Ted Hughes reference in Ros Barber's new book

[Daryl Pinksen]

Not sure if this has made the rounds yet, but Ros Barber's new book
(The Marlowe Papers) opens with a quote from a letter written by Ted
Hughes which seems to suggest that he believed Marlowe had written the
works of Shakespeare.

Hughes wrote this letter to a Lucas Myers in 1958 while teaching at
the University of Massachusetts: "The truth is, that I have taken a
job. As a teacher. As no more dignified work was possible. . . and as
our life here consumes a few dollars each month more than Sylvia
earns, I was put to this." ( *Love* the full stops around 'As a
teacher' : )

In his next letter to Myers, Hughes, seemingly viewing the mantle of
instructor like a death shroud for creative genius, instructs Myers in
how to grow as a writer: "I think work is probably an escape from the
responsibility of writing--once you've contracted the responsibility.
The way to really develop as a writer is to make yourself a political
outcast, so that you have to live in secret. This is how Marlowe
developed into Shakespeare. Think what a precise detachment this would
give to all your observations--at the same time making all of your
life, and the only possible life, inward. This is how Dante developed
into Dante, & Joyce into Joyce. The other way is to go deaf. Also, the
instinctive effort to communicate through this separation goes into
your works." Letters of Ted Hughes, ed. Christopher Reid, Faber 2007,
p.120

Ros Barber was evidently holding this discovery back as a surprise,
and it was. As far as I know, this quote until now has not received
mention (a google search confirms this). Hughes' observation, provided
casually, without explanation, suggests that the recipient was aware
that Hughes held this view of Shakespeare, and thus could be uttered
in passing almost as a ho-hum.

Is it possible that Ted Hughes was a 'Marlovian'? If so, what kind of
response would that necessitate? A public campaign to denounce his
status as a Shakespearian critic of note? A need to brand him as
something of a madman, a la Shapiro's hatchet job on Freud, Twain,
et.al?

Daryl

[Peter F.]

Thanks Daryl,

  

It certainly came as a surprise to me, and I had been meaning
to ask Ros about the precise context. What makes it even more

interesting to me now is that Ros quotes only the bit about
Marlowe developing into Shakespeare, which could perhaps be
ambiguous, but the "Dante into Dante, & Joyce into Joyce"
seems to remove any other possible interpretation completely.

  

Peter F.

[John W Kennedy]

Never mind the Marlovianism, his major premise is itself self-evidently silly. Many great artists have had other employment, either in other aspects of their primary art (composers, for example, who also perform), in separate endeavors (Charles Ives or Chaucer), or both (Noël Coward comes to mind).

--
John W Kennedy
"Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."
-- Tom Stoppard. "Night and Day"

[Daryl Pinksen]

John,

Hadn't thought of that angle, that Ted Hughes, a creative writer of
the highest order, didn't really understand the creative writing
process. To be fair, Hughes didn't say, "The [only] way to ... develop
as a writer...," which would justify your argument, he said, "The way
to *really* develop as a writer..." and then gave concrete but limited
examples. He mentions deafness, but does not Milton and his blindness.
Nor does he mention Ovid, whom he adored, whose work was elevated
(ironic, since it engendered greater depth) after becoming a pariah.

I would also add that many writers blacklisted during the McCarthy era
had their work elevated as a result of their status as political
outcasts. I'm thinking of people like Dalton Trumbo, Michael Wilson,
Walter Bernstein, etc. Hughes wrote this letter during that period,
and may have been influenced by some awareness of these writers'
situations.

The real problem here is the salient counter-example of Shakespeare,
whose biography contradicts Hughes theory.

Daryl

[John W Kennedy]

On May 27, 2012, at 5:52 AM, Daryl Pinksen wrote:
> Hadn't thought of that angle, that Ted Hughes, a creative writer of
> the highest order, didn't really understand the creative writing
> process.

Why should he be expected to? If there were no writers who did not understand writing, there would be no bad fiction with writer heros, and anyone, writer or not, is vulnerable to being put in the position of the famous centipede that developed hysterical paralysis when someone asked, "Which leg moves first?" For a Horrid Example, look at J. D. Beresford's "Writing Aloud", the story of a novel that crumbled into pieces when the author tried to keep a diary about writing it.

> To be fair, Hughes didn't say, "The [only] way to ... develop
> as a writer...," which would justify your argument, he said, "The way
> to *really* develop as a writer..." and then gave concrete but limited
> examples. He mentions deafness, but does not Milton and his blindness.
> Nor does he mention Ovid, whom he adored, whose work was elevated
> (ironic, since it engendered greater depth) after becoming a pariah.
>
> I would also add that many writers blacklisted during the McCarthy era
> had their work elevated as a result of their status as political
> outcasts. I'm thinking of people like Dalton Trumbo, Michael Wilson,
> Walter Bernstein, etc. Hughes wrote this letter during that period,
> and may have been influenced by some awareness of these writers'
> situations.
>
> The real problem here is the salient counter-example of Shakespeare,
> whose biography contradicts Hughes theory.

Whether or not he /says/ "only", his succeeding argument depends on an /assumed/ only.

--
John W Kennedy
"Harriet thanked Heaven, with grim amusement, for the scholarly habit; at least, one did not have to argue about what was or was not evidence."
-- Dorothy L. Sayers: "Gaudy Night"