thUh%icHdhjg hL|thUhL|thBSh%icHdhjgHhjghL|th%ijhL|th%i0JU hL|thBSHhjghL|th%ihL|thUh%icHdhjghL|th#h%icHdhjg0$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%%%%%%%%#%$%(%)%.%/%2%3%=%>%E%F%I%J%O%P%Z%[%^%_%h%i%k%l%n%o%z%{%}%~%%%%%%%% h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUh%icHdhjghL|th#h%icHdhjgM%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&& & &&&&&&&&&%&&&*&+&-&.&2&3&<&=&?&@&D&E&J&K&M&N&Q&R&]&^&e&f&h&i&p&q&t&u&v&w&&&&&&&&&& h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thZ&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&''''''''''')'*'3'4'6'7':';'>'?'D'E'F'G'M'N'Q'R'S'T'X'hL|thPJjhL|th:_0JUhL|th#PJhL|thBS0JyPJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJ hL|thBS hL|thUHX'Y'a'b'j'k'o'p's't'x'y'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''(( ( ((((((($(%()(*(,(-(1(2(4(5(9(:(=(>(E(F(J(K(R(S(#hL|thUh:_PJcHdhjghL|thBSPJhL|thUPJWS(W(X(^(_(a(b(h(i(l(m(s(t({(|(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((())))))))))))) )')()))*).)/)2)3)7)8)@) h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUPJhL|thBSPJV@)A)B)C)G)H)L)M)O)P)S)T)W)X)_)`)h)i)m)n)u)v)x)y)~)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))****hL|th#PJhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJh7h#PJ hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#h7h#h:_cHdhjg@** * *******"*#*%*&***+*3*4*7*8*=*>*E*F*J*K*N*O*U*V*Z*[*e*f*i*j*o*p*r*s*y*z*|*}**********************************hL|thPJh7h#PJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJhL|th#PJ#hL|thUh:_PJcHdhjgL************++ ++++ +!+#+$+++,+.+/+1+2+5+6+;+<+B+C+D+E+J+K+Q+R+T+U+X+Y+_+`+h+i+l+m+q+r+t+u+}+~+++++++++++++++++++++++++++HhjghL|th:_PJhL|thPJhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJQ++++++++++++++++,,,,,, , , ,,,,,,,,,,,%,&,-,.,0,1,5,6,>,?,ñۨ䟍rññ#hL|thFgh:_PJcHdhjghL|thFgPJ#hL|thUh:_PJcHdhjghL|th#PJh7h#PJ#hL|thBSh:_PJcHdhjgHhjghL|th:_PJhL|thPJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJ#hL|thh:_PJcHdhjg,?,@,C,D,H,I,O,P,R,S,X,Y,Z,\,],`,a,e,f,j,k,o,p,s,t,{,|,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Ͳ#hL|thh:_PJcHdhjghL|th#PJHhjghL|th:_PJ#hL|thBSh:_PJcHdhjghL|thBSPJhL|thUPJF,,,, - - ---\-]-^-`-a-c-d-f-h-i-m-n-r-s-z-{------------------------y#hL|thFgh:_PJcHdhjghL|thFgPJ#hL|thUh:_PJcHdhjg#hL|thUh:_PJcHdhjghL|th#PJjh7h:_0JUh7h#PJ,hL|th#h:_B*PJcHdhjgphhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJ/----------------------.... . .........#.$.&.'.0.1.6.7.A.B.H.I.Q.R.T.U.X.Y.\.]._.`.c.d.i.j.l.m.t.u.|.}...............Hhjgh7h4ePJh7h#PJhL|thPJhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJQ...............................// //////// ////////////////Ҽҡ#hL|thFgh4ePJcHdhjghL|thFgPJ#hL|thUh4ePJcHdhjghL|th#PJjhL|thk0JUhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJh7h#PJ#h7h#h4ePJcHdhjg8///////////000 0 0000000'0(0.0/010203040=0>0F0G0M0N0Q0R0W0X0_0`0j0k0o0p0r0s0w0x000000000000000000hL|th#PJ#hL|thBSh4ePJcHdhjghL|thPJh7h#PJHhjghL|th4ePJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJB0000000000000000011111111!1"1+1,13141<1=1A1B1D1E1e1f1g1i1j1l1m1r1s1y1z1|1}11111111111111111۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷ۥ۷۷۷۷۷hL|thPJh7h#PJhL|thUPJ#hL|thFgh4ePJcHdhjghL|thFgPJhL|thBSPJhL|th#PJ#hL|thUh4ePJcHdhjgA11111111111111111111111111111111122 2 2222222!2"2(2)2-2.232427282:2;2@2A2H2I2L2M2T2U2[2\2_2`222222222222222#hL|thUhDPJcHdhjghL|th#PJh7h#PJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJP222222222222222222222222222222223333333333%3&3+3,3.3/35363<3=3?3@3A3B3G3H3J3K3R3S3[3\3e3f3h3i3l3m3u3v3x3y3|3}3333333333hL|thPJjhL|thBS0JPJUhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJT3333333333333333333333333333333333333444 44444$4%4)4*4.4/414246474:4;4A4B4D4E4I4J4M4N4V4W4]4^4_4`4e4f4j4k4m4n4r4s4u4v4w4x4|4}44jhL|thD0JUhL|thPJhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJU444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444455 5 55555555 5%5&5)5*5-5.545557585C5D5G5H5O5P5W5X5Z5[5\5]5f5g5j5k5m5n5 hL|thU hL|thBShL|thPJhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJUn5u5v5y5z5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555556666 6 666666 6#6$6-6.606167686<6=6F6G6I6J6hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thhDcHdhjgHhjghL|thD hL|thU hL|thBSMJ6U6V6Z6[6]6^6a6b6g6h6j6k6p6q6t6u6y6z6{6|6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666777 7 7777777 7!7"7#7-7.7576787 h7h#jhL|thD0JU hL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSR8797?7@7A7B7D7E7I7J7S7T7W7X7`7a7b7c7j7k7s7t7u7~7777777777777777777777777777777777788 8 8888ϽϮϮƣhL|thBS0JyPJHhjghL|thIvPJhL|thPJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJjhL|thBS0JPJUhL|thU0JPJ hL|thBS hL|thU@888888"8#8%8&808183848;8<8>8?8J8K8N8O8Z8[8]8^8j8k8n8o8z8{8~888888888888888888888888888888888888G9H9I9h7h#PJHhjghL|thIvPJ#hL|thUhIvPJcHdhjghL|thPJhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJFI9K9L9N9O9Q9S9T9X9Y9\9]9_9`9e9f9h9i9q9r9v9w9y9z9999999999999999999999999999999999999):*:4:5:>:?:ܸܸܸܸܸܸܸܸܸܸܸܦܸܸܸܸܸܸܸܸܸܸܸܸܸܸܸhL|thPJh7h#PJhL|thUPJ#hL|thFgh6YPJcHdhjghL|thFgPJhL|thBSPJ#hL|thUh6YPJcHdhjghL|th#PJA?:E:H:I:O:P:Q:R:]:^:`:a:k:l:t:u:}:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ͻjhL|thBS0JPJU#hL|th#h#PJcHdhVcG#hL|thBSh#PJcHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#PJhL|thPJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJhL|th#PJ<:::::::;;;; ; ;;; ;!;);*;F;G;H;J;K;M;N;V;W;_;`;b;c;d;e;l;m;p;q;{;|;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;#hL|thUh6YPJcHdhjghL|th#PJh7h#PJhL|thPJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJL;;;;;;<<<< < <<<<<<<<!<"<$<%<+<,<1<2<7<8<@<A<E<F<J<K<V<W<Y<Z<b<c<f<g<i<j<q<r<s<v<w<{<|<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<ؽ hL|th#HhjghL|th6Y hL|thU hL|thBSjhL|thBS0JPJUhL|thBSPJhL|thUPJJ<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<== =========!="=#='=(=*=+=5=6=8=9=<===A=B=E=F=H=I=R=S=U=V=]=^=`=a=f=g=i=j=k=l=s=t=v=w====jhL|thBS0JUhL|thU0JyhL|thBSh6YcHdhjg h7h#hL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th#G=====================================>>> > > >>>> >">#>->.>/>0>;><>>>?>E>F>L>M>Q>R>Z>[>^>_>|>}>~>>żγhL|th#PJh7h#PJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJhL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSF>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>?? ? ??????????? ?!?$?%?)?*?/?0?6?7?;?GCGDGGGHGRGSGXGYG\G]G`GaGkGlGtGuGvGxGyGGGGGGGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thjhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBShg.cHdhjgDGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHH H HHHHHHH H"H#H'H(H.H/H8H9H=H>HCHDHEHFHLHNHغحѺѺئѺ hL|thjhL|thg.0JU hL|th#hL|th#hg.cHdhjg hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|th#h#cHdhVcGANHOHUHVH\H]H_H`HcHdHiHjHlHmHpHqHyHzH|H}H~HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHII I IIIIIIIII#I$I'I(I0I1I3I4I;Ibghh=iqkssw}/O^ي3[gdh]:gdh]:gdfl&gdJugdflgdh]:gdh]:gdh]:(gdfl(M.M/M6M7M=M>MGMHMLMMMWMXM[M\MbMcMhMiMkMlMmMnMtMuMyMzM~MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMɼ鼬 hL|thhL|thhg.cHdhkgHhkghL|thg.hL|thBShg.cHdhkghL|thUhg.cHdhkg hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0JyAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNNNNN N#N$N-N.N/N0N5N6NANBNGNHNKNLNTNUN\N]NbNcNhNiNlNmNqNrNsNvNwNNNNNNNNNNNNhL|thBS0Jy hL|thhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUGNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOO O OOOOOOOOO"O#O&O'O2O3O8O9OAOBOIOJOMONOPOQOTOUO_O`OfOgOhOiOuOvO~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO h7h# hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPP P P PPPPPPPP$P%P'P(P-P.P2P3P6P7P;PQ?QFQGQOQPQSQTQWQXQbQcQiQjQmQnQvQwQyQzQ~QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS]QQQQQQRR R RRRRRRRRR R!R#R$R+R,R-R.R2R3R8R9R:R;R>R?RDRERHRIRPRQRTRUR\R]RfRgRnRoRwRxRzR{RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]RRRRRRRSS S SSSSSSSSS#S$S)S*S.S/S4S5SJSKSOSPSTSUSZS[S^S_ShSiSjSkSpSqSvSwS{S|SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSǷhL|thUh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSHSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTT T T TTTTTT!T"T'T(T,T-T/T0T4T5T7T8TUAUBUDUEUIUJUOUPUYUZU^U_UcUdUeUfUkUlUrUsUvUwU|U}UUUUhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSYUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVV VVVVVVVVV%V&V(V)V2V3V=V>VDVEVHVIVQVRVWVXV\V]V_V`VeVfVhViVnVoVtVuVwVxV~VVV!hL|thBS0Jykg*0J hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVWWW W WWWWW&W'W)W*W/W0W3W4W=W>WAWBWDWEWNWOWQWRWWWXW`WaWhWiWpWqWsWtW{W|WWWWhL|thUhcHdhkgHhkghL|th hL|thBS hL|thUTWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWXXXX X XXXXXXX!X"X%X&X/X0X5X6X9X:XCXDXGXHXKXLXVXWXcXdXgXhXmXnXtXuXyXzXXXXXXXXXXXXXX hL|thBS hL|thU`XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXYYYYYYYYYYYY$Y%Y)Y*Y.Y/Y2Y3Y9Y:Y;YŴ!hL|thBS0Jykg*0J !hL|th0Jykg*0J hL|thBS0JyhL|thhcHdhkgHhkghL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU;;YZGZHZKZLZSZTZZZ[Z]Z^ZbZcZeZfZjZkZtZuZwZxZ}Z~ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZHhkghL|thm h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSPZZ[[[[[[[ ["[#[,[-[1[2[5[6[:[;[>[?[E[F[J[K[L[M[Y[Z[a[b[d[e[h[i[n[o[q[r[u[v[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[\\ \\jhL|thm0JU hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#h7h#0JyB*phR\\\\\\\ \!\%\(\)\5\6\=\>\H\I\Q\R\U\V\_\`\d\e\f\g\p\q\s\t\z\{\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\±򨟨 h7h#h7h#PJjhL|thm0JUhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJ!hL|thBS0Jykg*0J !hL|th0Jykg*0J hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyHhkghL|thm hL|thU hL|thBS3\\\]]]] ]]]]]]]]$]%]'](]*].]/]6]7]8]9]A]B]D]E]H]I]O]P]Q]R]^]_]f]g]o]p]s]t]z]{]~]]]]]]]]]]]]ξ hL|thjhL|thZ0JU.HhkghL|thZ0Jykg*0J hL|th#hZcHdhkg4hL|thBShZ0JycHdhkgkg*0J hL|thBSPJ hL|thBS hL|thU9]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]^ ^ ^ ^ ^^^^^!^"^(^)^+^,^^^^^__ _ _______``T`δjh7hSS0JUHhkgh7hSS h7h#hL|thUhSScHdhkgHhkghL|thSS hL|thU hL|thBSDT`Z`aaobpbqb|bbbEcFcJcKcNcOc[c\ccccccccccccccccccccdddddddddd'd(d5d6d8d9d?d@dBdCdFdGdKdLdMdTdUd\d]d_d`djdkdndodqdrdмjhL|thBS0JU hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUHhkgh7hSS h7h#h7h#0JyB*phIrdudwdxdyddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddeeofpfqftf˽ĭylye hL|th#h7h#0JyB*ph h7h#h7h#hSScHdh!kgHh!kgh7hSShL|thXh#cHdhWcGhL|thh#cHdhWcG hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#'tfufvfffffffxgygzg}ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhh h h hL|thhL|thBS0J hL|thFghL|thUhSScHdh"kg hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSF hhhhhhhhhh h"h#h%h&h(h)h,h-h/h0h4h5h7h8hlll!l"l(l)l5l6l9l:l=l>lElFlLlMlPlQl\l]l_l`lcldljlklmlnltlulvlwl~llllllllllllllllllllllllmmϿϯϢHh&kghL|thhL|th#hcHdh&kghL|thUhcHdh&kg hL|th# h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thJOs0JU:mmm mmmmmmmmmm m)m*m3m4m;ms?sHsIsKsLsMsNsXsYsdsesjsksnsostsusvsws|s}s~ssssssssssssssss hL|th#jhL|th0JU hL|thBS hL|thUXssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssstt t t t ttttttt"t#t+t,t/t0t9t:t=t>tAtBtNtOtRtSt\t]t`tatftgtjtktqtrtzt{t}t~tthL|thBShycHdhrjg hL|th# h7h#hL|thU5 hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thIttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttķˠķēhL|thhcHdh+kgHh,kghL|th hL|th#hL|thBShcHdh+kgHh+kghL|th hL|thBS hL|thUHhrjghL|thyhL|thBShycHdhrjghL|th#hycHdhrjg3tttuuuuuu uuuuuuuuu"u#u$u%u(u)u+u,u.u/u6u7u>u?u@uAuFuGuIuJuMuNuOuPuQuSuTuVuWuYuZu[u]u^u`uaueufujukumunuouputuuuyuzuuuuuuuuuuuuhL|thUhcHdh,kg$jhL|th0JUmH nH u hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thULuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvvvv vvvvv#v$v*v+v4v5v:v;v>v?vGvHvIvJvPvQvSvTv hL|thHhrjghL|thyhL|th#hycHdhrjghL|thBShycHdhrjg hL|th#$jhL|th0JUmH nH u h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU>TvZv[v`vavcvdvjvkvlvmvpvqvsvtvxvyvzvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvշշ hL|th# hL|thhL|thhcHdh-kghL|thUhcHdh-kgHh-kghL|th hL|thU hL|thBSBvvwwwww wwwww#w$w)w*w-w.w1w2w3w4w5wLwMwNwPwQwSwTwWwXwYw^w_wbwcwhwiwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwͽ趦趦hL|thUhcHdh-kg hL|th#h7h#hcHdh-kgHh-kgh7h h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBShcHdh-kg>wwwwwwwwwwwwwwxxxx x x x xxxxxxx x!x-x.x/x1x2x4x5x8x9x;xz@zAzEzFzHzIzNzOzQzRzSzTzWzXzhzizpzqzsztzyzzz~zzzzzzzz׷׷hL|thFghpAcHdh0kg hL|thFghL|thUhpAcHdh0kghL|thUhcHdh0kg hL|th# h7h#jhL|th0JU hL|thU hL|thBS?zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz{{{{{{{{{{{ {-{.{1{3{4{<{={>{@{A{D{E{L{M{T{U{W{X{a{b{e{f{l{m{o{p{s{t{y{hL|thBShpAcHdh1kgHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcG h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSKy{z{{{|{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{|||||||| |!|%|&|.|/|7|8|<|=|?|@|D|E|L|M|O|P|U|V|X|Y|]|^|b|c|f|g|k|m|n| hL|th#Hh2kghL|thpA h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thRn|p|q|w|x||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||}}} } }}}}}}}!}"}$}%}-}.}/}0}5}6}9}:}<}=}@}A}D}E}G}H}I}J}Q}hL|thhpAcHdh2kgHh2kghL|thpA hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSQQ}R}V}W}`}a}e}f}k}l}m}n}q}r}v}w}{}|}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}ΡhL|thUhpAcHdh2kghL|thBShpAcHdh2kgHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHh2kghL|thpAhL|thhpAcHdh2kg hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU9}}} ~ ~ ~~~~~~%~&~'~(~.~/~1~2~N~O~X~Y~]~^~a~b~g~h~s~t~u~w~x~z~{~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ݽݽݽhL|thUhpAcHdh3kghL|thUhpAcHdh2kg hL|th# hL|th h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSJ  !"&'-.01569:?@CDIJMNSTUVYZ\]bc  )*+-./01456>?HITаhL|th#h3ZcHdh3kghL|thUh3ZcHdh3kg hL|th#jhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSETUYZ\]cdghmnqrȀɀ̀̀׀؀ހ߀ !+,/0689BCFGOPQhL|thBShbcHdh4kghL|thUh3ZcHdh3kg hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUMQTUZ[]^dehiŁƁɁʁρЁсҁہ܁ABCh7h#hcHdh'hL|thUhbcHdh5kg hL|th#hL|thBShbcHdh5kgHh5kghL|thbhL|thBShbcHdh4kgHh4kghL|thb h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS3CDEFHIKLPQRUVXY]^bcfgijlmrstu{| hL|thhL|thh McHdh5kgHh5kghL|th MhL|thUhbcHdh5kg hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thb0JU<‚łƂǂ͂΂ԂՂ؂ق܂݂45;<BCDEMNPQST^_ƒÃŃƃȃɃσЃу݃ރƹhL|thUh McHdh6kg hL|thh7h#h McHdh5kgHh5kgh7h M h7h#Hh'hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th#hL|thUh McHdh5kg9  !#$'(,-/078;<BCKLOP]^`adehiopstyz|}„ʄ˄΄τلڄ܄݄ބ߄Hh9kgh7h MhL|thUh McHdh9kg h7h# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUM߄ "#$&')*-./2389<=FGIJNOUVXY^_abjknqrz{}~ƅDžȅʅͽڶڶhL|thUh McHdh9kg hL|th#hL|thBSh McHdh9kgHh9kghL|th M hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#h7h#h McHdh9kg@ʅ˅ͅ΅ԅՅօ؅م܅݅   !()0189=>CDKLSTYZ^_fgklopst|}†ÆƆdž hL|th h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th#hL|thUh McHdh:kgPdžʆˆӆԆՆֆ߆  !"%&./1278BCLMVWZ[]^abijpqtu~Hh:kgh7hRl h7h#Hh:kghL|thRl hL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSG‡Çć͇̇ӇԇՇ؇ه܇߇#$+,239:>?FGKLWXZ[abeʺHh:kghL|thRlhL|thUh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|thBShRlcHdh:kg hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#h7h#hRlcHdh:kg>efmnstxy}~ĈňȈɈԈՈ׈؈ۈ܈ވ߈  !#$)*,-34ǷǷhL|thUhRlcHdh;kg hL|th# h7h#hL|thBShRlcHdh;kgHh;kghL|thRl hL|thBS hL|thUH456:;?@DEGHMSTXYklmoprsxyɉʉ͉Ήщ҉ԉՉމ߉ hL|thhL|thUhRlcHdh;kg h7h# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBShRlcHdh;kgJ#$&'-.23<=@AHIWXabfgklrsyzĊŊʊˊ͊ΊЊъڊۊ݊ފ    #$ hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#Z$-.78=>ABMNTU^_bcnorsxy~ŋƋNjɋʋ̋͋ЋыԋՋ؋ًߋ hL|thhL|thBShRlcHdh@kg hL|thFghL|thUhRlcHdh@kg hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSJ[֋"ĝaP Q} 8O gdh]:gd[&gdJulgdh]:(gdflgdflgdh]:gdh]:   #$()3467DEGHPQRSZ[]^`aklpqrsŌƌȌɌ̌͌Ќь֌׌ hL|thBShcHdh'Hh'h h7h#hL|thUh(icHdh@kg hL|thBS hL|thUL  #$&')*34FKLOPSTYZ\]^_bchiklopyz}~ōƍɍʍ   !)*4589?@B h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU]BCHINOSTWX]^bchilmqrstyz|}ŽÎƎǎӎԎڎێ܎  HhBkghL|th(ihL|thUhWZcHdhhL|thBSh(icHdhAkg h7h#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUB !")*019:;<>?FGKLNOQRSTWXZ[_`abfgjknotuxy~輬hL|thFgh(icHdhBkg hL|thFghL|thUh(icHdhBkg hL|th hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thh(icHdhBkg@ŏƏɏʏӏԏ܏ݏޏߏ  %&,12:;>?FGIJPQXYZ[bc h7h# hL|th#!hL|thBS0JyBkg*0J hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh(icHdhBkgJcjkmnpqtuyzŐƐʐːϐАѐҐאؐڐې  !"*+,-/0ͽhL|thBSh(icHdhCkgHhCkghL|th(i!hL|thBS0JyBkg*0J hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSJ09:ABFGMNPQYZ`almpq{|ȑɑ͑ΑϑБ֑בޑߑ"#+,/02356:;ABHhDkghL|th(i hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSRBCFGIJLMRSTUWXZ[\bcijrsuwxy{|~’Ē輬蟏hL|thBSh(icHdhDkgHhDkghL|th(ihL|thFgh/6cHdh' hL|thFghL|thUh(icHdhDkg hL|th hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thh(icHdhCkg8ĒŒ˒̒͒ΒϒВђԒՒْڒߒ#$&'-.89CDEGHJKMNOPRSUȪhL|thUh(icHdhDkg hL|th#hL|thh(icHdhDkg hL|th hL|thBSHhDkghL|th(ihL|thBSh(icHdhDkgHhDkgh7h(i h7h# hL|thU:UV[\_`bcefklpqvwȓɓ˓͓̓ΓӓԓՓۓܓݓƶӦӦHhEkghL|th(ihL|thUh(icHdhEkghL|th#h(icHdhDkgHhDkghL|th(i hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUh(icHdhDkg<!"%&,-0145=>EFKLYZ^_fgnostxyz{”ĔŔȔɔ˔̔֔הٔڔߔ hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh(icHdhEkghL|thUhrcHdh' hL|th#hL|thUh(icHdhEkgI   ()+,3467=>EFIJPQST^_abefmnqruvz{~•ĕŕȕɕϕЕ֕וݕޕhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thU\    !"&'VWXYZ\]`ab~  ǷǧǧǧǧhL|thUh(icHdhFkghL|th#h(icHdhFkg hL|th#hL|thBSh(icHdhFkgHhFkghL|th(i h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUB  !*+,./067ABEFHIMN]^bcdghijtuv{|}{t{{ h7h#&hL|th#B*phGkg*0Jy9hL|th#h(iB*cHdhGkgphGkg*0Jy(hL|th#h(iB*cHdhGkgph&hL|th#B*phFkg*0Jy9hL|th#h(iB*cHdhFkgphFkg*0Jy hL|thU hL|thBS-ȗɗϗЗӗԗ՗֗ڗۗܗݗ   )*./3467=>FGNOPQUV h7h# hL|thhL|thBSh(icHdhGkgHhGkghL|th(i hL|thU hL|thBSJ˜ØƘǘԘ՘ژۘݘޘ $%+,-ιι9hL|th#h(iB*cHdhGkgphGkg*0Jy hL|thBS hL|thU(hL|th#h(iB*cHdhHkgph&hL|th#B*phHkg*0Jy9hL|th#h(iB*cHdhHkgphHkg*0Jy5-234>?CDEJKLOPQWXYZ\]`afglmnrЬЏ{fI{9hL|th#h(iB*cHdhHkgphHkg*0Jy(hL|th#h(iB*cHdhHkgph&hL|th#B*phHkg*0Jy9hL|th#h(iB*cHdhGkgphHkg*0Jy9hL|th#h(iB*cHdhGkgphGkg*0Jy hL|thBS hL|thU(hL|th#h(iB*cHdhGkgph&hL|th#B*phGkg*0Jyrstxy|}ęřƙǙʙ˙Ιϙљҙיؙޙߙ䒂hL|thBSh(icHdhHkgHhHkghL|th(iHhHkgh7h(i&hL|th#B*phHkg*0Jy9hL|th#h(iB*cHdhHkgphHkg*0Jy hL|thBS hL|thU(hL|th#h(iB*cHdhHkgph3 !"./23:;=>DEGHOPVWYZ]^dfjkqtu}~š̚˾HhSkghL|thThL|thUhTcHdhSkghL|th#hTcHdhSkg hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSK͚̚ϚКԚ՚ךؚ   "#&'+,./0178BCJKOPST]^`aijqrwx{|~ěśʛ˛h7hUB*phh7hBSB*phjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUR˛֛כڛۛ "#)*,-014578ABDEGHOPUVYZefhiklrs~ÜĜ˜̜՜֜ݜޜh7hUB*phh7hBSB*ph\   !"+,./<=ABEFJKPQ[\^_abghjkqrtuvw"HhUkgh7hTB*phhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jyh7hUB*phh7hBSB*phJÝĝǝȝҝӝٝڝ۝ߝ $%,-67=>@AGHNOYZ^_rsuvƞǞ h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSh7hUB*phjhL|thBS0JUh7hB*phLǞɞʞ͞Ξ՞֞۞ܞ  !*+124578;<ABCFGLMOPRSVW_`eflmnpqtuz{~ hL|th hL|th#hL|thBShTcHdhWkg hL|thU hL|thBSTşƟɟʟΟϟҟӟݟޟ  "#&'0156@AHIRSZ[]^cdfgjkoprsz{ à hL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSZàȠɠ̠͠РѠנؠڠ۠    ()+,4578=>DEFGMNTU\]hilmyz|}š hL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSVšơǡȡΡϡСѡ֡סݡޡ   !"()012789ABCGHKLQRTUVW_`bcl빩빩jhL|thBS0JUhL|th#hTcHdhZkgHhZkghL|thT hL|th#hL|thUhTcHdhZkg hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSjhL|th7:0JU=lmoprsz{ĢŢ΢ϢѢҢԢբڢۢݢޢ  "#%&12<=?@FGKLOPWX`aef h7h#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUXfuvxyˣ̣ϣУڣۣߣ  !"&'+,3489<=FGJKLMThL|thBS0JyjhL|thBS0JU hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSTTUYZ]^deghkluvxyäĤȤɤФѤդ֤٤ڤ     +,0189<=BCEhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUVEFIJMNXYZ]^efijqrtu}~ȥɥХѥԥեإ٥ޥߥ !,-0178:;FGN hL|thhL|thBS0JyjhL|thtZ0JU hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUPNOPRSZ[abefhipqvwx~ĦŦƦǦʦ˦Ԧզݦަ   ŵh7hBSB*phhL|thBShtZcHdh]kgHh]kghL|thtZhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JU>  !"&'+,124589>?DEGHJKLMXY]^bchimnuv§çȧɧѧҧէ֧ܧݧߧ h7hBSB*phh7hUB*ph\ $%'(*+/03478=>FGIJNOQRSTXY`aijstƨǨɨʨΨϨ֨רۨܨ#$()124h7hBSB*phh7hUB*ph\4578BCIJMNXY]^fgnovwz{éĩϩЩҩөթ֩ܩݩߩ !*+-.019:<hL|thBS0Jyh7h#B*phh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phT<=CDMNSTYZ\]delmpqz{~ªêɪʪϪЪت٪ݪުߪ%&ξ hL|th#hL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSjhL|thBS0JUh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phK&*+23:;ABIJTUXY`ahivw{|īūɫʫЫѫӫԫث٫ݫޫ  &',-/09:=>I hL|thhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSYIJNORSXY[\efqrtuyz|}ìĬ̬ͬЬѬլ֬ܬݬ     !%&'./2367ABFGKLW hL|th#hL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUYWXYZ_`fgopqrwx{|­íέϭЭѭۭܭޭ߭  !"%&)*1256hL|thBSh7:cHdhakgHhakghL|th7: hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thQ689=>EFLMRSWX]^`acdghjklrstuvyz}~ˮ̮ϮЮծ֮ܮݮޮ hL|th#HhbkghL|th7: hL|thjhL|th7:0JUhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSL "#'(/029:@AMN°ðŰǰȰ̰ͰѰҰհְݰް +,/078hL|thFgh7:cHdhckg hL|thFghL|thUh7:cHdhckg h7h# hL|th#hL|thUh7:cHdhbkg hL|thBS hL|thUD8:;?@DEIJLMNOTU[\abdehiqryzűƱѱұֱױ۱ܱޱ߱   %&) hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS])*,-2367@AHIJKST[\`aijpqst{|}²IJŲ̲Ͳղֲײٲڲݲ޲ hL|thhL|thhg1cHdhdkgHhdkghL|thg1jhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUL  ;<CDLM³óʳ˳ϳгԳճֳ׳޳߳    '(,-459:?@Dͽ򴫴h@hU0Jyh@hBS0JyhL|thFghg1cHdhdkg hL|thFghL|thUhg1cHdhdkg hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSCDEHITU\]fgijuvyz´ôȴɴҴ״شٴ    !'(*+12 hL|thhL|thBShg1cHdhekgHhekghL|thg1 hL|thBS hL|thUQ23:;BCEFGHLMNUVZ[^_fgklrs{|ŵƵǵӵԵ׵صܵݵ  #$)*3478;<jh0JU hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUY<@ACDJKQRTU^_abhipqrsyǶȶ϶жҶӶԶնܶݶ  &')*4578@AC hL|thjhL|th20JU hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSUCDJKMNRS]^efijoprsuvyz·÷ƷǷϷзҷӷ۷ܷ޷߷   !"$%)*/02378:;?@EFJKPQWX[ hL|thBS hL|thU`[\_`bcefklopvw¸øȸɸ̸͸Ըո׸ظ۸ܸ  hL|thUh2cHdhhkghL|thBSh2cHdhhkgHhhkghL|th2 hL|thBS hL|thUN !$%)*,-019:>?GHKLQRYZ^_abijnost|}¹ù̹͹ιϹչֹܹݹjhL|th20JUhL|th#h2cHdhhkg hL|thU hL|thBSQ%&)*567>?DEHIPQ[\cdfgpqxy{|Ǻ˺ֺ̺׺ƶƶͩͩƶƶhL|th#h2cHdhikgHhikghL|th2hL|thUh2cHdhikg hL|th# hL|thBS h7h# hL|thUhL|thBSh2cHdhhkgHhhkghL|th2<׺  "#%&./45=>EFIJNOTUV\]^_bcghqrtuyz}~(hL|th#h2B*cHdhikgph h7h#&hL|th#B*phikg*0Jy9hL|th#h2B*cHdhikgphikg*0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSAƻǻʻ˻ϻлӻԻػٻ޻߻   !$%+,-34=>EFJKNOPQYZ\]bckhL|thUh2cHdhjkgHhjkghL|th2hL|thUh2cHdhikg hL|thU hL|thBSNklqrst~ļż̼ͼԼռؼټ޼߼&')*0156@AFGLMST\]_`dej hL|th#jhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUOjkmnuvz{|}ýĽƽǽʽ˽Ͻнؽٽ۽ܽ޽߽   #$&'0145=>DEIJOPRS hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSHhkkghL|th2WSWXZ[efijrsvw¾;ξվ־پھ  $%'()*125689>?HIKLMNSTXY`acdmnjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSXnostvwz{ÿĿӿԿֿ׿ݿ޿ $%./9:>?ABGHNOUVXY`adeghqh7h#0JyB*ph h7h#hL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUTqrxy   %&)*+,2345:;?@CDKLOPUVYZ_`cdkln hL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUZnoxy  "#%&/0235:;BCJKLMRSUVabnotuyzHhrkghL|thb!jhL|thb!0JU hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUR  !"#'(2356<=ABDEHINOWX\]bcijlmyzhL|thBShb!cHdhrkg hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUT  '(*+23<=EFLMPQZ[]^hijhL|thb!0JUhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUHiopqr    뺪 hL|th#hL|th#h;_+cHdh{Hh{hL|th;_+hL|thBShb!cHdhskgHhskghL|thb! h7h# hL|thU hL|th hL|thBS@ ()/023;<EFGHNRijklnoqrwx|}׳򓊓hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thUhb!cHdhtkg hL|th#h7h#0JyB*ph,h7h#h#0JyB*cHdhVcGph&HhVcGh7h#0JyB*ph h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS6!"#$%&)*/023:;>?EFJKPQSTVW]^`afgjkqrtuxy~hL|thBShb!cHdhtkgHhtkghL|thb! hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0JyN  #$*+-.1268򟖟#hL|thBShj0JycHdh'hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thBS0J hL|thjhL|thb!0JUhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS28:AEFHIOUVYZ\]_`abjkqruv{| hL|thJ:0J hL|th hL|thJ: hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBS0JhL|th#0JO   $%+,/023;<BCFGKLST`aefqruv˻ҴҴҴҴҴҴҴҴҴҴҴҴҴҴҴҴҴҴҴҧҴҴҴҴhL|thhb!cHdhukgHhukghL|thb! hL|thUhL|thFghrcHdh' hL|thFg hL|thBShL|thUhrcHdh'hL|thUhjcHdh' hL|th#9!"%&,-/078<=?@HIMNOPTUYZͽ뭤hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h#hL|thFghb!cHdhukg hL|thFghL|thUhb!cHdhukg hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th@Z`aeflmpqvw|}  $%'(01459:>?FGKLPQSTZ[] hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS]]^dehipquvxy{|~  "#%&,-3456<=@AEFMNRSYZ^_ab hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]u?qjko#Owgdh]:gdh]:(gdoRlgdh]:gdoRgdh]:gdh]:gdh]:(gdflgdflbijnoqruv  '(+,018hL|thBShDcHdhvkgHhvkghL|thD hL|thU hL|thBSQ89:;BCFGMNQRYZ^_fgijlmpqvw{|~   hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSjhL|thD0JUW"#$%'(-.0156=>BCGHLMSTWX[\abijnorsyz}~hL|thU0JyHhxkghL|thD hL|thjhL|thD0JUhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSK !"#,-129:ABMNRSUVXY[\fgmnopvwyz˾ hL|th#HhykghL|thDhL|thUhDcHdhykghL|thBShDcHdhykg hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUH   #$./1245:;=DEHIMNVWYZ[\deklpqyz|} hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU]  &')*2356<=ABEFLMOPTUWX^_abefijmnrs}~hL|thBS0JyjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUW  "#&',-./89EFJKMNVWYZ\]`acdhi~hL|thBS0J hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0JyhL|thU0JyQ   $)*,-1289?HPQXY`abdeghjlmtuyzhL|thFghcHdh{kg hL|thFghL|thUhcHdh{kg hL|th# hL|thhL|thBS0J hL|thU hL|thBShL|thJ:0JC   ()+,019:BCDHIKLOPTUYZbcghjknovwjhL|thBS0JU hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSX  !#$*+/034?@HIKLOP[\^_efijnost|} hL|th hh#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSS    !&'014589;<?@ACDIJMNPQȽȲȩȩȩȩȠȩȩȩȩȩȩȠȩȩȩȩhL|th#0JyhL|thU0Jyh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phhL|thBS0Jyjh7h0JUh7h#0JyB*ph h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS?QTU]^abfgkloptuvxy}~ȽȽh7hBSB*phh7hUB*ph"jhL|th0JB*UphhL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyJ  %&'(,-0178;<=@AFGNOPUVYZ^_cdejkuv|}~h7hBSB*phh7hUB*phhL|th0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thU0JyhL|th#0JyN   !&',-3478:;>?BCJKOPQYZ[]^`adfϺϺڨ"Hhkgh7hB*ph(h7hUhB*cHdhkgphh7h#B*phh7hBSB*phhL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyAfghijpqtuz{~  Ǻ hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBS6B* phh7hBSB*ph(h7hBShB*cHdhkgph/jHhkgh7h0JB*UphD*+/034;<EFHINOYZ]^cdhilmuvyz~  %&,-67 hL|th#hL|th#h cHdhkg hL|thU hL|thBSV7:;>?CDHINOST\]`ajkmnuvyz  "#%&)*459:@ADEIJLMP h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS]PQSTWX\]abijmnruvw~  347hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUN78>?BCFGRSVW_`bchiqrz{    !%&*+013hL|thBSh cHdhkg hL|thBS hL|thUY3456@AHIKLQRTU\]abijmnwxz{  "#%&)*./56 hL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUV69:>?CDGHJKSTUXY\]cdijnoqrvw    h7h#jhL|thBS0JUHhkghL|th  hL|thU hL|thBSR "#'(+,/0679:ABCGHJKOPWX\]efjkmnopstyzjhL|thBS0JU hL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSP  !"%&*+/02367>?DEOPRSWXYZ^_fghijkmnrswx{|ξαHhkgh7h h7h#h cHdhkg h7h#hL|thBSh cHdhkgHhkghL|th  hL|thU hL|thBSF    "#%&01459:>?@AJKQRYZ\]`ahipqstz{|}ƿ hhU hhBS hhhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS h7h# hL|thUK    '(+,5689;<CDMNPQTUXYcdfgnorhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSRrsyz|}ѵhL|thBSh cHdhkgjhL|th 0JU# *hL|th#kg*0Jy *6 *hL|th#h cHdhkgkg*0Jy *hL|thBSkg*0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0JyhL|thU0Jy4  "#%&*+./12678;<=DEJKVW[\fgjknouvz{}~ h7h#jhL|thBS0JU hL|th#hL|thBShlZcHdhkg hL|thBS hL|thUM    !'(,-013478;<>?HIMNPQTUYZ^_bclmoptuz{ hL|thBS hL|thUHhkgh7hlZ h7h#h7h#hlZcHdhkgQ   !%&()-.4578jhL|thlZ0JU hL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUF8;<DEGHQRTUYZabijvwxμjhL|thBS0JU#hL|thUhWZ0JcHdh hL|thhL|thhvcHdhkgHhkghL|thv hL|thU hL|thBSE  !)*/02378ABLMOPTUZ[]^abhituz{ hL|thBS hL|thU`'(0178<=ABKLNORSYZ]^efjkmnqrtuxy   h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thZ#$&'0145?@BCJKSTWX\]cdklqrtuxy~  "#&' h7h# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUZ'*+45689CDMNYZ]^fgijmnrstuz{}~ hL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thjhL|thv0JU hL|thU hL|thBSB %&)*/012458:;<ABGHMNVW`aefhivwz{² h7h#hL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th#hL|thBSh@cHdhmHhmh@ hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBS0Jy=  "#&'12679:=>BCDEMNOPZ[\]abmnuvxy hL|th h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSW  $%'(./0167:;ABDEMNQRYZ\]^_efipqst|} hL|th# hL|th h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSW  #$'(hL|thBShd cHdhkgHhkghL|thd jhL|thBS0JU h7h#HhkghL|thd hL|thUhd cHdhkghL|thBShd cHdhkg hL|thU hL|thBS:(./3467;<BCEFHIRSWX^_hiklrstu~  hL|thBShd cHdhkgHhkghL|thd  h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSN'(+,01569:>?BCHIJKRSTU\]abcdeflmtu hL|thHhmh@jh7hd 0JU h7h#hL|thBShd cHdhkgHhkghL|thd  hL|thU hL|thBSE  !"#'(4578:;EFGHLMRSVW`acdefhimnopuvyz{|~hL|thBShd cHdhkgHhkghL|thd  hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUN  +,129:=>@AEFQRVWZ[_`fgmnpqyz hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS]  %&+,/089?@JKNOTUWX_`cdghjkhL|thUhkcHdhkghL|thUhkcHdhkg h7h#hL|thUhd cHdhkg hL|th# hL|thh]: hL|thBS hL|thUD+M2 B T k    P r  A (gd<3gdoR(gdUgdh]:gdh]:gdh]:gdoR&gdJu(gdoRgdoRgdh]:  $%&'+,0134;<>?@AFGLMOPVX]۾hL|th#hkcHdhkghL|thBShkcHdhkgHhrjghL|thyhL|th#hycHdhrjghL|thBShycHdhrjg hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS>]^cfhijstz{}~ŵŮvaZZZ hL|th#(hL|th#hkB*cHdhkgph&hL|th#B*phkg*0Jy9hL|th#hkB*cHdhkgphkg*0Jy hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#HhkghL|thkhL|thUhkcHdhkg#!"()-.459:>?@AEFHIRSWXcdijmntuv}~аhL|thUhkcHdhkghL|thUhkcHdhkg hL|th#jh7hk0JU h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUE !)*LMST\]^efmnvwx HhhWZhL|thUhkcHdhkgHhkghL|thk h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th#hL|thUhkcHdhkgD   ()1234;<FGPQSTWX]^_`defgqrst}~ hL|th# h7h#hL|thhkcHdhkgHhkghL|thk hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUE !$%+,/05689@ADEGHOPXY[\cdhiqryz|}HhkghL|th*V hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th#hL|thUh*VcHdhkgO  %&/089;<CDEFHILMVW]^fghilmopstxy|}ͽԣHh'hjhL|thUh*VcHdhkghL|th#h*VcHdhkg hL|th#HhkghL|th*V hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh*VcHdhkg<}  !"$ķħħĠ h7h#hL|thBSh*VcHdhkgHhkghL|th*V hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th#?$%,-0145@ADEOP_`bcmntu|}hL|th#h*VcHdhkg hL|th# h7h# hL|thhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUJ  !&')*67:;>?FGKLNO\]`bcdmnqruvxyǷԠ h7h#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSHhkghL|th*VhL|thUh*VcHdhkg?  VW[\bcdegklnpquvyz۾hL|thFgh*VcHdhkg hL|thFghL|thUh*VcHdhkg hL|th#HhVcGhL|th#hL|thUh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcG h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU8 !"*+./2356;<>?EFJKUVWX\]ghlmnxǷhL|thUhJ(9cHdhkgHhkghL|thJ(9 hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUh*VcHdhkg hL|th#Fxyz*+-.679HhkghL|thJ(9hL|thUhJ(9cHdhkghL|th#hJ(9cHdhkg hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBShJ(9cHdhkg:9:@ABCNOUVWX^_efghlmswxz{ʸ٧{k[NHhkghL|thJ(9hL|thUhJ(9cHdhkghL|thBShJ(9cHdhkg&jHhkghL|thJ(90JU.HhkghL|thJ(90Jykg*0J !hL|thBS0Jykg*0J #hL|thBShJ(90JycHdhkgHhkghL|thJ(90JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU )*3467=>KLST\]_`hinowxjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|th#hL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSQ$%,-./34;<>?EFHIQRTUYZξhL|thUh GcHdhkghL|thBSh GcHdhkgHhkghL|th G hL|th#hL|thUh GcHdhkg hL|thU hL|thBSDZ\]`adelmuvz{~  !%&()./12hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSN29:=>BCGHNOVW[\^_cdijlmpqtu  hL|thhL|th#0JyhL|thBS0JyjhL|th G0JU hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSN  "#+,1289BCEFIJNOUV\]^_efghopuvyz hL|th#HhkghL|th<3hL|th#5hL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUJ    $%&()*+1278>?DELMOPQRVW]^jlmstu}~hL|thUh<3cHdhkghL|thBSh<3cHdhkgHhkghL|th<3 hL|thBS hL|thUJ()./1289;<>?BCFGMNXY[\`aklnoyzhL|th#h<3cHdhkghL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUHhkghL|th<3G  $%)*,-01PQRYZ_`delmnop$jh7h<30JUmH nH uh7h#h<3cHdhkgHhkgh7h<3 hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUG   !"(*+./014578?@AEFIJOPRSXY^_cdhiqrtuyz~hL|thU0JyHhhWZ hL|th#hL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUK  "#%&()-.019:CDGHٸٸٸ#hL|thUh<3PJcHdhkgHhkghL|th<3PJhL|thPJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJ hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th#hL|th#0JyAHLOPQXYdemnrsvw|}úúúúúúúúúúúúúúÐúúÐúúúúúhL|th#PJhL|th#0JyPJhL|thU0JyPJhL|thBS0JyPJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJ#hL|th#h#PJcHdhVcG#hL|thBSh#PJcHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#PJ8   !")*,-45;<CDJKLMOPST]^`adejkuvxyƽ hh#hL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSjhL|thBS0JPJUhL|thBS0JyPJhL|thUPJhL|thBSPJ@   "#+,0178<=EFNOQRVWZ[]^abghklopvw|} hL|thBS hL|thUHhkghL|th<3Z'(*+/03489<=EFIJMNUVXY[\bcklnors{|} hL|th hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSW}~  $%(),-67=>BCEFIJPQTUZ[^_deijmnq hL|th#hL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thURqrz{            " # $ % - . 2 9 B H M N T [ c d k q u v y z | hL|th_H hL|thE w0JhL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H hL|thBS0J hL|thBS hL|thUJ| }                                                           ! ' ( , - / 0 3 4 5 հhL|th#h<3cHdhkg hL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|th_H hL|thBS0JhL|thBS_H hL|thU_H E5 6 7 8 9 < = A B G H M N T U W X [ \ _ ` d e l m q r y z | } ~                                ξhL|thUh<3cHdhkghL|thBSh<3cHdhkgHhkghL|th<3 hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh<3cHdhkg hL|th#>                             # $ , - / 0 9 : < = A B I J N O P W X ^ _ e f l m q r ž hL|thoR hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSHhkghL|th<3HhVcGhL|th#hL|thUh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcG7r x y | }          A F G M N U V X Y \ ] c d f g l m s t v w y z { | ׽ʦuhHhkgh7hO(hL|th#hOB*cHdhkgph hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th<3 h7hU hh#h7h#hOcHdhkgHhkgh7hOh7h#0JyB*ph h7h# hL|th#hL|th#0JNhL|thU0JNhL|thoR0JN&| }                                                         $ % ' ( + , 2 3 9 : ̵̾hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU(hL|th#hOB*cHdhkgph h7h#h7h#hOcHdhkgCA 3 a"*o27=FCFJFQ\UfUgUvUUZWXXgdh]:gdKgdgdoR:gdJugdU&gdh]:gdoR&gdJu(gdoR(gdU: < B C F G M N P Q V W ^ _ b c i j p u v | }                                     ()./67:;FGNOTUXjhL|thl0JU hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#0JyTXYdeghmnqruv   ú hL|th#hL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thBShBcHdhkgHhkghL|thB hL|thBS hL|thUF !&'+,/089=>GHKLPQTUZ[delmrswx{|ٹHhkghL|thBhL|thBShBcHdhkghL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSD  !"+,/056?@BCFGJKMNQRWXbcefijnostvwz{ hh#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBST    !#$+,./0178@AIJMNTUXY[\bcijlmopyz}~hL|thBS5 hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBShBcHdhkgHhkghL|thBL    &'124589@AGHJRSTU[\efjkrsvw¹hL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUh_tcHdhkgHhkghL|th_tI  !"'(-.34679:=>@ADELMOPQRWXYZabghklrsuvjhL|th_t0JU hL|thBS hL|thUZ  %&()569:>?DEGHMNQRWXZ[_`deflHhkghL|th_thL|thBSh_tcHdhkg hL|thBS hL|thUTlmwx}~    !$%+,./2679:=>CDIJOPTUXY\]bcklmHhkghL|th_t hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUSmnqr{|"#%&-.56=>ABHIKLQRZ[]^abg hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thh_tcHdhkgVghoprswxyzɹɹɹɹٰHhkghL|th_t hL|th#hL|th#0JyhL|thBSh_tcHdhkghL|thUh_tcHdhkghL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU= "#*+./3478<=FGJKOPRS]^`aijnors{| hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]  #$&'*+1289@AGHIJPQSTZ[^_dehiuvyzhL|thUh_tcHdhkghL|thBSh_tcHdhkg h7h#hL|th#0JyhL|thU0Jy hL|th#hL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSA  !"&'23679:@CDGHNOPQR^_himnrsuvyz䰠hL|thUhKcHdhkghL|thBShKcHdhkg hL|thHhkghL|thKhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSHhkghL|th_t?z~#$0145:;>?EFIJKLPQUV]^cdghlmopyz|}hL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBS\ !*+./56=>FGIJMNSTXYZ[_`mnqrwxyz~HhkghL|thg1 hL|thBS!hL|thU0Jykg*0J !hL|thBS0Jykg*0J hL|thUM  %&()/01267<=?@HILMPQXY hL|th#hL|th#hyy0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBShyy0JyhL|thBShyy hL|thoR hL|thU hL|thBSIY[\bcijpqstyzͽڴڭHhkghL|thg1 hL|thBShL|thBS0JyhL|th#hg1cHdhkgHhkghL|thg1hL|thU0JyhL|thBShyy0Jy hL|thUhL|thBShyy8  !"%&)*./45<=?@FGQRXY^_abhinowxz{~˴˭Ě$jhL|thg10JUmH nH u hL|th#hL|thUh cHdhb' hL|thU hL|thBSHhkghL|thg1hL|thUhg1cHdhkghL|thBShg1cHdhkg<  &'+,01DEGHMNTUXY]^himnqrxy{|~ hL|thjhL|thBS0JU h7h#hL|thBShg1cHdhkgHhkghL|thg1 hL|thBS hL|thUI$%'(,-3467<=BCEFMNPQYZ]^`ahilmvwz{  hL|thBSh/cHdhkgHhkghL|th/ hL|thBS h7h# hL|thUQ            ! # $ + , 6 7 : ; B C d e k l t u y z                             !! ! !!$!%!'!Χ hL|th#hL|thBShjcHdh'hL|th#h/cHdhkg h7h#hL|thBSh/cHdhkgHhkghL|th/ hL|thU hL|thBSB'!(!D!E!F!!!!!!!!!Y"Z"`"a"i"j"q"r"|"}"""""""""""""""""""""""## # #######!#"#)#*#-#.#8#9#@#A#H#I#K#L#O#P#Q#R#W#X#Z#[#a#b#d#e#j#hL|thBSh)s3cHdhkgHhkghL|th)s3 hL|thBS h7h# hL|thUQj#k#r#s#w#x#|#}#####################################$$$ $ $$$$$p$q$~$$$$$$$$$$$$$$˾ h7h#Hh{hL|th;_+hL|thUh;_+cHdh{hL|thBSh;_+cHdh{ hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUD$$$$$$%%%%% % %%%%%%+%,%.%/%3%4%;%<%B%C%I%J%O%P%Y%Z%_%`%j%k%m%n%t%u%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&ǾǾǾDZjhL|thM0JUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSjhL|th)s30JUD&&& &!&"&P'Q'W'X'['\'c'd'h'i'l'm'r's'u'v'{'|'''''''''''''''''''''''''(( ( (((((((#($(%(&(*(붦П hL|thh7h#hv$cHdhkgHhkgh7hv$HhkghL|thv$ hL|thBSjh7hWh0JU hL|thU h7h#h7h#0JyB*ph>*(+(2(3(5(6(?(@(B(C(F(G(L(M(O(P(Q(R(](^(e(f(i(j(n(o(w(x({(|(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Ĵ h7h# hL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#!hL|thBS0Jykg*0J hL|thBS hL|thUA((((((()))))) ))))))))!)")%)&)-).)2)3)9):)=)>)A)B)F)G)L)M)O)P)S)T)W)X)[)\)`)a)e)f)p)q)s)t){)|))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) hL|thU hL|thBS^)))))))))*********** *#*%*&*'*-*.*0*1*6*7*8*9*F*G*I*J*O*P*S*T*X*Y*^*_*a*b*c*d*h*i*k*l*t*u*w*x*}*~******Ƿ۠ hL|thhL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBShv$cHdhkgHhkghL|thv$?************************************++ + + +++++"+#+(+)+2+3+>+?+I+J+M+N+R+S+U+V+Y+Z+]+^+e+f+m+n+s+t+{+|++++++++++++++++ h7h# hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUW++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,,,,,,,,#,$,',(,2,3,:,;,>,?,K,L,O,P,V,W,],^,c,d,h,i,j,m,n,q,r,t,u,y,,,,,,,,HhqhL|th'hL|thUh'cHdhqhL|thBSh'cHdhq hL|th h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUH,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,---- - -------&-'-+-,-.-/-0-1-:-;-?-@-B-C-ž h7h#!hL|thBS0Jyq*0J hL|th hL|thBShL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thUAC-E-F-P-Q-X-Y-[-\-c-d-l-m-o-p-s-t-y-z-|-}-~----------------------------------F.G.M.N.S.T.U.V.].^.`.a.b.c.f.g.o.p.r.s................. hL|th h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSZ.........................../// / /////// /(/)/-/./5/6/>/?/A/B/D/E/G/H/K/M/N/O/X/Y/[/\/^/_/c/d/n/o/q/r/w/x/{/|/ξ h7h#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSH|///////////////////////////////////////////00 0 0000000'0(0,0-050608090<0=0C0D0J0K0M0N0T0U0W0X0[0\0m0n0q0r0 hL|th#hL|th#h5McHdh rHh rhL|th5M h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSNr0x0y0~00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001111 1 11111"1#1%1&1-1.121315161=1>1@1A1H1I1O1P1S1T1hL|thBSh5McHdh rHh rhL|th5M hL|thU hL|thBSTT1V1W1]1^1`1a1j1k1q1r1v1w111111111111111111111111111111111111111112222 2 22222+2,212226272<2=2?2@2B2C2G2H2L2M2O2P2U2V2Z2[2a2b2d2e2n2o2 hL|th h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSZo2s2t2|2}222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222333 3 33333333 3!3(3)3*3.3/31323336373:3;3>3?3J3K3M3N3S3T3U3V3\3]3b3c3h3HhrhL|th< hL|thU hL|thBSYh3i3j3l3m3q3r3|3}333333333333333333333333333333333333333344 4 4 44444444444&4'4-4.404142434 hL|th#jhL|th<0JUhL|thBSh<cHdhrHhrhL|th< hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JUF34:4;4D4E4L4M4P4Q4X4Y4\4]4c4d4g4h4j4k4r4s4u4v4{4|4~444444444444444444444444444444444444444444445555 5 555555555!5"5hL|thBSh<cHdhrHhrhL|th< hL|thU hL|thBST"5&5'5/505556575:5;5@5A5B5C5F5G5L5M5P5Q5T5U5W5X5[5\5d5e5f5g5k5l5s5t5x5y55555555555555555555555555555hL|thUhMcHdh|hL|thBShMcHdh|Hh|hL|thM hL|thHhrhL|th<hL|thBSh<cHdhr hL|thU hL|thBS?55555555555555556666 66666666666%6&6*6+6/6064656:6;6B6C6G6H6M6N6P6Q6U6V6Z6[6a6d6e6i6j6n6o6r6s6u6v6z6{66666666666ž hL|th#hL|th#hMcHdh|Hh|hL|thMhL|thUh cHdhb' hL|thU hL|thBSK66666666666666666666666666666666677 7 7777777&7'7+7,707177787;7<7A7B7G7H7L7M7T7U7Z7[7a7b7n7o7t7u7~7777777777777777777777777 hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS]777777777777777777777777777777888888888888$8%8(8)8081848588898@8A8E8F8G8H8O8P8T8U8Y8Z8\8]8`8a8g8h8o8p8w8x8}8~8888888 hL|thhL|thBSh<cHdhrHhrhL|th< hL|thBS hL|thUQ8888888888888888888888888888888888 9 9 9 999!9"9%9&9-9.90919:9;9E9F9I9J9O9P9R9S9T9[9\9]9^9c9d9f9g9h9k9l9m9s9t9u9v9z9{9999hL|thBSh\ycHdhrHh(|hL|th{jhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBSO9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999:::: ::::::::$:%:-:.:3:4:5:6:::;:@:A:E:F:I:J:P:Q:W:X:^:_:c:d:h:i:k:l:s:t:v:w:z:{::: hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;; ; ; ;;;;;;;;; ;#;$;';(;.;/;0;3;4;6;7;:;;;?;@;G;H;Q;R;Z;[;^;_;e;f;j;HhrhL|th\yhL|thUh cHdhb' hL|thUhL|thBSh\ycHdhr hL|thBSKj;k;l;m;o;p;v;w;{;|;};~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;<<<<<۾hL|thBSh\ycHdhrHhrhL|th\yHhVcGhL|th#hL|thUh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th?<<<<<< <#<$<(<)<0<1<;<<<B<C<G<H<O<P<Y<Z<_<`<a<b<i<j<u<v<y<z<~<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< = = hL|thHhrhL|th\yhL|thBSh\ycHdhrHhrhL|th\y hL|thBS hL|thUL = ======!="='=(=0=1=4=5=:=;=E=F=H=I=T=U=^=_=c=d=p=q=t=u=z={==============================================> > > > >>>">#>'>(>.>/>5>6>7> hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS]7>8>=>>>C>D>J>K>M>N>V>W>Y>Z>[>\>`>a>c>d>j>k>u>v>z>{>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>????? ?˾HhrhL|thr1hL|thUhr1cHdhrhL|th#hr1cHdhr hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUK ? ???????#?$?&?'?*?+?3?4?6?7?C?D?K?L?X?Y?\?]?`?a?h?i?r?s????????????????????????????????????????????????hL|thBShr1cHdhrHhrhL|thr1 hL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUN????@@ @ @@@@@@@@@5@8@9@E@F@J@K@O@P@R@S@V@W@[@\@c@d@h@i@p@q@v@w@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ hL|thhL|thBShr1cHdhrHhrhL|thr1 hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUL@@@@@@@@@@AAA A AAAA A&A'A3A4A5A6A9A:A;AAABAFAGAPAQAZA[A_A`AaAfAgAiAjAkAlArAsAxAyA|A}AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA hL|thjhL|thBS0JUhL|thBS0JyhL|thBShr1cHdhrHhrh7hr1 h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB B B B BBB!B"B$B%B/B0B4B5B:B;BBBCBFBGBMBNBVBWBaBbBeBfBlBmBuBvByBzB}B~BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBhL|thBShr1cHdhrHhrhL|thr1hL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUPBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCC C CCCCCCC#C$C%C(C)C.C/C3C4C6C7C9C:CECFCHCICNCOCPCSCTC\C]C_C`CiCjCoCpC{C|CCCCCCCCCCCCCCChL|thBShr1cHdhrHhrhL|thr1 hL|thBS hL|thUTCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCDDDD D DDD!D"D$D%D&D'D-D.D9D:DADBDIDJDLDMDSDTDYDZD`DaDdDeDlDmDqDrDvDwDzD{DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSZDDDDDDDEEE E E EEEEEEE$E%E'E(E2E3E9E:EG?GEGFGTGUGXGYG\G]GbGcGjG hL|thHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#NjGkGrGsGuGvGwGxGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHH H HHHHHHH$H%H,H-H/H0H3H4H=H>H?H˾ hL|th h7h#HhrhL|thr1hL|thUhr1cHdhrhL|th#hr1cHdhr hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUE?H@HIHJHMHNHSHTH^H_HaHbHeHfHkHlHrHsHuHvHzH{HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIII#I$I*I+I1I2I;IKCK hL|thhL|th#0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSVCKDKIKJKOKPKRKSKUKVK\K]K`KaKdKeKiKjKkKnKoKpKuKvK|K}K~KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKLLLL L LLLLѺѺѺѺhL|thUhMX(cHdh r h7h# hL|th#hL|thUhWZcHdhHhhWZ hL|thBS hL|thUILLLLLL#L$L)L*L0L1L2L6L7L:L;L@LALILJLMLNLOLPLVLWLYLZL_L`LaLkLlLpLqLuLvL{L|L~LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL hL|thjhL|thMX(0JU h7h# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUQLMM M M MMMMMMMM M!M"M#M(M)M+M,M.M/M2M3M^O_O`OdOeOkOlOmOnOqOrOvOwO|O}OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO P PPPPPPP&P'P)P*P0P1PQEQFQIQJQLQMQQQRQTQUQWQXQaQbQcQdQkQlQpQqQwQxQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQhL|th^JaJ'hL|thUh^JaJcHdh,r!Hh,rhL|th^JaJhL|thU^JaJhL|thBS^JaJIQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQRRRR R RRR)R*R+RSRTRURWRXRZR[R^R_R`RcRdRiRjRmRnRoRĽĽĽĽĽĢĽĽĽĽhL|thUhcHdh-r hL|th#jhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS'hL|thBSh^JaJcHdh-rhL|th^JaJhL|thU^JaJhL|thBS^JaJ9oRpRqRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRǞw!hL|thBS0Jy.r*0J hL|th#^JaJhL|thU^JaJhL|thBS^JaJhL|thUhjcHdh' hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUjh7h0JU h7h#h7h#hcHdh-rHh-rh7h.RSSS S SSSSS#S$S&S'S(S)S1S2S9S:SV?VJVKVLVMVQVRVTVUVYVZV`VaVcVdVkVlVnVoVpVqV hL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thoR hL|thUPqVxVyVzV{VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVWWWW W WWWWWWW#W$W(W)W1W2WFWGWIWJWPWQWUWVWYWZW]W^WaWbWjWkWtWuWvWwW}W~WWWW h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSZWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWXX X XXXXX!X"X$X%X+X,X-XKXLXOXPXTXUX[X\X]X^XbXcXgXhXkXlXqXrXsXtXuXXjh7h_u0JU h7h# hL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUMXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXYYYY Y Y YYYYYY$Y%Y)Y*Y,Y-Y2Y3Y5Y6Y:Y;Y=Y>YBYCYEYFYIYJYOYPYUYVYYY`YaYgYhYmYnYtYuY{Y|YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSjhL|thBS0JUWYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYZZZ Z Z ZZZZZ$Z%Z(Z)Z4Z5Z7Z8Z;Z[A[B[I[J[L[M[X[Y[\[][b[c[i[j[o[p[t[u[z[{[~[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ \ \\\\\ hL|th# hL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUP\\\\ \)\*\+\.\/\5\6\=\>\E\F\J\K\M\N\O\P\T\U\W\X\`\a\h\i\k\l\t\u\w\x\}\~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\]] h7h# hL|th#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|th hL|thBSRX+\c`hZn_?_D_E_H_I_P_Q_U_V_Y_Z_a_b_f_g_k_l_n_o_t_u_~_____________________ʺhL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th# hL|th# hL|thjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thU=______________________________``` ``˴ˊzp`Y hL|th#hL|th#h@cHdhnHhnh@hL|thUh@cHdh{hL|thBSh@cHdh{Hh{h@h@hUh@cHdh{h@hBSh@cHdh{ hL|thU hL|thBSHh |hL|thMhL|thBShMcHdh |hL|thUhMcHdh |"``````` `!`"`+`,`.`/`6`7`D`E`I`J`K`L`Q`R`S`T`Z`[`_`b`c`f`g`m`n`o`p`s`t`v`w`|`}````````````````````````````````Ⱥ hL|th# hL|th hL|thUhL|thBSh K5cHdhSrhL|thUh@cHdhzHhzh@ hL|thBSI````````````````````aaaa a aaaaaa a)a*a-a.a5a6a;acĻhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thhL|thUhjcHdhTr hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUF>c?c@cAcBcDcEcJcKcRcScWcXc^c_cdceckclcpcqcxcyczc{cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccdžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžžž hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy#hL|thBSh>m0JycHdh^rHh^rhL|th>m0JyEddddd ddddddd!d"d#d$d%d&d(d)d.d/d3d4d6d7d=d>dDdEdGdHdKdLdVdWd\d]dddedidjdldmdtdudxdydddddddddddddddddddddddddddddѿ#hL|thBSh>m0JycHdh^rHh^rhL|th>m0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUKdddddddddddddddddddddee e eeeeeee%e&e)e*e/e0e3e4e8e9e;ef@fAfEfFfJfKfMfNfPfQfZf[f\f]f`fafcfdflfmfvf{f|fffffffffffffffffffffffffff hL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUVffffffffffffffffffffffffgggg g gggggg g$g%g'g(g)g/g0g5g6g8g9g;gmcHdh^rHh`'hL|th #hL|thBSh>m0JycHdh^rHh^rhL|th>m0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBS@ggjgkgpgqgtgugxgyggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghh h h h hhhh h"h#h'h(h/h0h2h3h5h6h=h>hChDhGhHhNhOhhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSXOhShUhVhWhYhZh[h\h`hahghhhkhlhzh{h~hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh#hL|thBSh>m0JycHdh_rHh_rhL|th>m0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thUjhL|th>m0JUhL|thBSh>mcHdh_rhL|thFgh>mcHdh_r hL|thFg hL|thBS4hhhhhhhhhhhhhiiii i iiiiiiiii&i'i1i2i5i6iAiBiDiEiHiIiSiTiViWiZi[i_i`iaibieifiqiriuiviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii hL|thhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSKiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijjjj j jjjjjjj j!j$j%j-j.j0j1j4j5j?j@jBjCjHjIjJjKjPjQjWjXj`jajcjdjgjhjljmjpjqjzj{j}j~jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjBkCkDkIkJkKkNkOkPkVkWkXk[k\k^k_kckdkgkhknkoktkukxkykkkkkk򨟨jhL|thBS0JUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyHh(|hL|th{ h7h#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS9kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkllll l l l lllllll l!l#l$l%l&l,l-l/l0l1l2l7l8l:l;l>l?lGlHlKlLlUlVl\l]lcldlflglklllnlolql hL|thBS hL|thU`qlrlzl{l~lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllmmmm m m mmmmmmmmmµHh`rhL|th>mhL|thUh>mcHdh`rhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUGm m"m#m%m&m)m*m/m0m2m3m;mm0JycHdharHharhL|th>m0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUKnnnnnnnnnnnnoooo o ooooooo$o%o(o)o.o/o1o2or?r@rArDrErKrLrNrOrZr[r]r^r_r`rerfrjrkrorprrrsrwrxrzr{r}r~rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrhL|thBShE"(cHdhcrHhcrhL|thE"( hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUQrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrssss s sssssss*s+s2s3s;ss?sCsDsHsIsRsSsUsVs]s^sfsgsisjsnsospsqsyszs|s}ssssssssshL|thUh@cHdhhL|thBSh@cHdh hL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUMsssssssssssssssssBtCtDtGtHtLtMtOtPtVtWt^t_tatbtdtetjtktmtntotptutvt{t|ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSTtttttttttuuuu uuuuu!u"u$u%u&u'u3u4u|?|C|D|K|L|N|O|R|S|X|Y|]|^|i|j|l|m|{|||||||||||||||||||hL|thh dDcHdhprHhprhL|th dDjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUL||||||||||||||||||||||||}}}}}}}}}}}}}&}'}3}4}5}6}=}>}@}A}H}I}Q}R}U}V}[}\}^}_}h}i}j}m}n}u}v}y}z}}}}}}}}}}}}} h7h#HhprhL|th dDjhL|thBS0JU hL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUM}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}~~~~ ~~~~~~!~"~+~,~.~/~1~2~5~6~9~:~=~>~H~I~T~U~W~X~Y~Z~^~_~e~f~m~n~w~x~{~|~~~~~~~~~~~~ hL|th#jhL|thBS0JUhL|thBSh dDcHdhpr hL|thU hL|thBSQ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  #$-.01;<@ACDGHKLPQWX[\_`efijuvz{hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUN    "#%&()./129:<=DEFGQRWXZ[ghnpqtuwx|} hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUVĀŀȀɀˀ̀׀؀ڀۀ%&)*-.23569:?@CDJKPQRVW^_cdkʸjhL|th0JU#hL|thBSh0JycHdhrrHhrrhL|th0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSCkltuxyÁāǁȁˁ́ЁсӁԁفځ܁݁   ()23569:CDMNPhL|th#hcHdhurHhurhL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUQPQTUbcefghlmopxy{|~łƂɂʂ΂ς؂ق݂ނ   *+2367BCKLNORSXY]^ghmhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thU\mnuvyzƒÃŃƃȃɃ҃ӃՃփكڃ  '(,-0189;<EFIJMNOVW_`ghj hL|th#jhL|th0JU hL|thBS hL|thUXjknotuyz„Äʄ˄΄τׄ؄ۄ܄   &')*0156:;GHKLNOVWZ[^_abklopstvwjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUZ…ÅɅʅ̅ͅՅօׅڅۅޅ߅   !#$()+,123ɺHhxrhL|th0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thBShcHdhxr hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSB345689>?HIKLOPUVXYZ[ghst{|†džȆˆ̆҆ӆ܆݆ކ͹ͬHhyrhL|thjhL|thBS0JU hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy#hL|thBSh0JycHdhxrD  "#-.0145:;=>ABQRXY[\^_dehioprsz{Շևׇۇއ߇ŸHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGjhL|thBS0JU h7h#hL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUH   #$&',-679:>?DEFGQR]^cdfgnopqwx|}ÈĈȈɈʈˈЈшՈֈڈۈ݈ hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUZ݈ވ   "#'(*+,-56:;=>CDIJQRXY`afghjkqvwx~ĴhL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th#HhzrhL|th hL|th#jhL|th0JU hL|thBS hL|thU?͉̉щ҉ۉ܉ %&-.2367=>CDLYZ[^_abefklnosHhzrhL|thhL|thBShcHdhzr hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thNstyz~Šʊˊ͊ΊъҊ׊؊ۊ܊ "#%',ķhL|th#hWZcHdhHh{rhL|thhL|thUhcHdh{rhL|th#hcHdh{r hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU?,-23;<>?IJOPYZ]^denorsxy}~‹ċŋȋɋϋЋԋՋًڋߋ    hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUhWZcHdhX !"+,./23;<GHOPXY[\_`bcstyz}~ČŌɌʌΌόҌӌڌ۾jhL|th0JU hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thK  "#$'(-.01459:<=?@IJLMTU]^abfgijpqstz{Íōƍ͍΍ЍэӍԍ؍ٍ܍ hL|thhL|thBSh^wcHdhr hL|thU hL|thBSV܍ݍ    !+,./2378:;>?BCEFPQRSXYbcfhijtuz{}~ hL|thhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUKŽŎƎʎˎ؎َݎގ  $%-.125689>?BCIJKNOTU[\_`defijHhrhL|thGkjhL|thBS0JUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSKjpqz{}~  "#%&+,./23;<BCIJKQRS[\dnou hL|thhL|thhGkcHdhrHhrhL|thGkhL|thFghGkcHdhr hL|thFghL|thUhGkcHdhrhL|thUhGkcHdhr hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS6uvwx}~ÐȐɐϐАِڐݐސ  #$'(/0=>ABDEJKQRVW^_cdmnqr{| hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th]‘đőɑʑΑϑґӑڑۑ    "#&'./3478ABFGJKRS h7h#hL|thUhGkcHdhrhL|thBShGkcHdhrHh(|hL|th{ hL|thU hL|thBSI’ÒĒŒɒʒΒϒҒӒגؒܒݒ %&,-12>?BCIJOPSTYZĶ h7h# hL|th hL|thUhL|thFghGkcHdhr hL|thFg hL|thBShL|thUhGkcHdhr hL|th#E“ÓǓȓ˓̓ғӓؓړۓߓ  '(,-/034?@HöHhrhL|thGk hL|thUhL|thFghGkcHdhr hL|thFg hL|thBS hL|th#hL|thUhGkcHdhrHHIKLNOUVYZ\]abjknowx|}ĔŔҔӔהؔݔޔ  κ&hL|th#B*phr*0Jy9hL|th#hGkB*cHdhrphr*0Jy h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUI!"$%+,0134>?GHLMPQ\]_`hijlmopvwx|}•ÕƕǕ˕̕ЕѕԕՕٕϿϿݲHhrhL|thGkhL|thUhGkcHdhr hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU(hL|th#hGkB*cHdhrphFٕڕݕޕ#$*+-.0167;<@ACDHILMRSUVZ[`aijlmstwx}~–ŖƖ̖͖ٖؖ hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUW   *+-.2378=>GHKLQRXYcdӗԗ՗חؗڗüüᵨüjhL|thGk0JU hL|th h7h# hL|thUhL|thFghGkcHdhr hL|thFg hL|thBS hL|th#hL|thUhGkcHdhrBڗۗݗޗߗ  $%+,./01hijlmopvwx|}˜Øڿڿ h7h#HhrhL|thGk hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th#hL|thUhGkcHdhrKØƘǘ˘̘ӘԘטؘۘܘ/013467>?DEPQTU[\abjkpqyz{|ǷǷhL|thBShl^@cHdhrHhrhL|thl^@hL|thUhGkcHdhr hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSHřƙəʙљҙ֙יݙޙ   !"&'-.4589AEFGKLNORSXY[\_`efhimnqrst|}hL|thBShl^@cHdhrHhrhL|thl^@ hL|thBS hL|thUTКњӚԚ !#$&')+,013489;<?@DEMNQRWX[\]^deklnowx{|ͽͽhL|thFghl^@cHdhr hL|thFghL|thUhl^@cHdhr h7h# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUJ|~›Û˛̛͛ϛЛқӛ؛ٛۛܛޛߛ  "#%&)*./56;<ABJKLMRSXY[\bcfgop hL|thhL|thUhl^@cHdhr hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSQpwxz{ƜǜϜМ؜ٜܜݜ    !#$,-0189;<?@DEFGMNSTWX^_`chL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSVcdijlmtuz{Ýǝ͝Νӝԝٝڝݝޝ  !&'()0167:;@AhL|th_H hL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H  hL|thBS hL|thUQAEFGHPQXY_`abghlmrs{|ÞĞǞȞϞО֞מ#$+,/0;<BCIJhL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|th_H hL|thBS_H Rޞ 9Zߦ 3XSD'DDYgdoR&gdJu(gdw"gdh]:(gdoRgdoRgdh]:gdh]:JKMNPQSUVY\]`afgjkoprsz{~şƟϟПԟ՟ݟޟí󤛤hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H +hL|thFghW ^J_H aJ cHdhrhL|thFg^J_H aJ +hL|thUhW ^J_H aJ cHdhrhL|th#^J_H aJ hL|thBS^J_H aJ =$%&'(./2389;<?@FGJKPQRVWYZabghklst}~ӲӲ#hL|thUhB_H cHdhl'Hhl'hL|thB_H Hhrh7hW _H #h7h#hW _H cHdhrh7h#_H hL|th#_H hL|th_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H 9ĠŠ̠͠נؠ۠ܠ #$%./4589?@BCFGIJOPXY[\_`fglmpqwHhrhL|thW _H hL|th_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H Twx|}ȡɡˡ̡ѡҡ֡סڡۡ   +,/067=>DEGHKLQRWXZ[^_deghmnz{h7h#_H hL|th_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H WŢƢɢʢϢТѢҢآ٢ܢݢ  !&'+,0178NOPRSUVXZhL|thFg_H #hL|thUhxG_H cHdhrhL|th#_H h7h#_H hL|th_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H EZ[_`mnqrxy£ãʣˣУѣգ֣أ٣ڣۣݣޣɺۢې~#hL|thUhcq_H cHdhr#hL|thBShcq_H cHdhrHhrhL|thcq_H hL|th_H HhVcGhL|th#_H #hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcGhL|thU_H hL|thBS_H #hL|thFghxG_H cHdhr1$%&()+,123<=IJNORSYZ_`deghklrsvw}~ĵ{jhL|thBS0JU#hL|thUhcq_H cHdhrhL|th#_H #h7h#hcq_H cHdhrHhrh7hcq_H h7h#_H HhrhL|thcq_H #hL|thBShcq_H cHdhrhL|thU_H hL|thBS_H 0ŤƤɤʤͤΤѤҤ֤פޤߤ    '(/034@AGHJKSTWXbceflmqrwxإ٥ڥܥhL|th#_H h7h#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H Rܥݥߥ#$*+3478<=@AŦƦɦʦЦ۷۷۷۷۷ۮ۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷۷h7h#_H hL|th_H hL|thU_H #hL|thFghcq_H cHdhrhL|thFg_H hL|thBS_H hL|th#_H #hL|thUhcq_H cHdhrAЦѦӦԦئ٦!"&'+,./56:;=>BCFGOPY`ahimnopç#hL|thUhcq_H cHdhrh7h#_H #hL|thBShcq_H cHdhrHhrhL|thcq_H hL|th#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H @çƧʧ˧Χϧѧҧԧէܧݧ    "#'(-.2389;<_`acdfglmopstvwz{}~ʸʸ#hL|thUhcq_H cHdhrhL|th#_H h7h#_H hL|th_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H hL|thFg_H H¨ĨŲ̃ͨϨШب٨  wx*+,./67=jhL|thBS0JUhL|th_H h7h#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H R=>IJRSUV[\abklopuvêĪΪϪݪު   !#$*+2367?@CDHIKLQhL|th#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H VQRSVW[\_`efjklmpqruvwz{ëīΫϫӫԫ׫ث߫  #$'(129:hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H #hL|thUh_H cHdhrHhrhL|th_H P:>?EFYZ_`efhiklpqtu{|~ìĬǬȬͬάҬӬܬݬ  !"*+/056:;ABDEhL|thU_H hL|thBS_H ^EKLXY]^cdhilmpquvz{~ƭǭʭ˭ӭԭح٭  &' hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#_H hL|th_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H P'=>@AHIMNRSYZ^_xyz|}®îƮǮɮʮήϮҮӮخٮܮݮ   !%hL|thUh[7cHdhr hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#T%&,-23VWXYZ\]_`cdijmns|}~ͯίүӯկ֯گۯξ hL|thHhrhL|th[7hL|thUh[7cHdhrhL|th#h[7cHdhrhL|thBSh[7cHdhrHhrh7h[7 h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU<  $%'(./2389;<>?BCFGLMRSYZabdejkmnrsuv|}Ȱɰ˰̰ϰаհְܰݰ hL|thU hL|thBS` ()./1278<=CDGHMNQR]^bcfglmoptuwx|}ıűϱбԱձڱ۱h7h#h#cHdhVcGHhVcGh7h# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSL    $%()+,01349:زٲڲ޲߲  Ƿ룪 hL|th# h7h#jhL|thBS0JUhL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUHhrhL|th=!"*+67?@BCNORSWXZ[abfgjkopstxy|}ųƳdzγϳѳҳڳ۳޳߳  hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU] !'(+,129:;<ABGHKRSVWYZ\]^abfgijqrz{}~´ôǴȴ˴̴ҴӴٴڴܴݴߴhL|thBS0JyjhL|thw"0JU hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUT  VW[\]`abghnopĵŵƵ˵̵ϵеֵ׵xyz}~öĶŶƶ̶Ͷ϶жֶhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyjhL|thBS0JU hL|th#hL|thUhWZcHdhHhhWZ h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUCֶ׶ݶ޶   &'-.:;@AEFIJNOUV]^abhiqrxyŷƷηзѷڷ۷ܷhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thHhrhL|thw" hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th#Nܷݷ  !,-./2378ABEFPQXY[\abeflmqstuxyĽĶhL|thBShw"cHdhrhL|thFghw"cHdhr hL|thFg hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU]^J_H aJ hL|thBS]^J_H aJ hL|thBS0JyhL|thU0Jy;ȸɸ˸̸ϸиոָٸڸ߸ !"./34>?FGLMhL|thU\^J_H hL|thBS\^J_H  hL|th# hL|thhL|thhw"cHdhrHhrhL|thw"jhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBS@MXY[\bcghjkst|}~ĹŹɹʹ̹͹ӹԹ׹ع޹߹   &'*+1289<=B hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thU\^J_H hL|thBS\^J_H JBCDGHPQTU[\bcfgtu{|ɺʺͺϺкѺ׺غߺ  ǷhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JUH#$%&-.9:>?FGLMQRUV]^bcfhijmnstxy}~»ûȻɻ˻̻ԻջػٻܻݻhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSN  &'./1289;<?@KLSTWX`acdghkltuwx{|üļǼȼɼʼϼм׼ؼݼ޼ hL|thU hL|thBS`HIJNOQRUVZ[_`cdst~ĽŽɽʽѽҽԽսٽڽ"#)*,-0hL|thUh-i cHdhr hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JU h7h#M013456<=DEHINORSWX`aghijnoqryz¾ǾȾоѾվ־پھݾ޾   )* hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th]*/0789@ACDJKMNQRVWYZabijoptuxy~ÿĿϿпӿԿڿۿ߿hL|thBSh-i cHdhrjhL|thBS0JUhL|thBSh-i cHdhr hL|thU hL|thBSN  "#'(*+./679:>?GHNOQRYZ[\abchiopqrvw|}͖Hhrh7h-i hL|thh-i cHdhrHhrhL|th-i Hhh7h@ h7h# hL|th hL|th#hL|thBSh-i cHdhr hL|thU hL|thBS6   "#'(./1234<=DEGHLMOPTU[abͽڰکک hL|th#jhL|thBS0JUhL|thBSh-i cHdhrHhrhL|th-i hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#h7h#h-i cHdhrBbcefklpqstyz|}  #$*+013478:;>?CDJhL|thBSh-i cHdhr hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUOJKLTU]^fglmoptu  "#%&-.129?@IJMNTU hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JUWUYZ[\bcefstuvxyz{   hL|thjhL|thBS0JU h7h#hL|thBSh-i cHdhrHhrhL|th-i hL|thU hL|thBSI&')*-.3467:;ABDEHIPQVWYZ^_bcijlmopvw|}hL|thUhxcHdhr hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBST   !'()3467KL\bcijqruv{| h7h#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th#hL|thUhxcHdhrL  !"$%+,1256<=DEstwx}~    !jhL|thBS0JU hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSU!"%&,-0167:;ABFGIJNOQVW[\fgqruvz{ hL|thhL|thBShNcHdhr hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUL  !"'(1278=>@ABCRSVXYZefhipqtuz{ hL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSK   !*+./4578;<BCEFKLTUVW\]^bcefghjklmnstv{|޾޷ hL|th#hL|thBShNcHdhrhL|thUhNcHdhrHhrhL|thN hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUH|򾪾hL|thBS^J_H aJ hL|thU^J_H aJ h7h#^J_H aJ hL|th# h7h#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS3 !'(01679:@ADEIJLMSTXY^_bcfgklrsuvxy˴ː hL|thHhrhL|thNhL|thhNcHdhrhL|thBShNcHdhr hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBS^J_H aJ hL|thU^J_H aJ %HhrhL|thN^J_H aJ 8"#)*./56?@DGHINOUVYZ]^cdghnorsxy|}hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUN   !"()+,4578:;EFJKMNYZabehL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|th#hL|thBShglcHdhrhL|th#hglcHdhr hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUGeghjkrstu{}~    밠hL|thUhglcHdhrhL|thBShglcHdhr hL|th#hL|thBShglcHdhrHhrhL|thgl hL|thBS hL|thUHhVcGhL|th#?$%&')*/01289=>@ABEFMNRSUVZ[`acdghnotuz{}~ h7h#jhL|thgl0JU hL|thhL|thBShglcHdhr hL|thU hL|thBSHhrhL|thglI $%)*-.1289<=?@CDĴ&jHhrhL|the0JUHhrhL|thehL|thUhecHdhrhL|thBShecHdhrhL|thUhglcHdhr hL|th# hL|thBS h7h# hL|thU: *+1245<=ABEFMNVW[\cdmnrsyz}~   hL|thUhcHdhr hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUT!")*,-/034<=CDFGNOXY\]ghklopuvxy hL|thUhcHdhr hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUS %&*+016@ACDIJLMQRUVbcefjkmnpqtuz{}~ؽ hL|th#HhrhL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUhcHdhrhL|thBShcHdhrJ   !"&'+,/078?@BCHIJMNQST\]_`cdjkqruv{|~ hL|th hL|th#HhrhL|thhL|thBShcHdhr hL|thBS hL|thUN  $%,-0156:;@ACDGHMNYZ]^`aǷǷǷǷ h7h#hL|thUhcHdhr hL|th# hL|thhL|thhcHdhrHhrhL|th hL|thU hL|thBSE $%()12489ȻHhrhL|thhL|thBShcHdhr hL|th#HhhL|thWZHhhWZhL|thUhWZcHdhhL|thBShWZcHdh hL|thBS hL|thU;9;<@EFGLMOPUVX[\_`bcijkmnpqst žhL|thUhcHdhr hL|th#hL|th#hcHdhrhL|thBShcHdhrHhrhL|th hL|thU hL|thBSD    !#$,-45:;FGIJMNSTU^_`jkst|~ h7h# hL|thhL|thhpcHdh)|Hh)|hL|thp hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUL !)*./23:;@AEFMNQRYZ_`dest{|~hL|thBShcHdhr hL|th#hL|thUhcHdhr hL|thBS hL|thUP"#,-67;<@ACDKLQRUV]^cdghnop|} hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUS  $%Z[fghipqwx  hL|th#h0cHdhrHhrhL|th0hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|thUjhL|th00JU hL|thBSE  '(*+1267=>CDGHLMPQTU\]cdijmnpqvwyz}~   hL|thU hL|thBS`#$*+./67@ACHRSWX]^bchiopvwz{hL|th#hUccHdhr hL|th# hL|thh7h#0JyB*ph h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSG%&-.015678:;=?@DEGHKLPQTUXY\]bcefjkuv~Զ hL|th#hL|thBShUccHdhr h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSHhrhL|thUchL|thUhUccHdhrH  $%'(*+./4578;<ABEFIJQRY\]himnstvwhL|thU_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUQ   !"%&,-12459:ABHIMNST_`mnuvhL|th_H hL|th#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H W+ZDpTQ-q& (gdYgdY(gdU(gdoRgdoRgdh]:gdh]:  ()*+./56;<FGJKNORSXYZabdehiryz{}~hL|th_H hL|th#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H W   #$'(+,-456#hL|thBShUc_H cHdhrHhrhL|thUc_H #hL|thBShUc_H cHdhrHhrhL|thUc_H hL|th_H  hL|thBShL|th#^J_H aJ hL|thBS^J_H aJ hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H 369:BCHIKLTUVW[\^_bcijoptuyz  &'./<=@AKLUVXY_`cdhihL|th_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H Zilmvwz{ !"()2356ST]^demnxyIJ#hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H h7h#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H Fy}~  #$+,-.78DEGHKLXY\]ijpqIJhL|th_H #hL|th#h#_H cHdhWcG#hL|thBSh#_H cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th#_H h7h#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H Bquvz{}~  $%'(./123489:ABOPWX\]jkqr{|HhrhL|th\c_H hL|th#_H h7h#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H M|}~ۺ~ulllllllllllllllhL|thBS_H h7h#_H #hL|thUh\c_H cHdhr#hL|thBSh\c_H cHdhrhL|thU_H HhrhL|th\c_H HhVcGhL|th#_H #hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thUh#_H cHdhVcG*   '(,-239:;>?CDEMNWX]^bchiklpqrsyz|}ʻHhrhL|thou_H hL|th_H h7h#_H #hL|thBShou_H cHdhrhL|thU_H hL|thBS_H J !'(,0156:;<=ABFGIJNOST_`dehinotuwx|}~hL|th#_H h7h#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H U  #$&'12459:<=EFOPST[\_`eflmswxy}~ƷHhh7hWZ_H h7h#_H #hL|thBShWZ_H cHdhhL|thBS_H hL|thU_H HhhWZ_H H  &',-459:ABEFOPRSWX_`bcfgpqz{}~hL|th_H hL|th#_H h7h#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H S  !"$%+,./2378DEGHNO߻߻#hL|thUh _H cHdhb'h7h#_H HhrhL|thou_H #hL|thBShou_H cHdhr#hL|thBShou_H cHdhr#hL|thUhou_H cHdhrHhrhL|thou_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H 2OSVWYZ]^bchiopuvwxyz"̴HhrhL|thou_H hL|th_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H HhVcGhL|th#_H #hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcGG"#)*,-12459:=>FGPQTU^_abdejkopstuv{|~   !&')hL|th#_H h7h#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H W)*-.9:<=CDEJKNOYZfglmopstyz͵vHhhL|thWZ_H HhhWZ_H #hL|thUhWZ_H cHdh#hL|th#hWZ_H cHdhhL|th#_H HhrhL|thec_H #hL|th#hec_H cHdhrHhrhL|thec_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H .   &')*+,123456=>?@HIKLWX[\efijpquvHhrhL|thec_H #hL|thUhec_H cHdhr#hL|thBShec_H cHdhrh7h#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H Fvwxy|}  |h7h#_H #hL|thUh#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H &jHhrhL|thec0JUHhrhL|thec_H #hL|thUhec_H cHdhr0!$%'(+,23=>GHIOPQRTUXY^_`fhi  $ĵĚhL|th#_H #h7h#h _H cHdhb'HhrhL|th_H hL|thBS_H HhVcGhL|th#_H #hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcGhL|thU_H h7h#_H <$%+,./78:;>?EFGNORSYZ_`hiklopwx~  hL|th_H hL|th#_H h7h#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H S $%,-56<=?@ABNOWX`acdghpqstwx~ "#*+0 hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBS_H hL|thU_H X013478>?ABKLNOVW]^abghpwxy|}ξhL|thU_H hL|thBS_H hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUD &'3467@AKLRS]^dijkrs}~IJh7h#_H #hL|th#h#_H cHdhWcG#hL|thBSh#_H cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th#_H hL|th_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H B   #$'(+,/0459:?@IJRSXY\]efnoqrwxz{ hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBS_H hL|thU_H V   $%'(./56:;<?@BCGHIJPQRUV[\aξ hL|thhL|thh cHdhrHhrhL|th hL|thUh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUCDKLNOTUWXZ[bcjkoh7h#_H hL|th#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H HhVcGhL|th#_H NopquwxyĻҜą|s|j|s|s|s|hL|th0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thhL|thBShm[cHdh{Hh{hL|thm[hL|th#0JNhL|thU0JNhL|thY0JN hL|thBS hL|th# hL|thU hL|thE hL|thYhL|thU_H HhrhL|thE_H )    "#*+6789>?@AGHOPST]^efhipqtu{|~οතhL|th0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyHhVcGhL|th#_H #hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcGhL|thU_H hL|thBS_H  hL|thBS hL|thU;  !$%./569:?@Ę̺̺HhVcGhL|th#_H #hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcGh7h#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H hL|th#_H #hL|th#hM_H cHdh|Hh|hL|thM_H @AHIQRVWYZopwxyzʳw#hL|thBSh*)_H cHdhrHhrhL|th*)_H h7h#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H ,hL|th#h*)B*_H cHdhrph*hL|th#B*_H phr*0Jy=hL|th#h*)B*_H cHdhrphr*0Jy. ĻIJĻĻygy#hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H hL|th_H HhrhL|th _H hL|th0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy#hL|thBSh*)_H cHdhrHhrhL|th*)_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H (#$,-01<=?@CDKOPSTWX`aghklwxz{|}Ӳ#hL|thUh^_H cHdhrHhrhL|th^_H #hL|thBSh^_H cHdhrh7h#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H F   +,/0<=EFHITUYZabefhirsuvyzͻhL|th#_H #hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H F"#()015678ABFGLMTUYZdeghklqrwxz{~IJ#hL|thBShZ_H cHdh|Hh|hL|thZ_H h7h#_H hL|th_H hL|thU_H hL|th#_H hL|thBS_H F  !$%./123467:;<=BCFGHIKLOPRSVW#hL|thBSh^_H cHdhrHhrhL|th^_H !hL|thU0Jyr*0J !hL|thBS0Jyr*0J h7h#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H @W[\]^bchipqvw}~!"()./4589hL|th#_H #hL|thBSh`X_H cHdhrHhrhL|th`X_H hL|thU_H hL|th_H hL|thBS_H F9;EFOPST\]deoprsvw  ß#hL|thBSh`X_H cHdhr#hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcGhL|thBS_H h7h#_H hL|thU_H HhVcGhL|th#_H #hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcG> $%'(+,0129:;<FGIJOPYZ\]`acmnrsvw{|;HhVcGhL|th#_H #hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcGHhrhL|th`X_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H K    %&+,2356?@FGHKLQRXY]^fgmnrsvw{|~ʻHhVcGhL|th#_H #hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thBSh`X_H cHdhrhL|thU_H hL|thBS_H J  !$%#hL|thBSh`X_H cHdhrHhrhL|th`X_H hL|th_H HhVcGhL|th#_H #hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thBSh`X_H cHdhrHhrhL|th`X_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H 0%&*+0123:;=>DEMNRSVW[\]^klnorsyzñ#hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H hL|th_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H #hL|thUh`X_H cHdhr>  $%&',-./56@ADEIͻߩvmvvvhL|th0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyHhrhL|th`X_H #hL|thUh`X_H cHdhr#hL|thBSh`X_H cHdhr#hL|thUh`X_H cHdhr#hL|thBSh`X_H cHdhrHhrhL|th`X_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H *IJMNSTVW\]`aghlmpqwxͻHh|hL|thZ_H #hL|th#hZ_H cHdh|#hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H 9     #$-.1278=>BCEFNORSXYZ[ghjknoz{h7h#_H hL|th_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H hL|th#_H S  !+,5689;<ABKLPQST]^hilmuvxyh7h#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H T    "#()./45:;ABDEJKQRUV[\]defghjkuv|}úúúúúúúúúúúúúúúñäúúúúúúúúúúújhL|th0JUhL|th#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H HhrhL|th_H #hL|thUh_H cHdhr#hL|thBSh_H cHdhr@         ' ( - . 0 1 6 7 : ; A B C H I K L N O [ ֻhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyjhL|thBS0JUh7h#_H hL|thBS_H #hL|th#h#_H cHdhVcG#hL|thBSh#_H cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#_H hL|thU_H :[ \ d e h i t u | }                                 wjHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh cHdhrHhrhL|th hL|thU hL|thBSHhrhL|th _H #hL|thUh _H cHdhr#hL|thBSh _H cHdhrh7h#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H )                               ' ( + 2 3 8 9 ; < F G M N P Q T U Z a b c d k l n o r s { |         h7h# hL|th#hL|thUh cHdhrhL|thBSh cHdhrHhrhL|th hL|thBS hL|thUC                                                      뾵먘hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thBSh-cHdhrjhL|th 0JU hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JU5   & ' , - 4 5 7 8 > ? F G K L O P V W b l m n                                        ! " ' ( * + 򸯸hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyjhL|thBS0JU h7h#HhrhL|th-hL|thBSh-cHdhr hL|thU hL|thBSE+ 3 4 5 : ; A B C E F J K P Q T U Z [ a b k l p q s t x y } ~                                                   hL|thU0JyjhL|thBS0JU hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBS0JyP      ! ' ( + , 2 3 6 7 E F N O Q R W X _ ` i j m n r s | } ~                                    ɹɬHhrhL|th-hL|th#h-cHdhrhL|thBSh-cHdhr hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSD                  !"*+./236=>ABEFMNSTWX_`efmnuv~򵥵HhrhL|th-hL|th#h-cHdhrhL|thBSh-cHdhrHhrhL|th-hL|th#h-cHdhrhL|thBSh-cHdhr hL|thU hL|thBS<  )*-.6789DEGHLMTU[\^_fgklopvw{| h7h# hL|th hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSW    '(-.1256?@DEܾձhL|th#h cHdhX'HhX'hL|th hL|thUhx-cHdhs hL|th# hL|thBShL|thBShx-cHdhsHhshL|thx- hL|thU?EMNOPRST[\^_cdjkmwxy{|thL|th#hx-cHdhshL|thBShx-cHdhshL|thUhx-cHdhsHhshL|thx-HhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|th#hL|thUhx-cHdhsHhshL|thx- hL|thU hL|thBS-   !#$%&()-.2367:;?@GHIJLMNUVYZ]de޷ΧhL|th#hx-cHdhshL|thUhx-cHdhs hL|th#hL|thBShx-cHdhsHhshL|thx- hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSBelmpquv|}  ȸhL|thUh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#HhshL|thx-hL|thBShx-cHdhs hL|thU hL|thBSB!"%&019:@ADEIMNPQRSUVZ[`aefjkmnrsxyȸ hL|th#hL|thBShx-cHdhsHhshL|thx-HhshL|thx-hL|thBShx-cHdhs hL|thBS hL|thUF    !()+,2367=>DEIJKLQRYZ_`cdgnopstwxz{~ггHhshL|thx-hL|th#hx-cHdhshL|thBShx-cHdhshL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSF  !$%'()*,-1245:;@AEFNOWX[ hL|th#HhshL|thx-hL|th#hx-cHdhshL|thBShx-cHdhs hL|thBS hL|thUK "#-#k(.255s6\7w78(?CHKKELNSX_b%i(gdUgdYgdY&gdJu(gdY[\`almqrtuyz|}  Hh shL|thx-hL|th#hx-cHdh shL|thBShx-cHdh sHhshL|thx-hL|th#hx-cHdhshL|thBShx-cHdhs hL|thBS hL|thU< #$'(*+./679:BCFGLMQR   HhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGjh7hx-0JU h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUL $()./89<=EFJKYZ]^bcjkuvxyhL|th#hx-cHdh shL|thBShx-cHdh s hL|th#HhshL|thx-hL|thBShx-cHdhs hL|thU hL|thBSD!"%&(2389=>ABGHIJRSVWabjkopst|}ķԮ hL|th#hL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|thU hL|thBSHh shL|thx-hL|thBShx-cHdh s:!"%&,-0145;<@AGHQRUVYZ\fglmvwHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUQw   !&')*-.3478<=DEHIKLTUXY]^cdjkHhhWZhL|thBShWZcHdh hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSRknorstvw$%()4589=>GH h7h#HhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHh shL|thc4 hL|thU hL|thBSLHMNZ[^_bcfguvxy|}  !"%&+,./2hL|thBShc4cHdh s hL|thU hL|thBST23478=>BCIJKMNRSUV^_abijlmpqyzhL|thBShc4cHdh sHh shL|thc4 h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUHh shL|thc4L    '(./12;<EFIJWXZ[deklopwx|} h7h# hL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUH ()+,/078:;?@CDIJPQTU]^`ajktu{|Hh shL|thc4 hL|thU hL|thBSZ  $%+,-.3467?@ABGHLMOPSTYZ\]_`abghoptu~ h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSW   "#*+/04567=>@AIJOPVWXbcghmntu{|~ h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUhc4cHdh sHh shL|thc4N          $ % ( ) + , 6 7 = > ? @ D E O P X Y ] ^ h i m n q r                                          jhL|thc40JU h7h# hL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUP     !!!! ! !!!!!!!$!(!)!*!2!3!8!9!;!&B&C&J&K&V&W&a&b&f&g&i&j&o&p&{&|&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&'' ' ' '''''''"'#'%'&'*'+'-'.'3'4'>'?'C'D'F'G'J'K'Q'R'T'Hh$shL|thx$1 hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSXT'U'Y'Z'_'`'d'e'g'h'r's'z'{'}'~''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''(((((((()(*(1(2( h7h# hL|thhL|thUhx$1cHdh%sHh%shL|thx$1 hL|thBS hL|thUH2(6(7(:(>(?(F(G(J(K(O(P(T(U(X(Y(b(c(n(o(t(u({(|((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Ļ˕hL|th#hx$1cHdh&sjhL|thx$10JUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSHh%shL|thx$1hL|thUhx$1cHdh%shL|thBShx$1cHdh%s:(((((((((((()))))))))))!)")))*).)/)3)4):);)>)?)C)D)G)H)M)N)Q)R)Z)[)a)b)d)e)i)j)r)s)x)y){)|)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))) hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS]))))))))* * **********%*&*-*.*1*2*6*7*=*>*@*A*K*L*N*O*R*S*U*V*]*^*b*c*e*f*j*k*n*o*}*~***************************************+ hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUZ++++++++#+$+'+(+,+-+0+1+7+8+<+=+?+@+A+B+M+N+P+Q+T+U+Y+Z+_+`+d+e+i+j+l+m+o+p+t+u+x+y+~+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++jhL|thBS0JU#hL|thUhWZ0JcHdh hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUP++++++++++++++++, , ,,,,,,,",#,%,&,',(,,,-,/,0,1,2,7,8,@,A,D,E,I,J,P,Q,S,T,Y,Z,c,d,j,k,n,o,q,r,u,v,|,},,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU],,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,--- - - ---------!-"-$-%-*-+-,---4-5-8-9-C-D-H-I-N-O-V-W-Z-[-^-_-c-d-f-g-i-j-m-n-t-u-w-x-{-|---------hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUS--------------------------------------------.... ........(.).0.1.6.7.:.;.>.?.C.D.I.J.K.L.R.S.HhhWZ0JyHhhWZ hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|th0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyIS.T.[.`.a.b.c.q.u.v.z.{.}.~...........................................////// /!hL|thU0Jy-s*0J !hL|thBS0Jy-s*0J Hh-shL|th h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#> / / / ////// /#/$/)/*///0/1/2/8/9/2D2E2K2L2T2U2b2c2g2h2j2k2q2r2v2{2|2222222hL|thBShQncHdh/s hL|th#Hh/shL|thQn hL|thhL|thU0JyjhL|th *v0JUhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUB2222222222222222222222222222222222222223333333333 3!3)3*3+3-3.3435383ѿ hL|thhL|thhQncHdh/sHh/shL|thQn hL|th##hL|thBShQn0JycHdh/sHh/shL|thQn0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBS:8393?3@3B3C3P3Q3T3U3]3^3`3a3d3e3i3j3q3r3s3v3w3|3}3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333翯hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0JyhL|thU0JyB333444444444444$4%4'4(4*4+47484;4<4G4H4S4T4]4^4h4i4r4s4v4w4}4~44444444444444444444444444444444444444ȿȿhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|th#h#cHdhVcGK444444455555 5 5 5555555%5&5(5)5-5.56575:5;5C5D5G5H5O5P5X5Y5^5_5a5b5d5e5m5n5q5r5w5x5555555555555555555555hL|thY0JN hL|th# hL|thYhL|thUhQncHdh0sHh0shL|thQn hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUG5555555555555555555555555666666 6 6666666#6$6%6&6(6)6ɼxxxxxxhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thhL|thBShQncHdh2sHh2shL|thQn hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thQn0JUhL|thY0JNhL|thBS0JNhL|th#0JNhL|thU0JN#hL|thYh|N;0JNcHdh',)6-6.616265666<6?6D6E6H6I6P6Q6R6`6a6r6w6x66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666777мרר hL|thjh7hQn0JU h7h#Hh2shL|thQn hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th#hL|thBS0JyhL|thU0JyhL|th#0JyB7 77777 7!7*7+7/707:7;7>7?7I7J7R7S7[7\7c7d7j7k7q7r7v7w7}7~777777777777777777777777777777777777hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thhL|thY0JNhL|th#0JNhL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JN hL|th# hL|thY hL|thBS hL|thUB777777777777777777777778888 88888888!8"8&8'8*8+818286878;8<8B8C8D8E8J8K8N8O8Q8R8\8]8_8`8e8f8h8i8l8m8r8u8{8|8~88888888jhL|th|N;0JUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU hL|th#N888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888999 9 9 999999 9#9$9,9-909194959@9A9E9F9M9N9P9Q9ʸ#hL|thBShQn0JycHdh5sHh5shL|thQn0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUHQ9S9T9U9V9Z9[9]9^9f9g9q9r9y9z9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999򸨘hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|th#jhL|thQn0JU hL|thU hL|thBS899999999::::: :::::::$:%:&:':,:-:0:1:5:6:9:::@:E:F:G:H:I:J:O:P:U:V:[:\:`:a:c:d:g:h:n:o:y:z:|:}::ԗhL|thBS0JyhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th hL|thUHh7shL|thQn hL|thBShL|thBShQncHdh7s9:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;; ; ;;;;;;;;; ;!;#;$;&;';1;2;6;7;:;;;?;@;G;H;N; h7h# hL|thhL|thUhQncHdh7sHh7shL|thQn hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0JyhL|thU0JyGN;O;Q;R;Z;[;];^;a;b;f;g;i;j;m;n;u;v;y;z;};~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;<< < <<<Hh8shL|thQnhL|th#hQncHdh8s hL|th hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUL<<<%<&<(<)<,<-<7<8<=<><C<D<J<K<M<N<Q<R<[<\<a<b<d<e<f<g<j<k<l<m<r<s<y<z<{<|<}<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< hL|th#hL|thBShQncHdh9sHh9shL|thQn hL|thU hL|thBSQ<<<<<== = =========="=#=&='=*=+=/=0=6=7=:=;=?=@=E=F=I=J=O=P=T=U=W=X=^=_=b=c=h=i=j=n=o=z={=}=~========================hL|thUhYbcHdh9sHh9shL|thYbhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSM===========================>>>> > >>>>>>> >!>'>(>)>*>.>/>2>3>:>;>?>@>D>E>G>H>N>O>P>Q>T>V>W>X>Y>Z>c>d>l>m>t>u>z>{>jhL|thBS0JUhL|th0Jy hL|th h7h#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUJ{>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? ? ? ???????*?+?0?1?2?3?4?5?7?8?=?>???I?J?N?O?W?ѿ#hL|thBShS_0JycHdh:sHh:shL|thS_0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSKW?X?_?`?d?e?r?s?u?v?w?x?????????????????????????????????????????????????????@@ @ʸʸhL|thBShS_cHdh:s#hL|thBShS_0JycHdh:sHh:shL|thS_0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUB @ @ @ @@@@@@@ @!@$@%@(@)@-@.@:@;@=@>@C@D@G@H@J@K@X@Y@\@]@a@b@i@j@n@o@t@u@v@w@|@}@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ hL|th hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSHh:shL|thS_T@@@@AA A AAAAAAAAA"A#A&A'A0A1A=A>AAABAIAJASATAVAWAZA[AdAeAnAoAqArAuAvAxAyA|A}AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA hL|th# hL|thUhL|thBShjcHdh' hL|thBSHh'hjRAAAAAAAAAAABBB B B BBBBB B!B,B-B1B2B4B5B9B:B=B>BFBGBOBPBSBTBYBZB]B^BbBcBhBiBkBlBoBpBsBtByBzB~BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBHh;shL|thS_hL|thUh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|thU hL|thBSNBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCC"C#C)C*C0C1C5C6C8C9C=C>CACBCDCECHCICJCKCOCPCTCUCXCYC^C_CaCbCdCeChCiCkClCrCsCwC|C}CCCCCCCCC hL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUZCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCDDDD D DDDDDDDDDD D#D$D(D)D-D.D2D3DJBJCJGJHJIJJJSJTJVJWJ]J^JcJdJhJiJkJlJoJpJsJtJxJyJ|J}JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJKKKKKK K K K hL|thBS hL|thU` KKKKKKK K#K$K)K*K.K/K3K4K6K7KNANBNFNGNHNINRNSNVNWN[N\N]N hL|th#hL|thBShZ*cHdhs hL|thU hL|th hL|thBST]N^NcNdNfNgNjNkNvNwNyNzN~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNSOTOUOWOXOZO[O]O_O hL|thFghL|thUhZ*cHdhs hL|th# h7h# hL|thHhshL|thZ* hL|thBS hL|thUC_O`OaOcOdOfOgOkOlO~OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPP P PPPPPPóóج hL|thhL|thUhZ*cHdhs hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBShZ*cHdhshL|thFghZ*cHdhsDPPPP#P$P&P'P*P+P4P5P?P@PKPLPNPOPRPSPXPYPZP]P^PePfPhPiPrPsPuPvPyPzP~PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPԲá h7h#OJ QJ ^J _H aJ hL|thOJ QJ ^J _H aJ hL|thUOJ QJ ^J _H aJ hL|thBSOJ QJ ^J _H aJjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thU?PPPPPPPP3Q4Q:Q;Q=Q>QBQCQMQNQPQQQRQSQ]Q^QlQmQoQpQwQxQ{Q|QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQＥyyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy3h7h#hZ*OJ QJ ^J _H aJcHdhs-Hhsh7hZ*OJ QJ ^J _H aJ h7h#OJ QJ ^J _H aJ hL|th#OJ QJ ^J _H aJ hL|thBSOJ QJ ^J _H aJ hL|thUOJ QJ ^J _H aJ/QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQRRRR RRRR$R%R'R(R+R,R2R3R5R6R9R:R?R@RCRDRIRJRORPRRRSRWRXRZR[R^R_RdReRgRhRkRlRqRrRzR{R~RR3hL|thUh OJ QJ ^J _H aJcHdhc' hL|thBSOJ QJ ^J _H aJ hL|thUOJ QJ ^J _H aJMRRRRRRRRRS&S,S-S.S8SSSS|hQ|;.HhshL|thZ**hL|th#0JyB*phs*0J ,h7h#hZ*0JyB*cHdhsph&Hhsh7hZ*0JyB*phh7h#0JyB*ph h7h#"jh7h#0JB*Uphjh7hZ*0JU h7h#OJ QJ ^J _H aJjhL|thZ*0JU hL|thUOJ QJ ^J _H aJ hL|thOJ QJ ^J _H aJ hL|thBSOJ QJ ^J _H aJSSS+T0T1T2TPT`TTTTUUQURUSUdU|UUóÅxhXFÅ9HhWcGh7h#"jh7h#0JB*Uphh7h#hQcHdhsh7h#h#cHdhVcGHhVcGh7h#h7h#0JyB*ph&jHhsh7hZ*0JUHhsh7hZ*h7h#hZ*cHdhs h7h#*hL|th#0JyB*phs*0J =hL|th#hZ*0JyB*cHdhsphs*0J UUVV V1V4V]?]F]G]I]J]K]L]P]Q]U]V]Z][]_]`]i]j]m]n]q]r]w]x]z]{]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]ȷ٨HhshL|thQ0Jy!hL|thBS0Jys*0J !hL|th0Jys*0J hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUB]]]]]]]]]^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^"^#^%^&^,^-^3^4^5^6^;^<^>^?^B^C^M^N^U^V^Y^Z^a^b^c^k^l^q^r^x^y^|^}^^^^^^^^^^^^^Կh7h#hQcHdhsHhsh7hQ h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy#hL|thBShQ0JycHdhs@^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^___ ______ _(_)_+_,_0_1_9_:_>_?_A_B_J_K_S_T_V_W_a_b_j_k_o_p_q_r_x_y____________________ hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS]______________________`` ``````````!`"`$`%`)`*`+`,`4`5`=`>`B`C`G`H`J`K`P`Q`T`U`W`X`c`d`g`h`n`o`q`r`u`v`z`{```````ѿ#hL|thBShQ0JycHdhsHhshL|thQ0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUK`````````````````````````````````````````````aaa aaaaaa a(a)a,a-a5a6a8a9ae?eHeReSe]e^e`eaeeefemeneresewexeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeff fff hL|th#HhshL|thfyhL|thUhfycHdhshL|thBShfycHdhs hL|thBS hL|thUKffffff f!f(f)f+f,f-f.f4f5f9f:f=f>f@fAfIfJfLfMfYfZf^f_fbfcfifjfmfnfsftfyfzf~ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffggg hL|thBS hL|thU`gg g ggggggg!g"g#g$g-g.g5g6g8g9gBgCgGgHgIgJgQgRgXgYg]g^g_g`gbgcglgmgwgxg|g}ggggggggggggggggggggggggggggĴ hL|th#hL|thUhfycHdhsHh`'hL|th hL|thBSh@cHdhHhh@ hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUDggggggggggggggggggggghhh h h hhhhhhhhhh h(h)h,h-h2h3h:h;hBhChDhEhJhKhQhRhZh[h]h^hihjhlhmhohphwhxhzh{h|h}hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhL|thBShfycHdhs hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUThhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhii iiiiii$i%i)i*i+i,i0i3i4i5i8i9i;im?mAmBmFmGmNmOmPmVm\m]mambmemfmlmmmqmrmumvmzm{mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhL|thBS0J hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUYmnnnn n nnnnnnnnn(n/n0n6n7n9n:n=n>nCnDnJnKnPnQnTnUn[n\n]n^ncndnhninmnnnqnrnwnxnzn{nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnξξη h7h# hL|thFghL|thUh zcHdhs hL|th# hL|thhL|thBS0JjhL|th z0JU hL|thBS hL|thUEnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnooooooooooo o!o$o%o+o,o5o6o8o9o?o@oCoDoGoHoLoMoToUo\o]o`oݽ򭝓HhhL|thWZHhhWZhL|thUhWZcHdhhL|thBShWZcHdhhL|thUh zcHdhshL|thUh zcHdhs hL|th# h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS4`oaogoholomopowoxo~oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppp p ppppppp)p*p.p/phL|thBS0JyhL|thBSh zcHdhsHhshL|th zjhL|thBS0JU hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUH/p2p3pBpCpFpHpIpJpUpVpXpYp]p^papbpgphpkplpppqpwpypzpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp򷪚 hL|thh7h#h zcHdhsHhsh7h z h7h# hL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS:ppppppppqqqqqqqq qqqqqqqqqqq$q%q/q0q3q4q9q:q>q?qDqEqLqMqOqPqZq[q^q_qcqdqnqoqrqsqwqxq}q~qqqqqʙ hh##hL|thBSh z0JycHdhsHhshL|th z0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyHhzhL|thz>#hL|thBShz>0JycHdhz hL|thU hL|thBSrArBrCrErFrGrJrKrMrNrRrSrZr[r]r^rarbrerfrhrirmrnrtrurwrxrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrɮɮhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thhL|thU0Jy4hL|thUhk0JycHdhss*0J .HhshL|thk0Jys*0J !hL|thBS0Jys*0J hL|thU hL|thBS2rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrssss ssssssss s"s#s)s*s0s1s4s5s:sʺʐʝ߃HhVcGhL|th#Hhsh7hrHhͪh7h#h7h#hkcHdhsh7h#hcHdhͪ h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|th#h#cHdhVcG3:s;s=s>sAsBsGsHsMsNsOsQsRsVsWsZs[s`sasfsgshsmsnspsqssstsyszs{s|s}sssssssssssssssssss򧗧hL|thBShDcHdhshL|thUhDcHdhs hL|th# hL|thHhshL|thDhL|thhrcHdhsHhshL|thr$jhL|thr0JUmH nH u hL|thBS hL|thU2ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssttttttttttt t!t趦趦蝔hL|thU_H hL|th_H hL|thBS_H hL|thBShDcHdhsHhshL|thDhL|thUhDcHdhs hL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thhDcHdhs6!t&t't(t)t,t-t3t4t6t7t9t:t>t?tCtDtEtFtStTtUtVtZt[t_t`tdtethtitqtrtxtytttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttuuuu u u u uhL|th_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H Z uuuu u!u$u%u&u*u+u/u0u3u4u9u:u;u=u>u@uAuCuEuFuIuJuRuSuYuZu_u`ueufuguhumutmfmfmfm_mfm hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS+hL|thFghD^J_H aJ cHdhshL|thFg^J_H aJ +hL|thUhD^J_H aJ cHdhshL|th#^J_H aJ hL|thBS^J_H aJ hL|thBS]^J _H hL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thU_H hL|thBS_H %t'uJu?w|/UҀ$M|a)gd2gd2gdY(gdYgdYgdYgdYmunupuqurusuzu{u}u~uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvvv v vvvvvvvvv+v5v6v9v:v=v>v@vAvEvFvIv h7h#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUKIvJvLvMvSvTvWvXv_v`vcvdvivjvqvrvyvzvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv&w'w(w*w+w-w.w˸+hL|thUhD^J_H aJ cHdhshL|th#^J_H aJ +h7h#hD^J_H aJ cHdhs%Hhsh7hD^J_H aJ h7h#^J_H aJ hL|thU^J_H aJ hL|thBS^J_H aJ hL|thBS hL|thU2.w0w2w3w7w8w>w?wAwBwGwHwLwMwOwPwSwTwZw[wawbwdwewkwlwswtwxwyw|w}wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwö󭤭HhshL|thD_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H h7h#^J_H aJ hL|thU^J_H aJ +hL|thFghD^J_H aJ cHdhshL|thFg^J_H aJ hL|thBS^J_H aJ :wwwwwwwwwwwwwwxxxx x xxxxxxxxx'x(x-x.x3x7x8x;xz?zBzCzFzGzhL|th_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H ZGzMzNzPzQzUzVzYzZz]z^zbzczfzgzqzrzzzzzzz.{/{0{2{3{5{6{8{:{;{<{?{@{D{E{G{H{K{L{Q{R{V{W{Z{[{a{b{f{g{k{l{n{o{s{t{w{x{|{}{{#hL|thBShD_H cHdhs#hL|thFghD_H cHdhshL|thFg_H #hL|thUhD_H cHdhshL|th#_H h7h#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H >{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{ | | |||||||| |&jHhshL|thD0JUHhshL|thD_H #hL|th#hD_H cHdhsjhWZ0JUhL|th_H hL|th#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H 6 |!|"|$|%|(|)|,|-|5|6|7|>|?|E|F|G|H|N|O|V|W|[|\|^|_|`|a|h|i|l|m|s|t|w|x|~|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||պձhL|th_H #hL|thBShD_H cHdhshL|thU_H hL|thBS_H HhshL|thD_H #hL|thUhD_H cHdhsF||||||||||||}}} } } }}}}}!}"}%}&}2}3};}<}>}?}G}H}J}K}P}Q}S}T}Z}[}\}]}b}c}h}i}k}l}o}p}v}w}}}~}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSh7h#_H hL|th_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H N}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~!~"~)~*~1~2~:~;~C~D~H~I~M~N~Q~R~X~Y~\~]~d~e~l~m~o~p~u~v~x~y~~~~~~~~~Hhsh7hD_H h7h#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H  hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUG   !#$&()-.34<=CDEFKLZ[]^`adejkqryzúßÄhL|th_H #hL|thFghD_H cHdhshL|thFg_H #hL|thUhD_H cHdhshL|th#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H Hhsh7hD_H h7h#_H #h7h#hD_H cHdhs4   !()3489;<@ACDFGJKXY]^`afghinostxy}~h7h#_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H ZÀĀȀɀʀˀր׀܀݀  '(-.12679:FGQRVW\]deklmoprsuwx{|hL|thFghDcHdhs hL|thFghL|thUhDcHdhs hL|th# hL|thBShL|th#_H hL|thBS_H hL|thU_H DɁʁ    !+,124589?@ABGHJKNOSTWXZ[]^eflmopvwhL|thUhDcHdhs hL|th# h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUQ‚ɂʂ̂͂҂ӂ #$%fgijnoqryz„̄IJ"jh7h#0JB*Uphjh7hD0JUh7h#0JyB*ph h7h#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBSF̄̈́ф҄Մք܄݄߄  !"'(*+-.12679:=>BCGHJKPQYZcdfgjktuv}~ hL|th#HhshL|thDhL|thUhDcHdhshL|thBShDcHdhs hL|thBS hL|thUKąŅ˅̅΅υЅхԅՅׅ؅  #$*+-./078<=CDEKLNOUV^_jhL|thBS0JU hL|th hL|th#hL|thUhDcHdhs hL|thBS hL|thUN_`ahiklpqtuyz|}ƆdžɆʆ͆ΆӆԆچۆ    !%&*+/034=jhL|thD0JU hL|th h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSS=>?@CDFGLMWXZ[`aklrsuv}~  qrsuv}~۽۽jhL|thBS0JU h7h#hL|th#hDcHdhs hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBShDcHdhsHhshL|thDEĈňˈ̈ψЈֈ׈؈و   $%&./67>?CDGHLMSTZ[^_`almHhshL|thfhL|thBShfcHdhsHhshL|thf hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thULmrsuv  !'(-.349:ABEFJKPhL|thUhfcHdhshL|th#hfcHdhs h7h#hL|thU^J_H aJ hL|thBS^J_H aJ hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS?PVWYZ`aefklnotuwx|}ŠÊŊƊϊЊҊӊيڊ݊ފ  $%()+,0167: hL|th#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUHhshL|thfR:;=>@ADEHINOSTVW`adeijpqstwx}~Njȋ̋͋ϋЋӋԋ܋݋ߋ   h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU]'(/012:;@ABKLOPVWYZ^_abfgijopxy{|ƌnj͌Ό׌،ی܌ތߌ   jhL|thBS0JUhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSW  $%,-./78;<>?FGIJPQWXY\]bcghӍԍٍڍ܍ݍ )*./jhL|thBS0JU hL|th h7h#!hL|thU0Jys*0J !hL|thBS0Jys*0J hL|thBS hL|thUG/239:@ABDEKLTUVW^_bcijnopqyzŽŎƎˎ̎hL|thFghQcHdhs hL|thFghL|thUhQcHdhs hL|th#h7h#0JyB*ph h7h# hL|th!hL|thBS0Jys*0J hL|thU hL|thBS9  #$'(,-1278:;=>@AFGMNSTVWZ[bcghlmqrvwп!hL|thU0Jys*0J !hL|thBS0Jys*0J hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBShQcHdhsKÏďȏɏяҏُڏ  !"$%-.1289<=DEIJOPXY #$()<=hL|thUhQcHdhs hL|th# h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUQ=@AHIJLMOPYZ\]`aefjkoptuyz|}ˑ̑Бёבؑ   h7h#hL|thUhQcHdhs hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSO&3478>?DEMNUVYZ`adeopqstvw|}’ĒŒ˽˽Ķ߶ĦHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUHhshL|thQhL|thUhQcHdhshL|thBShQcHdhs<Œɒʒ͒ΒђҒӒԒْؒܒݒ  %&)*1267:;ABEFGHLMNOSTWX\]abdehilmopstz{hL|thBSh@cHdhHhh@ hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSRƓǓʓ˓͓ΓՓ֓ؓٓݓޓ   !"%&(),-@AEFHILMNOPUVXY[\abefhiklopHhshL|thQ hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSUp_`acdfgiklopstwx{|Ǖȕ˕̕ԕՕٕڕޕߕͽͽHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|thFghQcHdhs hL|thFghL|thUhQcHdhs hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#?!"%&-.234ĖŖΖϖږۖݖޖķ+hL|thUhQ^J_H aJ cHdhshL|th#^J_H aJ hL|thBS^J_H aJ hL|thU^J_H aJ h7h#^J_H aJ h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS?   $%+,/03478BCFGKLNOVW`adejkoptuwx此hL|th_H hL|thU_H hL|thBS_H h7h#^J_H aJ +hL|thUhQ^J_H aJ cHdhshL|th#^J_H aJ hL|thBS^J_H aJ hL|thU^J_H aJ =—ƗǗ̗͗їҗ֗חܗݗ !"()+,/067:;ABIJMNTUXY]^deǵǵ#hL|thUhQ_H cHdhshL|th#_H hL|thh]:_H  hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thU_H hL|thBS_H GefglmĘŘʘ˘ҘӘ֘טژۘޘߘ   #$'(*+./67=>DEKLPQUVWXjklnoqruvw}~ hL|thhL|thUhQcHdhs hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSQ™Ùʙ˙ϙЙәԙ  !")*,-/09:DEIJMNOHhshL|th |VhL|thBShQcHdhsHhshL|thQ hL|thBS hL|thUJ)ܞP=GHVkܯ+[?xе&gdJu+gd2gdKgd2gdKgdh]:gdh]:gdWZgd2:gdJu&gdO(gd2gd2OPTUYZ^_`acdghnowx}~ŚƚȚɚ͚̚ӚԚؚٚݚޚ !$%*+.HhshL|th |V hL|thU hL|thBShL|thh |VcHdhsT./23>?ABGHNORSZ[\_`fgmnpqtuyz{śƛțɛΛϛӛԛכ؛ݛޛhL|thBSh |VcHdhsHhshL|th |VjhL|thBS0JU hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUL   !&',-4578BCMNRSYZ[abefklqrvw|}ÜĜ̜͜ҜӜ՜֜ڜۜߜhL|thUh |VcHdhsHhshL|th |V hL|thU hL|thBSR "#()+,/0569:<=CDGHNOQRVW]^cdghnotuyz{|ŝƝȝɝ͝Νѝҝם؝ڝ۝ޝߝ hL|thBS hL|thUHhshL|thS hL|th#X !&',-/3489=>ABLMOPSTZ[ghklm²貢(hL|th#hSB*cHdhsphhL|thUhScHdhshL|thBShScHdhsHhshL|thS hL|thBShL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thUhL|thBShScHdhs5mpqrtuxy}~žÞȞɞўҞ۞ܞ   йɲ hL|th#hL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU(hL|th#hSB*cHdhsph&hL|th#B*phs*0JyF #$()*+4589?@BCJKRSTUZ[\]`acdfghixy{|򾮾hL|thUh._cHdhshL|thBSh._cHdhshL|thh._cHdhsHhshL|th._ hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSDßğɟʟ̟͟ӟԟ؟ٟ۟ܟ !&')*./2345:;?@CDTUWX_`deghklqrtuwx h7h# hL|th#hL|th#hZcHdh|Hh|hL|thZ hL|thU hL|thBSNŠƠˠ̠֠נ٠ڠޠߠ  #$&'2378;<@AEFMNVWYZabijpqtuhL|thBS0JyjhL|th"0JU h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSTġšǡȡϡСѡա֡ء١ܡݡ  "#,-/034<=?@DEJKOPWX]^`adehist~ h7h#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBSX¢ĢŢ̢͢բ֢ۢܢ $%'(+,124589=>DEHINOSTZ[abfgijuv|}hL|thU0JyHhh@ hL|thBS hL|thURģţȣʣˣ̣ԣգߣ  ȺȆ hL|thhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0JyhL|thU0Jy' *hL|th#0JyR'*0J *!hL|thBS0JyR'*0J 4%&()+,3478>?HIOPTUZ[`abcijnoqruv|}ǤȤˤ̤ϤФؤ٤   & hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS]&'+,23;<=>DEKLRSUVYZ^_bchiklmntuwxťƥʥ˥ͥΥӥԥץإޥߥ  hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thpL hL|thBS hL|thUV '(,-1289;<>?CDIJPQXYdeghlmstwx~˦̦Ԧզئ٦ۦܦ!hL|thBS0JyS'*0J hL|thU hL|thBSU   !()2367:;JKPQXY[\_`fgijqrxy{|~çħƧģ̌ͧΧԧէ֧¸HhhWZhL|th#hWZcHdh hL|thpL hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyH֧ۧܧ    !"'(-.01569:<=ABEFJKOPYZ\]abefklop}~è hL|th# h7h#HhhWZ hL|thU hL|thBSVèĨɨʨҨӨը֨ݨިߨ!"(),-3478>?BCGHIJUVXYbcefghk hL|th#hL|thhpLcHdhsHhshL|thpL h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUFklmopqstu}~éĩͩΩЩѩөԩܩݩ  "#&'-.0145DELM hL|th#hL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUhpLcHdhsHhshL|thpLMMPQWX`acdghqrwx{|~ 0124578;=DEGHOPTUV[\bHhԪhL|th#hL|thBShg}cHdhԪHhԪhL|thg} hL|thOhL|thUhpLcHdhsjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS;bckstuv}~«ëƫǫʫ˫׫ثګ۫ޫ߫!"%&./1278:; hL|th# hL|th2 hL|thX hL|th hL|thBShWZ hL|thUS;=>CDHILMRSVW_`bcghpqtu{|Ȭɬˬ̬ЬѬӬԬ֬׬ڬ۬  %&/02367@AIJLMVW hL|thU hL|thBS`WYZabeflmrsvwyz­íɭʭͭέ׭حܭݭ   !+,/03467<=@ACDGHNORSZ[ hL|thU hL|thBS`[^_dehilmstyzîĮˮ̮ϮЮԮծخٮۮܮ!"%&)*,-2378>?BCHIMNQR[\^_ hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS]_bcgnoqruvyzůƯɯʯͯίүӯدٯگۯܯ븘ŏhL|thU0JhL|th#h')cHdhshL|thh')cHdhsHhshL|th')hL|thBS0JHhUcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhUcG hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS8   "#'()*+,23;<?@IJLMRSYZ_`eflmnotuxy򾵾jhL|thBS0JUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th=]hL|th#h')cHdhsHhshL|th') hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSB°ðưǰͰΰѰҰְװٰڰ۰ܰ !$%./45789:?@GHPQTUZ[^_bclmnqrhL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th=] hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSOrstuvw{|±ñıDZȱͱαӱԱֱױ۱ܱ̺ hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSjhL|thBS0JU#hL|thBShz0JycHdhs#hL|thBShz0JycHdhTbG#hL|thUhz0JycHdhTbGHhTbGhL|thz0Jy<   #$)*-.4589@ADEIJOPSTWX\]bcfgjkmnpqyz|}ŲƲȲɲ̲ͲԲղݲ h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS!hL|thBS0Jys*0J hL|th#Pݲ޲  "#()0156:;=>GHPQ\]efklqrvw{|}~Ƴdzʳ˳ӳԳֳ׳ hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]׳۳ܳ޳߳   %&*+,-23679:<=@AEFGHMNRSUV[\^_bcefjknoqr|}hL|thBShzcHdhsHhshL|thz hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSQ´ȴɴ̴ʹѴҴִ״شٴݴ޴  !"'()*+,/0239:;<?@BCIJMNSTVWablmx h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUZxyzµŵƵϵеֵ׵ٵڵ޵ߵ &'*+./5678?@IJPQXY]^abhipq hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBShzcHdhsTqwxy{|ƶǶɶʶͶζնֶٶڶ޶߶  "#'(1234<=FGRSWX[\abfglmpqz{ hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th#]Ƕ(S޷9R.c?9R  (gd2gd2gdh]:gdh]:gdh]:gd2Ƿȷ˷̷зѷӷԷ!"$*+/012:;@ACDIJPQZ[]^cdjkpqwx~jhL|thBS0JU hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSX¸øȸɸʸ˸иѸ׸ٸڸ %&XYZ\]_`defmnz{}~ξ򷠷򷠷HhhWZhL|thUhh'0cHdht h7h# hL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU;ѹҹӹչֹعٹ޹߹  "#()*-.016789Ƿ hL|thhL|thhh'0cHdhtHhthL|thh'0hL|thUhh'0cHdht hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSE9>?HISTUefgijlmrs{|úĺźǺȺɺ̺ͺѺҺӺ׺غ "#Hh thL|thh'0hL|thUhh'0cHdh t hL|th# h7h#HhthL|thh'0 hL|thU hL|thBSI#)*,-12679:?@EFLMPQVWZ[\]bcefklrsvwyz~ɻʻλϻջֻ޻߻  hL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSZ   $%'(*+/2378;<@AFGIJMNQRTUXY_`dehiüżƼɼʼ˼ӼԼݼǵǵЬЎHhhWZ^J#hL|thFghh'0^JcHdh thL|thFg^J#hL|thUhh'0^JcHdh thL|th#^JhL|thBS^JhL|thU^Jh7h#^J hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU8ݼ޼  $%'(0:;<klmoprsuwx|}𺪺hL|thFghh'0cHdh t hL|thFghL|thUhh'0cHdh t hL|th##hL|thBShh'0^JcHdh tHh thL|thh'0^J h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thU^J6ƽǽɽʽ׽ؽڽ۽޽߽   !"#$)*-.045;<@ALMԾԮԮhL|thUhUrcHdh thL|thBShUrcHdh tHh thL|thUrhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUhh'0cHdh tHh thL|thh'0>MZ[efjktu¾ľžǾȾ˾̾ӾԾ׾ؾܾݾ߾  )*./34;<>?@AGHTUZ[hL|thBShUrcHdh t hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSV[\_`delmrsuvwx~ĿȿɿοϿҿӿֿ׿ٿڿ޿߿ !hL|thBShUrcHdhtHh thL|thUrHh thL|thUr hL|thBS hL|thUO!"89:=>CDGHNORSVW[\^_cdhiklopuvxyhL|thBS0JyHhthL|thUr hL|th# hL|thBSjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thUK  !"%&./1256=>EFHIPQXYZ[`aefghjkpqtyz|~̼缬缜̕ h7h# hL|th#hL|th#hUrcHdhthL|thUhUrcHdhthL|thBShUrcHdhtHhthL|thUr hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0JyhL|thU0Jy8   #$*+,-3467>?FGIJMNRSWX`aefhioprswx}~ h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUZ   !#$*+MNOUVXY\]jknoxy}~hL|th#h@cHdhhL|thBSh@cHdh hL|th# hL|thjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUD  !./78:;ABDENOSTWX\]efhinoqruvxy~ h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUHhh@X !'(123489<=ABFGHINOSTYZ_`delmpqtu~!hL|thBS0Jyt*0J HhthL|thUrhL|thUhUrcHdhthL|thBShUrcHdht hL|thU hL|thBS?!"'(124й&jHhthL|thUr0JUHhthL|thUrhL|thUhUrcHdhthL|thBShUrcHdht hL|thU hL|thBS!hL|thBS0Jyt*0J .HhthL|thUr0Jyt*0J 24567<=?@ABNORSVW[\_`abghpqtu{|hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#HhthL|thUr hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thF #$'(/0   $%5678=>HIR hL|thjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUQRSTU\]abefhilmtu}~   %&-. hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBSh4~cHdhtHhthL|th4~N.12:;>?EFHIJKTUYZ\]_`ghijqrtu̼hL|thBSh4~cHdhtHhthL|th4~hL|thBSh4~cHdhtHhthh4~hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS> !")*-.4578<=EFIJNOUVXZ_ɯɨݛ}hL|th#h4~cHdht hL|th# hL|thjhL|thBS0JU h7h#3jh@h4~0JU*0JyjU&h@h#B*ph*0Jy(hL|th#h@B*cHdhph hL|thU hL|thBS1_`ehimnwx~  òéԢەHhthL|thS h7h#hL|thU0Jy!hL|thU0Jyt*0J !hL|thBS0Jyt*0J hL|thU hL|thBSHhthL|th4~hL|thUh4~cHdht:&'+,./1267<=ABCDIJNOQRYZ\]bcefijqruv{| hL|thhL|thBShScHdhtHhthL|thS hL|thBS hL|thUQ  &'*,.2569:AGHJKNOSTZ[deghmnpqvwz{ž hL|th h7h# hL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSE./2389=>IJLMPQVW[\ghmnpqyz|}hL|thBShScHdhtHhthL|thS h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSQ &'+,12:;BCFGMNUV[\cdijpqvw{|~ķHhthL|thShL|thUhScHdhthL|thBShScHdht hL|th h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUH  !"$%()01234<=DEGHPQTU_`bcghjkmnxy{ξαHhthL|th( 2hL|th#h( 2cHdhthL|thUh( 2cHdht hL|thHhthL|thS hL|thBS hL|thUF{|*+-.56:;=>jkloptuz{ǷhL|thUhJ cHdhthL|thBShJ cHdhtjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUD    $%'(+,45:;=>BCHIPQTU[\cdfghioprs!hL|thBS0Jyt*0J hL|thU hL|thBSHhthL|thJ S  $%'(+,34;<CDEFST[\]bcefuv|~jhL|thJ 0JU hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUU'(./45<=?@CDHIQRUV^_abjknoyz|} h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thW/0123457<=ABGHILMPQYZ^_bcjα򪚊sHhhL|thWZHhhWZhL|thUhWZcHdhhL|th#hWZcHdh hL|th#h7h#hWZcHdhHhh7hWZ h7h#hL|thUhocHdh tHh thL|tho hL|thBS hL|thU-jkopyz?@AHIRSVW[\^_bcijlmqrvw hL|th#jhL|thBS0JUh7h#hWZcHdhHhh7hWZ h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUI    "#%&'(34=>FGPQYZmnqr{|~"#jhL|th3 0JU h7h# hL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSN#&')*23:;DEIJLMNOXY[\fgijuvxyz{  !$%*+./9:=>DEMN hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS]NRS\]_`cdijmnrswx}~  )*./34<=@A hL|thHhh@hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSRAIJLMXYbcijnovw{| '(124589EFIJLMPQUVWXbcij hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSXjmnovwyz~  ()-.78AؽjhL|th3 0JU hL|thU hL|th# hL|thBShL|thUh3 cHdh#thL|thBSh3 cHdh#tJABKLTU^_kluv~   !,-45:;=>BCLhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h#hL|thBSh3 cHdh#t hL|thBS hL|thUOLMTU\]_`jkmnst{|   &')*129:>?FGIJLMRhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUYRSUVYZ]^_fgjkrs{|}~hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#Hh%thL|th3 hL|th#h.2cHdh'hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU;  !#$*+2356:;=>BCEFHILMWX\]_`deghmnpqvwz{ h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|th#h#cHdhVcGP     !$&'(-.3467:;ABDEJKN򤔄hL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th#hL|thUh3 cHdh&tHh&thL|th3 hL|thUh3 cHdh%tHh%thL|th3  hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS4NOUVYZ]^abdeijoprs  %&-.0156<hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUX<=IJKMNSTVW^_deijkltu{| HhVcGhL|th#Hh'thL|th3 jhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUJ    %&+,./34:;>?CDGHQRWXZ[ablmqrwx{|ʽʨ(hL|th#h3 B*cHdh'tphHh'th7h3  h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGB"#%&+12ABKLSTVWZ[ghqrtuxyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSS DEFHIKLYZ\]`afgnoxy{|    !+, hL|thhL|thUh3 cHdh't hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSQ,/056<=>BCGHJKNOSTUVZ]^_ghrsuv}~ŵjhL|thBS0JUhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU!hL|thBS0Jy(t*0J 9   +,./78;<>?BCMNUV^_cdlmpqxyz{hL|thhZcHdh*tHh*thL|thZ hL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#L  )*,-01589:BCJKMNTUYZ뻲륕~ h7h#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thBShZcHdh*thL|thUhZcHdh*t hL|th# hL|thU hL|th hL|thBS1Z_`cdijvw~  %&*+./;<>?FGPQTUcdnouvxy|} hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS[   !$%'(1256<DEMNQRYZ]^deijopwx{| hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBShZcHdh+tS  "#%&+,./239:>?@GHLMPQUVXY]^ablmoptu}~ h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSZ  #$%()016789?@BCEFIJTUV]^ h7h# hL|th#hL|thUhZcHdh+thL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUL  "#'*+,0178ABFGJK맞hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JU>KRSZ[`acdfgrsuv{|  "#$%/09:<=?@JKRSWX\]abdenoyz hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0Jy\z %&1256;<CDHILMRSUV]^abjkHh-thL|thZ h7h#jhL|thBS0JU hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSPklpqrxy~!"$%&'./127ͽگ h7h# hL|th#hL|thUhZcHdh-tHh-thL|thZ hL|thU hL|th hL|thBShL|thhZcHdh-tB789ABHIKLQRVW\]_`ghijryz{ԗhL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUh2cHdh3tHh3thL|th22   !,-.1267;<BCFGMNPQYZbcmnpqjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th#U  $%)*./1267CDFGLMRSWX^_abfgnoqrtuhL|thUhu#CcHdh@thL|thBShu#CcHdh@tHh@thL|thu#C hL|thBS hL|thUN  !"*+./3456=>@AKLSTYZcdghnoqruv}~jhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUU$%'(,-0189;<GHYZ\]deklnovw/12ҸjhL|thBS0JUh7h#0JyB*ph h7h#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUH2367=>@AKLTUXYcdeijtuyz򾱡hL|thBS0JyhL|th#h-:cHdhCtHhUcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhUcG hL|th#hL|thh-:cHdhCtHhCthL|th-: hL|thBS hL|thU9   )*-.89<=DEGHKLPQXY[\]^abdenoqrtu{|HhEthL|th-: hL|thU hL|th hL|thBShL|thBS0JyhL|thU0JyO  (),-4567CDKLMNTUWXbcjkmnqrz{ثؤ hL|thjhL|thBS0JUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#h-:cHdhEthL|thUh-:cHdhEt@{~  !"'(*+-.:;>?HILMTUZ[^efijnouv{| hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS]#$(),-89=>IJVW]^`aklwxz{HhFthL|th6hL|thh6cHdhFt hL|thU hL|thBST"#&()*2356789:?ϿܟhL|thBShCcHdhIthL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#HhIthL|thChL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thU:?@ABDEIJTUYZ\]defgpqst}~»hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBShCcHdhItHhIthL|thChL|th#hCcHdhIthL|thUhCcHdhIt3#$&'56=>FGIJKLVW_`bcrsHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|th#h#cHdhVcGM$%(),-45   #HhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGjhL|thBS0JU h7h#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUB#$%&)*/089;<?@GHJKNOXY`acdghkmnouv몚hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy!hL|thU0JyJt*0J !hL|thBS0JyJt*0J hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th6 $%-.5689<=BCMNVWX̿hL|thUh_$cHdhLth7h#0JyB*ph h7h#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUE  !"&'(23:;=>BCFGMNSTZ[]^cdnorsyz|} hL|th h7h#hL|thUh_$cHdhMtHhMthL|th_$ hL|thU hL|thBSN  "#,-./123489;<?@DEIJLMPQ\]`adehijmnstjhL|th_$0JUhL|thh_$cHdhNtHhNthL|th_$ h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSIt|}  !"'(3467:HhVcGhL|th#hL|th#hPcHdhPthL|thUhPcHdhPtHhPthL|thP hL|thU hL|thBSF:<=>GHLMRSUV^_abefno{|  ؼؼ hL|th hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGJ "#&')*,-3489>?ABHILMN   򤔄hL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th#hL|thUhPcHdhRtjhL|thP0JUh7h#0JyB*phhL|thUh cHdhc' h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS4 &'(-./56?@DENORS[\_`deghklrstuz{}~hL|thUhPcHdhSt hL|th#hL|thUh@cHdhHhh@ hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh#cHdhWcGE   !'(+,./2378:;ABDEGHKLOPZ[]ȸhL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th# hL|thhL|thU0JyjhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBSB]^_`himnrsuvxy|}  $hL|thBS0JyhL|thBShPcHdhStHhSthL|thP hL|thBS hL|thUM$%()/02367>?@AEFGHILMNOYZ\]abdeghopqrxy{|Ͼ෪ hL|thHhUthL|thPjhL|thP0JU hL|th#!hL|thBS0JyTt*0J !hL|th0JyTt*0J hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0JyhL|thU0Jy;$%'(-.2367<=@A!hL|thBS0JyUt*0J !hL|th0JyUt*0J hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thhPcHdhUtHhUthL|thPh7h#0JyB*ph h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU7ADEGHNOXY[\_`hipquvwx{|  !"$%&,h7h#0JyB*ph hL|th# h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSR,-.5689<=?@FGJKQRcdeghprswxz{}~ŵhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#E   !")*-./045:;=>ABGHJKQRVW]^_`deghkloptu~ĽĽĽ˰jhL|thP0JU hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|thUh#cHdhVcGE             " # ( ) + , 3 4 8 9 ; < E F J K Q R U V Y Z ] ^ d hL|thBS0JyhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSHd e f g p q v w x y                                                        ! " # ) * , - 0 1 < = B C E F HhVth7hl` h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thOF G u v                                     # $ & ' + , - . 3 4 8 9 °¦‰‰҂ hL|thhL|thUh@cHdhHhhL|th@Hhh@"hL|thUh@5cHdhhL|thBSh@cHdh hL|thBShL|thBS5 hL|thU h7h#h7h#hl`cHdhVt3    " L t     Q\7%).677N>gdh]:(gd2gd2gdh]:gdh]:gd#Sgd2&gdJu9 ? @ F G I J L M S T V W X Y c d h i j k l m p q u v { | ~                                                            & '  hL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSZ' / 0 5 6 < = A B E F G H N O S T X Y \ ] a b g h n o x y } ~                                                       hL|thUhl`cHdhWt hL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBST      % & . / 0 1 9 : ? @ H I J K U V Y Z ^ _ a b f g i j m n t u y z | }                                                 hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBShl`cHdhWtV    %&()12679:<=FGKLUVYZabefnopqyzjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUZ "#&'+,/04578;<>?BCFGIJWXZ[]^ghijmnpqtuvxyz|}~hL|thUhl`cHdhYtHhYthL|thl` h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSQ  &')*-.34>?DEFGNOUVXYabghqrvwxy hL|thU hL|thBS`#$&'013489;<@ACDGHOPWXZ[^_ghjknotuxy| hL|th#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBSX   !"&'(-./23;<EFOͽw(hL|th#hl`B*cHdhZtph&hL|th#B*phZt*0Jy9hL|th#hl`B*cHdhZtphZt*0JyhL|thFghl`cHdhZt hL|thFghL|thUhl`cHdhZt hL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU.OPRSZ[^_fgijmnuvw !$%'(/02367;<hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUX<CDGHPQTU`ajkqrtuwx !"$%()-.3456:;?@BCFGKLST]^bcj hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS]jkopwxBCEFHIPQSTXYabdelmopwxjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUU ()23569:?ABCFGKLPRSabdelmpqwx{|Ǵ hL|th$jhL|thV@0JUmH nH u hL|th#hL|thBShV@cHdh\tHh\thL|thV@ h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUD"#-./089?@CDGHOPSTYZ^_abhinoqruv}~¹hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thBSh.2cHdh'hL|thUhV@cHdh]t hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSI~  !"'(-.019:>?EFIKLRSYZɼ׵׵ޫHhhWZ hL|thjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|th0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyCZ\]efghno|}    "#)*./1267=>GHLMTUWX[\ajhL|thBS0JU hL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSUabcdlmtuwx{| !()239:=>EFIJTUV[\h7h#^J hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thS\]`ahi  )*-.389ƷưHhzhL|thz>#hL|thBShz>0JycHdhz hL|thBS hL|thUHhgthL|thW8^J hL|th#^J hL|th^J jhL|thBS0JUh7h#^J hL|thBS^J hL|thU^J 69;<?@NOQRTU^_deghklstZ[^_ghiqrvw|̿ hL|th hL|th#HhzhL|thz>#hL|thBShz>0JycHdhzjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSF            % & ' * + 4 5 7 8 ; < @ A B H I K L R S V W _ ` c d m n r s x y { |              hL|thUhW8cHdhhtHhhthL|thW8hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSM            !!!!!! !&!'!.!/!0!1!(?(E(F(H(I(J(K(P(Q(U(V(X(Y(Z([(_(`(d(e(h(i(n(o(z({((((((( hL|th h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSZ((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))) ) )))))) )$)%),)-)0)1)5)6)?)@)F)G)I)J)Q)R)U)V)Z)[)c)d)f)g)k)l)o)p)t)u)y)z)|)}))))))hL|thUh cHdhc' hL|thU hL|thBSY)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))******** *!*-*.*:*;*A*B*L*M*N*O*U*V*X*Y*^*_*a*b*g*h*o*p*u*v*|*}*~**** h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JUR*****************************************++++++++++++++$+%+'+(+,+-+0+1+<+DzǤ hL|thBS hL|thU(hL|th#h!(DB*cHdhmtph h7h#&hL|th#B*phmt*0Jy9hL|th#h!(DB*cHdhltphmt*0Jy?<+=+>+A+B+E+F+J+K+Q+R+^+d+e+l+m+p+q+|+}+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,,,,,,,,,,, ,!,hL|thUh!(DcHdhmtHhmthL|th!(D hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JUL!,#,$,%,(,),3,4,6,7,<,=,?,@,B,C,K,L,d,e,f,h,i,k,l,o,p,q,v,w,z,{,},~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, hL|th# h7h# hL|thUhL|thUh!(DcHdhmtHhmthL|th!(D hL|thBSN,,- - - -------!-"-%-&---.-2-3-6-7-;-<-H-I-N-O-R-S-V-W-^-_-c-d-f-g-l-m-v-w-x-y-------------------------------------hL|thU0JyhL|th0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUO-----------..............!."./.0.3.4.?.@.E.F.J.K.M.N.Q.R.\.].f.g.k.l.n.o.r.s.y.z....................................... hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSZ.........//// / /////&/'/*/+/5/6/=/>/@/A/E/F/I/J/L/M/Q/R/T/U/Y/Z/]/^/e/f/g/j/k/p/q/z/{////////////////////// hL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th#hL|thUhdcHdhot hL|thU hL|thBSH///////////////////////// 0 00000000000&0'0+0,030406070>0?0A0B0C0D0J0K0O0P0Q0[0\0b0c0g0h0t0u0w0x0y0z0~000000 hL|thhL|th#hSvcHdhrtHhrthL|thSv h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|th&W0JUI000000000000000000000000000000000000000111111!1"1*1+1.1/111111111111122 2'2(2*2+2.2/26272D2E2I2J2L2M2U2V2Y2Z2a2b2jhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSUb2e2f2k2l2o2p2s2t2v2w2{2|2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222333 3 3333hL|thBSh9 cHdhuthL|thUhSvcHdhtthL|thUhSvcHdhst hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSG333333%3&3(3)3536373:3;3<3>3?3C3D3I3J3K3V3W3a3b3c3e3f3p3q3s3t3333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 hL|thjhL|thBS0JU h7h#hL|thBSh9 cHdhvt hL|thBS hL|thUN344 4 4 4444444+4,4.4/41424>4?4D4E4M4N4P4Q4T4U4c4d4e4f4r4s4v4w4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUP444455 5 5 55555.5/57585=5>5@5A5H5I5N5O5U5V5_5`5h5i5p5q5x5y5}5~555555555555555555555555555555555555555555hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUM55556666 6 6 66666666 6#6$6%6&6-6.606168696<6=6E6F6G6H6P6Q6^6_6a6b6e6f6j6k6m6n6q6r6y6z6}6~6666666666666ŸŪűűűűݱűűűűűŪűűűűűűűűűűűűűű h7h# hL|th hL|thUjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS!hL|thU0Jyyt*0J !hL|thBS0Jyyt*0J !hL|th0Jyyt*0J @666666666666666666666666666666677777777!7"7%7&7)7*747577787=7>7F7G7M7N7S7T7\7]7f7g7j7l7m7q7r7w7x7{7|7777777777777HhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSQ777777777777777777777777777778888 8 8888888!8"8&8'8*8+8081838487888;8<8@8A8E8F8H8I8J8K8R8S8Z8[8_8`8d8e8j8k8m8n8t8u8z8{8888888888888jhL|th6-0JU hL|thU hL|thBSZ888888888888888888888899 9 99999 9!9%9&9'9-9.909196979>9?9D9E9I9J9M9N9P9Q9Y9Z9[9\9c9d9g9h9l9m9o9p9w9x9999999999999 hL|thHhthL|thZ4ThL|thUhZ4TcHdh{t hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSL99999999999999999999999999999999999999999:: : :::::::::: :*:+:0:1:9:::C:D:G:H:K:L:Q:R:S:T:\:]:`:a:d:e:j:k:p:q:y:z:::::::::::: h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS]::::;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;<<<< <<<<<<<<< <!<"<%<&<*<+</<0<1<2<7<8<9<ͽhL|thh~{cHdhtHhthL|th~{hL|thFghZ4TcHdht hL|thFghL|thUhZ4TcHdht hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU=9<:<<<=<?<@<E<F<G<H<J<K<M<N<P<R<S<W<X<Z<[<b<c<e<f<h<i<q<r<u<v<}<~<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<ͽ h7h#hL|thFgh~{cHdht hL|thFghL|thUh~{cHdht hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thH<==== = =======!="=$=%=)=*=,=-=6=7=:=;=>=?=C=D=H=I=J=K=Q=R=\=]=d=e=l=m=q=r=t=u=z={===================================>hL|thUh~{cHdht hL|th# h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSQ>>>>>>>>>$>%>0>1>4>5>?>@>B>C>F>G>M>N>U>V>\>]>c>d>e>f>j>k>m>n>r>s>y>z>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hL|thUhcHdht hL|thhL|thBShcHdhtHhthL|th h7h# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUE>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>?? ? ?????????-?.?4?5?A?B?E?F?I?J?S?T?U?X?Y?Z?\?]?i?j?k?l?o?p?w?x?{?|?}?~??????????????? hL|th# hL|th hL|thUhL|thBShcHdhtHhthL|th hL|thBSNN>>?*?P?f???E-K;RUH\sdggmsvz2˓Փgd2&gdJugd2gdh]:tgdh]:gdh]:gdO(gd2???????????????????????????????????????@@@@@ @@ͽ򰠐ssshL|thBSh;DcHdhtHhthL|th;DhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#hL|thFgh;DcHdht hL|thFghL|thUh;DcHdht hL|thh]: hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS-@@@@@@-@.@/@1@2@4@5@8@9@<@=@E@F@P@Q@S@T@\@]@_@`@c@d@h@i@k@l@n@o@t@u@x@y@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ݠݠhL|thUh;DcHdhth7h#h;DcHdhtHhth7h;DhL|thUh;DcHdht hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th?@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@AAAAAAAAAAA A&A'A+A,A0A1A8A9A>A?ABACANAOAPAXAYAZA[A`AaAcAdAkAlAoApAtAuAvAwAyAzA|A}AAhL|thUh;DcHdht hL|th#hL|thh;DcHdhtHhthL|th;D h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBBB BBBBBBBBBB$B%B(B)B.B/B6B7B;BGcHdhtQcB{B|B}BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCCCC C CCCC C$C%CPCQCRCTCUCWCXCZC\C hL|thFg hL|thHhthL|th>GhL|thUh>GcHdht hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#I\C]C`CaCgChCrCsC{C|CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCD D DDDDD&D'D(D*D+D-D.D3D4D8D9DCDDDGDhL|thUh>GcHdht hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thFgh>GcHdhtMGDHDIDWDYDZDaDbDiDjDlDmDpDrDsDtDzD{D~DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEުޓ hL|thFghL|thUh>GcHdht hL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBSh7h#0JyB*ph h7h# hL|thU5EEEEE E EEEEE E!E"E#E$E(E)E-E.E3E9E:EAEBEIEJEKELEXEYE[E\EtEuEvEwExE}E~EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEИh7h#hWZcHdh h7h# hL|thHhhWZhL|thUhWZcHdhhL|thBShWZcHdh hL|thUjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|th#HhthL|th>G5EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFFFF F!F%F&F(F)F/F0F2F3F:F;F=F>FEFFFGFHFLFMFRFSFTFUF[F\F`FaFfFgFiFjFnFoFqFrFzF{F}FhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSX}F~FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFGGGG G GGGGG!G"G$G%G)G*G-G.G0G1G9G:G=G>GMGNGTGUGZG[GbGcGjGkGoGpGwGxG{G|GG h7h# hL|th#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHH H HHHHH H!H)H*H.H/H1H2H3H4H6H7H:H;H>HηhL|thUhq?cHdh z hL|thhL|thBShq?cHdh zHh zhL|thq? hL|thBS h7h# hL|thUH>HCHDHGHHHJHOHPHRHSHWHXHZH[H\H]HdHjHkHlHuHvH|H}HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH򸨘 h7h#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#Hh zhL|thq?hL|thUhq?cHdh zhL|thBShq?cHdh z hL|thU hL|thBS9HHHHHHHIII I I IIIIIII'I(I*I+I0I1IB*cHdhzphHhzh7hz>jh7hz>0JU"jh7h#0JB*Uphh7h#0JyB*phh7h#h&cHdhzHhzh7h& h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU hL|th#-OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPP P PPPPP!P"P&P'P(P)P+P,P.P/P1P3P4P?P@PAPBPFPGPNPOPSPTPXPYP\P]PcPdPfPgPhPiPrPsP|P}PPPPPͽhL|thFghz>cHdhz hL|thFghL|thUhz>cHdhz hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thJPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPQQQQ Q QQQQQQQ"Q#Q%Q&Q*Q+Q.Q/Q3Q4Q7Q8QRARBRGR#hL|thBShz>0JycHdhz h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUTGRLRMRORPRSRTRbRcRgRhRrRsRvRwRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSS S S S SSSShL|thUhz>cHdhz hL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUHhzhL|thz>GSSS"S#S(S)S+S,S6S7S9S:S@SASBSCSMSNSQSRSUSVSZS[S\S^S_SeSfSgSkSlSqSrSzS{S}S~SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTT h7h#jhL|thz>0JU hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSUTTTTTTT(T)T2T3T9T:T;TDTETKTLTRTSTXTYT]T^ThTiTqTrTsTtTwTxT{T|T}T~TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTŝ h7h#hL|thU0JyHhzhL|thz>#hL|thBShz>0JycHdhzhL|thBS0JyhL|thhz>cHdhzHhzhL|thz> hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS;TTTTTTTTTTTTTTUUUU U UUUUU U!U'U(U*U+U2U3U8U9U>U?UAUBULUMUPUQUXUYU]UaUbUhUiUlUmUnUoUtUuUvU}U~UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU hL|th#HhzhL|thz>hL|thUhz>cHdhzHhzhL|thz> hL|thU hL|thBSLUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVV VV_V`VcVdVhViVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVjhL|thBS0JU h7h#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUPVWWW W W WWWWWWWW#W$W%W+W,W-W1W3W8W9W>WAWBWKWLWPWQWRWSWZW[WaWbWeWfWjWkWqWrWtWuWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWhL|th#hzgcHdhz hL|th#jhL|thzg0JUhL|thUhzgcHdhzHhzhL|thzg hL|thU hL|thBSFWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWXXXX X XXXXXXX!X"X&X'X0X1X6X7X9X:XEXFXKXLXPXQXXXYX[X\XbXcXhXiXjXpXqXwXxXzX{X}X~XXXXXXXXXHhzhL|thzghL|thUhzgcHdhzHhzhL|thzg hL|thU hL|thBS h7h#LXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXYYYY Y YYYYYYY$Y%Y+Y,Y0Y1Y4Y5Y6Y7Y?Y@YKYLYMYNYUYVYWYXY\Y]YdYeYlYmYoYpYwYxYzY{Y hL|thjhL|thBS0JUhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBST{YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYZZZZZZZZZZ#Z$Z'Z(Z0Z1Z3Z4Z8Z9Z;Z[@[A[H[I[M[N[R[S[U[V[_[`[b[c[d[e[l[m[t[u[z[{[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS][[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[\\\\\\\\\\\\ \!\&\'\+\,\/\0\2\3\;\<\>\?\@\A\G\H\J\K\򷧠 hL|th#hL|th#hWZcHdhHhhWZ hL|thhL|thUhWZcHdhhL|thBShWZcHdhHhhWZ hL|thBS hL|thU]]'](]*]+],]-]3]4]6]7]=]>]B]C]F]G]L]M]O]P]X]Y]\]`]a]b]c]g]h]j]k]p]q]s]t]w]x]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] h7h#hL|thBSz*0JyhL|thBS0JyHhzhL|thzg hL|thBS hL|thUN]]]]]]^^^^^^^^^^ ^!^"^&^'^)^*^6^7^A^B^E^F^I^J^T^U^W^X^]^c^d^e^f^h^i^p^q^z^{^^^^^^^^^^򾱾Hhzh7hzgh7h#hzgcHdhzh7h#0JyB*ph h7h#HhzhL|thzghL|thUhzgcHdhzhL|thBShzgcHdhz hL|thU hL|thBS6^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ __r_x___________Y``````````````````````````aaaŸŸŸŸŦjhL|thBS0JU#hL|thUhWZ0JcHdhh7h#0JyB*ph h7h#hL|thhzgcHdhzHhzhL|thzg hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0Jy<aaaaaaa%a&a)a*a1a2a4a5a=a>aAaBaNaOaQaRaYaZa\a]a^a_agahaqaravawaza{aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahL|thBS0JyHhzhL|thzg h7h# hL|th#hL|th#hzgcHdhz hL|thU hL|thBSKaaaaaaabb b bbb"b#b&b'b0b1b4b5b6b8b9b=b>b@bAbJbKbObPbRbSb[b\b^b_bbbcbmbnbqbrbtbub}b~bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbhL|thBShzgcHdhz h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSVbbbbcccccccccccc c!c'c(c*c+c2c3c9c:cg?gAgBgQgRgZg[g`gagfggglgmgogpgsgtggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggĽ˶˯įį hL|thO hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#Egggggghhh hhh"h#h)h*h-h.h7h8h=h>h@hAhDhEhIhJhPhQhShThVhWh\h]h_h`hhhihjhrhshuhvh~hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh h7h# hL|th# hL|thjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thURhhhiiii i iiiiiiiiii i!i$i%i)i*i/i0i2i3i;io?oGoHoQoRoUoVo[o\o^o_obocoiojoqoroxoyo~oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooppp p p ppppppp$p%p(p)p1p2p hL|th#HhBzhL|th}=d h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thR2p6p7p8p9p;p?FGJKRSTUbcghklopqrŁƁҁӁցׁفځ܁ h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thFgh cHdhKzP܁݁   )*013467;<=?@IJMNZ[^_`ghstz{}~뻲 h7h#hL|th#0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thFgh cHdhKz hL|thFghL|thUh cHdhKz hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th#B‚Ƃǂɂʂ˂ׂ̂؂ڂۂ ()89=>@AHILMTUYZϿϿhL|thUh cHdhMz hL|th# h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JUIZ[\^_abghijopŃƃЃуՃփ؃ك܃݃   ͽԶͦͦ۟hL|thFgh cHdhNz hL|thFghL|thUh cHdhNz h7h#hL|th#h cHdhNz hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh cHdhNzHhNzhL|th 8 !$%(),-?@ACDFGOPVXY]^bcfgijrstuyz|}DŽȄ˄̈́΄ЄфԄՄHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|thhL|thUh cHdhOz hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSEՄلڄ  !"*+-.12679:?@BCNORSZ[]^cdghlmrsuv}~ƅDžɅʅԅՅׅHhSzhL|th`( hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSXׅ؅   "#%&-.239:;<HIPQZ[efhijkz{†ÆņƆʆˆІцنچ hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]!"%&*+./3478;<EFGHKLRSXY`adehioprswxƇLJˇ̇·χՇևۇ܇ hL|thHhWzhL|th`( hL|thU hL|thBSX"#%&)*./679:=>@ALMUVYZ`anopstxy~ˆĈňLjȈ̼̼̼̼hL|thUh6cHdhXzhL|thBSh6cHdhXzhL|thBS0JyjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUJȈˈ̈Јш؈و#$()23569:CDFGRSUVWXZ[^_bghklmnvwyzȹإѬ߬إ hL|thHhXzhL|th6HhXzhL|th60JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUh6cHdhXzhL|thBSh6cHdhXzA‰ÉƉljˉ̉ωЉ։׉ىډ()+,67?@ABKLNOWXZ[bcfgtu|} hL|thhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUK} !#$&(),-679:=>BCDGHLOͽhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#HhYzhL|th6hL|thFgh6cHdhYz hL|thFghL|thUh6cHdhYz hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS5OPQYZfgijmnrstu{|ˋ̋͋΋ӋԋًѺؖі hL|th#HhYzhL|th6hL|thUh6cHdhYzhL|thBSh6cHdhYz hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|th#h#cHdhVcG;   ()-.6789DEMNSTVWZ[dehituwxz{ČŌ !"'jhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSU'(*+2356?@EFHIKLWX\]efhist|}ƍǍɍʍӍԍ׍؍ڍۍoptuyzƎǎɎʎӎԎ h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU]Ԏَڎݎގ  &()2389;<@AHIRSXY]hirsuvÏ hL|thhL|thBSh6cHdh\zHh\zhL|th6jhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBSLÏϏЏԏՏ׏؏ޏߏ     $%()-.4578:;<=?@BCEGHKLNOPQXǷǷhL|thFghVcHdh\z hL|thFghL|thUhVcHdh\z hL|th#hL|thhVcHdh\zHh\zhL|thV hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS?XYbcefijpqstvw~ȐʐːϐАԐՐ֐אڐې    !#$*+./78:;BjhL|thBS0JU hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUVBCDEFJKLMOPTUXY^_abfglmrswxyz~‘ÑǑȑͶͶۯhL|thFghVcHdh]z hL|thFghL|thUhVcHdh]z hL|th hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thhVcHdh]zHh]zhL|thV=ȑ    !&')*56:;<=ABGHNORSWX]^bchiklopstvw}~ͽ hL|thhL|thFghVcHdh]z hL|thFghL|thUhVcHdh]z hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#Hƒǒ˒̒Ւْ֒ڒݒޒ  "#*+/012=>@ADENOVW[\_`ghjlξ hL|th#hL|thBS0JyhL|thUhVcHdh^zhL|thBShVcHdh^zHh]zhL|thV hL|thU hL|thBS hL|th@lqrwȓɓʓ˓ԓ֓ٓړޓߓ   !&'-.236789?@DEIJM˴˭ hL|th#hL|thBShVcHdh^z hL|thU hL|thBSHh^zhL|thVhL|thUhVcHdh^zhL|th#hVcHdh^zDՓ=eߔf 0)9tf1&o%8&gdJu(gd2gd2gdh]:gdh]:gdh]:MNRSXY_`ijnotuwx|}~”ÔǔȔ˔̔Дєؔٔ  HhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh.2cHdh'hL|thUhyRcHdh^z hL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUE!"#$*+/0239:BCGHMNTUVXYijlmstwx•ƕǕɕʕϕЕՕٕ֕ڕߕ h7h# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGN  $%'(-.0134:;>?IJLMOPUVZ[`adeijstwx}~–ǖȖɖϖЖږۖܖݖhL|thBS_z*0Jy h7h#Hh_zhL|thyR hL|thU hL|thBSR)*0145:;?@AGHILMQRWX[\abefijmnpqz{~ȗɗʗ˗їҗ֗חۗܗޗߗjhL|thBS0JU hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSX  &'2389<=ABCIJKTUXY]^opstxy~˜ØŘƘɘʘκ h7h#(hL|th#hyRB*cHdh`zph&hL|th#B*ph`z*0Jy9hL|th#hyRB*cHdh`zph`z*0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS>ʘӘԘؘ٘ܘݘ  "#)*5689<=@ACDLMPQTUZ[\]cdhilmwx}~ęř hL|th#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBSXřϙЙԙՙיؙۙܙ  #$)*+,67?@DEOPWX[\cdoprsvw{|Śƚ˚̚՚֚ۚܚߚ hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS]   !'(./1267?@CDLMOPUVYZ^_deklwx|}~ÛěǛț͛Λћқԛ՛؛ٛݛޛ hL|thU hL|thBS`   !#$'(./3478?@DEGHNOUVZ[cdghjkrswxŜƜǜȜМќޜhL|thBShyRcHdhbzHhbzhL|thyR hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSQޜߜ %&+,56:;CDEFQRYZdehiqryzŝƝǝĻIJhL|thU^J h7h#^J h7h#hL|thUhyRcHdhbzhL|thBShyRcHdhbz hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUDǝ͝Νӝԝٝڝ  ɞʞўҞԞ՞ٞڞһٴ٧hL|thUhJS^cHdhczHhczhL|thJS^ hL|th hL|thFghL|thUhJS^cHdhbz hL|th# hL|thBS h7h# hL|thUhL|thU^J hL|thBS^J ;   !#$()-.1267@ACDGHLMNPQSTWX\]efghrsuv{| hL|th hL|thFghL|thUhJS^cHdhcz hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSNşƟПџԟ՟ݟޟsv΢ҢӢ/ãģǣ̣ͣϣУѣңۣ׽׽׽|gZHhezhL|thJS^(hL|th#hJS^B*cHdhezph&hL|th#B*phez*0Jy9hL|th#hJS^B*cHdhezphez*0JyhL|th#hJS^cHdhdzHhdzhL|thJS^HhczhL|thJS^ hL|th#Hhczh7hJS^ hL|thBS hL|thU h7h##ۣܣ  !"%&./2367?@CDMNTUVXY\]ghmnst{|~¤ȤɤѤҤԤդ֤פ hL|th h7h# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUW   !()3489;<=>BCEFKLSTVW[\bcghstxyƥǥȥʥ˥ե֥إ٥ܥݥ hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU]!"%&0134;<BCEFKLRSUVXYabdehipqst{|ŦƦʦ˦ѦҦզ֦ۦܦަߦ hL|th h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUZ  !"$%+,./3489;<ABIJMNSTYZ\]`almoprswx}~ȧɧ̧ͧѧҧ֧ק  hL|thBS hL|thU`  +,/0459:?@BCGHMNQRWXYZbcefuv~¨èŨƨʨ˨ͨΨӨԨ٨ڨۨܨߨ   &hL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUW&'(/067;<DEIJQRS[\`aklũƩȩɩөԩ  '(*+./67=>ABGHJKPQZ[bƹjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thhkV'cHdhgzHhgzhL|thkV'Ibcjkpqxy}~ƫǫͫΫҫӫի֫٫ګ߫!")*/034jhL|thBS0JU h7h#hL|thBShz*0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUOĬŬʬˬͬάѬҬ֬׬ެ߬  #$()./2378<=@AGHKLOPVW]^bcjkvwyz h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS]ĭŭ˭̭ϭЭҭӭح٭ۭܭ   #$+,/02389ABGHJKMNQRTUZ[\]cdopstxhL|thBShkV'cHdhizhL|thUhkV'cHdhhzHhhzhL|thkV' hL|thBS hL|thUNxy~®îˮ̮ӮԮ֮׮ۮܮ   #$*+12367ABIJUVXY hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUPYZ[`abcdhiklstvwƯǯɯʯͯòòÛ}pjhL|thkV'0JU h7h#-hL|thUB*CJOJ QJ ^J _H aJph"""-hL|thBSB*CJOJ QJ ^J _H aJph"""!hL|thUB*^J _H aJph"""!hL|thBSB*^J _H aJph""" hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBShkV'cHdhjzHhjzhL|thkV',ͯίدٯۯܯ!")*-.1267:;CDLMxyz~İŰʰ˰ΰϰӰ԰ٶjhL|thBS0JUhL|thBS^J_H hL|thU^J_H h7h#^J_H  h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUH԰ְװ   '(+,3478BCRS]^cdefjknopquvz{|}κκ'hL|thhkV'^J_H cHdhlz!HhlzhL|thkV'^J_H hL|th^J_H hL|thU^J_H hL|thBS^J_H Iȱɱѱұٱڱܱݱ  0189:;HIKLPQTUYZ()-.45:;?@EFJKQhL|th#^J_H 'hL|thUhkV'^J_H cHdhlzh7h#^J_H hL|thBS^J_H hL|thU^J_H LQRSVW_`deghmnstyz}~ųƳɳʳгѳӳԳֳ׳ڳ۳   "#&'-.hL|thBS^J_H hL|thU^J_H !HhmzhL|thkV'^J_H U.1278=>@AEFJKUVWZ[]^efhiklopwx{|~ôĴɴʴҴӴ״شڴ۴ܴݴ'(/034:;h7h#^J_H hL|th^J_H !HhmzhL|thkV'^J_H hL|thU^J_H hL|thBS^J_H M;?@CDFGLMOPTUXY]^cdijlmqruvz{~Ƶǵʵ˵ϵеڵ۵(),-yzjhL|thkV'0JUh7h#^J_H hL|thU^J_H hL|thBS^J_H S¶Ŷƶ˶̶жѶԶնضٶ     &'./12;<?@CDHIMNWX\]`ajkmnstuxy}~hL|th^J_H hL|thU^J_H hL|thBS^J_H XǷȷ̷ͷѷҷԷշطٷ   !"#$'(2345?@ABFGHIMNVWYZ\]_`cdg!HhozhL|thkV'^J_H hL|th^J_H hL|thU^J_H hL|thBS^J_H Qghklqryz|}¸ƸǸʸ˸ӸԸָ׸    +űjhL|thkV'0JU'hL|th#h#^J_H cHdhVcG'hL|thBSh#^J_H cHdhVcG!HhVcGhL|th#^J_H hL|thBS^J_H hL|thU^J_H @+,/0679:=>IJNOPQYZ\]deqr{|}~¹ĹŹȹɹιϹӹԹ׹عܹݹ߹ !"$%./1234hL|th#^J_H h7h#^J_H hL|thBS^J_H hL|thU^J_H T4<=CDFGHIOPXY[\abghijpqstɺʺκϺҺӺٺںߺ   +,4578;<DELMTUhL|th^J_H hL|thU^J_H hL|thBS^J_H XUXY_`bcdemnwxĻŻȻɻϻлѻػٻ޻߻  $%0178;<?@DEMNSTYZ_`denohL|th#^J_H hL|thU^J_H hL|thBS^J_H XoqruvüļǼȼ̼ͼϼмӼԼּ׼ۼܼ޼߼    %&()-.34679:=>@AIJMNVWZ[_`ghoptuh7h#^J_H hL|thU^J_H hL|thBS^J_H Xuwx˽̽Ͻнֽ׽ٽڽ   "#&'+,019:?@CDGHKLMNQRVW[\ahL|th^J_H hL|thU^J_H hL|thBS^J_H Uabcdghjpqvwyz¾ǾȾξϾԾվܾݾ߾ '(/ƻ밻hL|th#^J_H hL|thU^J_H hL|thBS^J_H !HhqzhL|thH^J_H 'hL|thUhH^J_H cHdhqz'hL|thBShH^J_H cHdhqzA/056;<ABDEMNVW^_abdeijklpstu~ƿǿ˿̿οϿӿԿֿ׿ܿݿűű'hL|th#h#^J_H cHdhVcG'hL|thBSh#^J_H cHdhVcG!HhVcGhL|th#^J_H hL|thBS^J_H hL|thU^J_H @  #$,-3467=>FGIJMNXY[\ghpqrsz{hL|thBS0JyhL|thBS^J_H hL|thU^J_H 'hL|thBShH^J_H cHdhqzP   !"*+129:=>FGOPQXY\]bcghrsvwz{κjhL|thBS0JU'hL|th#h#^J_H cHdhVcG'hL|thBSh#^J_H cHdhVcG!HhVcGhL|th#^J_H hL|th#^J_H hL|thBS^J_H hL|thU^J_H < !"'(,-0178<=BCFGJKOPRS'hL|thUhU^J_H cHdh{z'hL|thBShU^J_H cHdh{zhL|thU^J_H hL|thBS^J_H LSXY`aefnoqrwxz{!"()-.2378;<ABhL|th^J_H hL|thU^J_H hL|thBS^J_H XBEFIJOPRS[\`acdefopyz|}  !"$%'(-.0156:;DEHIQRhL|thU^J_H hL|thBS^J_H \RTUXY]^`adelmnqruv~'hL|thBShU^J_H cHdh{z!Hh{zhL|thU^J_H HhhWZhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thU^J_H hL|thBS^J_H B &'./01589:BCFGJKNOSTVW[\fijstvwïꉂ hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#^J_H 'hL|th#h#^J_H cHdhVcG'hL|thBSh#^J_H cHdhVcG!HhVcGhL|th#^J_H h7h#^J_H hL|th^J_H hL|thBS^J_H hL|thU^J_H 3!"%&,-45;<CDIJMNYZ_`abfgnovw hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU] !#$)*,-./0ξjhL|thBS0JUjhL|thU0JUhL|thUh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS> z{ "#()/034>?ABLMNQRUV]^abmnrs 'jhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#jh7hU0JUR'(*+./9:CDGHQRWXZ[`aeflmrs}~   #$)*5 hL|th#HhzhL|thU hL|thBS hL|thUX56;<?@GHQRTUYZdeghpqrs~  #$%&+,1234<=BCEFMNRSXYZ h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUZZ[_`defglmopstxy{| %&-.019:=>ABIJLMTUVhL|thBShUcHdhzHhzhL|thU hL|thBS hL|thUTVW\]cdlmnorsvw}~$%3489<=@ hL|th#hL|thBShUcHdhzHhzhL|thU hL|thBS hL|thUQ@ACDLMQRTUWX`aijlmnovwyz|}~   $%*+,-78:;BC hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]CEFKLQRTUYZ\]bcghklnoxy|   HhbGhL|th?-*hL|thBSh?-*cHdhbG hL|th#HhzhL|thU hL|thU hL|thBSL$%&3467;<FGJKOPQVWX]^`afgijrstu}~ȴ(hL|th#hUB*cHdhzph&hL|th#B*phz*0Jy9hL|th#hUB*cHdhzphz*0JyjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thU>  "#+,./679:CDJKMNQRYZcdfglmopstxy|}hL|thUhUcHdhz hL|thU hL|thBSY %&./34=>CDEHIQRZ[]^abfgijqrtu hL|th#jhL|thBS0JUHhzh7hU h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUP $%&*+,6789ABFGIJUVZ[_`efijmnuvxy(hL|th#hUB*cHdhzph&hL|th#B*phz*0Jy9hL|th#hUB*cHdhzphz*0JyjhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU<  %&*+2hL|thBShUcHdhzHhzhL|thU(hL|th#hUB*cHdhzph h7h#&hL|th#B*phz*0Jy9hL|th#hUB*cHdhzphz*0Jy hL|thU hL|thBS0234569:=>ABGHLMWXabdenoqryz|}  hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#h7h#hUcHdhzHhzh7hUN$%'(./1234:;ABIJMNPRWX]deimnpqyz˾ h7h#hL|thBS0JyHhzhL|thRhL|thUhRcHdhzhL|th#hRcHdhz hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUD  !*+019:?@CDHIKLSTWX]^`adejkstz{| h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSU !",-/0239:@AFGPQUVXY^_ghjknowx hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUhRcHdhzHhzhL|thRH    $%/08;=>@ιHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|thBS hL|thU(hL|th#hRB*cHdhzph&hL|th#B*phz*0Jy9hL|th#hRB*cHdhzphz*0Jy5@ACDIJKLPQUV]^abghjkpqstu}~hL|thBS0Jy$jhL|thR0JUmH nH u hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thN    !'(1235689:<>ABEFJKOPRSXY]^bcefklnowx~˻뭝뭖봉HhWcGhL|th# hL|thFghL|thUhRcHdhz hL|th# hL|thUhL|thUhRcHdhzhL|thBShRcHdhzhL|thhRcHdhz hL|thBSHhzhL|thR5~  $ʺʺسhL|thFghRcHdhz hL|thFghL|thUhRcHdhz hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcG@$%()+,./67:;BCHIQRUVZ[cdghpqxy|}   !*+23 hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU]3;<DEHIPQTUXYabijopuv}~  !"#hL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSY#*+3467:;ABEFOPRSZ[]^_`efklruvxy{|hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSM  $%'(./0239:EFLMOP\]_`mnpqtuyzİأHhzhL|th>o&jHhzhL|th>o0JUHhzhL|th>o hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|th#h#cHdhVcG@  "#*+-.:;CDIJLMQRVW[\_`efklnostuvHhhWZ hL|thBS hL|thU\  &')*45689@AHIKLNORSYZbcefjkstvw}~hL|thBS0JyhL|thBShWZcHdh hL|th#hL|th#hWZcHdh hL|thU hL|thBSL  !"'(,-/0569:@ADEHINORSYZ\]bcopst{|!hL|th0Jyz*0J h7h#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUL|}~    !"#/023:;>?GHPQTU]^ghophL|thBS0JyjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thU!hL|thBS0Jyz*0J P  "#0167:;?@NOPQUV]^cdfgkljhL|thBS0JUh7h#0JyB*ph h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUR  #$*+0178:;=>DIJKPQVWYZabfgjknstu{|hL|thBSh>ocHdhzHhzhL|th>o hL|th hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSL    &'2367@ADEGHKL[\abfgijmnuv~hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|th#h>ocHdhz hL|th# hL|thBS h7h# hL|thUL  #$/04578<=CDJKOPóЦгHhzhL|th>ohL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSHhhWZ hL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGAPRSXY[\dehixy~  $%)*,- h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSZ-45;<?@BCDEGHKLMNPQRWX\]`abcfglmnostz{|hL|thUh>ocHdhz hL|th# hL|thhL|thh>ocHdhzhL|thBSh>ocHdhzHhzhL|th>o hL|thU hL|thBSB  #$+,4589BCFGNOSTYZ`a˹#hL|thUh>o^J cHdhzhL|th#^J hL|thBS^J h7h#^J hL|thU^J hL|thU hL|thBSHhzhL|th>ohL|thBSh>ocHdhz8    )*lmnpqstz{|ۮHhzhL|th>o^J #hL|thBSh>o^J cHdhzh7h#^J hL|th^J hL|thU^J hL|thBS^J hL|th#^J #hL|thUh>o^J cHdhz>   %&)*,-349:>?@AIJNOQRWX[\^_deghkltuwx~ hL|thU hL|thBShL|thU^J hL|thBS^J Xi:p} &;G." ###C$(gdUgd2gd2&gdJu(gd2  !"&'()0145<=ABFGHIPQST^_bcefjkopwxy|}hL|thBS0Jy hL|thjhL|thBS0JUHhzh7hb h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSL !()/089=>@AEFHIMNQRVW]^`adeghlmst}~ hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS]   #$()1256;<>?DEHIKLMNVWX[\bceflmq!hL|thBS0JyZ'*0J $jhL|thb0JUmH nH uhL|thUhbcHdhzHhzhL|thb hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSCqrz{~  ,-.01348>?YZ[]^`aceHhzhL|thr0hL|thUhr0cHdhz h7h# hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUJehpqrsyz}~   !#$&'+,/0459:=>M̼̼hL|thUhr0cHdhz hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|th hL|thBShL|th#hr0cHdhzJMNTUVWabfglmqryz $%'(./09:?@FhL|thU0JyhL|th#0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|thBS hL|thURFGQR 2`qr|  !뻲ȗȻhL|th^JHhzh7hr0^J#h7h#hr0^JcHdhzhL|thBS^JhL|thU^JjhL|thBS0JUh7h#^Jh7h#0JyB*phjh7hr00JU h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU2   "#*+-.013489?@BCGHJKQRVWYZ]^_e#hL|thBSh#^JcHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#^JhL|th#^JhL|thU^JhL|thBS^JFefinovw  $%/0úúúúúúúëúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúúHhzhL|thr0^JhL|thBS^JhL|thU^JHhVcGhL|th#^J#hL|thBSh#^JcHdhVcG#hL|thUh#^JcHdhVcGC034=>ABFGLMPQUVXY_`bcghpqrsz{>?@CDFGJKOPVW\]abȻhL|thBS^J_H hL|thU^J_H jhL|thBS0JUh7h#^J_H hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|th^JhL|thU^JhL|thBS^JAbdeghrs~  ĻĻĻIJĻhL|thFg^JhL|th0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy#hL|thBShr0^JcHdhzHhzhL|thr0^JhL|thU^JhL|thBS^JB &'*+23679:DEGHRSUVYZ]^`adeklrsvw{|h7h#^JhL|thBS^JhL|thU^JjhL|thr00JUHhzhL|thr0^JhL|th#^JL   !"'(*+3456=>JKSTVW]^`aefpqstvwh7h#^JhL|thBS^JhL|thU^JZ   "#()+,./2456=>GHKLVW[^_`hiklst~ͻͻ hL|thU hL|thBS#hL|th#h#^JcHdhVcG#hL|thBSh#^JcHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#^JhL|thBS^JhL|thU^JD  !"$%+,/04578=?@ADEHIKLŵhL|thBShd.cHdhzhL|thUhd.cHdhzhL|thBShd.cHdhzHhzhL|thd. hL|thBS hL|thUGLQRVW[\`deghklnorsuvwxPQ򼳼 h7h# hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thUhd.cHdhzhL|thBShd.cHdhzHhzhL|thd. hL|thU hL|thBSAQXYbcklopxyLRSVW`aefqrz{}~ hL|th#h7h#0JyB*ph h7h#jhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBSP  "#/034=>BCFGKLSTVWZ[abdfklpqtu}~ĺHhhL|thWZHhhWZhL|thUhWZcHdhhL|th#hWZcHdh hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSD  &',-/089<=FGNOQRUV^_efijtuwxyzHhzhL|thd. hL|thU hL|thBSZ  &'./04578>?GHQRTUWX]^abdefgklvw|} h7h#hL|thBShd.cHdhz hL|thU hL|thBSR  "#&',-56=>@AIJNOVW[\_`cdfgjkrsz{~ hL|th#HhzhL|the hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JUR  $%&/12367:;BCEFLMQRSTYZ\]abcjknohL|th#h=icHdhzHhzhL|th=ijhL|thBS0JUh7h#0JyB*ph hL|th#jhL|the0JU h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS?o%&)*/023;<?@KLQRZ[\]cdfgnoyz}~ hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUh7h#h=icHdhzHhzh7h=i h7h#N#$*+-.345689:?@CDMNZ[]^abfgijmnstwx hL|th# hL|thh7h#0JyB*ph h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUR  !"$%-.0189:;ABNOPQXY`aefnostzhL|th^J_H aJ hL|th#^J_H aJ hL|thU^J_H aJ hL|thBS^J_H aJ hL|thU hL|thBSKí}phL|th^J_H aJ h7h#^J_H aJ Hh'h.2^J_H aJ %HhzhL|thk`a^J_H aJ +hL|thUhk`a^J_H aJ cHdhz+hL|th#hk`a^J_H aJ cHdhzhL|th#^J_H aJ hL|thBS^J_H aJ hL|thU^J_H aJ , "#%&+,./679:;<DELMPQTUdeklpqz{~» hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBS0JyhL|th#^J_H aJ hL|thBS^J_H aJ hL|thU^J_H aJ J   #$(),-/089BCIJRSWX[\abdehipwx~hL|thBSh|N;cHdh'Hh'hL|th|N;hL|th#0JNhL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JN hL|th# hL|th2 hL|thU hL|thBSC     !*+./01456:;ABFGNOTUϽϽ޶ hL|thBS#hL|thBShk`a0JycHdhzHhzhL|thk`a0Jy hL|thUhL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyDUXY^_cdfgijtuwx{|  hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#\^J_H hL|thU\^J_H hL|thBS\^J_H ?"#)*./          $ % ( ) 2 3 5 6 9 : @ A F G P Q V W [ \ ^ _ h i k l s t u v w x y { |            ǷǧhL|thBShk`acHdhzhL|thUhk`acHdhzHhzhL|thk`ah7h#hk`acHdhz hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSB                                                      ! " & ' . / 4 5 9 : @ ξHhWcGhL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU@@ E F G L M Q R X Y \ ] b c j k n o q r z { } ~                                                 # $ % & * +  hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGM+ - . 9 : ; < E F G N O R S W X \ ] ` a e f j k q r v w | }                                                 hL|thUh6|cHdhzhL|thBSh6|cHdhz hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSM     ! + , 5 6 < = A B D E L M Q S T U W X b c f g k l p q t u } ~                   4 5 6 9 : ; > ? K L W X _ ` b c f g  hL|th# h7h#HhzhL|th6|hL|thBSh6|cHdhz hL|thU hL|thBSHhzhL|th6|Gg j k q r x y { |                                      '(-.01;<?@DEIJNORSXY[\efijmnwxz hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JySz{ $%,-45789:?@CDHINOQRXY[\cdfgk hL|thBS hL|thU`klpqvw{|  !()-./03456=>@ACDHIKLQRVWYZ_`c hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUZcdghlmpqvwz{   %&)*124589<=CDFGhL|th#hWZcHdh hL|thBS hL|thUYGJKRSWXZ[\]dehiqryz~  #$˾HhzhL|th6|hL|thUh6|cHdhzhL|th#h6|cHdhz hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSK$*+-.129:<=ABDEIJMNSTVWZ[_`klnorsxy{|  %&'(56:;?@ hL|thU hL|thBS`@DEKLOPVW\]cdghklrsz{}~   )* hL|th hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSS*-.89;<ABJKMNTUWX[\cdmnrswxz{ȸ hL|th#hL|th#h#cHdhWcGhL|thBSh#cHdhWcGHhWcGhL|th#jhL|th6|0JU hL|thU hL|thBSF  $%)*459:<=BCFGMNRSTUYZ   hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSZ !"#'(-.0145:;>?CDFGMNTUZ[_`cdklrstuvhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th#HhzhL|thFf hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUN   "#&'-.2389?@ABIJPQTUZ[defgopqrwx~ hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|th0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUO   3>EFGXk{żykjh"V0JOJQJUjh7hP0JUHhzh7h9h7h#0JyB*ph h7h#(hL|th#h9B*cHdhzphhL|th#0JNhL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JN hL|th# hL|th2jhL|thFf0JU hL|thBS hL|thU&#*Tq/3\]OP   e f ʺ䝐~qdTM hL|thUhL|th#hOcHdhzHhzhL|thOHhzhL|th`9 "jhL|th#0JB*UphHhzhL|th`9 HhzhL|th`9 hL|th#h`9 cHdhzhL|th#h#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#HhzhL|th`9 hL|th# hL|th`9 hL|th#0JyB*phf j k o p s t y z ~                                                 !!!! ! !!!!!!!!!%!&!(!)!,!-!1!2!8!9!=!>!?!@!D!E!G!H!I!J!P!Q! hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS]Q!S!T!U!V![!\!`!a!d!e!n!o!r!s!w!x!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"""" " """"""""" "!"'"("0"1"3"4"7"8"?"@"B"C"I"J"R"S"V"W"^"_" hL|thU hL|thBS`_"d"e"j"k"m"n"r"s"|"}"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""## # ###### #"###*#+#-#.#5#6#9#:#>#?#A#B#L#M#P#hL|th#0JNhL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JN hL|th# hL|th2 hL|thU hL|thBSOP#Q#U#V#X#Y#^#_#h#i#j#k#s#t#u#v#{#|##################################$$ $ $$$$$$$'$($)$*$2$3$ɹhL|th#0JNhL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JN hL|th# hL|th2hL|thU0JyhL|th0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUB3$4$5$:$;$C$J$K$Q$R$X$Y$]$^$d$e$h$i$s$t$x$y$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$٣٣hL|thBShPcHdh'Hh'hL|thP hL|thhL|th#0JNhL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JN hL|th# hL|thU hL|th2 hL|thBShL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy5C$^$%&&'001337789>ABCDmDFJQWWgd2lgdh]:gd2&gdJu(gdUgd2(gd2$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$%%%%%%%%%%%&%.%/%1%2%7%8%=%>%G%H%J%K%V%W%Y%Z%]%^%b%c%l%m%s%t%v%w%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%ѿhL|thU0JyhL|th0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUhPcHdh'K%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&&&& & &&&&"&#&%&&&*&+&4&5&9&:&C&D&F&G&L&M&Q&R&V&W&\&]&g&h&k&l&p&q&u&v&x&y&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&hL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSR&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&''''''''''''%'&')'*'2'3'4'5'?'@'B'C'F'G'N'O'V'W'Z'['^'_'h'i'k'l'q'r'{'|'}'~''hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thhL|th#0JNhL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JN hL|th# hL|th2 h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU@''''''''''''''''S(T(V(W(Z([(a(b(g(h(k(l(q(r(w(x(|(}((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((Щ޹h7h#hOcHdhz hL|th#hL|th#hPcHdh&' h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|th0JyB(((((((((((((()%)')().)/)4)5):);)>)?)L)M)Q)R)U)V)^)_)e)f)k)l))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))HhhWZhL|thBShWZcHdhh7h#0JyB*ph h7h#HhzhL|thO hL|thU hL|thBSH)))))))))*** * * ****** *#*$*'*(*+*,*0*1*;*<*@*A*I*J*S*T*[*\*_*`*c*d*i*j*o*p*r*s*u*v*}*~***************************** hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUP*********************+ +++++++$+%+'+(+*+++5+6+:+;+>+?+D+E+K+L+M+N+X+Y+[+\+b+c+f+g+l+m+p+q+v+w+z+{+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ hL|thU hL|thBS\+++++++++++++++,,, ,,,,,,,&,',+,,,2,3,5,6,@,A,C,D,I,J,L,M,X,Y,\,],b,c,f,g,j,k,s,t,u,z,{,|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,ɼ hL|thjhL|thO0JU h7h#hL|thhOcHdhz hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyG,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,------------&-'-4-5-7-8-C-D-E-F-M-N-O-W-X-Y-Z-b-c-m-n-t-u-w-x-}-~-----------------hL|thBS0JyhL|thU0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUV-----------------------------.... . ....... .!.%.&.(.).*.+.2.3.7.8.<.=.B.C.J.K.M.N.R.S.W.X.Z.\.a.b.ɹhL|thUhcHdhzhL|th#hcHdhz hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSDb.g.n.o.x.y.|.}...................................................//// / /////////!/"/%/&/)/*/-/hL|thBShcHdhzHhzhL|th hL|thU hL|thBSHhzhL|thN-/./4/5/8/9/:/;/?/@/D/E/H/I/S/T/W/Y/Z/[/_/`/e/f/j/m/n/t/u/x/y/~//////////////////////////////////////////000 hL|th#hL|thUhcHdhzhL|thBShcHdhzHhzhL|th hL|thBS hL|thUK00000000%0&0*0+0.0/030;0<0B0C0H0I0K0L0O0P0T0U0V0]0^0e0f0k0l0o0p0v0w000000000000000000000000000000000żhL|th#0JNhL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JN hL|th2 hL|th#HhzhL|th hL|thBS hL|thUE00000000000000000000111 11111 1!1)1*111217181;1<1@1A1D1E1J1K1N1O1[1\1_1`1g1h1s1t111111111111111ĻIJԫ hL|th2hL|thU0JyhL|th0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBShPcHdh!'Hh!'hL|thPC1111111111111111111111111122222222(2)2.2/242528292=2>2E2F2O2P2X2Y2_2`2g2h2j2k2n2o2t2u2w2x2|2}2222222222222222222222222222222 hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS]222222222222222233333 3333333333 3!3%3&3+3,313238393=3>3B3C3G3H3J3K3M3N3T3U3W3X3[3\3b3c3e3f3m3n3r3s3t3u3z3{333333333 hL|thhL|thBShcHdhzHhzhL|thjhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBSL333333333333333333333333333333333444444444$4%4-4.444548494>4B4C4D4J4K4M4N4R4S4V4W4Z4żhL|thBShcHdhzHhzhL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thUhcHdhzHhzhL|th hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS>Z4[4_4`4f4g4h4j4l4m4p4q4t4u4x4y4}4~4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444455 5 5 5 5555555 5!5(5)5,5-5jhL|thBS0JU hL|th#hL|thBShE"cHdh)' hL|thBS hL|thUQ-53545:5;5B5C5G5H5K5L5S5T5X5Y5_5`5f5g5k5l5p5q5}5~55555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555666666666666"6#6&6'6,6-6hL|thU^JhL|thBS^J hL|thU hL|thBSX-65666@6A6E6F6G6H6P6Q6V6W6_6`6e6f6k6l6m6q6r6|6}66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666777 77777h7h#^J#hL|thUhO.^JcHdhzHhzhL|thO.^JhL|thU^JhL|thBS^JM777!7"7%7&7,7-74757?7@7B7C7F7G7M7N7U7V7X7Y7b7c7j7k7m7n7v7w7~777777777777777777777777777777777վܥ hL|thBShL|th#0JNhL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JN hL|th# hL|thU hL|th2hL|th#^Jh7h#^JhL|thU^JhL|thBS^J?77777777777777777888 88888"8#8*8+8/808283898:8;8<8@8A8H8I8L8M8T8U8[8\8_8`8d8e8j8k8o8p8w8x8z8{88888888888888888ĻhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBShPcHdh!'Hh!'hL|thPJ888888888888888888888888888888889999 999999999"9#9*9+909194959:9;9=9>9A9B9K9L9O9P9X9Y9]9^9c9d9f9g9n9o9v9w9y9z9~99999999999999 hL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSZ999999999999999999999999999999999:: : ::::::: :!:#:$:+:,:3:4:9:::=:>:@:A:D:E:H:I:S:T:W:X:]:^:c:d:g:h:l:m:o:p:v:w:z:{::::::::::::::::::: hL|thU hL|thBS`::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;; ;;;;;;;;);*;2;3;7;8;:;;;>;?;B;C;H;I;Q;R;V;W;];^;e;f;s;t;v;w;z;{;;;;;;hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyjhL|thO.0JU hL|th h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSN;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;<<<< < <<<<<<<<<"<#<+<,<.</<7<8<<<=<D<E<I<J<R<S<W<X<[<\<^<_<f<g<i<j<m<n<q<r<t<u<x<y<~<<<<<<<<<hL|thUhFcHdhzHhzhL|thF hL|th h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUN<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<===== =======!="=%=&=.=/=6=7=:=;=B=C=H=I=L=M=P=ĽؽؽؽؽؽؽححؽؽؽؽؽؽؽؽؽؽؽؽؽؽؽؽhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBSHhzhL|thK h7h# hL|thUhL|thBShKcHdhzhL|thUhKcHdhz@P=Q=U=V=[=\=c=d=g=h=l=m=q=r=x=y=|=}===========================================>>>>>>>>>>>>> >&>'>.>/>1>2>5>6>:>;>>>?>F>hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUVF>G>H>Q>R>T>U>V>W>`>a>f>g>i>j>m>n>s>t>z>{>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??? ?ӽh7hB*phh7hUB*phh7hBSB*ph hL|thHhzhL|thO. hL|thU hL|thBSJ ? ?????????$?%?,?-?0?1?6?7?C?C@CACJCKCPCQCXCYC\C]CeCfCiCjClCmCqCrCwCxC{C|CCCCCCCCCC hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUHhzhL|thO.hL|thBShO.cHdhzQCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCDD D DDDDDD D"D%D&D(D)D+D,D/D0D1D2D5D6D7D8DD?DFDGDIDJDODPDVDWDXDYD\D]DdDeDlDmDpDqDvDwDyDzDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEĻԴۭ hL|th# hL|th2hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBShPcHdh"'Hh"'hL|thPDEEE E E EEEEEEE!E"E&E'E+E,E/E0E5E6E9E:E=E>E@EAEFEGEHEKELEOEPEVEWEZE[E^E_EdEeEgEhEkElEpEqEvEwE{E|EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUVEEEEEEEFFFF F FFFFFFF"F#F%F&F0F1F:F;F?F@FFFGFIFJFRFSFZF[F^F_FfFgFiFjFrFsFvFwFyFzF|F}FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF hL|th#Hh'h.2 hL|thBS hL|thUYFFFFFFFFFFGG G GGGGGGGGG$G%G*G+G-G.G3G4GG?GEGFGIGJGMGNGSGTGXGYGaGbGeGfGlGmGtGuGxGyG~GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]GGGGGGGGGGGHHHH H HHHHHHHHH"H#H(H)H+H,H.H/H1H2H6H7H8H9HL?LCLDLNLOLVLWLYL]L^LaLbLcLdLfLgLiLjLnLoLtLuL|L}LLLLLǷHh'h.2hL|th#hO.cHdhz hL|th# h7h#hL|thUhKcHdhzHhzhL|thK hL|thU hL|thBSDLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLMMMM M MMMMMMMM!M"M#M'M(M)M0M1M4M5M9M:M=M>MGMHMhL|thBS0JhL|thBShKcHdhzhL|thUhKcHdhzHhzhL|thK hL|thU hL|thBSGHMIMJMNMOMQMRMUMVM[M\M_M`MaMbMgMhMjMkMmMnMuMvMyMzMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNNN N N NNNNNNNNN N#N hL|thBS hL|th# hL|thUjhL|thBS0JUW#N$N+N,N/N0N;NN?NBNCNNNONQNRNZN[NeNfNmNnNqNrNyNzN~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOO O O OOOhL|thBShKcHdhzHhzhL|thK hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUQOOOOOOO O&O'O2O3O7O8OPEPFPJPKPMPNPQPRPYPZP]P^P`PaPdPePjPkPmPnPpPqPuPvP{P|PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPhL|thUhKcHdhzHhzhL|thK hL|thBS hL|thUTPPPPPPPPPQ Q QQQQQQ Q"Q#Q(Q)Q1Q2Q4Q5Q9Q:QCQDQGQHQLQMQOQPQSQTQWQXQ]Q^QaQbQiQjQmQnQqQrQuQvQ{Q|QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUYQQQQQQQQQQQQQRRRR R RRRRR!R"R&R'R*R+R.R/R4R5R=R>RBRCRERFRQRRRVRWR^R_ReRfRiRjRoRpRxRyR{R|R~RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyPRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSS S SSSSSS!S"S$S%S(S)S/S0S4S5S6S7S?S@SBSCSFSGSJSKSLSOSPSUSVSWSXS\S]S_S`SfSgSiSjSoSpSrSsSvSwSzS{S}S~SSSSSSSSSSSS hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBShKcHdhzHhzhL|thKQSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTT T TTTTTTTT T#T$T.T/T2T3T7T8T?T@TLTMTQTRTUTVTZT[T_T`TeTfThTiTjTkTvTwT|T}TTTTTT hL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUVTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTUUUUU U U UUUUUUUUU$U%U&U'U+U,U3U4U:U;UAUBUHU˷ķhL|thhKcHdhzHhzhL|thK hL|thBS hL|thUHhVcGhL|th#hL|thUh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGBHUIUPUQU\U]U`UaUdUeUiUjUlUmUpUqUuUvUzU{UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVVV VVVVVV V(V)V0V1V5V6V8V9VDVEVhL|thhKcHdhzHhzhL|thK hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUQEVIVJVMVNVOVPVUVVV\V]VdVeViVjVmVnVrVsVuVvV}V~VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVWWWWWW%W&W(W)W,W-W4W5Wc?cEcFcIcJcKcLcOcPcRcScTcUcZc[c]c^cicjclcmcrcsczc{c}c~cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUPccccdd d dddddddddd d#d$d3d4d:d;d=d>dCdDdGdHdOdPdTdUdXdYd_d`dddedkdldrdsdudvd|d}ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd e e e eee hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU]eeeee#e$e&e'e-e.e0e1e4e5e@eAeDeEeLeMePeQeXeYe]e^e_ebeceheieneoeuevexeyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeejhL|thBS0JU hL|th hL|th# h7h#jhL|thy 0JU hL|thU hL|thBSLeeeeeffffffffff%f&f/f0f3f4f6f7f=f>f@fAfCfDfEfFfLfMfRfSfUfVf[f\fnfofqfrfvfyfzffffffffء&hL|th#B*fHphq 3HhzhL|thDB*fHphq 9hL|th#h B*cHdh_'fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq 4fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffتتĪp9hL|thhDB*cHdhzfHphq 9hL|thBShDB*cHdhzfHphq 3HhzhL|thDB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thB*fHphq ,fgggg g gggggg g%g&g,g-g5g6g:g;gCgDgFgGgMgNgOgPgUgVgYgZgegfghgigmgngqgrgvgwg}g~gggggggggggggggggggع؟h7h#fHq hL|thUB*phhL|thBSB*ph&hL|thB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq >ggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhh h hhhhhhhhh(h)h*h+h0h1h:h;h>h?hGhHhJhKhMhNhQhRh]h^h_h`hdhehghhhihjhqhrhuhvhwhxh|h}hhh&hL|thB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq Jhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiii"i#i%i&i+i,i/i0i4i5i7i8i;ij?jAjBjEjFjLjMj hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUZMjNjOjZj[jcjdjijjjnjojsjtj~jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjkkkk k kkkkkkkkk!k"k'k(k,k-k/k0k4k5k6kjhL|thBS0JU hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSWjjk6kmtuyƀ;wʏߏ<ݙߟիխ.O!6(gdUgd7gd7&gdJu(gd7gd7gdh]:gdh]:6kAkBkFkGkJkKkOkPkSkTkXkYk`kakckdkekfkokpksktkwkxk~kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkhL|th#fHq hL|thfHq h7h#fHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq Gkkllllllllllll#l$l(l)l/l0l8l9l>l?lElFlLlMlNlOlUlVl]l^l_lflgljlklllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllmh7h#fHq hL|th#fHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq Mmm m m mmmmmmmmmm#m$m'm(m.m/m1m2m5m6m=m>m@mAmCmDmHmImKmLmQmRmTmUmXmYmbmcmemfmnmomrmsm{m|m~mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhL|thBSfHq h7h#fHq hL|thUfHq Smnnnn n nnnnnnn"n#n'n(n)n0n1n4n5n:n;n=n>nLnMnOnPnSnTnXnYndnenknlnnnonynzn|n}nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnh7h#fHq hL|th#fHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq Knnnnnnnnnnnnnnnoooooooooooo#o$o-o.o1o2o:o;o=o>oKoLoNoOoWoXoaobokolonoooѸ꩚|hL|th#fHq hL|thBSfHq h7h#fHq hL|thUfHq 0hL|thUh#cHdhVcGfHq 0hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGfHq *HhVcGhL|th#fHq 0oosotouovoyozooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopppp׾𙒋 hL|thU hL|th hL|thBShL|thUfHq *HhzhL|thsfHq 0hL|thUhscHdhzfHq 0hL|thBShscHdhzfHq hL|thBSfHq 4pppppp p+p,p-p.p2p3p8p9ps?s@sAsHsIsLsMsQsRsUsVs^s_sbscsisjsmsnsxsys}s~sssssssssssssssssshL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq 0hL|thBSh tcHdh{fHq Ossssssssssssssssssstttttttttt#t$t&t't2t3t=t>tAtBtHtItKtLtQtRtYtZtftgtitjtltmtxtytttttttttttttttttttttttth7h#fHq hL|th#fHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq Mttttttttttttuuuu u uuuuuuu u!u"u#u(u)u,u-u1u2u4u5uy?yJyKyOyPyZy[y^y_ybycygyhyiyjylyrysyuyvyzy{yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyῦhL|th#fHq *Hh{hL|th tfHq 0hL|th#h tcHdh{fHq 0hL|thBSh tcHdh{fHq hL|thBS0JyhL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq 2yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyzzzz z z z zzz!z"z4z5zGzHzOzPzUzVz\z]z_z`zczdzlzmzqzrzuz|z}zzzzzzzzzzzzzѼïHh{h7h)q hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBS0JyhL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq Ezzzzzzz{{{{{ {{{{{{{ {!{({){+{,{1{2{={>{D{E{M{N{P{Q{U{V{]{^{b{c{n{o{z{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{|| | ||||| hL|thU hL|thBS`|||#|$|*|+|/|0|9|:|=|>|B|C|E|F|Q|R|W|X|[|\|b|c|f|g|m|n|q|r|v|w|y|z||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| } }}}}}}hL|thBShQ!cHdh' hL|thU hL|thBSY}}!}"}-}.}1}2}8}9}?}@}D}E}H}I}M}N}T}U}W}X}Z}[}\}]}c}d}p}q}t}u}}}~}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}HhhWZhL|thBShWZcHdhhL|th#hWZcHdh hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUJ}~~ ~!~'~(~6~;~<~A~B~F~G~M~N~Q~S~T~Z~[~a~b~c~d~i~j~r~s~v~w~}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~HhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#Q $%'(349:=>BCEFKLPQWX]^abjkmnopyzjhL|th)q0JU hL|th# hL|thFghL|th0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thh)qcHdh{ hL|thBS hL|thUD  %&'(,-01349:BCEFHINOUVYZdemnpqvwyzhL|thBSh)qcHdh{ h7h#Hh{hL|th)q hL|thBS hL|thUQȀɀҀӀր׀ۀ܀   !()56:;=>DEJKNOTUWX[\bcefijmnstwx}~ hL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSZÁāʁˁ́΁ҁӁԁՁفځ܁݁   !"$%()45=>?@EFJKRSZ[]^ijwxHh{hL|th)q hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSXȂɂ˂̂ςЂԂՂۂ܂ނ߂    !#$'(,-56:;<=CDIJLMPQVW^_efghmnpq~ hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]ŃƃȃɃ˃̃҃ӃՃփ  "#()./1245=>DEHINOVW\]dhHh{hL|th)q hL|th hL|thUhL|thUh)qcHdh{ hL|thBSLhijpqtu{|„ńƄф҄لڄ܄݄ %&*+./34=>BCGH hL|thhL|thUh)qcHdh{ hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBSh)qcHdh{PHKLSTYZ\]`almuvxy{|…ÅŅƅȅɅʅ˅х҅ԅՅ݅ޅ  !"'(,-12:;Hh{hL|th)q hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSX;?@ABJKMNTUZ[^_cdfgjknoqr|}†Ɇʆˆ̆҆ӆچۆ݆ކ   !#$'hL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|th hL|thBSW'(2345:;=>ABHIJPQRSZ[^_abnopqtuxy|}‡ćŇ·χ޼ןhL|thUh)qcHdh{Hh{h7h)q h7h#Hh{hL|th)q hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUhL|th0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thU0Jy>χЇهڇ܇݇ !"-.0178>?HIKLUV[\]^bcefmnrsxy|}ˆÈ͈̈ψЈш҈؈و߈ h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU]   "#01789:ABFGLMPQUVXYdeghmnuv‰ĉʼnɉʉщ҉ԉՉډۉ݉މ߉ hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSZ !()+,/04578<=EFIJNOSTYZ]^cdhinotuxy~Ƿ۪Hh{hL|th)qhL|thBSh'cHdh|Hh|hL|th' hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUh)qcHdh{Hh{hL|th)qCĊŊȊɊՊ֊؊يފߊ !&'()*+,78˾h7h#h'cHdh|Hh|h7h' h7h#hL|thBSh|{cHdh{hL|thh|{cHdh{ hL|thU hL|thBSD8:;EFPQXY[\efhilmvwyzȋɋˋ̋ϋЋ؋ً܋݋ֱhL|th#fHq hL|thhL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq jhL|thBS0JU hL|thU hL|thBSF!",-459:=>BCDMNOVW[\]^cdghijpqvw|}İፔ h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU(hL|th#h|{B*cHdh{ph&hL|th#B*ph{*0Jy9hL|th#h|{B*cHdh{ph{*0JyhL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq 4ŒČŌƌnjʌˌόЌҌӌڌی'(0134;<BCEFJKQR[\^_`ajktuwx}~ǍhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|th h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUTǍȍɍ͍̍эҍۍ܍  !"'()01459:ABEFKLSTVWcdklop~jhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|th#hL|thBS {*0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSOŎƎΎώҎӎێ܎ގߎ%&(),-3467<=@ADEHIKLSTVW`abcmnvwyzhL|thUhx)cHdh!{hL|thBShx)cHdh!{hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUAzďŏӏԏ  $%-.124589=>DEMNQRST^_hhL|thBS0JyhL|thBShx)cHdh!{ hL|thU hL|th hL|thBSNhijnqrtu~ŐƐː̐ѐҐ֐אِڐߐǷ뢕 h7h#h7h#0JyB*ph(hL|th#hx)B*cHdh"{ph hL|thhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBSHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|thUjhL|thBS0JU8  %&./45;<@AHIJKTUWX^_abklqryz|}ѽѽѽѽhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq &hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq Hh"{hL|thx) hL|thU hL|thBS7ȑɑˑ̑ӑԑՑّ֑ڑ #躳ن0hL|thBShx)cHdh"{fHq Hh"{hL|thx) hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thU0JyhL|thfHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBS0Jy4#$()/089:;?@BGHILMXYcdjknoqr{|Œƒ̒͒̿ӯӟhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th#hL|th#hPcHdh&'Hh"{hL|thx) hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq ;͒ΒϒВْؒڒ !%&(),-/056:;BCLMUVXY`acdfgnoq㜓hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU&hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq hL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq jhL|thBS0JU:qryz“͓ΓϓГ֓דܓݓߓ   !%&˲hL|thfHq hL|thBS0hL|thBShx)cHdh#{fHq *Hh#{hL|thx)fHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq =&+,124578>?DEGHQRYZ\]`ajkstvwz{~ŔƔȔɔєҔӿhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq >Ҕהؔڔ۔   '(-.0145:;<>?BCHIRSUVWX`afghist|}ʶʶʶʶʶʶʶʶhL|thBS0Jy&hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq jhL|thBS0JU hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSDƕǕӕԕ֕וڕە &'/089EFJKMNVW^_kκκκκκκκhL|thU0Jy&hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq hL|thhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUFklopwx{|ŖƖϖЖՖ֖ۖܖޖߖڜƂ3Hh&{hL|th$B*fHphq hL|th#0Jy#hL|thBSh$0JycHdh&{Hh&{hL|th$0Jy&hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq hL|thBS0JyhL|thU0Jy3 #$'(-.45<=ABGHLMVW\]abdejkrsxy{|콶hL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thU&hL|th#B*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq ?—ʗ˗җӗ՗֗ۗܗ  m9hL|thUhWZB*cHdhfHphq 9hL|thBShWZB*cHdhfHphq 3Hh'{hL|th$B*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq hL|thBS0Jy&hL|thUB*fHphq jhL|thBS0JU&!"%&./1289:;@ABCHIJQRTU[\`acdqrvw}~ԬԬ7hL|thBSB*fHphq +|*0Jy&hL|th#B*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq -HhhWZB*fHphq .ŘƘȘɘʘ˘טؘݘޘ  %Ů&hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq -HhhWZB*fHphq 9hL|thUhWZB*cHdhfHphq 9hL|thBShWZB*cHdhfHphq 4%&'(3478>?GHLMUVXY`acdklnostuv}~™Ùřƙʙ˙̙͙Ī3HhVcGhL|th#B*fHphq &hL|thvB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq <͙Йљԙ֙יܙݙ⫗o`Q`Q`@`7.ohL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy!jhL|th$0JOJQJUhL|th#fHq hL|thBSfHq &hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thvB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq 3HhVcGhL|th#B*fHphq 9hL|thUh#B*cHdhVcGfHphq 9hL|thvh#B*cHdhVcGfHphq   &')*,-56=>HILMTUXYabghlmop{|hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thUhL|thU0Jy hL|thBS&hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq =ĚŚϚКԚ՚+,/0:;@AFGPQ\]dehinouvǛț˛0hL|thBSh$cHdh){fHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBS0JyL˛̛ϛЛڛۛ  !"*+./89EFKLST[\]^ᢉ h7h#0hL|thBSh$cHdh){fHq *Hh){hL|th$fHq hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq .&'()013478<=GHOPTUXY]^ghpqtuŝƝϝН֝םڝ۝ƿ hL|thBS hL|thU(hL|th#h$B*cHdh*{ph h7h#h7h#h$cHdh*{Hh*{h7h$H !"#%&)*23:;?@CDHILMOPRS[\bcmst~ǞȞ˞̞Оў֞מڞ۞ hL|th#jhL|thBS0JU hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSU   &'(),-1267CDGHST[\abklopyzßğƟǟʟ˟Пџ֟ןޟߟ,-67: hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS]:;HIPQTU^_delmpqyzàĠȠɠԠՠנؠܠݠ  #'(*+5689=>BCJKHh+{hL|th*UU hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUXKNOXY`aijlmxyʡˡΡϡޡߡ򾮞Hh+{hL|th*UUHh+{h7h*UUh7hUh*UUcHdh+{h7h#h*UUcHdh+{ h7h#HhVcGhL|th#hL|thUh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcG hL|thU hL|thBS4 %&)*12679:FGIJNOZ[bcghnopqwx̢͢ӢԢآ٢ܢݢ h7h#hL|thBSh*UUcHdh+{Hh+{hL|th*UUhL|thUh*UUcHdh+{ hL|thBS hL|thUK   *+56BCFGIJMNQR\]_`ghjkorstz{£ģţ̣ͣԣգhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUN ,-34@ANORS]^cdfgklqrx|}ŤƤʤˤФѤ֤פۤܤ  !"% hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS]%&*+15689;<>?CDFGOPRSXY[\deghstvwƥǥ˥̥ԥեܥݥ$DEFGJKR hh#h7h#0JyB*ph h7h#hL|thBShP6cHdh-{ hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thULRS^_abefmnqruv}~¦æǦȦҦۦܦަߦHh'hL|th.20Jy#hL|thBSh.20JycHdh'&hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq jhL|thBS0JU#hL|thUhWZ0JcHdh hL|thBS hL|thU6 !&',-/0125689>?CDGHNOVW_`cdjkvwyz{|&hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq h7h#fHq F§ŧƧ˧̧ӧԧקاűcI3Hh0{hL|thScB*fHphq 9hL|thUhScB*cHdh0{fHphq 9hL|thBShScB*cHdh0{fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq 9hL|thUhScB*cHdh/{fHphq 9hL|thBShScB*cHdh/{fHphq    "#()01459:ABEFGHMNPQUV^_`aijnotu~ĨŨ hL|thU hL|th hL|thBS&hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq IŨȨϨШҨӨը֨٨ڨ  "#%&'(/0569:<=@FGLMRSVW[\]^ghlmnost|} hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSHh0{hL|thScW©ɩʩ̩ͩ֩שک۩ީߩ  !")*./56?@DEGHMNSTZ[_`ijpqtu{|hL|thBS0Jyh7h#h#cHdhVcGHhVcGh7h# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUNǪȪʪ˪ΪϪתتڪ۪ުߪ  '(/034@ADEOPZ[^_jknovw{|~«ëǫȫʫ˫Ϋϫ׫ث۫ܫ hL|th: hL|thU hL|thBS] &',-/0;<?@JKRSUV_`bcfgklmnwxz{~̬ͬҬӬ׬ج۬ܬ hL|thhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUY   #$&'-.1289ABCDHIPQUVXY\]`acdghlmopstz{|~hL|thUh+cHdh1{Hh1{hL|th+ hL|thHh 'h&^ hL|thU hL|thBSM­ȭɭϭЭԭխۭܭޭ $%,-129:?@HIMNSTjhL|thO0JUhL|thBS0Jy hL|thhL|thBShPcHdh"'Hh"'hL|thPhL|th#0JNhL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JN hL|th# hL|th7 hL|thBS hL|thU8TWX`acdghlmnotuǮȮͮήӮԮڮۮ!")*,019:<=>?EFMNQRV hL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSZVW[\_`cdfgjkrsuvxyz}~¯ůƯίϯӯԯ֯ׯگۯ  #$&',-457;<@AIJMNUV hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU]VXY^_hiqr{|°ǰȰʰ˰հְذٰ۰ܰ߰  $%'(013 hL|th hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSS3489BCMNRSZ[^_efjknotuwx{|ñıƱDZϱбֱױر۱ܱ    !"$%*+./45> hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU]>?ABEFJKRSXY_`abjknopvw}~²òIJƲȲɲ̲Ͳϲв丨hL|thBShE"cHdh)'hL|thBSh+cHdh4{Hh4{hL|th+hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyHh3{hL|th+ hL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU<вԲղٲڲݲ޲  ()01:;?@ABHIORS_`bcfglmuvxy}~սhL|thBS0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSB³óijųгѳسٳ  !")*,-0178;<?@GHJKOPZ[ҹ0hL|thUh+cHdh5{fHq 0hL|thBSh+cHdh5{fHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thfHq ?[_`jkrsvwƴǴɴʴʹδҴӴմִ޴ߴ"#()/04578hL|thfHq 0hL|thBSh+cHdh6{fHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq I8BCDGHJKMNORSXY]^bcjknovwz{˲˃thL|thfHq *Hh6{hL|th+fHq 0hL|thUh#cHdhVcGfHq 0hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGfHq *HhVcGhL|th#fHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq -̵͵Եյصٵܵݵ %&+,7BCMNUVXY^_cdghmnvwyzȲ*Hh 'hL|th&^fHq 0hL|thBSh&^cHdh 'fHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq F¶ö̶ͶҶӶضٶ !#$()0145<ȯxxxx&hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq hL|thfHq 0hL|thBSh+cHdh6{fHq 0hL|thUh+cHdh6{fHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq /<=BCHIPQUVW]^deghlmrs~·ķŷѷ콶y h7h# hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyHh7{hL|th+hL|thBSh+cHdh7{ hL|thU hL|thBS&hL|th#B*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq /ѷҷطٷ޷߷   '(*+-.56=>DEKLPQWX[\bcefklpqstz{|}~Hh"'hL|thP hL|thhL|th#0JNhL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JN hL|th# hL|th7hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thU<6QbmS#a4l5 gd7&gdJu(gdUgd7(gd7~ĸŸǸȸθϸҸӸոָ׸ظݸ޸  '(,-4;<@ACDH hL|th#hL|thUh+cHdh7{ hL|th7hL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBShPcHdh"'FHIPQSTYZabklopst{|~ǹȹ˹̹Ϲйչֹعٹݹ޹  $%'hL|thUh+cHdh8{Hh8{hL|th+ hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUQ'(*+/0129:<=>?DEGHKLPQUV[\_`cdhiklnopstvwyz&hL|thB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq hL|thBSh+cHdh8{ hL|th#Hh8{hL|th+ hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU6ºúźƺ̺ͺѺҺԺպߺ  &'*+-.129:<=ABLMUV쾡9hL|thBSh 9B*cHdh9{fHphq 3Hh9{hL|th 9B*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq ?V_`bcdehimnrsuv|}»û˻̻ϻлԻջ׻ػ޻߻쪍9hL|thBSh 9B*cHdh9{fHphq 3Hh9{hL|th 9B*fHphq &hL|thB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq 7   !'(,-45=>?BCGHJKNOSTVW[\]^bceflmopwxz{&hL|th#B*fHphq hL|thBS0Jy&hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq JżƼǼȼͼμռּؼټ߼   "#'(+,015679;<ج9hL|thBSh 9B*cHdh9{fHphq 3Hh9{hL|th 9B*fHphq hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy&hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq 8<=@AFGHOWX^_`cdhimnrxy{|ػ{a{XhL|thU0Jy3Hh9{hL|th 9B*fHphq hL|thBS0Jy3HhVcGhL|th#B*fHphq 9hL|thUh#B*cHdhVcGfHphq 9hL|thBSh#B*cHdhVcGfHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq "½ýǽȽνϽֽ׽ٽڽ߽ܽ    !'(*+ϩ؂jhL|th 90JU3Hh:{hL|th 9B*fHphq 9hL|thUh 9B*cHdh:{fHphq hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy&hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq 3+/0167;<=>EFHIPQTUYZabefpqst{|ľž̾;־׾ھ۾Ҿ&hL|thUB*fHphq 3Hh:{hL|th 9B*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq E #$'()*239:ABEFQRUV^_abklst|}ṣ*Hh;{hL|th{@fHq 0hL|thBSh{@cHdh;{fHq hL|th#fHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq @¿ÿɿʿ̿Ϳѿҿؿٿܿݿ!"'(+,./1256;<>?BCDEI˲0hL|th#h#cHdhVcGfHq 0hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGfHq *HhVcGhL|th#fHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq 8IJLMQRTUXY^_bcijs}~ɞɁzszzzzzz hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS*Hh 'hL|th&^fHq 0hL|thBSh&^cHdh 'fHq hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq 0hL|thUh{@cHdh;{fHq -  "#&'0145:;>?EFJKNOTUWX_`deghmnuvxy|}hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUV   !()+,124589BCEFKLSTXY]^_abdeklhL|thU;{*0JyhL|thBS;{*0Jy hL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSNlopwx~  "#'(,-/045 hL|th#hL|thBSh{@cHdh@{Hh@{hL|th{@ h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSN5<=ABHINORS^_abeflmnrsxy   h7h#hL|thUh{@cHdh@{Hh@{hL|th{@ hL|thU hL|thBSQ#$&'()013489>?GHJKNOTUWX[\abfgijmnxy{| hL|th#hL|thBSh{@cHdhA{HhA{hL|th{@hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSJ&'+,/0:;?@MNPQXY^_lmoptuvw|} hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUZ  "#'(*+./0156;<@ACDKLNOSTYZ]^efghqrwxyzhL|th0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUU %&/0569:ABIJNOQRUV\]_`fgklrsuvz{ hL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUV!"*+-.12789;<ABDEHINOTUWX[\hioprswxz{}~hL|thUhfcHdhB{HhB{hL|thfhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSM    "#%&()+,./89;<>?BCJKOPSTYZ_`cdhioprsvw~hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUV &'*+1245>?DEGHMNRSYZ_`dehinovwhL|thfHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thU hL|thBSNwz{  '(./2356:;FGIJKLRShL|th#fHq hL|thfHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq MSUVWXabefhipqtuz{ôhL|th#0JNhL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JNhL|th7fHq hL|th#fHq hL|thfHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq <    !$%&'-.0178@ABCLMVW[\_abhinorswx{|ĴĴحѤ؋0hL|thBShfcHdhC{fHq hL|thBS0Jy hL|thhL|thBShPcHdh#'Hh#'hL|thP hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUfHq hL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JN6!"$%()-.;<>?BCFGIJQRTUXY]^abihL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUVijlpqstwxz{  &')*-.23569:>?ABChL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|th# hL|thUSCDLMSTXY\]efghmntuyz!"%&)*/034:; h7h# hL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUR;>FGJKPQVWYZ]^fglmnopwx|}&')hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSHhD{hL|thfS)*/04578>?BCKLQRSXYbcdeijlmxy}~hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq HhF{hL|thf0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thUhfcHdhE{hL|th#hfcHdhE{HhE{hL|thf hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU2   "#&'+,./239:ABJҹҔ{0hL|thBSh&^cHdh 'fHq h7h#fHq *HhH{hL|thrXfHq 0hL|thBShrXcHdhH{fHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq hL|th#fHq )JSTVWYZ[\`acdghjknouvz{۳0hL|thBSh&^cHdh 'fHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq *Hh 'hL|th&^fHq F "#,-/03489;<CDGHPQTU[\^_fgopxyhL|th#fHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq K    #$,-/067<=>?GHRSWX^_qrvw}~³¤³ h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thfHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq *Hh 'hL|th&^fHq 0hL|thBSh&^cHdh 'fHq 5   '(0134>?DENORS[\_`ghklnorsxy hL|thBS hL|thU`   #$'(+,12=>BCKLNORSZ[`acdghklnouvxy|}hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thBS hL|thUT "#)*,-78>?DEGHOPRSVW[\^_fgijkm˲0hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGfHq *HhVcGhL|th#fHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq Cmnv   θhL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq *HhVcGhL|th#fHq 0hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGfHq 0hL|thUh#cHdhVcGfHq < !*+5689?@DEKLOPWXZ[cdghopuvxy}~  hL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq Y$%()4578CDOPST]^dehilmstvw|}  !"()-.67:hL|thfHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq S:;BCOPSTZ[cdfgjkopxy|}  $%&')*jh&^0JU hL|thUhL|th#fHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq L*56:;CDGHPQST]^deghmnpqst{|~*HhL{hL|thrXfHq 0hL|thBShrXcHdhL{fHq hL|thfHq hL|thBS0JyhL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq <  %&/045=>DEIJPQTUZ[^_bchinuvyzhL|th#fHq hL|thBS0JyhL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq O   ᜃj0hL|th#h#cHdhVcGfHq 0hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGfHq *HhVcGhL|th#fHq *HhL{hL|thrXfHq 0hL|thBShrXcHdhL{fHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq ) '(/03478:;FGIJS]^ijlmz{ȲhL|thBS0Jy*HhL{hL|thrXfHq 0hL|thBShrXcHdhL{fHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq =  '(,-67ABGHMNXY[\ijlmwx|}³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³³›³³³³³³hL|th#fHq hL|thU0JyhL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq 0hL|thBShrXcHdhM{fHq *HhM{hL|thrXfHq = !"$ȯ~q~~qh7h#0JyB*phh7h#fHq hL|thfHq $HhhWZfHq 0hL|thUhWZcHdhfHq 0hL|thBShWZcHdhfHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq "$%&'(+,./3478:;BCEFHIPQUVYZ`aefklmxyؿzszszszszszsz hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JUhL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq $HhhWZfHq 0hL|thUhWZcHdhfHq h7h#fHq 0h7h#hWZcHdhfHq -()+,5679:EFJKRSZ[bcijnoqrvwxy hL|thhL|thBS0JyhL|thBSh3LcHdhO{HhO{hL|th3L hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSK !"-.124589>?BCJKNOVW\]^cdhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyHhO{hL|th3L hL|thU hL|th hL|thBSPdghnopvwx{|  #$+,/056:;>?CHIKLOPYZ_`HhhWZ hL|th h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyO`cdjkop{|}~   "#*+-.4589EFIJghlmt h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyOtuxy  $%'(-.123489=>ABFGIJMNQRVW\ h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSHh 'hGnX\]_`efijpqstwx}~&',-1267:;@AJKPQShL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUXSTWX_`efklwxŵhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUA  !")*,-34;<?@GHMNRS\]abnost{| hL|thhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSV"#)*349:<=HINOSTXYabfglmopwx~  hL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JN hL|th7 hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSS  '()*+,5689=>?@FGHITUWX\]cdghnowxyzóުުުך hL|th#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thBShPcHdh#'Hh#'hL|thP hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JNhL|th#0JN< '(*+1256=>CDLMOP[\^_cdeklqr}~ hL|thhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSS  #$'(-.01459:ABFGHINOPRSǷhL|thUh4cHdhR{HhR{hL|th4 hL|th#hL|thBShE"cHdh*' h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUHSUVabijrs|}  '(*+/0459:EFLM`cdfghL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSSgmnpqvw  "#'(+,349:BCHILMPQU hL|th# hL|th h7h#hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSPUVXY[\^_bc  '(/02567=>?@IJLMPQRSZ[bcefijqr}~ hL|thHhR{hL|th4 hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUR   &'*+6789=>BCEFOPST]^ghlmrsvw~ hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]   "#&'4578;<@ABCKhL|thBSh4cHdhS{ hL|thHhR{hL|th4 h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSIKTU_`fgopst !$%)*+,7hL|thBSh4cHdhS{ h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUHhS{hL|th4Q7BCHIQRTUYZ_`deijoprsvw{|佶jhL|thBS0JU h7h# hL|th#hL|th#h4cHdhS{ hL|thhL|thUh4cHdhS{ hL|thBS hL|thUHhS{hL|th4@  #$*+013478:;@ACDJKMNRSVWYZabghjkuvyzhL|thU0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSZ   $%)*2389=>ABIJPQUVZ[`ahinovw{| hL|th# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyS!"$%'(/03489<=@ACDGHMNQRWX]^`aefqryz~ hL|th#HhU{hL|th4 hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyP  '(+,013456<=@AHIMNSTVWcdjkstxy|} hL|thHhU{hL|th4 hL|thU hL|thBSX  %&-.1267:;?@DEGHKLTU[\efijqrwx|} hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU[  "#()9:=>ABTVW[\^_dehimnwx{|~hL|thBSh4cHdhU{ h7h#HhU{hL|th4 hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyJ  "#)*4578?@CDIJQRTU\]ghnosthL|thBS0JyhL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUMt}~  &'67;<>?DEGHOPSTUV[\ghjkoprs|} hL|thhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSY"#%&,-0178=>ABvwxyz{hL|thBShwecHdhW{HhW{h7hwe h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUQ %&(),-5689@ALMPQVWYZ^_depquvxy{|HhX{hL|thwe hL|thU hL|thBSZ  &'12CDFGZ[^_efhilmst&hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUM '(-./01267أj9hL|th#hweB*cHdhY{fHphq 7hL|th#B*fHphq X{*0JyJhL|th#hweB*cHdhX{fHphq X{*0Jyh7h#fHq &hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq (789:;<=>STUVWڷrYCr*YC0h7hBShwecHdhY{fHq *HhY{h7hwefHq 0h7hUhwecHdhY{fHq 0h7h#hwecHdhY{fHq h7h#fHq 9hL|th#hweB*cHdhY{fHphq DHhY{hL|thweB*fHphq Y{*0JyJhL|th#hweB*cHdhY{fHphq Y{*0Jy WX[\bcjkrsvw}~ #$,-ѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽѽ&hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq 3HhY{hL|thweB*fHphq G-4578<=IJMNQRZ[_`adeklopuvyzɵɵɵɵɵɵɵɔHhZ{hL|thy& hL|thU hL|thBS3HhZ{hL|thweB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq $jh7hwe0JUmH nH uh7h#fHq 2 "#&'3478<=ABDEMNUVXY\]cdhikltu~ h7h#Hh[{hL|thy&hL|thBShy&cHdh[{ hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSN   #$&'()-.56>?FGIJKLQRWXfgjkopxy{|ͽhL|thUhy&cHdh[{ hL|thBS hL|thU h7h#h7h#hy&cHdh[{Hh[{h7hy&J!"'(+,2378;<BCFGKLNOPQ]^efnorswx|}hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSX!"'(2367?@F hL|th#(hL|th#hy&B*cHdh\{ph h7h#&hL|th#B*ph\{*0Jy9hL|th#hy&B*cHdh\{ph\{*0Jy hL|thU hL|thBS?ABFGHILMQRZ[]^ahL|thhy&cHdh^{hL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSVabefmnop{|~  "#()+,2378>?¹hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBShL|thUhy&cHdh^{hL|thBShy&cHdh^{ hL|thUI?FGPQWX]^_`cdjkqrst|}  !%&-.12<=?@H hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS]HILMQRXY^_abefijoprsxy|}  "#&'458 hL|thBS hL|thU`89;<?@DENOUVXYabhiklnostuvhL|thUh|FcHdh^{Hh^{hL|th|F hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUQ   "#'(*+/01267<=ABFGIJKLQRSTXY]^cdfgrsyz|} hL|thBS hL|thU`            # $ + , - . 5 6 ; < @ A D E L M U V \ ] a b g h o p u v y z ~                    ̵hL|thUh|FcHdh_{ hL|thBSHh_{hL|th|FhL|th#h|FcHdh_{hL|thBSh|FcHdh_{ hL|thUG                                          " # + , 1 2 4 5 : ; A B C D H I Q R T U [ \ ^ _ d e f m n p q t u | }    hL|th# hL|th hL|thUhL|thUh|FcHdh_{Hh_{hL|th|F hL|thBSN                                                           # $ . / 1 2 7 8 ; < @ A L M N O R S W X ` a c  hL|thhL|thBSh|FcHdh`{Hh`{hL|th|F hL|thU hL|thBSQc d h i l m t u x y ~                                                                   % & ( ) 2 3 : ; hL|thBS0Jy hL|th#Hh`{hL|th|F hL|thBS hL|thUT; > ? C D I J N O S T Y Z _ ` d e l m s t y z                                                    % & + , } ~           h7h#jhL|th|F0JU hL|thU hL|thBSX T 9zT "''/37O=`=>CBFGLM.OR)W6WZgd7lgd[vgd7&gdJu(gdUgd7(gd7                                         ufh7h#fHq &hL|th#B*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq hL|thBSh|FcHdha{Hha{hL|th|Fh7h#h|FcHdha{Hha{h7h|F h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS(    *+5689ABNOZ[^_dejkrsuvwxت&hL|thB*fHphq 3Hhb{hL|th|FB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq C  $%()23;<?@BCHIJKPQTU[\^_abefmؾ؍&hL|thB*fHphq 9hL|thUh|FB*cHdhb{fHphq 3Hhb{hL|th|FB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq 7mnqrvw{| &'ؾhL|thBS0Jy9hL|th#h|FB*cHdhb{fHphq 3Hhb{hL|th|FB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq <'()/023<=?@GHST\]_`efhiopstyz|}ذ&hL|th#B*fHphq &hL|thB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq E  "#&'-./679:=>?@DEM즉uuuuuuluXuuuuu&hL|th#B*fHphq hL|thBS0Jy&hL|thBSB*fHphq 9hL|thUh|FB*cHdhc{fHphq 9hL|thBSh|FB*cHdhc{fHphq Hhc{hh|Fh7h#0JyB*phh7h#fHq &hL|thUB*fHphq "MNPQVW]^`abcfglm캫hL|thfHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq h7h#fHq &hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq = #$'(-.45;<>?DEGHIJOPRS[\`afgrstz{*Hhc{hL|th|FfHq hL|thfHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq E !"$%()-.0189=>CDGHNOQRWX]^cdkluv}~ůԦhL|thBS0Jy*Hhd{h7h|FfHq h7h#fHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq jhL|th|F0JUA !)*,-2389=>DEFIJSTWXcdklnorsw hL|thBShL|th#fHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq Nwxyz   '(*+2367ABLMT0hL|thBSh|FcHdhd{fHq hL|thBS0JyhL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thfHq ETU\]`aijrsvw~ʺHhd{hL|thddhL|th#hddcHdhd{hL|thBShddcHdhd{ hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBS0JyhL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq >#$/089@ADEIJRSVWZ[^_bcfgjqrxyzǷǪ}hL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JN hL|th# hL|th7jhL|thBS0JUHhe{hL|thddhL|th#hddcHdhe{hL|thBShddcHdhe{hL|thU0JyhL|th#0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBS- $%+,/067?@AѲnn#hL|thUhdd0JycHdhg{#hL|thBShdd0JycHdhg{hL|thUhddcHdhg{hL|thhddcHdhg{hL|thBShddcHdhg{Hhg{hL|thdd0JyHhg{hL|thdd hL|thUhL|thU0JNhL|thBS0JNhL|th#0JN+ABKLSWX^_hiqrvw~  $%()/ƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿ h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBShL|th7hddcHdhg{#hL|thBShdd0JycHdhg{hL|thUhddcHdhg{F/03489;<?@BCIJSTWXY\]`ahilmst~   jhL|thdd0JU hL|th# h7h#hL|thBShddcHdhg{ hL|thBS hL|thUN#$./23679:=>CDKLRSVWZ[bcefjktuyz}~ hL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBS\ &')*349:>?ABEFJKMNOTUXY`aefjknostwx}~ h7h#Hh|hL|th' hL|thUhL|thBShddcHdhj{ hL|thBSQ   !()*+23:;?@GHNOYZbcfglmpqyz|}hL|thBShWZcHdh hL|thBS hL|thUY   !'(*+./1278?@BDEHILMPQTUZ[defgklnoyz hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU] &')*-.2389<=?@CDOPRSVW_`cdfgjk{| hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]%&(),-34>?GHKLPQYZ\]bcfgnouvyz hL|thU hL|thBS`   *+23:;CDGHRSWXZ[^_hiklpqĴhL|thUh3DcHdhn{hL|th#h3DcHdhn{HhhWZHhn{hL|th3D hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSG         $ % . / 2 3 : ; A B D E H I R S Z [ ^ _ c d l m p q t u { | ~  hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thHhn{hL|th3DhL|thBSh3DcHdhn{ hL|thU hL|thBS6                                        !̳۝ۄ}v}v}vmvf hL|th#hL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBS0hL|thhjcHdho{fHq *Hho{hL|thjfHq 0hL|thBShjcHdho{fHq hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq *Hhn{hL|thjfHq (!!!!!!!!!!!$!%!,!-!2!3!7!8!;!"?"C"D"H"I"O"P"T"U"X"Y"["\"_"`"e"f"g"h"p"q"w"x"{"|""""""""""""""""""""""""" hL|thhL|thBSh7cHdhp{Hhp{hL|th7 hL|thBS hL|thUQ"""""""""""""""""""""### # #########"###+#,#1#2#7#8#:#;#A#B#D#E#H#I#M#N#Q#R#Z#[#^#_#a#b#d#e#h#i#m#o#p#t#u#w#x#{#|######## hL|th#hL|thUh_ykcHdhq{Hhq{hL|th_yk hL|thU hL|thBSO###############################################$$$ $ $ $$$$$$$$$$Լۦ hL|th#hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBShL|thUh_ykcHdhs{Hhs{hL|th_yk<$$%$&$*$+$3$4$8$9$?$@$C$D$M$N$P$Q$S$T$^$_$b$c$g$h$l$m$u$v$y$z$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$Hht{hL|th_ykhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|th_yk0JUQ$$$$$$%% % %%%%%%% %!%#%$%(%)%.%/%2%3%7%8%:%;%?%@%B%C%I%J%N%O%U%V%W%Y%Z%\%]%`%a%e%f%l%m%p%q%w%x%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% hL|th#Hht{hL|th_yk hL|thBS hL|thUR%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&& & &&&&&&&&&E&F&L&M&P&Q&V&W&[&\&a&b&d&e&g&h&k&l&t&u&~&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&䶦hL|thUh_ykcHdhu{hL|thBSh_ykcHdhu{ h7h# hL|th#hL|th#h_ykcHdhu{ hL|thU hL|thBSjhL|th_yk0JUA&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&'''''''''''"'#'''(','-'/'0'4'5'<'='A'B'F'G'J'K'S'T'V'W'a'b'f'g'j'k'o'p't'u'x'y'~''''''''''''''''' hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS]''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''(((((((((( (!("(#(&('()(*(5(6(;(<(>(?(B(C(H(I(N(O(Q(R(](^(e(f(o(p(y(z(}(~(((((((((((((((((( hL|thjhL|thBS0JU hL|thBS hL|thUX((((((((((((((((((((((((()))) ) )))))!)")*)+)1)2)7);)<)B)C)I)J)K)L)R)S)Y)Z)c)d)j)k)r)s)y)z)})~)))))߫hL|th#0Jy$jhL|thF0JUmH nH uhL|thBSz{*0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyHhhWZ hL|thBS hL|thUC)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))* * * ******'*(*,*-*0*1*5*6*?*@*G*H*K*L*S*T*[*\*^*_*d*e*ǾhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thBSh;lPcHdh{{ hL|th#hL|thBSB*ph&&& hL|thBS hL|thUKe*j*k*m*n*r*s*v*w**************************************************++++++++++%+&+/+0+5+6+9+:+F+G+P+Q+hL|thBS0JyjhL|thBS0JU$jhL|th;lP0JUmH nH u hL|thU hL|thBSOQ+V+W+[+\+b+c+h+i+t+u+~+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++,,, , ,,,,,,, ,",#,',(,/,0,8,9,=,>, hL|th#Hh'hGn$jhL|th;lP0JUmH nH uhL|thBSh;lPcHdh{hL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSG>,D,E,I,J,K,L,Q,R,S,U,V,X,Y,\,],c,d,j,k,n,o,x,y,{,|,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,hL|thUh;lPcHdh{hL|thBSh;lPcHdh{ hL|th#hL|thUh;lPcHdh{Hh{hL|th;lP hL|thU hL|thBSD,,,,,,---- - -----%-&-(-)-2-3-<-=-I-J-K-L-U-V-\-]-c-d-f-g-l-m-o-p-v-w------------------------------------------ hL|th# hL|th$jhL|th;lP0JUmH nH u hL|thBS hL|thUR--------.... . .........#.$.&.'.0.1.9.:.;.<.E.F.K.L.M.N.S.T.U.W.X.^.c.d.e.l.m.u.v.}.~................ʺhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#hL|th0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUC......................../// ///////%/&/'/(/)/0/1/8/9/;/0?0E0F0K0L0W0X0Z0[0^0_0`0a0e0f0l0m0o0p0s0t0v0w0x0y00000000000000000hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSS00000000000000000000000000000111 1 1 11111111 1!1(1)1+1,1/1017181;1<1D1E1H1I1U1V1Y1Z1c1d1j1k1m1n1p1q1u1v1{1|111111111 h7h#hL|thUh;lPcHdh{Hh{hL|th;lP hL|thU hL|thBSQ111111111111111111111111111111111122 22222222"2#2(2)2-2.202124252;2<2?2@2I2J2O2P2R2S2U2V2c2d2m2n2p2q2v2hL|thBS0JyhL|thBSh;lPcHdh{hL|thUh;lPcHdh{Hh{hL|th;lP hL|thU hL|thBSHv2w2z2{22222222222222222222222222222222222222222223333 3 3 33333333!3"3(3)3+3,303136373<3=3@3A3E3F3N3O3Q3R3S3T3^3_3h3i3r3s3v3 hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0JyhL|thU0JyXv3w3|3}3333333333333333333333333333333334444444444 4!4#4$4)4*4,4-414245464;4<4A4ξ h7h#hL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#hL|th#h;lPcHdh{Hh{hL|th;lPhL|thBSh;lPcHdh{ hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU:?:A:B:E:F:J:K:P:Q:U:V:_:`:k:l:u:v:::::::::::::ï&hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq hL|thBS hL|thUhL|th0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|thU0JyE:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;;;;;;;;;; ;!;$;%;(;);+;,;/;0;5;6;9;:;@;A;H;I;L;M;V;W;Y;Z;_;`;b;c;j;k;t;u;};~;;;;;h7h#fHq hL|thBS0Jy&hL|thUB*fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq L;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;<<< <<<<<<<$<%<(<)<,<-<6<7<=<><@<A<J<ػ컡hL|thBS0Jy3Hh{hL|th;lPB*fHphq 9hL|thBSh;lPB*cHdh{fHphq &hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq =?=A=B=E=F=O=R=S=Z=[=b=c=f=g=m=n=p=q={=|=============================================>>> hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS&hL|thBSB*fHphq &hL|thUB*fHphq M> > > > >>>>>> >*>+>->.>7>8>:>;>A>B>E>F>K>L>R>S>[>\>]>^>b>c>k>l>v>w>z>{>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ɾh7hUB*phh7hBSB*phhL|thBSfHq $jhL|th O|0JUmH nH u hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSF>>>>>>>>>>>?????????? ?!?(?)?+?,?/?0?2?3?5?6?9?:?>???E?F?H?I?K?L?O?P?R?S?V?W?`?a?b?c?l?m?v?w?z?{???????????????????????????????h7hB*phh7hUB*phh7hBSB*phX??????????????????????@@@ @@@@@@@!@"@*@+@.@/@4@5@9@:@<@=@?@@@J@K@M@N@Q@R@T@U@Y@Z@\@]@b@c@f@g@j@k@o@p@t@u@w@x@}@~@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@h7h#B*phh7hUB*phh7hBSB*phX@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@AAAAAAAAAA!A"A$A%A(A)A+A,A3A4A7A8ADAEAGAHAQARAZA[A`AaAjAkAoApAxAyAzA{A~AAAAAAAAAAAAAAh7hB*phh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBBB B BBBBBBB B!B$B%B'B(B-B.B2B3BABBBCBLBMBPBQBYBZB\B]BcBdBeBfBpBú!hL|th0Jy{*0J hL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSjhL|thBS0JUh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phh7h#B*phBpBqBsBtBxByB{B|BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBCCCCCCCC!C"C$C%C(C)C2C3C5C6C7C8C>C?CCCDCGCHCKCLCPCQCSCTCUCVC\C]CbCcCjCkCnCoCxCyCCCCCCCCC hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCDDDDDD D DDDDD'D(D,D-D/D0D:D;D>D?DCDDDFDGDJDKDQDRDTDUD`DaDcDdDoDpDuDvDxDyDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDhL|th#hcHdh' h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSUDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEE EEEE#E$E(E)E/E0E3E4E6E7E9E:E?E@ECEDEFEGESETEWEXEaEʽHhk'hL|thBhL|thBShBcHdhk'hL|thUhBcHdhk'hL|th#hcHdh'Hh{hL|th$hL|thBSh$cHdh{jhL|thB0JU hL|thBS hL|thUHh'h2aEbEdEeEhEiEnEoEsEtEwExE|E}EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEF FFFFFF F!F%F&F2FhL|thUh$cHdh{hL|thBSh$cHdh{HhshL|thx-hL|thBShx-cHdhshL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUA2F3FFFGFOFQFRFUFVF\F]F_F`FcFdFiFjFxFyFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFGGG G GGʺhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSHh'hGnHh{hL|th$hL|thUh$cHdh{FGGGG G!G#G$G,G-G4G5GHAHBHKHLHMHPHQHYHZHbHcHmHnHqHrH|H}HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhL|thBS0Jyh7hUB*phh7hBSB*ph hL|thBS hL|thUSHHHHHII I III!I"I%I&I+I,I2I3I;IK?K@KDKEKGKHKJKKKSKTKUKXKYKeKfKpKqKsKtKyKzK|K}KKKKK޽޽"jh7h$0JB*Uphh7hB*phhL|thBS0Jyh7h#0JyB*phh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phh7h#B*phCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKLLLL L LLLLLL"L#L&L'L*L+L.L/L6L7L9L:L@LALDLELFLGLNLOLTLUL]L^LaLbLh7hB*phh7h#B*phhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jyh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phLbLhLiLoLpLsLtLyLzL}L~LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLMMMMMMMMMMüüüüüüüüüüüüʼüüü h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSjhL|thBS0JUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jyh7hUB*phh7hBSB*phGM(M)M*M.M/M2M3M4M:M;MNANBNFNGNLNMNONPNUNVNXNYNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOO"O#O-O.O0O1O3O4O9O:OEOFOJOKOPOQOh7hUB*phh7hBSB*ph hL|th# h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSQQOSOTO[O\O_O`OeOfOiOjOrOsOwOxOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPP P!P$P%P+P,P.P/P3P4P7P8PQGQHQIQJQPQQQSQTQVQWQ[Q\Q`QaQdQeQkQlQnQoQrQsQ|Q}QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQRRRRh7hB*phh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phXR RRRRRRRR&R'R(R)R0R1R3R4R=R>RERFRJRKRNRORSRTRXRYR\R]RbRcRpRqRsRtR}R~RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR hL|thU hL|th hL|thBSjhL|thBS0JUh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phNRRRRRRRRRRSSS S SSSSSSS!S"S#S$S(S)S+S,S-S.S3S4S9S:S=S>SASBSJSKSTSUS]S^SjSkSnSoSsStSvSwSzS{SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS]SSSSSSTTTT T TTTTTTT)T*T3T4T5T6T:T;TBTCTETFTMTNTOTPTVTWTZT[TdTeTgThTqTrTtTuT~TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU]TTTTTTTUUUUU UUUUUUUUU!U"U$U%U(U)U-U.U4U5U6U7U8U9U:UXBXCXGXHXRXSXUXVXYXZX^X_XcXdXeXfXlXmXqXrXsXtXyXzXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXhL|thU0JyhL|th#0JyhL|thBS0JyHh{hL|th> hL|thU hL|thBSPXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXYY Y YYYYYYY"Y#Y%Y&Y.Y/Y8Y9Y\D\E\G\H\J\K\M\N\T\U\^\_\a\b\d\e\k\l\o\p\s\t\y\z\|\}\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\h7h#B*phh7hBSB*phh7hUB*phS\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\]]]]]]]]]]] ]"]#]'](]-].]1]2]7]8];]<]@]A]C]D]G]ͻخ㟐hL|thUfHq hL|thBSfHq jhL|thBS0JU"jh7h>0JB*Uphh7h#B*phh7hBSB*phh7hUB*ph"Hh{h7h>B*ph8Z\6^>^LbKkrsy!$3>xōύ)3őÕ͕+gd7'gd7gd7(gd#S(gd7gd7&gdJugd7lgd[vG]H]N]O]R]S]X]Y][]\]b]c]k]l]q]r]t]u]w]x]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]^^ ^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^!^+^,^6^A^ hL|thBShL|thfHq hL|thBSfHq hL|thUfHq OA^B^F^G^M^N^P^Q^X^Y^\^]^a^b^f^g^i^j^s^t^u^w^x^z^{^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ _ _____!_"_&_'_*_+_-_._2_3_5_6_;_<_C_D_N_ hL|thhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUYN_O_Q_R_S_T_U_V_W_X_d_e_h_i_m_n_s_t_v_w________________________________________________`˸jhL|thBS0JU$jhL|th#L$0JUmH nH uhL|thBShWZcHdh hL|th#hL|th#hWZcHdh hL|thBS hL|thUC`` ` ```````%`&`+`,`.`/`1`2`;`<`>`?`H`I`M`N`P`Q`R`S`Z`[`e`f`m`n`r`s`x`y`{`|```````````````````````````````````ξhL|thUh#L$cHdh{hL|thBSh#L$cHdh{Hh{hL|th#L$ hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUK````````````a a aaaaaaa!a"a-a.a5a6a:a;a?a@aGaHaNaOaTaUaYaZa\a]abacaeafajakapaqauavayaza~aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahL|thUB*ph&&&hL|th#0JyHh{hL|th#L$hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSIaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbb b)b*b.b/b1b2b>b?bCbDbKbLbNbObRbSbYbZbcbdbjbkbqbrbwbҬ٬hL|thUh#L$cHdh{hL|thBSh#L$cHdh{hL|thU0JyHh{hL|th#L$ hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0JyhL|thUB*phSSShL|thBSB*phSSS=wbxbzb{bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbcccccccccc$c%c'c(c+c,c1c2cccccccccccdd d ddddddddd!d"d$d%d(d)d h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU])d,d-d1d2d9d:dAdBdJdKdOdPdUdVd^d_dddedfdgdhdidldmddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddHh{hL|th#L$ hL|th h7h#hL|thBSh#L$cHdh{hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSGddeee e/e0e3e4ei@iAiDiEiOiPi[i\idieigihikilipiqiriti hL|thHh{hL|th#L$ hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSUtiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijj j j jjjjjjjjj j%j&j*j+j/j0j2j3j5j6j:j;j@jAjIjJjLjMjPjhL|thUh#L$cHdh{Hh{hL|th#L$hL|thBSh#L$cHdh{ hL|thBS hL|thUNPjQj[j\jejfjijjjrjsjtjujjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjkkkkkkkk k!k'k(k+k2k3k5k6k hL|th#hL|thBSh#L$cHdh{Hh{hL|th#L$Hh{hL|th#L$Hh{h7h#L$hL|thU{*0JyhL|thBS{*0Jy h7h# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU56k;km?mEmFmHmImMmNmRmSm[m\m^m_mambmdmemimjmkmlmpmqmvmwm{m|m~mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmξhL|thBShWZcHdhHh{hL|thOhL|thBShOcHdh{ hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUKmmmmmmmmmmmmnn nnnnnnn#n$n0n1n3n4n7n8n@nAnCnDnGnHnKnLnNnOnUnVnanbnfngnknwnxn{n|n~nµHh{hL|thOhL|thUhOcHdh{hL|thBShOcHdh{ h7h#Hh{hL|thOhL|thUhOcHdh{hL|thhOcHdh{hL|thBShOcHdh{ hL|thBS hL|thU2~nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnoo o ooooooo o!o'o(o,o-o1o5o6o>o?oCoDoMoNoRoSoWoXo^o_obocofogoqoroxoyo~oooooooo hL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUZoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooppp pppppppp p$p%p'p(p+p,p/p0p8p9p;pr?rHrIrJrKrMrNrXrYr`rarerfrirjrorprqrrryrzrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrssss ssssssss"s#s hL|thjhL|th]40JUhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBST#s%s&s*s+s,s/s0s3s4s9s:s=s>sAsBsGsHsIsJsKsNsOsRsSsVsWs[s\s`sasdsesisjsmsnsrsssyszs|s}ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssټ hL|thHh{h7h]4h7h#h]4cHdh{ h7h# hL|thU hL|thBShL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyGssssssssssssssstttt t t ttttttt!t"t$t%t-t.t7t8tuAuBuHuIuKuLuQuRuSu^u_uaubucujukunuouwuxu}u~uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu hL|th hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUZuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuvvvv v vvv!v"v*v+v,v/v0v2v3v=v>vAvBvEvFvOvPvXvYv[v\vavbvdvevnvovrvsvyvzv|v}vvvvvvvvvvvvvhL|thUh]4cHdh{Hh{hL|th]4 hL|thBS hL|thUTvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvwww w w wwwwwwww w#w$w'w(w0w1w7w8wBwCwEwFwIwJwOwPwXwYw[w\w`wawkwlwowpwzw{w}w~wwwwwwwwwwwwww h7h# hL|thU hL|thBS]wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwxx x xxxxxxxxx&x'x*x+x0x1x3x4x8x:x;xz?zGzHzOzPzYzZz\z]z`zazhzizkzlzvz hL|thHh{hL|th~ hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUUvzwzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz{{{ { {{{{{{!{"{#{+{,{0{1{5{6{ȸhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th#hL|thBSh~cHdh{Hh{hL|th~ hL|thBS hL|thUB6{<{={@{A{G{H{N{O{T{U{W{X{p{q{y{z{~{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{{||||||||||||||!|"|)|*|/|Hh{hL|th~ h7h# hL|thU hL|thBSR/|0|1|4|5|>|?|A|B|I|J|N|O|Q|R|V|W|a|b|i|j|l|m|r|s|||}|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||}}} }}}}}}}}}!} hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUjhL|thBS0JUW!}"}&}'}*}+}1}2}6}7};}<}@}A}D}E}L}M}S}W}X}Y}^}_}d}e}h}i}k}l}o}p}u}v}x}y}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}hL|thBSh~cHdh{Hh{hL|th~ hL|thBS hL|thUT}}~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~!~"~'~(~.~/~4~5~7~8~;~<~B~C~F~G~K~L~O~P~R~S~V~W~[~\~_~`~b~c~g~h~j~k~o~p~r~s~y~z~}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU]~~~~~~  "#%&'(-.23;<?@GHQRTU[\_`ghmnqrxy}~hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBS hL|thV   '(+,0178:;FGHINOVW\]bcfgklpqryz|}ǀȀʀˀjhL|th~0JU hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUXˀԀՀ݀ހ    !"#+,2367;<@ACDMNTUabdekloptuwxz{~jhL|thv0JU hL|thv hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0JyKÁƁǁρЁҁӁ܁݁ށ  "#%&,-34;<FGMNʺHh'hL|thQ!hL|thBSh~cHdh{hL|thUh~cHdh{hL|th#h~cHdh{ hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBSh~cHdh{>NOST]^lmpqvw‚Ȃɂ΂ςӂԂقڂ܂݂ !"#$*+4 hL|th#hL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thU hL|thBShL|thBShQ!cHdh'P45:;?@CDFGPQTUVW]^abghijnouvyzÃẵ̓փ׃ۃ܃ރ߃ξhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUK"#()-./0=>BCPQWX\]bceflmtuwx{|„̄̈́ԄՄۄ܄ބ߄ hL|th hL|thU hL|thBS] ()+,3467EFJKRSZ[_`abfgjlmnuvxy~ąŅDžȅʅ˅ͅ΅ԅՅhL|thUh~cHdh{hL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUGՅ؅م !+,34:;=>ABEFIJOPXY\]abghklopst†ˆ̆φІ҆ӆՆHhVcGhGn hL|th# hL|thU hL|thBSUՆֆ؆نچ%&*+-.56;<BCEFLMOPUVYZ^_himnwx~ξήήǧ h7h# hL|th#hL|thBS0JyhL|thU0Jy hL|thU hL|thBShL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHh'hGn?ƇLJɇʇ͇·؇ه  )*-.2567ABLMOPQƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿhL|th#h#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS.Hh{hL|th~0Jy{*0J 4hL|thBSh~0JycHdh{{*0J 9QR\]_`deghklwx|}Ĉňʈˈ͈Έш҈ԈՈۈ܈   #$()569:?@BCLMSTYZ^_bcjkmny hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thU]yz‰ÉɉʉωЉىډމ߉  %&/023ζ(hL|th#h~B*cHdh{ph.h7h#B*ph{*6B*ph8hL|th#h~B*cHdh{ph{*6 h7h# hL|thBS hL|thU?389>?FGIJMNRS]^bcijmnopstwyzÊĊɊʊъҊيڊۊފߊHh{hL|th~hL|thUh#cHdhVcGhL|thBSh#cHdhVcGHhVcGhL|th# hL|thU hL|thBS>   "#()/0;<ABFGIJOPSTYZ\]bcijnouvxy|}ιι hL|thBS hL|thU(hL|th#h~B*cHdh{ph&hL|th#B*ph{*0Jy9hL|th#h~B*cHdh{ph{*0JyCċŋ̋͋Ӌԋ݋ދ  $%'()*-.01<=CDGHKLTUWX^_cdfgjkqrvwyz}~ hL|th# h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUZŌƌɌʌ͌ΌӌԌ֌׌܌݌  !"()+,89BCJKTU^_ijmnuvwx~hL|thh~cHdh{Hh{hL|th~ hL|thU hL|thBSQÍčō͍̍ύ֍׍žžŷžũžžžžžžxf#hL|thBSh~0JycHdh{Hh{hL|th~0JyhL|thU0JyhL|th0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th,dC hL|thJu h7h# hL|th hL|thU hL|thBSHh{hL|th~hL|thh~cHdh{hL|thBSh~cHdh{ hL|th#(  '()013fgmnuvxyŽÎǎȎώЎҎӎՎ֎ݎގĽ h7h# hL|th# hL|thU hL|thJu hL|thBShL|th#0Jy#hL|thBSh~0JycHdh{Hh{hL|th~0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy?  %&)*=>@AEFHIKLOPXY[\dersvwǏȏˏ̏ϏЏ؏ُڏHh{hL|th)gAhL|thUh)gAcHdh{hL|thBSh)gAcHdh{ h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUK  !()/089;<?@EFKLNOPQVWYZefghpqtu͐ΐϐАېܐߐ hL|thHh{h7h)gA h7h#hL|thBSh)gAcHdh{Hh{hL|th)gA hL|thBS hL|thUI  #$()./23569:<=BCFGOPSTXY]^abghop}~‘Ñőɑ hL|th# hL|thJuhL|thU0J#5OJQJ h7h#hL|thUh)gAcHdh{Hh{hL|th)gA hL|thBS hL|thUDɑ%&'(,-4578>?@BCFGKLPQWX^_`ahikθۛ{{{rhL|th#0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|thBS hL|thU+hL|th#B*ph{*B*ph*hL|th#0JyB*ph{*0J h7h#0JyB*ph h7h#Hh{h7h)gAh7h#h)gAcHdh{,klrsuvyzǒȒʒ˒גؒߒ  "#&')*-hL|thBShGncHdh' hL|th# hh#hL|thU0Jy hL|thBShL|thBS0Jy hL|thUL-.34:;@AHIMNOP]^cdklst|}ǓȓΓϓѓғӓԓٓړܓݓ  hL|thBSPJmHnHtHhL|thUPJmHnHtH hL|thBS hL|thUP &'(+,34679:BCIJMNRSTUabghklrsuvȔɔ˔̔ӔԔ֔הӴ hL|thU hL|thBS/hL|thBSh)gAPJcHdh{mHnHtHhL|thUPJmHnHtHhL|thBSPJmHnHtHhL|thPJmHnHtHD  !"#*+-.6789:ABJKZ[\]deghklst}~•Õʕ˕͕Ε hL|th# hL|thJu h7h#$jhL|thsl0JUmH nH u hL|thhL|thBS0Jy hL|thU hL|thBSHΕޕߕ   !&'./12349:;ABFGLMUVXY`Ƿ~hL|thUh)gAcHdh{Hh{hL|th)gA$jhL|th)gA0JUmH nH uhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thUh7h#h)gAcHdh{Hh{h7h)gA h7h#h7h#0JyB*ph1`aijop{|ʖ˖͖ΖіҖ֖זږۖݖޖѿh7h#h)gAcHdh{Hh{h7h)gA h7h# hL|th#hL|thBSh)gA0JycHdh{Hh{hL|th)gA0JyhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|thBS hL|thU:  "#'(+,013478>?BCNOWXYZabdeqruv}~×˻ˮhL|thBS0JyHhrjghL|thyhL|th#hycHdhrjghL|thBShycHdhrjg hL|th#hL|thUh)gAcHdh{ hL|thBS hL|thUA×ėŗƗǗȗʗ˗Зїٗڗߗ!"$%./34?@ABFGOPRSVW]^deghopstƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿƿ hL|th hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thBS0Jy#hL|thBSh)gA0JycHdh{Hh{hL|th)gA0JyhL|thU0JyH˜ϘИҘӘ٘ژߘ  $%'./0BCDEZ[`acdghlmopݳݣh7h#hGncHdh'Hh'h7hGnh7h#h)gAcHdh{Hh{h7h)gA h7h# hL|th# hL|thJu hL|thBS hL|thU@'EONTU[\^_abdeghiq͟?igdWZgd7&gdJupxyz{ƙǙЙљיؙڙۙ "#%&*+/09:=>BCHILMVWZ[hL|thBSh)gAcHdh{Hh{h7h)gA h7h# hL|thU hL|th hL|thBSK[_ijlmqrz{šŚƚ͚Κךؚښۚޚߚ )*+,4佴hL|thU0JyhL|thBS0Jy hL|th hL|th#hL|thUh)gAcHdh{ hL|thU hL|thBSHh{hL|th)gAD4567<=DELMOPY\aghlmtuv|}›ƛǛʛ˛ћқµµޥHh{hL|th)gAhL|thUh)gAcHdh{hL|thBSh)gAcHdh{h7h#0JyB*ph h7h# hL|th# hL|thJu hL|thBS hL|thUhL|thU0JyhL|thBS0JyhL|th0Jy5қݛޛߛ!"#%&,-567;<EFMNQRVWXcdefnotu}~hL|thBS0Jy h7h#hL|thBSh)gAcHdh{Hh{hL|th)gA hL|thU hL|thBSNŜƜȜɜʜ˜Мќל؜ۜܜݜ !"&'-./45>?FGIJNOQR[\_`ghjknotuz{}~Hh{hL|th)gA hL|th# hL|thBS hL|thUXÝŝƝɝʝ̝͝ѝҝ؝ٝ#$&'4589<=CDFGMN\]_`bcefijqr͟Ο?ɿh|N;jh|N;0JUhSjhS0JUhZYjhZYUhWZhBS h7h# hL|thBS hL|thUJ?@ijabab¢:;äĤ{|  >?IJ#&78Чѧߧ./HI78EFh<hw_0Jyhkjhk0JUh&>Ljh&>L0JUh'hw_hSjhS0JUMaa:ä{ >I7Чߧ.H7EIm DO#oRi[{/Ҳ "IJmn DEOP#$[aopRSij°[\{|/0ҲӲ  "# {|ٴڴ12ef}~h@hjh0JUhZhS0JyhSjhS0JUhkS"{ٴ1e}CʸCDʸ˸͸ %&'3BQRSTefԺպٺWXܻݻ"AFS{|h hS0Jyhw_hw_0Jyhw_hkjhk0JUhMX(hS0JyhMjhM0JUhSjhS0JUH&SeԺWܻ{:ӽξ޾%)$a$gd *v:;ȽɽӽԽ%ξϾ޾߾%&i)*UV!"FGHlm,-st hwRhWZhw_jhWZ0JUh|N;jh|N;0JUhZhSjhS0JUO)U!Gl,s !1ES)G   !"&/012EFST()*GH  )*gh]^yz>?m̽h<h"VCJaJjh<h"VCJUaJhPjhP0JUhWZjhWZ0JUhw_ hS0JjhS0JUhSDG )g]y>vIYEgd<mtvwIJYZ78dewxFG  %&67-.no@jh/hS0JU h/hSh/hS_H hZYhBjhB0JUh&^jh&^0JUjhS0JUhShOhS0Jy@Y7dwF %6-ngd=]&gdg}gd@PQ_ehl:[ƷƷƓƁoo`QBHh:cGh/hS_H Hh9cGh/hS_H Hhٲh/hS_H #h/hShU+_H cHdhٲ#h/hShy-_H cHdh9cG#h/hShU+_H cHdhز#h/hShU+_H cHdhײHhײh/hS_H h/hS_H Hhֲh/hS_H Hhزh/hS_H #h/hShU+_H cHdhֲNQUZGɺəəɺɇəzsf]szsRsh/hSB*phh/hS0JyHhcGh/hS h/hSjh/hS0JU#h/hShU+_H cHdhڲHhڲh/hS_H #h/hShU+_H cHdhײHhײh/hS_H h/hS_H Hhٲh/hS_H Hh:cGh/hS_H Hh:cGh/h@_H GH^{~+,./[ŵ뵘먂r`S`h/hS0JyB*ph"Hh۲h/hSB*phh/hShT#cHdhwbG*HhaGh/hSaG*0Jyh/hShU+cHdh۲HhaGh/hSh/hShKcHdhaGh/hS0Jy"Hh cGh/hSB*phh/hSB*ph h/hSHh۲h/hS  #)^b'BCEHKٶ٩ٙÉ|ى|l_l_RHhײh/hSHhaGh/hSh/hShKcHdhaGHhaGh/hSh/hShKcHdhaGh/hShU+cHdhܲHhܲh/hSHh\'h/hSh/hS0JyHhLbGh/hS h/hSh/hSB*ph(h/hShU+B*cHdh۲phFYc^_`#*bl+,01¬wjZh/hShU+cHdh޲HhbGh/hSHhݲh/hSh/hShU+cHdhݲh/hSB*phjh/hS0JU*HhbGh/hSbG*0JyHhbGh/hSh/hShU+cHdhܲh/hS0Jy h/hSh/hShU+cHdhײ#_0W+Q#e-:Bewgd=]?QTVM[_ [nu| #rstuyvd"Hh1bGh/hSB*phHh߲h/hS"HhbGh/hSB*ph(h/hSha(B*cHdhbGphh/hShU+cHdh޲jh/hS0JUHhײh/hSh/hShU+cHdhײh/hS0Jy h/hSh/hSB*ph'y} HcdnqwxWXtdh/hSh5gcHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hS0JyB*phh/hSh% cHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hSB*phh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JUh/hShU+cHdh߲h/hSh[ScHdh1bGHh1bGh/hS h/hS!>GKm =KciFMFG蓃vviiHhh/hSh/hS0JyB*phh/hShU+cHdhHhh/hSh/hSB*phHh\'h/hSHhh/hSh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JUHhcGh/hS h/hSh/hShWcHdhcG' +,-?defjkl 0Oӥ饕xk\Lh/hSh/XcHdhbGHhbGh/hS0JyHhbGh/hSh/hShxcHdhcGHhcGh/hSh/hSh/XcHdhbGHhbGh/hSHhh/hS0Jy#h/hShU+0JycHdhh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hS*0JyOPQRy{QRSx}~#$bŸ۞۸۞۞ۑ۞۞۞ۄ۞wHh\'h/hSHhh/hSHhcGh/hSjh/hS0JUHhcGh/hSHhbGh/hSHhbGh/hSh/hS0Jy h/hSh/hSh/XcHdhbGHhbGh/hS)  礙uhXXHXhh/hShU+cHdhh/hShKcHdhaGHhaGh/hS"HhcGh/hSB*ph"HhaGh/hSB*phh/hSB*phh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JUh/hSh cHdhabGh/hSh`cHdh\'Hh\'h/hS h/hS"h/hSh`H*cHdh\' "#efx -.:;BCUbֹ֬֡zqdT֡dT֬֬֬qh/hSh0fKcHdhMbGHhMbGh/hSh/hS0Jy(h/hSh0fKB*cHdhMbGph"HhMbGh/hSB*phh/hSB*phjh/hS0JUh/hShT#cHdhwbGHhaGh/hS h/hSHhaGh/hS*HhaGh/hSaG*0Jy bcdefg +2?@DŶ۩۩ۉ~qaQh/hSh *HcHdhcGh/hSh *HcHdhcGHhh/hSh/hSB*phh/hShU+cHdhh/hSh% cHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hSbG*0Jyh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hSh!cHdhSbGHhSbGh/hSPTcefrswx34Vly蝋~l_HhbGh/hS"h/hSh`H*cHdh\'Hh\'h/hS"HhcGh/hSB*phh/hSB*phh/hShU+cHdhjh/hS0JUh/hS0JyHhcGh/hGnHhcGh/hS h/hSh/hShU+cHdh!3*4kz8E|PW ;"gdjgd9 gdojgd&F&gdg}gd=]45lr.6AklpwQggvzh/hSbG*0Jyh/hShU+cHdhh/hSB*phHh\'h/hSh/hShxEcHdhbGjh/hS0JUh/hS0JyHh['h/hS h/hSHhh/hS0  'pq:;AX\ /89LPTXz{кǂpaHhh/hS0Jy#h/hSh90JycHdhHhojgh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JUHhmjgh/hSh/hS*0Jyh/hS0JyB*phh/hS0Jyh/hSB*phHhbGh/hS h/hSh/hShU+cHdh!(.Pi89Mst葁tb#h/hSh[S0JycHdh6bGHhbGh/hSh/hShr1cHdh`bGHh`bGh/hSh/hSrjg*0JyHhh/hSHhrjgh/hSh/hS0Jyh/hSB*phjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hSh9cHdh#!"'BCDEF[ny}>@IKw}  06|}yg"Hhujgh/hSB*ph(h/hShyB*cHdhujgphh/hSB*phh/hSh9cHdhHhh/hSjh/hS0JUHhtjgh/hSh/hShycHdhtjg h/hSh/hS0JyHh7bGh/hS0Jy(./0->Eabwz,-05뭝scVHhbGh/hSh/hSh!i(cHdhbGh/hSh9cHdhjh/hS0JUHhh/hSh/hShT#cHdhvbGHhvbGh/hSh/hS0Jyh/hS0JyB*phh/hSh9cHdhh/hSB*ph h/hSHhh/hS!56PQBNZ]a[aeu躥wgWEWEW#h/hSh?k0JycHdhbGh/hSh?kcHdhbGh/hSh9cHdhHhjgh/hSh/hS*0Jy"HhObGh/hSB*ph(h/hShd B*cHdhObGphh/hSB*phh/hS0JyHhjgh/hSjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hSh?kcHdhbGHXY    / < \ `                X h   ɳɦə|ɉ|ɉ|l_əHhXbGh/hSh/hShzcHdhXbGHhUbGh/hSh/hShzcHdhUbGHhh/hSHh\'h/hSHhh/hSh/hS0Jy h/hSHhbGh/hSh/hSh?kcHdhbG#h/hSh?k0JycHdhbG                  $ W X { ~ 4 5 : = x  !Xñ|oo|bHhjgh/hSHhh/hSh/hSB*phHhjgh/hSh/hSh9cHdhjh/hS0JU#h/hShz0JycHdhTbGHhTbGh/hS0Jyh/hS0JyHhh/hS h/hSh/hSh9cHdh&XK.27@DI,-ADIJ`acdef~q~bSbHh'h/hGn0JyHhbGh/hS0JyHhh/hSh/hSh9cHdhh/hSh|^cHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hSh/hSh9cHdhh/hS0JyHhjgh/hSh/hSB*ph h/hS \=\]^bzpܹܮܹ܏܂ܮܹueUh/hSh9cHdhh/hShcHdhbGHhbGh/hSjh/hS0JUHhjgh/hS"Hhjgh/hSB*phh/hSB*phh/hS0JyHhh/hSHhbGh/hS h/hSHhbGh/hS0JyHhbGh/hS  GKQRSW#)2noʸթթzj]HhbbGh/hSh/hSh9cHdhh/hSh cHdhcbGHhtbGh/hS#h/hSh0JycHdhsbGHhtbGh/hS0Jy"HhdbGh/hSB*phh/hSB*phh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JU h/hSHhh/hS$-:AV R]u5;µ誘{naHhh/hSHhh/hSh/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hS"Hhjgh/hSB*phh/hSB*phHhjgh/hSHhh/hSh/hS0Jyh/hSh9cHdh h/hSh/hSh cHdhbbG% & = O   G!H!" ""7"""" $*$F$$$$$$$$%%%% %%%%i&Ǹǭۏۂrrbh/hSh9cHdhh/hShPPcHdhjgHhh/hSHhh/hS!Hhh/hS^J_H h/hS^J_H h/hSB*^J_H phh/hSB*phh/hS0Jy h/hSh/hSh9cHdhHhh/hS$i&j&''''_'f'''''(()))B)L)))))(*,*V*W***+/+8+9+G+r++譝sch/hShjcHdhHhjgh/hSHhSbGh/hSh/hSh!cHdhSbGh/hShjcHdhHhh/hSh/hS0Jyh/hSB*phHh h/hSHhjgh/hS h/hSh/hSh9cHdh #;"'+(,w12h6789%<<<@==>?DEEFeGMQNNOfPQSgd!i(gd=]gdj+++++++,,,(,),F,Z,,,,, - -------(.>.......0/d/h////J0V0b0l0H1c1q1Hh]bGh/hSHhh/hSHhbGh/hSh/hShT#cHdhwbGh/hSB*phh/hS0JyHhh/hSh/hShjcHdh h/hSjh/hS0JU.q1r1w1x1|11111111112222$2Z2222#3$3<3B3C3D3Ÿ蝋ygZH"Hhh/hSB*phh/hS0JyB*ph"Hhjgh/hSB*ph"Hhjgh/hSB*ph"Hhh/hSB*phh/hSB*phh/hShjcHdhHhh/hSHhh/hSh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hShjcHdhD344444R5W5i5u5w56 6 66P6_6d6e6h6i666 74757;7<777777777888 8182868B8C8r"Hhh/hSB*phHhh/hSh/hShKcHdhaGh/hShxEcHdhbGHhbGh/hSjh/hS0JUHhh/hSh/hS0Jyh/hS0JyB*phh/hSB*ph h/hS,C8D8h8l8s88888E9M9N999 : : :::::::;;;(;:;;;;;~qaqh/hSh"cHdhHhh/hS(h/hSh"B*cHdhph"Hhh/hSB*phjh/hS0JUh/hSh[ScHdh8bGh/hS0Jy(h/hShz B*cHdhbGphHhh/hS h/hSh/hSB*ph;;;;;;%<&<><T<<<<<<<<<<<==6=8=@=A=T=V=======>>T>Y>k>l>>>>ݕyHhbGh/hS0JyHhh/hS(h/hSh/XB*cHdhbGphh/hSh"cHdhh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JUHhh/hSh/hSB*ph h/hSh/hSh"cHdh*>>>>>>>>>+?;?L?M?N?o?????????@9@K@L@@@@ݳݨݛ݋~ݳnݨY(h/hSh6KB*cHdhphh/hSh4cHdhbGHhh/hSh/hSh|^cHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hSB*phjh/hS0JUHhXbGh/hSh/hShzcHdhXbG h/hSh/hS0Jy#h/hSh?k0JycHdhbG@@@@@@AeBBBBBCRCXC}CCCDDDDDDDEEEEE,EZEgE˶tdR"Hhkkgh/hSB*phh/hSh6KcHdhHhh/hSjh/hS0JUh/hS0Jyh/hS0JyB*ph h/hSh/hSB*ph(h/hSh6KB*cHdhph"Hhh/hSB*ph#h/hSh6K0JycHdhh/hSh6KcHdh gEEEEEEEEEEE FCFIFYFZF[F\FaFbFhFjFFFFFF G2G3GLGeGfGjGGGGܷĪĪĘ܈{n^h/hShycHdhHhlkgh/hSHhubGh/hSh/hShcHdhubG"Hhlkgh/hSB*phh/hS0JyB*phHhh/hSh/hSB*phjh/hS0JU h/hS' *h/hS0Jy*0J *h/hS0Jy$GH HHWHHHJJJJ1K>K?K@KSK^KKKKKKKKLLLSLLLLMMM"MkMMMMMMMM||l|h/hSh/$cHdhHhh/hSHhkgh/hSh/hS0Jyh/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hSh/hShycHdh(h/hShyB*cHdhphHhh/hSh/hSB*ph h/hS*MMMMMMMMMMMN N!N"N#N$N-NFNQNRNaNbNqNNNNNNNNO5O8OPIPTPePfPgPPPQ Q QQNQcQQQQQQQQQRR7RDRRRRRRRRSKSίΜxkHhbGh/hSh/hShhcHdh$h/hS0Jh/hSB*ph%HhXbGh/hS^J_H aJ+h/hShz^J_H aJcHdhXbGh/hS0Jyh/hS^J_H aJjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hSh!i(cHdhbG*KS`SSSSSSSSSTTiTjTTTTTTTTTTTUUUUU!U>U~qaQh/hShhcHdh&h/hSh$LcHdhbGHhbGh/hS"Hh&h/hSB*phh/hS0JyB*phh/hSB*phHh&h/hSjh/hS0JUHh%h/hS0Jy#h/hShh0JycHdh%Hh \'h/hS h/hSh/hS0JySUYY[` a^abbb*ccdeeAloopmqrssz:{{gd^w ^`gd&gdg}gd=]>UaUUUU.V/V0V8VAVEVFV.W/WWWWWWWXX}X~XXX YYYiYYYzm\mmQh/hSB*ph!h/hS0Jykg*0J Hh)h/hS!h/hS0Jykg*0J Hh(h/hSh/hShhcHdh(h/hS0Jyh/hShhcHdh&Hh&h/hSh/hShF cHdhbGHhbGh/hS h/hSHhbGh/hSYYYYYYYZZPZ]ZZZZZZZZZZZZ[#['[j[o[p[[[[[[[[[x\\\]*^;^I^˻m"Hh+h/hSB*phh/hShhcHdh*h/hSh5cHdhbGh/hS**0JyHh*h/hSh/hShQcHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hSB*phh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JU h/hS*I^s^^ _ _K__`%`b````` a a!a"aAaKa[a]a^a_apa|aaaaaaaaaaaabo__h/hShhcHdh-#h/hSh40JycHdhbGHhbGh/hSHh+rh/hSHh{bGh/hSHhzbGh/hSHh-h/hSjh/hS0JUh/hS0Jy(h/hShhB*cHdh,ph h/hSh/hSB*ph%bbb.bdbebgbhbbbbbbb*c+c,cEccccccccccccccc뭝덀c9h/hShhB*cHdh/ph/*0JyHh/h/hSh/hShhcHdh/h/hShKcHdhaGHhaGh/hSHhbGh/hSh/hSB*phh/hShcHdh-rh/hS0Jy h/hSjh/hS0JUcccdd,dFdXdYdZd[d}dddddddd2e;eyPyuyzzzzzz1zzzzzzz赨蛋~n~n~n~n赨h/hShhcHdh@Hh@h/hSh/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hSh/hS0JyB*phh/hSB*ph#h/hShK0JycHdhaGHhaGh/hSh/hS0Jy h/hSh/hShhcHdh;(zzzzz{{{-{1{2{4{5{:{;{O{l{p{{{{{{{ || |!|"|[|{|||}|||۶ۦۦ۶۝۶۝ۦۦ۶vd"Hhrh/hSB*ph(h/hSh/pB*cHdhbGph"HhbGh/hSB*phh/hS0Jyh/hShhcHdhAh/hSB*phHhrh/hSjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hSh/pcHdhbGHhbGh/hS"|||||||||||||}}~1~5~x~~~~~~~~~~ັັgS&h/hSB*phr*0Jy9h/hShB*cHdhrphr*0Jyh/hShhcHdhBh/hSh/pcHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hS0Jy h/hSh/hS0JyB*ph"Hhrh/hSB*phh/hSB*ph(h/hShB*cHdhrph~~~~~~#$%&'+0k|dz䣖yi\ODOh/hSB*phjh/hS0JUHhBh/hSh/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hSh/hShScHdh{Hh{h/hSh/hShhcHdhB&h/hSB*phr*0Jy9h/hShB*cHdhrphr*0Jy h/hS(h/hShB*cHdhrph{U6Gx"V*)!t8gdVgd=] !%&;KTUV€Հ  !AHKNY]e𞄞o]"HhCh/hSB*ph(h/hShhB*cHdhCphh/hS0JyB*phHhrh/hSh/hSB*phh/hShhcHdhCHhCh/hSjh/hS0JUh/hShKcHdhaGHhaGh/hS h/hSh/hS0Jy$ցׁ ςނ߂ 67h|}힫ttggHhrh/hSh/hShhcHdhDjh/hS0JUHhDh/hSHhCh/hSh/hShhcHdhCh/hSbG*0Jyh/hS0JyB*phHhbGh/hSh/hS0Jy h/hSh/hSB*ph(7܅݅ޅ<=AGHIOV]`ejklmq؆ن݆˻˻ئئ؂mئ`Hhrh/hS(h/hSh-i B*cHdhrph"Hhrh/hSB*ph"HhEh/hSB*ph(h/hShhB*cHdhEphh/hShhcHdhEHhEh/hSh/hSB*phjh/hS0JUh/hS0Jy h/hS%.06hoxy}~ɇ)RSTW[!an𫙫|||h/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hS"HhFh/hSB*phh/hSB*phh/hShhcHdhFh/hShcHdh^bGHh^bGh/hSjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hS0Jy*nÊيM֎"#8譝ph/hShT#cHdhwbGh/hShhcHdhHHhHh/hSh/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hSHhGh/hSh/hS0Jyh/hSB*phjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hShhcHdhG'8PVWhwϔ秒|繉m``Ph/hShU+cHdhײHhJh/hSHhsh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JUh/hS0Jy(h/hShkB*cHdhJph"HhJh/hSB*ph h/hS(h/hShkB*cHdhIph"HhIh/hSB*phh/hSB*phh/hS0JyB*ph39?~$s_H?h/hS0Jy,h/hSh50JyB*cHdhbGph&HhbGh/hS0JyB*ph"HhbGh/hSB*ph(h/hSh5B*cHdhbGphjh/hS0JU h/hS"Hhsh/hSB*phh/hSB*phh/hS0JyB*ph(h/hShkB*cHdhJph#h/hShU+0JycHdhײ$%&()*-./Z[beȘ%&'t{ęۨۨoۨۨbۨۨHhRh/hSh/hShx$1cHdh(sHh(sh/hSHh*sh/hS0JyHh*sh/hSh/hS0Jyh/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hSHhLh/hS h/hSh/hShkcHdhKHhKh/hS&(AbvԚ՚*+]dzʛћ NYz}ǜ&'|oo|ooY+h/hSh% OJQJ^JcHdhbGh/hSOJQJ^Jh/hSOJQJ^Jh/hSOJQJ"HhbGh/hSB*ph(h/hSh5B*cHdhbGphh/hSB*phjh/hS0JUh/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hSh/hS0Jy h/hS"'()*+:Jbs-jvǞ͞ϞӞCDҼҼүɝsa#h/hShT#0JycHdhxbGHhxbGh/hS(h/hShB_B*cHdhSphh/hS\h/hSB*ph h/hSjh/hS0JUh/hSOJQJ^Jh/hS0Jyh/hSOJQJ+h/hSh% OJQJ^JcHdhbGh/hSOJQJ^J DEMO*+9໬}}p_ppLpL%HhbGh/hS^J _H aJ!h/hSB*^J _H aJphh/hS^J _H aJ0h/hShB_B*_H aJcHdhSph*HhSh/hSB*_H aJphh/hSB*_H aJphh/hS_H aJjh/hS0JUHhxbGh/hS h/hSh/hS0JyHhxbGh/hS0Jyˡ$&()ȻwnaK;aa;h/hShVcHdhbG+h/hShV^J_H aJcHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hS0Jy.HhbGh/hSB*^J_H aJph4h/hShVB*^J_H aJcHdhbGph!h/hSB*^J_H aJphh/hS^J_H aJ h/hSjh/hS0JUh/hS^J _H aJ+h/hShV^J _H aJcHdhbGߢ !"5MNbetu 348ɹ֞}naQh/hShB_cHdh^Hh^h/hSh/hS]*0Jyh/hShB_cHdh]!h/hS0Jys*0J h/hShZcHdhzbGh/hSB*phh/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hSh/hS0JyHh]h/hSjh/hS0JU h/hS89xyz%N=HO}ܨ뺭듃j0h/hShfcHdhss*0Jyh/hShKcHdhaGHhaGh/hSHhbGh/hSh/hS0JyB*phh/hSB*phh/hS0Jyh/hShB_cHdh^Hh^h/hS h/hSjh/hS0JU':ì^/9kK̼7bKn&gdg}gd"gd=]c|~9:;֪תت;?Dګ89:ió٦ٌobRbRbRoh/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hSh/hShB_cHdh_Hh_h/hSjh/hS0JUHhbGh/hSHhbGh/hSh/hShVcHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hS0Jy h/hSh/hShfcHdhsh/hSs*0Jyij¬ìĬά%pEK蝍pcpVHhײh/hSHhbGh/hSh/hSh4cHdhbGHh`h/hSh/hShKcHdhaGHhaGh/hSh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JUh/hS`*0Jy0h/hShB_cHdh``*0Jy h/hSh/hShB_cHdh`KRծZg.IPQSYZ^_u9:KadfotԱ۱ܱ赥xhh/hShQcHdhbGHhײh/hSh/hShLcHdhbh/hShLcHdhah/hShKcHdhaGHhaGh/hSh/hShJcHdhNbGjh/hS0JUh/hS0Jy h/hSh/hShU+cHdhײ(ܱޱklɲβ  KL 016ŵ۵LMŶµ蘈蘈{nHhbGh/hSHhth/hSh/hShLcHdhcHhch/hSh/hShLcHdhbHhbGh/hSh/hSh?cHdhbGh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hShKcHdhaG%Ŷƶ׶ضٶlmnM¸STóyjyy]PHhh/h6XHhh/h@h/hS*0Jyh/hSh@cHdhjh/hS0JUh/hSh5cHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hSh9cHdhbGh/hS0Jyh/hShLcHdhdHhdh/hS h/hSh/hSc*0JyT}~ڹ߹~67ѻj̼ͼ׼ܶ|l|lh/hShVcHdhbGHhbGh/hSHhbGh/hSh/hShQcHdhbGh/hSh*XgcHdheh/hSh*XgcHdhdh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JUHhdh/hSh/hShLcHdhd h/hS&-678ɽZ[de/9=̿ؿ&''(6u۸ۨ۸ۛ~qqaqah/hSh1xcHdhgHhgh/hSHh)th/hSh/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hSh/hSh1xcHdhfHhfh/hSh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hSh*XgcHdheHheh/hS&-bcij9:;ABCKLn|sh/hS^Jh/hSh1xcHdhhh/hShx% cHdhebGHhebGh/hSHhbGh/hSh/hShJcHdhNbGHhhh/hSh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JUh/hSh1xcHdhg h/hS& 23RS[*BGHR[dfno%&rst} /GMNRSTƹ͹ƬƹƜƹƹƬƹy!h/hS0JyXt*0J #h/hShMU^JcHdhih/hShMUcHdhiHhih/hSjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hS0JyHh5bGh/hS^Jh/hS^J!h/hS^Ji*0Jy.nrSZ1eNot]?[Migdgd=]Z[123?@0=@BeҺۛۛ҉zzj]Hhײh/hSh/hShU+cHdhײHhkh/hS^J#h/hSh4P^JcHdhkjh/hS0JU#h/hSh,^JcHdhbGHhbGh/hS^Jh/hS0Jyh/hS^J h/hSh/hSh4PcHdhjHhjh/hS$efgu[  ƲƲמׄucQ#h/hSh4P^JcHdhm#h/hSh,^JcHdhbGHhbGh/hS^Jh/hS^J!h/hS0Jym*0J ' *h/hS0Jym*0J *'h/hShp^J_H cHdh*|!Hh*|h/hp^J_H h/hS0Jyh/hS^J_H  h/hSjh/hS0JU   #`Jqr!"#5GNOeuz{θθθΨθΘ΋{kθθ[θh/hSh5cHdhbGh/hShpcHdh*|h/hSh?kcHdhbGHh*|h/hph/hSh5gcHdhbGh/hSh4PcHdhnh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hS^J#h/hSh4P^JcHdhmHhath/hS^J#  ~KV\(ab9<Amnƶ|o|b|Hh['h/hSHhh/h@Hh['h/hSHh['h/hSh/hSh cHdhcbGh/hShZcHdhzbGh/hSh!(DcHdhltHhlth/hSh/hShJcHdhnh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JU h/hS&nop[nxy+-<B%tuJRSTXxg!h/hS0Jys*0J ' *h/hS0Jys*0J *HhRbGh/hSh/hShqecHdhRbGh/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hSHhoh/hSh/hS0Jyh/hShJcHdhojh/hS0JU h/hS%XY]^ ?@cghimnzCKLU[\%&')EFξ襘vi\\Hhuh/hSHh zh/hS#h/hShM0JycHdh |h/hShq?cHdhzHhzh/hSh/hShcHdhbGh/hS0Jyh/hShJcHdhtHhth/hSjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hShJcHdhs$FMNfz|gpw"#%}pcHh\'h/hSHh5bGh/hSHh8bGh/hSh/hSv*0JyHhuh/hSh/hSh,cHdhbGh/hSh6 cHdhuh/hSh,cHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JU h/hS %'()*Y`gij&MQt籤痊}m]h/hSh6 cHdhwh/hSh?kcHdhbGHhbGh/hSHhwh/hSHhvh/hSjh/hS0JUh/hS0Jyh/hSh[ScHdh5bGh/hSh`cHdh\'Hh\'h/hS h/hS"h/hSh`H*cHdh\'$HwueKXXdegd=]%,1Fdh(k뾱뱾뛋yiZHh\'h/hS0Jyh/hShcHdh\'#h/hSh0JycHdh\'h/hSh6 cHdhxHhxh/hSh/hS0JyHhwh/hSh/hSh6 cHdhwh/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hS h/hSjh/hS0JU!{<FHITlrswxcgAuv+DEFoh/hShVcHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hS`z*0Jyh/hShw3 cHdhxHhxh/hSh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JUHh\'h/hSh/hSh6 cHdhx h/hSHh\'h/hS+FGHIefw F  2pzƤzfUfzUzfz!HhbGh/hS^J_H 'h/hSh)^J_H cHdhbGh/hS^J_H h/hShz cHdhbGHhbGh/hS0Jy#h/hSh?0JycHdhbGh/hShw3 cHdhyh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JUh/hShVcHdhbGHhbGh/hS h/hS!6789ef৖q]q]]]]VMh/hS0Jy h/hS'h/hShw3 ^J_H cHdh!Hhh/hS^J_H 'h/hSh)^J_H cHdhbG!Hhײh/hS^J_H 'h/hShU+^J_H cHdhײ!HhbGh/hS^J_H 'h/hSh5^J_H cHdhbGh/hS^J_H 'h/hSh)^J_H cHdhbG;ACHJs/j!"$%[hikƶ릙~h/hS^J_H h/hShUcHdhzHhbGh/hSh/hShF cHdhbGh/hShw3 cHdhHhh/hSh/hSOJ QJ ^J _H h/hS0Jy h/hSjh/hS0JU16=>K'˷˦˙˙rccQDHhh/hS#h/hShU0JycHdhzHhzh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JU h/hS%Hhh/hS^J_H aJh/hS^J_H aJ!HhbGh/hS^J_H 'h/hSh?-*^J_H cHdhbGh/hS^J_H #h/hSh?-*0JycHdhbGHhbGh/hS0Jyh/hS0Jy)-KLXYwXYdeo5defv豤褱蒛蒛#h/hShZ^JcHdhzbGh/hS^Jh/hS0JyHhh/hSh/hShw3 cHdhjh/hS0JUHhzh/hSHhh/hS h/hSh/hShw3 cHdh1PY}Z[\wδΧΚΧzmzմ^Hhzh/hS0JyHhzh/hSh/hSh!i(cHdhbGh/hShd.cHdhzHhzh/hSHhbGh/hSjh/hS0JUHhbGh/hS h/hSh/hS0Jy#h/hShd.0JycHdhzHhzh/hS0Jyy!#$/1Z䲠Γyl\\lll\lh/hSh6cHdhHhh/hSjh/hS0JUHhGbGh/hSHhh/hS#h/hSh[k 0JycHdhGbGHhGbGh/hS0JyHhh/hS h/hSHhzh/hS0Jyh/hS0Jy#h/hSh=i0JycHdhz#Zeg{|  TUVcs{|,5<=۸Ŗۨxf#h/hShd2C0JycHdhHhh/hS0JyHhbGh/hS0Jy#h/hShz 0JycHdhbGh/hShd2CcHdhHhh/hSh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JU h/hSHhh/hSh/hSh6cHdh&{?Iga 1 %  2K}#%%&'?*M++x,&gdg}gd=]"%&'GIJUzj]HhIbGh/hSh/hSh4ccHdhIbG#h/hSh410JycHdhbGHhbGh/hS0JyHhh/hSh/hShT#cHdhwbGjh/hS0JUHhzh/hSh/hShKcHdhzh/hS0Jy h/hSHhh/hS$ghF     / a b   1 2 A g h  % & P Q Z [ ղ΀gXh/hS*0Jy0h/hSh >cHdh*0JyHhbGh/hS!h/hS0JyPbG*0J ' *h/hS0JyPbG*0J *HhPbGh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JU h/hSh/hS0JyHh\'h/hS0Jy#h/hShp4 0JycHdh\'"[ \ n w         D q r                  覙|lll_jh/hS0JUh/hSh:cHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hSh:cHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hS*0JyHhh/hSh/hShcHdhsbGHhsbGh/hSh/hS0Jy h/hSh/hSh >cHdh" lvJKLMNwopqr²xhh[NNHhbGh/hSHhh/hSh/hSh >cHdhh/hShVcHdhbGHhbGh/hS"HhbGh/hSB* phh/hSB* phh/hShp5cHdhbGHhbGh/hSHhbGh/hSh/hS0Jy h/hS&h/hSB*fHphq rs ;<=?DEFTXYbrtv .0iµߵ赥襵{naHhh/hSHhbGh/hSjh/hS0JUHhbGh/hSh/hSh?-*cHdhbGh/hShp5cHdhbGHhbGh/hSHhh/hSh/hSh >cHdhh/hS0Jy h/hSh/hShVcHdhbG&'123E_a237@IůŢҒvvUAh/hSh >cHdhfHq *0Jyh/hSfHq jh/hS0JUh/hSh41cHdhbGHhh/hS*Hh#{h/hS#{*0JyHh#{h/hSHhbGh/hSh/hS0Jy h/hSh/hSh >cHdh-./0WXpqrs~h~hT&h/hSB*fHphq *Hhh/hSfHq .h/hSfHq *0JyAh/hSh >cHdhfHq *0Jyh/hS0Jyh/hSfHq 0h/hSh >cHdhfHq .h/hSfHq *0Jy:EmھyiZM=4M4Mh/hS0Jyh/hSh >cHdhHhh/hSh/hS*0Jyh/hSh$cHdh${Hh${h/hS h/hS&h/hSB*fHphq 9h/hSh >B*cHdhfHphq 7h/hSB*fHphq *0JyJh/hSh >B*cHdhfHphq *0Jy:;@ABKLMQmrx Wcy{ƹreHhh/hSh/hSh$cHdh'{Hhh/hSh/hShU+cHdhײHhײh/hSjh/hS0JUHh'h/hrHhbGh/hSHhbGh/hSh/hSh7cHdhbGh/hS0Jy h/hS"Ybqz}~   FQRZ趦߆teߑHhcGh/hS\"HhbGh/hSB*phh/hSB*phh/hS\Hhh/hSh/hShP6cHdh-{Hh-{h/hSh/hSfHq jh/hS0JUh/hS0Jy h/hSh/hSh >cHdh"5IOUsx    m { 澮~n^QHhײh/hSh/hShU+cHdhײh/hSh5cHdhbGHhbGh/hSHhbGh/hSh/hS0JyHhh/hSh/hShuQcHdh h/hSHhײh/hS\"h/hShU+\cHdhײh/hS\"h/hSh)+\cHdhcG{ | ~      *!.!3!A!!!"""""""3#5#6#²ϢwjZjZM=h/hShpcHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hSh5cHdhbGHhbGh/hSh/hS0Jyh/hSh-cHdhbG#h/hSh-0JycHdhbGh/hSh-cHdhbGh/hSh-cHdhbGHhbGh/hS h/hSHhbGh/hSHhbGh/hSHhbGh/hS0Jy6#7#8#9#;#L#M#N#P#Q#R#S########### $*$+$,$~$$$$$$ͷylly\h/hShuQcHdhHhN{h/hSh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JUh/hSB*phh/hSh^ cHdhbGHhbGh/hS*HhbGh/hSbG*0Jyh/hSbG*0Jyh/hShpcHdhbGHhbGh/hS h/hS$%%%%T%%%%%%%%%&&&&'''H'L''''''''''(_(k(((%);))))۸۫۸۸۫۸ێ|ێl۸۸۸۸h/hSh`cHdh\'"h/hSh`H*cHdh\'Hh\'h/hSh/hShuQcHdhHhh/hSh/hS0JyHhh/hSjh/hS0JU h/hSHhbGh/hSh/hShF cHdhbG()>*?*@*****+ +1+2+H+I+M+N+T+_+`+a+c+d+++++++++++,/,L,~i~~iՐi(h/hShB*cHdhph"Hhh/hSB*phh/hSB*phh/hShcHdhHh'h/hGnHh\'h/hSh/hSh5cHdhbGh/hS0Jyjh/hS0JU h/hSHh{h/hS"L,T,_,j,x,y,,,,,,,,,,*-+-,-`-h-l-t-u-w-----------.".#.B.蛋訋~蛋qaah/hSh4cHdhbGHhbGh/hSHh:'h/hkh/hSh$cHdh{Hh{h/hSh/hS0Jyh/hSh$cHdh{Hh{h/hSjh/hS0JUHhYbGh/hS h/hSh/hShzcHdhYbG%x,,,-/i/!1"1#1gd7gd=]B.F.o.q.w.........///0BP/ =!"#$% DpM00P&P1F:pT>0BP/ =!"#$% DpM00P&P1F:pT>0BP/ =!"#$% DpM00P&P1F:pT>0BP/ =!"#$% DpM00P&P1F:pT>0BP/ =!"#$% DpM00P&P1F:pT>0BP/ =!"#$% Dp^ 666666666666>66666666666666666666666666666666666hH66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~_HmH nH sH tH 8`8 JuNormal_HmH sH tH `@` iJu Heading 1 & F1$7$8$@&H$CJ,OJQJaJ,mHsHtH^@^ jJu Heading 2$ & F<@&56OJQJmHsHtHX@X kJu Heading 3$ & F<@&OJQJmHsHtHX@X lJu Heading 4 & F1$7$8$@&H$OJQJmHsHtHR@R mJu Heading 5$ & Fd@&5mHsHtHL@L nJu Heading 6$ & F@&6mHsHtHL@L oJu Heading 7$ & F@&5mHsHtHN@N pJu Heading 8$ & F@&9>*mHsHtHL @L qJu Heading 9 $ & F@&5mHsHtHDA`D JuDefault Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k ( JuNo List 4+4 Ju Endnote Text>*`> EdEndnote ReferenceH*66 Ju Footnote Text@&`!@ JuFootnote ReferenceH*424 JuHeader  !4 B4 [aFooter  !.)Q. [a Page Number</a< KFootnote Text CharHCrH JuBody Text Indenthx^hBB BSBody Text Indent Char6U`6 Ju Hyperlink >*B*phB'`B JuComment ReferenceCJaJj@jBS No Spacing#$ @&^`m$OJPJQJmHnHurOr BSLight Shading1#$ p @&^ `m$OJPJQJmHnHulOl BS Light List1#$ @  @&^ `m$OJPJQJmHnHulOl BS Light Grid1#$ x@&^x`m$OJPJQJmHnHuxOx BSMedium Shading 11#$ H@&^H`m$OJPJQJmHnHuxOx BSMedium Shading 21# $ @&^`m$OJPJQJmHnHurOr BSMedium List 11#!$ @&^`m$OJPJQJmHnHurO"r BSMedium List 21#"$ P@&^`m$OJPJQJmHnHu@o1@ BSEndnote CharactersH* A JuabbrQ JuacHobH Juah &h<@&CJ(OJQJ_HmH sH tH *Oar* Juahaft'dHoH Jup(d1$`CJ_HaJmH sH tH "" Juans)FoF Juansf *dCJ_HaJmH sH tH NoNJupf+d1$CJ_HaJmHnHsH tH u""Juard,:o: Juau-$a$CJ,_HmH sH tH BoB Juaubio.CJOJQJ_HmH sH tH 4o4 Jub5B*CJaJehphP@P 1Ju Balloon Text0CJOJQJaJmHsHtHJoJ 0JuBalloon Text CharCJOJQJaJLo"LJubh 2h@&#CJ$OJQJ_HmHnHsH tH u<O2< Jubhaft 3d1$@& CJ$OJQJ6oA6 Jubi56B*phfr@OR@ Jubib50d^`0OJQJRobRJubk6$$a$#CJ(OJQJ_HmHnHsH tH u&Oar&Jubk17$"Oq"Jubk28.O.Jubkalt9TCJ"DoD Jucn:$$1$@&a$CJ,_HmH sH tH (O( Jubkau;$.O. Jubkau1<,CJ$O$ Jubkht=ToTJubkpub >$a$#CJOJQJ_HmHnHsH tH u0O0Jubkpub1?CJ*O*Jubks@TCJ"((JubksectA.".Ju bksubsectBNo2N JuulCd^`CJ_HaJmH sH tH  O1B JublDRoRR JunlEhd1$^h`CJ_HaJmH sH tH *OQb* Junl1 F^*Oar* Juul1 G^"q" Jubl1H(q( Juul1fI$$ Jubl1fJ(q( Juul1lK$$ Jubl1lL,, Jubl1p Mh`h** Jubl1plN(( Juul1sO$$ Jubl1sPJO1JJuulfQ B*KH,aJmHnHphu"""JublfR*OA2* JublhSx\&1B& JuullT"AR" JubllU@Tb@ Ju Block TextV  ] ^ *1r* Juuls W"q" JublpX$Q$ JublplY"q" JublsZ2B@2 \Ju Body Text[x44 [JuBody Text CharJP@J ^Ju Body Text 2]d5\mHsHtH>o> ]JuBody Text 2 Char5\@Q@ `Ju Body Text 3_d]88 _JuBody Text 3 CharZRZ bJuBody Text Indent 2ad1$7$8$H$`F!F aJuBody Text Indent 2 CharVS2V dJuBody Text Indent 3c  d^ FAF cJuBody Text Indent 3 CharDORD Jubqehhd]h^h B*CJph2OQb2 Jubq1f]^0ab0 Jubq1fgd`(aR( Jubq1lhd<Oa< Jubq1sidd`_H aJ.OQR. Jubqfjx`&& Jubqaftk2OQ2 Jubqslxh`"" Jubqhm&Q& Jubqlnh$Q$ Jubqnlo&OQ& Junlfp(&& Jubqnlfq&Q"& Junllr(&!2& Jubqnlls>oB> JubqnlstCJ_HaJmH sH tH RoRR Jubqouhh<h]h^hCJ_H aJmH sH tH ,Qb, Jubqt v$xa$$1r$ Jubqulw.Oq. Jubqul1x@KH&&Jubqulfy&A& Jubqullz6o6 Jubquls{_HmH sH tH  Jubr8/8Ju Bullet List 1} F8/8Ju Bullet List 2~ F8/8Ju Bullet List 3 F8/8Ju Bullet List 4 F8/8Ju Bullet List 5 F8/!8Ju Bullet List 6 F8/18Ju Bullet List 7 F8/A8Ju Bullet List 8 F8/Q8Ju Bullet List 9 F &b& JubxgdZl(r( Jubx1gdZlFoF Jubx1aftgdZ[CJ_HaJmH sH tH DoD Jubx1ahgdG/CJ_HaJmH sH tH DoD Jubx1bhgdG/CJ_HaJmH sH tH ,, Jubx1bqgdZl.. Jubx1bqfgdZl.. Jubx1bqlgdZl.. Jubx1bqsgdZl.. Jubx1congdZl* * Jubx1fgdZl* * Jubx1hgdZlBo" B Jubx1lgdZ[CJ_HaJmH sH tH ,2 , Jubx1nlgdZl.B . Jubx1nlfgdZl.R . Jubx1nllgdZl.b . Jubx1nlpgdZl,r , Jubx1slgdZl. . Jubx1slfgdZl. . Jubx1sllgdZl* * Jubx1tgdZl, , Jubx1ulgdZl. . Jubx1ul1gdZl. . Jubx1ulfgdZl. . Jubx1ulpgdZl. . Jubx1ulsgdZl, , JubxaftgdZl* * JubxahgdZl." . JubxattrgdZl02 0 Jubxattr1gdZl*B * JubxaugdZl,R , Jubxau1gdZl*b * JubxbhgdZl*r * JubxbqgdZl, , JubxbqfgdZl, , JubxbqlgdZl, , JubxbqsgdZl, , JubxcongdZl( ( JubxfgdZl( ( JubxhgdZl( ( JubxlgdZl* * JubxnlgdZl, , JubxnlfgdZl, , JubxnllgdZl," , JubxnlpgdZl,2 , JubxnlsgdZl(B ( JubxsgdZl&A R & Jubxod*b * JubxslgdZl,r , JubxslfgdZl, , JubxsllgdZlTo T Jusb&$d]^`a$_HmH sH tH BO B Jusbh]^`CJ aJ&O & JusbtCJ(( ( JubxtgdZl* * JubxulgdZl, , JubxulfgdZl, , JubxullgdZl, , JubxulpgdZl, , JubxulsgdZlFo" F Jufig dd1$CJ_HaJmH sH tH BO! 2 B Jufigh<-DM CJ$1 B $ Jucall$Q $ Juccust1$a $ Juccust2$q $ Juccust3*o * Jucemd B* ph>o > JucggdZ[CJ_HaJmH sH tH Lo LJuch @&#CJ OJQJ_HmHnHsH tH uDO D Juchaft d@&B*CJ OJQJph,o , Juchemb B* ph( (Juchsect. .Ju chsubsect6o 6 Jucip1$_HmH sH tH 4  4 Jucip1hh^h`h,  , Jucip2 8^88 " 8 Jucip3^`(O 2 ( Jucipf2 B 2 Jucipf1h^h,A R , Jucipl Zb Z Ju Colorful List - Accent 11 ^m$"r "Jucom* * JuComment4@ 4 Ju Comment Text: : JuComment Text CharJj@ J JuComment Subject5mHsHtHDo D JuComment Subject Char56O 6 Jucs $@&a$ CJ,OJQJLo LJuct$d1$@&a$CJ<_HmHnHsH tH u" "JuctaHoH Juctbm$a$gdZlCJ0_HaJ0mH sH tH HoH Juctfm$a$gdZlCJ0_HaJ0mH sH tH Ro"R Jutoc h1$B*CJ_HmH phsH tH $!2$ Juctoc4O!B4 Jutoc10^`0*OAR* Juctoc1aJ&!b& Juctoch8Or8 Juded$`a$OJQJ(Oq( Judedf.O. Juded1fCJaJ(( Juded1`o` JuDefault1$7$8$H$)B*CJOJQJ_HaJmH phsH tH (Oa( Judh@&CJBOB Judhaftdd1$@& CJOJQJ8o8 Juep1$CJ_HmH sH tH "O" Judia<o< JudiafCJ_HaJmH sH tH @o@ JudialCJ_HaJmH sH tH Do"D Judiap `CJ_HaJmH sH tH 222 Judiapl`<o< JudiasCJ_HaJmH sH tH ,oQ, Judispk B*phPM&b& Jupc$a$"ar" JudivPY@P Ju0 Document MapCJOJQJaJmHsHtHVoV Ju0Document Map CharCJOJQJaJmHsHtH:O: Jupt$da$ B*CJHph  Judt2O2 Jups$`a$CJ4&& Judtsub""Jueds(Oa( Jueh@&CJ** Juehaft.X`. Ju@Emphasis6]Ro"R Juenhd1$^h`CJ_HaJmH sH tH *2* JuenbqgdVSw:oB: JuendCJ_HaJmH sH tH *R* JueneqgdVSw:oa: JuennB*H*aJphr*O!r* Juenp h`h.o. Juenref B*H*ph** Juensl gdVSw** Juentd gdVSw(( Juep1 gdVSw(( Juep2 gdVSw*O* Juepaft KHDoD Juepf xgdVSwCJ_HaJmH sH tH DoD Juepl xgdVSwCJ_HaJmH sH tH HoH JuepsxxgdVSwCJ_HaJmH sH tH NoNJusldh]^_HmHnHsH tH u$O"$JuepslDo2D Juept$d1$a$CJ_HmH sH tH \oB\ Jueq"$d-D1$M a$CJOJQJ_HmH sH tH PoRP Juexah h<@& CJOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH TobTJuexbh h@&'CJOJQJ_HaJmHnHsH tH u& r& Juexe2O 2 Jusbfd1$`0O0 JuexfgdZ[CJaJ<O < Juexh$a$gdZ[ B*CJph&O & Jusbld0O0 JuexlgdZ[CJaJ>O > Jusbulfd1$^`(O( Jusbul$O$ Jusbnl4O4 Juexnl h^hCJaJ.O. Jusbnl1 !p^p6O"6 Juexnl1 "^CJaJ,O2, Jusbnl1f#d8O1B8 Juexnl1f $^CJaJ,OR, Jusbnl1l%d8OQb8 Juexnl1l &^CJaJ4Or4 Jusbnl1p '`aJFOqF Juexnl1p(h^h` B*CJph@o@ Jusbnl1s)CJ_HaJmH sH tH FF Juexnl1s *ddd^`&O& Jusbnlf+:O: Juexnlf,h(^hCJaJ*O* Jusbull-d&O& Jusbnll.:O: Juexnll/h(^hCJaJ:O: Jusbnlp0p^p`aJDOD Juexnlp1h^h` B*CJph*O"* Jusbnls2d>O!2> Juexnls3h((^hCJaJ8O B8 Jusbs 4dd1$ B*ph0OAR0 Juexs5gdZ[CJaJ4Ob4 Juexul 6^CJaJ.Or. Jusbul1 7p^p6Oq6 Juexul1 8^CJaJ0O0 Jusbul1f 9p^p<O< Juexul1f:^CJaJ0O0 Jusbul1l ;p^p<O< Juexul1l<^CJaJROqR Jusbul1p =dh*$7$8$9DH$` CJKHaJ>> Juexul1p>hd^`h(Oq( Jusbul1s?@O@ Juexul1s@^CJaJDOD JuexulfA^B*CJKH,ph:O": JuexullB^CJaJ:O2: JusbulpCp^p`aJDO1BD JuexulpDh^`h B*CJph*OR* JusbulsEd>OQb> JuexulsF^CJaJ(O! r( JufiglG0Oq0 JufigatrHOJQJ(! ( JufigcapIBoB Jufigcap1JCJ_HaJmH sH tH (! ( JufigfK*O1 * Jufigh1LCJ(o( Juthn B* ph"O" Jufighn0O! 0 JufignO CJOJQJ(( JufignumP"" Jufirst2o!2 Jufirst-i 6B*phto2tJufn=Shd$d&d1$NP^h`_HmHnHsH tH u*B* JufnbqTgdVSw*R* JufneqUgdVSw/a Jufnn"qr" JufnpW&o& JufnrefH*** JufnslYgdVSw** JufntdZgdVSw&&Jufolio[FV`F JuFollowedHyperlink >*B* phToT JuFootnote]1$7$8$H$OJQJ^J_HmH sH tH BoB JuFootnote CharactersH*8o8 JufracB*aJphr  Jufs`**Jugalleryadod Juglo&b$  d^` a$B*CJ_HmH phsH tH Jo2J Juglofchd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH 2oA2 JugrcB*ph3frBoQB Jugrc-i B* OJQJaJphffr&oa& Jugt B* ph30or0 Juhbg_HmH sH tH  a JuhdhDoD JuHeading 1 CharCJ,OJQJaJ,BoB JuHeading 2 Char56OJQJ<o< JuHeading 3 CharOJQJ<o< JuHeading 4 CharOJQJ8o8 JuHeading 5 Char58o8 JuHeading 6 Char68o8 JuHeading 7 Char5:o: JuHeading 8 Char9>*8o8 JuHeading 9 Char52o!2 JuhebB*ph3fr:o1: Juheb-b5B*phFr>oA> Juheb-bi56B*phl r:oQ: Juheb-i6B* phPr*oa* Juhemb B*phfe@r xJuHTML Preformatted7w 2( Px 4 #\'*.25@9OJQJmHsHtHXoX wJuHTML Preformatted CharOJQJmHsHtH6o6 Jui6B* aJphr2o2 JuidxB*phr JuimgZoZJuin|0d1$^`0CJ_HaJmHnHsH tH u.O.Juin1 }8^8CJ.O.Juin2 ~^CJ""Juin3<< Ju0 Indent First h`h.O. JuIndex $^J&"&JuinfXDo2D JuinhddCJ _HmH sH tH (O1B( Juinh1CJ@oQ@ Juiu$6>*B*aJehph!Xhr*oa* Julang B*ph@oq@ Jul-chi56B*OJQJ\]phJD*DoD Jul-chi-b56B*OJQJ\]phJD*FoF Jul-chi-bi56B*OJQJ\]phJD*DoD Jul-chi-i56B*OJQJ\]phJD*,o, Jul-fre B*phDoD Jul-fre-b56B*OJ QJ \]phFoF Jul-fre-bi56B*OJ!QJ!\]phDoD Jul-fre-i56B*OJ"QJ"\]ph.o. Jul-ger 5B*phDoD Jul-ger-b56B*OJ QJ \]phFoF Jul-ger-bi56B*OJ!QJ!\]phDo!D Jul-ger-i56B*OJ"QJ"\]ph(/@2( JuList^J,oA, Jul-ita B*phDoQD Jul-ita-b56B*OJ QJ \]phFoaF Jul-ita-bi56B*OJ!QJ!\]phDoqD Jul-ita-i56B*OJ"QJ"\]ph@o@ Jul-jpn56B* OJQJ\]phDoD Jul-jpn-b56B* OJ QJ \]phFoF Jul-jpn-bi56B* OJ!QJ!\]phDoD Jul-jpn-i56B* OJ"QJ"\]phHoH Jul-kor%56B*CJOJQJ\]aJph_IzLoL Jul-kor-b%56B*CJOJ QJ \]aJph_IzNoN Jul-kor-bi%56B*CJOJ!QJ!\]aJph_IzLoL Jul-kor-i%56B*CJOJ!QJ!\]aJph_Iz@o@ Jul-lat56B* OJQJ\]ph6]DoD Jul-lat-b56B* OJ QJ \]ph6]Fo!F Jul-lat-bi56B* OJ!QJ!\]ph6]Do1D Jul-lat-i56B* OJ"QJ"\]ph6] B JuloVORV Jultsigdh*$1$7$8$9DH$B*KHOJ#QJ#ph,Qb, Jultsiglx"ar" Julps@o@ Jul-rus56B*OJQJ\]ph64DoD Jul-rus-b56B*OJ QJ \]ph64FoF Jul-rus-bi56B*OJ!QJ!\]ph64DoD Jul-rus-i56B*OJ"QJ"\]ph64@o@ Jul-spa56B* OJQJ\]phDoD Jul-spa-b56B* OJ QJ \]phFoF Jul-spa-bi56B* OJ!QJ!\]phDoD Jul-spa-i56B* OJ"QJ"\]phROR Jultadh*$1$7$8$9DH$B*KHOJ#QJ#phTOT Jultafdh*$1$7$8$9DH$B*KHOJ#QJ#phRO"R Jultcdh*$1$7$8$9DH$B*KHOJ#QJ#phRO2R Jultddh*$1$7$8$9DH$B*KHOJ#QJ#phTOBT Jultdfdh*$1$7$8$9DH$B*KHOJ#QJ#phRORR Jultgdh*$1$7$8$9DH$B*KHOJ#QJ#phZObZ Jultp#dh*$1$7$8$9DH$`B*KHOJ#QJ#phTOrT Jultpfdh*$1$7$8$9DH$B*KHOJ#QJ#ph.a. Jultpl gd5(a( Jultpo2a2 Jultpsgd5XOX Jultsigfdh*$1$7$8$9DH$B*KHOJ#QJ#ph$$ Jumacron:o: Ju macron-ob56B*phv<<o< Ju macron-red5B*\ph&&Jumedia(a( Junl1fd(a( Junl1ldVo"V Juulphd^`hB*CJ_HmH phsH tH 2!22 Junlph^h`$1B$ Junl1p*AR* Junl1pl(b( Junl1sd*Oar* Junl2 8^8(q( Junl2fd(q( Junl2ld4q4 Junl2ph^`h(( Junl2sd*Oq* Junl3 ^(( Junl3fd(( Junl3ld44 Junl3p8h^8`h,, Junl3s dd** Junl4 ^$"$ Junl4f$2$ Junl4l$B$ Junl4p$R$ Junl4s*b* Junl5 p^p$r$ Junl5f$$ Junl5l$$ Junl5p$$ Junl5s*Q* Junlh x4OQ4 Junlnph^`h&& Junlnpl(1( Junlpl&& Junls(B^B Ju Normal (Web)dd[$\$*O* JuntbqfCJ("( Juntbq*!2* Juntbqlx*1B* Juntbqsx&!R& Juntcon(OAb( JunteqCJ*Or* JuntnlfCJ(q( Juntnl** Juntnllx&O&Juslf*O*JuntslfCJ((Juntsl**Juntsll<o< Jutb1$CJ_HaJmH sH tH (O( JunttdCJ.O.JuntulfxCJ((Juntul*"*Juntullx8/18Ju Number List 1 F oA Juob6"R"Juopt/a Juosf"/q" Juosf-i(O(Jupaft$$Jupage** JupatrgdZl,, Jupatr1gdZlBoB Jupl d1$CJ_HaJmH sH tH $O$ Jupcon4O4 Jupn$$da$CJ8*o* Jupnum B*phf& & Jupr$a$XO X JupsecdX*$1$7$8$9DH$B*CJKHaJph.O " . Jupsec1,CJ<o2 < JuquxCJ_HaJmH sH tH >oB > JuqufxCJ_HaJmH sH tH >oR > Juquh@&CJ0_HaJmH sH tH $b $ Juquot*1r * Juquotail*a * Juquotfh*a * Juquotl h.a . Juquots hh  Jurb " "Jurbc " "Jurbi   Jurc(o ( Jured B*ph,o!, Jured-b B* ph.o!. Jured-i 6B*ph4o!!4 Jured-ob6B*]ph6o1!6 Jured-sm:;B*ph*NoA!N Jured-sm-i&56:;B*OJ"QJ"\]ph*PoQ!P Ju red-sm-ob&56:;B*OJ$QJ$\]ph*Rob!R Jurf0d1$^`0CJ_HaJmH sH tH For!F Jurphd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Ho!H Jurp1hd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Jo!J Jurp1fhd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Jo!J Jurp1lhd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Jo!J Jurp1yhd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Lo!L Jurpah h<@&CJ(OJQJ_HmH sH tH Ho!H Jurpbh h@&CJOJQJ_HmH sH tH Do!D Jurpch@&CJ OJQJ_HmH sH tH Do!D Jurpf dCJ_HaJmH sH tH Ho"H Jurpg hd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Jo"J Jurpg1!hd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH >o""> Jurph"@&CJ0_HaJmH sH tH <o2"< Jurph1#CJ_HaJmH sH tH <oB"< Jurphn$CJ_HaJmH sH tH RoR"R Jurpil%d^`CJ_HaJmH sH tH Tob"T Jurpil1&d^`CJ_HaJmH sH tH Zor"Z Jurpil1f'd^`CJ_HaJmH sH tH Zo"Z Jurpil1l(d^`CJ_HaJmH sH tH ^o"^ Jurpil1s )d^`CJ_HaJmH sH tH bo"b Jurpilf*d^`!B*CJKH,_HmH phsH tH Xo"X Jurpill+d^`CJ_HaJmH sH tH \o"\ Jurpils ,d^`CJ_HaJmH sH tH @o"@ Jurpl-dCJ_HaJmH sH tH Ho"H Jurpn.hd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Jo"J Jurpn1/hd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Lo#L Jurpnut0hd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH No#N Jurpnut11hd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Do"#D Jurpt2$d@&a$CJ<_HmH sH tH No2#N Jurpt1 3$@&a$ CJOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH HoB#H Jurpv4hd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH JoR#J Jurpv15hd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Lob#L Jurpv1f6hd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Lor#L Jurpv1h7hd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Lo#L Jurpv1l8hd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Fo#F Jurpvf 9dCJ_HaJmH sH tH @o#@ Jurpvh:@&CJ0_HaJmH sH tH .A##. Jurpvl ;gd5Ho#H Jurpy<hd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH &#& Jurv=gdVSw@o#@ Jurvd>gdZ[CJ_HaJmH sH tH (#( Jurvt?gdVSw* $* Jusb1 @8^8$$$$ Jusb1fA$$"$$ Jusb1lB&2$& JusbaftC@oB$@ JusbahDCJ OJQJ_HmH sH tH (OA$R$( JusbbhECJ4 b$4 JusbbqF88]8^8*a$r$* JusbbqfGd*a$$* JusbbqlHd.a$$. Jusbbqs Iddro$r Jusbcon+Jd*$1$7$8$9DH$]^!B*KH_HaJmH phsH tH .O$. Jusbnl2 K ^ 01$0 Jusbnl2f L ^ 0Q$0 Jusbnl2l M ^ 4O$$4 Jusbnl2p N`aJ@o$@ Jusbnl2sOCJ_HaJmH sH tH ,%, Jusbnl3Pgd>*.%. Jusbnl3fQgd>*."%. Jusbnl3lRgd>*,2%, Jusbnl4Sgd>*.B%. Jusbnl4fTgd>*.R%. Jusbnl4lUgd>*,b%, Jusbnl5Vgd>*.r%. Jusbnl5fWgd>*.%. Jusbnl5lXgd>*&A%& JusboYZO%Z JusbrZdh*$1$7$8$9DH$B*CJKHOJ#QJ#aJph$%$ Jusbsl[&%& Jusbslf\&%& Jusbsll].Oq%. Jusbul2 ^ ^ 0%0 Jusbul2f _ ^ 0&0 Jusbul2l ` ^ 4O%&4 Jusbul2p a`aJ@o"&@ Jusbul2sbCJ_HaJmH sH tH (2&( Jusbul3pcZOB&Z Jusecddh*$1$7$8$9DH$B*CJKHOJ#QJ#aJphNoR&N Jusecbotehd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Nob&N Jusectopfhd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH ROr&R Jusergdh*$1$7$8$9DH$B*CJKHaJph*&* Juser1hgdVSw*&* Juser2igdVSwbO&b Juserahjdhd*$1$7$8$9DH$B*CJKHOJQJaJphZO&Z Juseraukdhd*$1$7$8$9DH$B*CJKHaJph@O&@ Juserbhld`gdVSwOJQJ.q&&. Juserf mgdVSw,q&&, Juserp n`2&&2 Juserpfo`\O'\ Juserspdh*$1$7$8$9DH$B*CJKHOJ#QJ#aJphTO'T Jusertqdh*$1$7$8$9DH$B*CJ(KHaJph "' Jushr" 2'"Jushps*OB'*Jusl1 t8^8(A'R'(Jusl1fud,Q'b',Jusl1l vd*A'r'*Jusl2 w^(q''(Jusl2fxd,'',Jusl2l yd*q''*Jusl3 z^(''(Jusl3f{d,'',Jusl3l |d$ '$ Juslhd}*'*Jusli ~`&O'&Jusll*(*Jusls dd"1(" JusltJo!(J Jusm-:;B* CJOJQJaJphr*0o1(0 Ju Small Caps:*oA(* Jusm-b 5:*2oQ(2 Jusm-bi56:>**Boa(B Jusmi$B*CJOJ%QJ%aJphfrNoq(N Jusm-i-:;B*CJOJQJaJphfr*Lo(L Jusm-sub'B* CJH*OJ&QJ&aJphrPo(P Jusm-sub-i'B*CJH*OJQJaJphfrLo(L Jusm-sup'B* CJH*OJ&QJ&aJphr(((( Jusm-sup-iFo(F Justd`CJ_HaJmH sH tH Do(D Justf dCJ_HaJmH sH tH Fo(F Justh$da$CJ4_HaJmH sH tH @o(@ JustldCJ_HaJmH sH tH &o)& Justrk7S*:o): JustsCJ_HaJmH sH tH Fo")F JuStyle1dCJ_HaJmH sH tH 8o1)8 JusubB* CJH*aJehph@oA)@ Jusub-b5B*CJH*aJehph>oQ)> Jusub-biB*CJH*aJehphF@oa)@ Jusub-i6B* CJH*aJehph8oq)8 JusupB* CJH*aJehph@o)@ Jusup-b5B*CJH*aJehphDo)D Jusup-bi 5B*CJH*\aJehphF@o)@ Jusup-i6B* CJH*aJehph<o)< JusymbB*OJQJphrDo)D Jusymb-b5B*OJQJphrDo)D Jusymb-i6B*OJQJphrDo)D Jusymb-subB*H*aJphrNo)N Ju symb-sub-i"6B*H*OJQJphrHo*H Jusymb-supB*H*OJQJphrNo*N Ju symb-sup-i"6B*H*OJQJphr>o!*> Ju SYS_HYPERTEXT >*B*ph02*0 Ju Table Cell2OB*2 JutatrdCJaJDoR*D JutaxonomyCJ_HaJmH sH tH <ob*< Jutd1$CJ_HaJmH sH tH &a*r*& Jutdfd&a**& Jutdld<o*< Jutel56B*OJQJ\]phl "*"Jutfd2O*2 Jutfn h^J<o*< JutgrcB*CJaJphrfo*fJuth+d$d&d1$NPCJ _HmHnHsH tH uJo*J Juth1&d1$PCJ_HmH sH tH 6o*6 Juth2CJ_HmH sH tH 4o+4 JuthebB*ph3fr<>@+< JuTitle$a$CJmHsHtH0o!+0 Ju Title CharCJNo2+N Jutn dd$d1$N_HmH sH tH >oB+> JutpdCJ_HaJmH sH tH "A+R+" Jutpl2Q+b+2 Jutnl0^`0(a+r+( Jutnlfd(a++( Jutnlld(q++( Jutnlsd&& JuTOC 1.. JuTOC 2 ^.. JuTOC 3 ^.. JuTOC 4 X^X.. JuTOC 5  ^ .. JuTOC 6 ^.. JuTOC 7 ^.. JuTOC 8 x^x.. JuTOC 9 @^@<O!2,< Jutoc2@ `d^@ ``CJ4O!B,4 Jutoc3^CJ<oR,< Jutoc4CJ_HaJmH sH tH <ob,< Jutoc5CJ_HaJmH sH tH Hor,H Jutocau<B*CJ_HmH phsH tH &O!,& Jutocbm&O!,& Jutocfm4!,4 Jutocpt 8!Lo,L Jutocut$d@&a$CJ_HaJmH sH tH &A+,& Jutpf1$Po,P Jutsecbothd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Po,P Jutsectophd`hCJ_HaJmH sH tH "a+," Jutul$q+-$ Jutulf$+-$ Jutull(-"-( Jutulsd&o1-& Juu >*B*phK,qB-, Juul1p h`h*A-R-* Juul1pl*Oqb-* Juul2 p^p,Oa-r-, Juul2faJ,Oa--, Juul2laJ,a--, Juul2p h`h,a--, Juul2s *O-* Juul3  ^ 2O--2 Juul3f B*ph(--( Juul3l,--, Juul3p h`h,--, Juul3s *.* Juul4 @ ^@ (..( Juul4f(.".( Juul4l,.2., Juul4p h`h,.B., Juul4s *aR.* Juul5  ^ $Q.b.$ Juul5f(Q.r.( Juul5l,Q.., Juul5p h`h,Q.., Juul5s *1.* Juulh x.O.. Juulnp B*ph.... Juulnpl `$.$ Juulpl>o.> Juun $@&a$CJ,_HmH sH tH 2o.2 JuurlB*phrFo/F Juus $@&a$CJ,OJQJ_HmH sH tH Bo/B Juut$d@&a$CJ<_HmH sH tH !/ JuverFo2/F Juwld`CJ_HaJmH sH tH HoB/H Juwl1d`CJ_HaJmH sH tH <oR/< Juwl1fCJ_HaJmH sH tH <ob/< Juwl1hCJ_HaJmH sH tH For/F Juwl1h1 CJ,OJQJ_HaJ,mH sH tH Bo/B Juwl1ldCJ_HaJmH sH tH >O/> Juwl1sdxx^aJHo/H Juwl2d`CJ_HaJmH sH tH <o/< Juwl2fCJ_HaJmH sH tH <o/< Juwl2hCJ_HaJmH sH tH No/N Juwl2h1 h<@&CJ(OJQJ_HmH sH tH Bo/B Juwl2ldCJ_HaJmH sH tH 0O//0 Juwl2s `^`CJHo0H Juwl3d`CJ_HaJmH sH tH <o0< Juwl3fCJ_HaJmH sH tH <o"0< Juwl3hCJ_HaJmH sH tH Jo20J Juwl3h1 h<@&CJ_HaJmH sH tH BoB0B Juwl3ldCJ_HaJmH sH tH 0O/R00 Juwl3s ^CJDob0D Juwlf dCJ_HaJmH sH tH >or0> Juwlh@&CJ0_HaJmH sH tH Lo0L Juwlh1 h<@&CJ(OJQJ_HmH sH tH @o0@ Juwll dCJ_HaJmH sH tH 21/02 Juwls xx`:o0: Juwsh CJ_HaJmH sH tH 0 Juxbk(o0( Juxbr B* ph4o04 JuxrefB*phfr<`0<'z0Revision_HmH sH tH PK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭V$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3N)cbJ uV4(Tn 7_?m-ٛ{UBwznʜ"Z xJZp; {/<P;,)''KQk5qpN8KGbe Sd̛\17 pa>SR! 3K4'+rzQ TTIIvt]Kc⫲K#v5+|D~O@%\w_nN[L9KqgVhn R!y+Un;*&/HrT >>\ t=.Tġ S; Z~!P9giCڧ!# B,;X=ۻ,I2UWV9$lk=Aj;{AP79|s*Y;̠[MCۿhf]o{oY=1kyVV5E8Vk+֜\80X4D)!!?*|fv u"xA@T_q64)kڬuV7 t '%;i9s9x,ڎ-45xd8?ǘd/Y|t &LILJ`& -Gt/PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!0C)theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] m!>%|(,0ADwI[bhfp[rsuwmyB{wy@ Dm$ i%*@.134t>Zv”AN{mBiKh*/8 EsG)IO)SVsXbBk-mrtt{}~1* ةĬxBHJ "q*V5XGIQL@Qfy$zC}qZϘYvP8Mj?I,15 gjh <")* ,-<=@ FMLPWG]h_eynGxr߾L$C!>1\ ) ,8HDRSUZ\4bh͉:!kx !.A9>CDISV/s#(@6 qT4}mu  !!!!####$%&&o'l(q+++/000366V7=+GH\z]bYcgiZijwm%nNnn*o0pquYvvwxAEXF]Y| 'Oݡ פ,ذ2:iFʸJLtJ| s@PT 6ET+6p.d:aD=    T <*7 Z O!!""!$%%(((6)))+-D/N2q2364C4W5788b9:;w<X?_CNEEJL0MNUXVW@XQY[\H]]]] _V``sbvbScribe Editorial'uGj3BUG.IKpU[I\_Mppu#vȻX3fpE 67$&*-7?PRS.TW_Babc"jOllpCyŘXkƬ̰ݸ8"f4fW !*_CI!LtOUY_nQxz*]Ax7e ),#-`-.0II1KRO2PehMjrs#z~ռ\1FR &.cF[J,NXZo,w .s   z#1X^\v,$4~  $I !"$%& ,\5;ATBSVVIbgIiqw"x8#(ScrIScrPMScrMScrʣScrcScrScrƶScrScr_ScrScr Scr Scr2ScrBScrhScrScrScrbScrScrScrScrScrScr#Scr[Scr7Scr1ScrScr.ScrScrScrrScrwScr5ScrScr0ScrScrScrfScrScrvScrGScrUScrScrScrOScrScrgScrScrScrScrwScrScrScrtScrScrjScrScrEScrScrDScrScrvScrScroScrScr`ScrScrScrEScrScrScrScrMScrmScr!ScrxScr Scr Scr Scr(ScrScrScrScrScrDScrScrScrScrScrScr Scr ScrUScrScrGScriScr;ScrScrScrScrScrpScr&ScrR+Scr+Scr,Scr1Scr2Scr6ScreScr6Scr7Scrj<ScrN=Scr@Scr.CScr2EScrFScrEScr=FScrMScrFScr`Scr`ScraScrYbScrcScrIeScrfScrfscrMdScrZgScrgScrqhScr)wScr xScryScrzScrzScrScrScrgScrхScrwScrMScrCScrXScrNYScrYScr[Scr`cscraScrkScrclScrlScroScroScrKsScrtScrwScrqwScrwScr,xScrlyScr8}Scr}ScrNscrTScrScrqScrRScrScrScrMScrUScr|ScraScrScrScrScr<ScrMScrScrBScrScrçScrScr/ScrOScrèScrScr[`ScrScrScrScrScr}ScrScrScr2Scr0ScrvScrz''zzzzzzzzz'zzzzzzzzzz{zz{zzzzzzzzzzzzzzժzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz'zzzzzzzzzzzzzzmzzzzzzzz |zzzz;' |zzz |zzzzzz|zzzzzz|z|zzzz'|zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz|zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz'֪zzzz{({{:{ 'Z{a{a{d{h{t{u{{{{{{{{{{l'{{{{{{{{zz{2AQKd@>KX=6MZg v 2 P C*X,DTiS*p~ IBR):Ha'7'ks!P:Ij ) e u (!!!!F"z"""""#@#}#;$U$v$$$$ %"%0%%%%%%&r&&&&!'_'m'''''t((((-)))*,*M*]**** +2+I+++++;,v,,,,-G-}---X.|...."/:?$@@BCCDE~FGzHIJK[L/MNNOnPsQRR TTUVWgXEYZZ[O\] ^$_`#aAbucvdGefOg%hhijklmnopWq5rsstuv~wEx;y%z4{{|}qb̂bˉ=jVS{V@jvY<DlUrUYa$ݸɹǺ%IW<+ylbLse*qD6gWVG-q~YJNa}7" t@& Tu^"  l /  , 0V']Dq M!!"j#-$$%&X'S(@)**+?,,-./01234n5J6878I9?::;<=>W?@GAOD!EFGNHRIvJKTL(MMNOPQRSzTUVWX;YZZ\\]T`rdtf hhUiLj klmmnoqrsttuTvvwxyzy{n|Q}}TQC߄ʅdže4$ B c0BĒU -r̚˛ǞàšlfTEN 4<&IW68)D2<C[׺kjSnqni 8 Z]b8Qf7P736 r8'(] }$x9Z2 H}q| 5  r | : XlmgzY '!j#$&*(()*+,C-.|/r0T1o2h334"556789:j;< =7> ??@ABCDE{FjG?HeIcddefggOhhijkqlmnnopMqqrst/vvwrxy!{|}~kPmj3݈s,܍juHٕڗØ|pcAJwZܥЦç=Q:E'%ֶܷMB0*bJU!|e 9  6iyq|O")v$0a qoELW9%I[    +   Ee[wkH2 !{"##?$$G%:&T'2(()++,-S. //{001283345)6778Q99:N;<<={>W? @@ABC^DEEFgG+HH J KKLoM]N_OPPQRSUZoZB[W\3]]^_`asbvcNd)efgghli:jkkmmn`o/ppq.rr:ss!t umuIv.wwxiyGz{ ||}̄_=mP: /=ŒpeO.m & ֧èkMb;W[_rݲ׳xq9# ݼM[!4R._{j#NAjALRN< ,ZKzk72{?#t: ]$A,d F 9 '   O<j~Za\9 !6"#$%}&o'()*<+!,,-./0b233456789:9<<>>?@@AcB\CGDEE}FG>HHIJkKCLMOPGQGRSTTUVWX{YZ[K\]]^aabcdd ffghijkBlYm7n ??@ABC=DEEFGHIJKLHM#NOPPQRSTHUEVв[8<ѷ~H'V<+Il5wSiC;)Jm :* $d`t\S SgUK7t7W-Fa?H8  c ;   m'MwTA/ !!"#$$$%&'()e*Q+>,,-./01v2v3A455 67789:;J<=>>?@ApBCDaE2FGGHIJKbLM NQO@gEGMOKS>UYI^bcehyikmpsvz|~n8$'D8iKܱŶTe nXF%FZ[ r{ 6#$)L,B.0#1 "#$%&'()*+,-.0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./023456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~                            ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~                            ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u w x y z { | }      Y{KF[A Xޞ%it) N>ՓC$Wj6 Z")GY;"S{nx,#1!/1U:A1 l 1 v ~   8@0(  H c $ ? _Hlt203446038 _Hlt219535690 _Hlt219536317$(@@@$( IPMMʣcƶ_  2Bhb#[7.1rw50fvGUOgwtjEDvo`EMm!x   (D  UGi;p&R++,126e67j<N=@.C2EFE=FMF``aYbcIeffMdZggqh)w xyzzgхwMCXNYY[`cakcllooKstwqww,xly8}}NTqRMU|a<MBç/Oè[`}20v!rFX3mBOG"IKbU[C\_*ppJ!&.-^o}?z 5## &*-7?PRS%TW_1a bc jklcpxJ^ݭ͸кd+ _q7 x*ZCI^KsOUP_nKxzz~S9u-\  ),-S-.01HI*KQO#PehFj@rs"z~ҼF0EQ &._FVJNLZovq  n x#1XY\vݐ$,= !"w$&,Z5;ASBSRVagHilw!x.^  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~'uGj3BUG.IKpU[I\_Mppu#vȻX3fpE 67$&*-7?PRS.TW_Babc"jOllpCyŘXkƬ̰ݸ8"f4fW !*_CI!LtOUY_nQxz*]Ax7e ),#-`-.0II1KRO2PehMjrs#z~ռ\1FR &.cF[J,NXZo,w .s   z#1X^\v,$4~  $I !"$%& ,\5;ATBSVVIbgIiqw"x8^HI}~rrjkuvdf34KL#<$<}<~<GGRR S SWWvvvvvv0w1wlnpq  YYiiiitt+,HI9L:L{L|LWVXVdd[\^_abdegiBDGOZ\-7QZfp 3Bٱ uw!G"&/0)]y#(SS¯9<AA!($(GGrrjkeeɳʳ/022=ABBGHFI!<"<u<u<v<w<x<x<GGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRSSWWvvvvvvvvvvvv,w-wlmlpqq    iiiitt%%'(?C7L7L9L9LyLzLTVTVVVVVdd[i7О,-P_eegghhjk55:  ccggNNPPQQST669?DE!($( \->O`b11g(KvS9ULZ6W;lqK|#   ^` .^`"  ^` "  ^` "  ^` "  ^` "  ^` "  ^` "  ^` "  ^` "   ^`hH Article .  ^`hH Section . P^`PhH() `p`^``phH() P^`PhH) P^`PhH) ^`hH) P^`PhH. 0p0^0`phH.->O`b19U;lLZ6WqvS1g(KK|K|K|K|K|K|K|K|K|\ c_=NF"QpA'p5uQU:_xd 6')jy p4 F w3 6 J W x% -i P-<>O=] &1xxE"fV@L3 K$L5g7` )+&Wn}'n-c4!DI3DJOPU z `9 [k !2!Q!b!w"T#$/$#L$v$&y&kV'E"(<(MX(`(a(!i(x)?-*U+=Z+;_+y+,6-x-y-g.O.d./h'0/Q0@W0{0x$141g1r1( 2.2)s3]405 K5P6/67I8W8 9J(97: :-:J:h]:|N;g>z>?n?l^@{@!A)gAbBBu#Cd2C,dCD!(DaD dDlExE|F6Fb~F GBGxG *H~H0J2KK7K0fK3L&>LpLM~MO*FOPPQP;lPQoRMRwRyRS#SBSSSpST:+TZ4T sTMU*UU aU |VX/X6XrXtXZYWZZtZ4[[W>\S]3]JS^._S_l`k`abScUc\cechchkc}=ddd4eFfgfFg*Xg2]h=i(ijHojk_ykglsl.m>mQnRn=oUUo/pQLp)qcqnq~qUrsJOs t#tL|tJuouquv *vIvSvE w$w@w^w\y z'z>z~{|6| O|v|4~6Y >yg}g1<3j 4cr[voU D[SYkd{9 7?kRI)Z*9Ke,&DoLmMZzBWh> *V>W`XQR\|{*}-k4`Rl:wRJ|^"V~OV$Pp6Fke_u029w_r8J7L`Tax`G[L3Z%i<>ozl2j#-Gn|$y'U=y47Q] /V=R'Gk zg% _$] ;Dm[&^XhvBo?flZ[yX_tzZjT': M/$5M*)kp0OK+2EFKS R9#<+}<o4PW< hvSwelZ^"6knx^ >GFs q0DZYB_{)KYbS#fyr0HEryr15/?JglqeS[7sL`jcUdd @^N|[66KZ{+oq?fCb)1>z\^@(#(@ @UnknownScribe Editorial(G*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx Arial7.@CalibriM M Arial-BoldMTArialC (PMingLiUe0}fԚABook AntiquaK M Times-RomanTimesQ MArial-ItalicMTArials MHelvetica-BoldObliqueTimes New RomankMTimesNewRomanPSMTTimes New RomanM M Times-ItalicTimes3*Ax TimesC MArialMTArial5. .[`)Tahoma71 CouriermMAJensonPro-RegularTimes New RomancMGaramondThreeTimes New Roman7@Cambria7. [ @Verdana}MAJensonMM-0-0-880-119-0-0-Times New Roman;. *Cx HelveticaG=  jMS Mincho-3 fgEMinionCambriasNew Century SchlbkCentury SchoolbookOPLucida GrandeArial7Georgia?= *Cx Courier NewSFagoCoHelvetica NeueeFagoCoBold-ExpTimes New RomankFagoCoBold-ItalicTimes New Romana FagoCo-ItalicHelvetica NeueQTimes New Roman Bold_ Times New Roman Bold ItalicU Times New Roman Italic]Times SemiboldCourier NewWJ @Helvetica Light ObliquekAGaramond TitlingTimes New RomanQ Times SCCourier NewA$BCambria Math 1XhUS- љh] љh] )y4U KqR $Pq!'xx 0What s The Worst Thing You Can Do To ShakespeareJulian Yates UserScribe Editorial8 }~  Oh+'0$ @L l x 4Whats The Worst Thing You Can Do To ShakespeareJulian Yates UserNormalScribe Editorial4Microsoft Office Word@Nk@$@`&hљ՜.+,0, hp  University of Florida ] 1Whats The Worst Thing You Can Do To Shakespeare Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~                            ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~                            ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~  Root Entry F9`& 1Table (vWordDocument SummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8 MsoDataStore'`&8`&HHOPC2EEFIP==2'`&8`&Item PropertiesUCompObj r   F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q