Was Polonius Seen as Burghley Then?
MakBane
wanting to know why (or, IF) this resemblance was not remarked upon at the
time. If it is so obvious, and it certainly seems that it is, why is there no
contemporary account of any reaction to this parody?
The "Polus"/"Pondus" thing seems to have been as thoroughly debunked as the
Stratfordian offer that the name of Polonius is a reference to a contemporary
Polish ambassador/minister. I think Matus and his allies have come up with this
alternative to deflect attention from the virtual certainty that Lord Burghley
was the model for Polonius. And why should that be important? Because it
solidifies the Oxfordian position that Hamlet is largely autobiographical.
Also, I would like to know why the Hamlet Q1 (1603) is believed by some to be
derived from Q2. Why, if this is true, does the numbering not match the
sequence? If Cormabis and Montano were, respectively, the names of Polonius and
Reynaldo in Q2 (presumed to be the source of Q1), doesn't that make things even
more suspicious?
Toby Petzold
Nicholas Palffy
Ccoraannbis + F = Francis Bacon. Try the same with the guards: Francisco and
Barnardo...
MakBane a *crit :
MakBane
Burghley. I don't understand what you've written, but you have succeeded in
making me look like a sagacious scholar by comparison.
I would again like to know why Stratfordians are so quiet on the
Polonius-Burghley question. Is it because Burghley's precepts to his sons were
not published until after Shakspere's death? Is it because Shakspere could not
have been a witness to the goings-on in the Cecil household that are so plainly
alluded to in Hamlet, no matter how much "observing" he could have done as a
player at court?
Maybe Neo-Oxfordianism must content itself with reclaiming the Canon, one work
at a time.
Toby Petzold
(awaiting the proper French translation of his new motto, "Not Without an
Ass-Kicking")
David Kathman
>
> I've read Mark Alexander's excellent analysis of Polonius as Burghley and am
> wanting to know why (or, IF) this resemblance was not remarked upon at the
> time. If it is so obvious, and it certainly seems that it is, why is there no
> contemporary account of any reaction to this parody?
Maybe because it wasn't a parody of Burghley at all? Why are you
unable or unwilling to accept this possibility? You do realize,
don't you, that you're just as blinded by your preconceptions
as you accuse us of being?
> The "Polus"/"Pondus" thing seems to have been as thoroughly debunked as the
> Stratfordian offer that the name of Polonius is a reference to a contemporary
> Polish ambassador/minister.
Wait a minute. Some scholars have suggested that Polonius may
have been partly based on the loquatious Polish statesman described
in Goslicki's *The Counsellor* (English translation 1598). This seems
reasonable based solely on the date and the obvious pun in
Polonius's name, but Jenkins's Arden edition (p.422) gives
a number of specific similarities between Goslicki's portrait
(as published in the 1598 English edition) and the character
of Polonius in *Hamlet*. Why, then, do you assert that this
possible reference has been "debunked"? Just because some
Oxfordians have dismissed it out of hand because it doesn't
square with their dogmatic belief that Polonius *must* have
been based on Burghley? It seems to me that Goslicki is as good
a model for Polonius as Burghley is; do you have further information
that I'm not aware of?
And by the way, I'm not sure why you're comparing "the Polus/Pondus
thing" to the Goslicki portrait, because they're not at all
similar. Terry has shown that the Polus/Pondus references
alleged by Oxfordians do not exist, being based on a combination
of ignorance and outright falsehood. The Goslicki book at
least contains genuine similarities to Polonius, whether or
not one accepts that the similarites are intentional.
> I think Matus and his allies have come up with this
> alternative to deflect attention from the virtual certainty that Lord Burghley
> was the model for Polonius. And why should that be important? Because it
> solidifies the Oxfordian position that Hamlet is largely autobiographical.
Do you seriously believe that "Matus and his allies" came up
with the idea that Polonius may be partly based on the Polish
statesman in Goslicki's book? I'm afraid your ignorance and
paranoia are both showing. This idea was first published
by Israel Gollancz in the early part of the 20th century, before
Irvin Matus was even born.
In any case, I've written many times on why Shakespeare
scholars do not blindly accept the Burghley=Polonius formula so
fervently cherished by Oxfordians: the evidence for it is
circumstantial and simply not strong enough. I've said many
times that it's entirely possible that Polonius may be
partly based on Burghley, a well-known public figure
who had recently died when *Hamlet* was first performed,
but the snippets of evidence falls far short of "proof"
in any meaningful sense. The wild-eyed fervor of Oxfordian
belief on this issue (as on the identification of Southampton
with the young man of the Sonnets) seems to be based more
on the dynamics of Oxfordian belief systems than on the
evidence itself. I've also said many times that even if
Polonius is partly based on Burghley, this is no evidence
against Shakespeare's authorship, because Burghley was a
widely known public figure, and court gossip was rampant
among the general public.
> Also, I would like to know why the Hamlet Q1 (1603) is believed by some to be
> derived from Q2. Why, if this is true, does the numbering not match the
> sequence?
The numbering is based on the order in which the volumes
were published: Q1 in 1603, Q2 in 1604/5. As you say,
some people believe that Q1 was derived from Q2 and/or F1
(though I'm skeptical), but this has nothing to do
with the numbering of the volumes themselves.
> If Cormabis and Montano were, respectively, the names of Polonius and
> Reynaldo in Q2 (presumed to be the source of Q1), doesn't that make things even
> more suspicious?
I'm not sure what you're asking. Corambis and Montano are the names
of Polonius and Reynaldo in Q1, not Q2. They are Corambis and
Montano in Q1, and Polonius and Reynaldo in Q2 and all later
editions.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Crows Dog
part way through it.
Toby was impressed by Mark Alexander's article linking Polonius to Burghley. I
believe this is the article in which Mark seemed to express a belief that the
fact that he could come up with THREE arguments somehow made is belief THREE
dimensionsonal. I suppose it's fortuante for Mark he couldn't come up with a
fourth argument, or he would have found himself in the fourth dimentions.
MakBane (Toby) still seems to believe that if we don't have a record of someone
expressing an opinion on something in Elizabethan times, the means it never
occurred. He still doesn't seem to understand there is a certain scarcity of
records of what people spoke about in Shakespeare's times. But the rule only
works when Toby wants it to work. The fact that more people didn't refer to
Shakespeare OF STRATFORD as the author means, to Mark, that Shakespeare of
Stratford didn't write the works. But the fact that NO ONE spoke of Oxford
writing them doesn't mean a damn thing.
Toby wants to know why anyone didn't speak of Polonius being Burghley. Maybe
Polonius was based, at least in part, on Burghley. And maybe people did speak
about it. The fact that we don't have records of people speaking about it
doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
As far as Polonius's advice to Laertes echoing Burghley's advice to his son, a
gentleman who calls himself Ciaus Marcus once posted a speech from one of
Jonson's plays, - I can't remember if it was "EVERY MAN IN HIS HUMOR" or "EVERY
MAN OUT OF HIS HUMOR" that was much closer to Polonius's speech than Burghley's
precepts. If Shakesppeare copied anyone, it was apparently Jonson.
MakBane
Alexander's analysis! He is abetted in thinking that Corambis-Polonius was
Burghley by many orthodox scholars who seem easily to lead this horse to water,
but then "forget" their reason.
I will have to see about the Jonson character's speech more closely resembling
Polonius' precepts than Burghley's. Thanks for telling me about it.
Of course, I do understand about the scarcity of contemporary accounts of
Elizabethan politics and culture. That's probably the underlying cause for the
Question before us: not enough proof for either side to be satisfied.
But, you ARE saying Polonius was "maybe" and "at least in part" based on
Burghley? Okay. Which parts? His role as a close adviser to the monarch? The
pun on the name of Corambis from Burghley's motto? The son in Paris? The
spying? The fatherly pontificating? The long-windedness? The young daughter in
an unhappy relationship with the proud and iconoclastic young nobleman? The
fishmonger remark? The constant meddling?
I think Corambis-Polonius was based in LARGE part on Lord Burghley. This HAS to
cause some consternation in Stratfordians, right?
Toby Petzold
MakBane
translated into English in 1598. The Polish statesman mentioned therein must
have had a reputation that preceded him to have been parodied in a play
probably written well before The Counsellor was published. I do not know this
Polish statesman's name, but perhaps he was known to English-speakers as being
loquacious. Or, maybe only as a person who spoke Polish, which may have come
off as loquacious. Either way, I can just imagine the knowing nods in sending
up a Polish statesman (whose name, unfortunately, has not come down to us in
this thread) in a great tragic role that strongly resembles the personality of
the "rampantly" gossipped-about Lord Burghley. I think it more likely that the
general public (not to mention the court) would have recognized
Corambis-Polonius as a take on Burghley (regardless of the name) far more
quickly than on some Polish "statesman".
Also, I thank you for setting me straight about the vintage of the Stratfordian
explanation about this fascinating (although unnamed) Pole as a model for
Corambis-Polonius. If Matus did not originate it (as you say, Gollancz did), he
can certainly be called one of its leading proponents now, I would think. And,
as for that, I do think it's a prop to occupy some time. You wrote that
Burghley had just recently died when Hamlet was first performed and, so, it is
"entirely possible" that Polonius "may be partly based" on him. But why not say
that Corambis-Polonius is LARGELY based on Burghley, regardless of when Hamlet
was actually written? Do you mean that the character may be a composite
comprised of one part Lord Burghley (the most powerful man in England) and one
part obscure Polish legate? That's called saving the appearances, professor!
You caught me at miscommunicating my opinion on the issue of Burghley's being
nicknamed "Polus/Pondus". I did and do mean to say that Mr. Ross has
essentially knocked that bit of nonsense down, although I would offer up that
his translation of "polus" seems rather selective. But, as far as I can see at
this point in my understanding of the issue, I do not believe that Burghley was
known by either of these names, although he must certainly been perceived as
the great pole or axis about which Elizabethan England revolved.
Lastly, I think I understand now about the numbering and dating of Q1 and Q2.
Regardless of priority or derivation, the wholesale change of Corambis and
Montano's names to Polonius and Reynaldo is inexplicable and invites curiosity.
Toby Petzold
Crows Dog
(snip)
>Of course, I do understand about the scarcity of contemporary accounts of
>Elizabethan politics and culture. That's probably the underlying cause for
>the
>Question before us: not enough proof for either side to be satisfied.
If you understood about the scarcity of contemporary accounts of Elizabethan
politics and culture, you would not keep claiming that the lack of statements
about Shakespeare of Stratford are evidence he did not write the works.
>But, you ARE saying Polonius was "maybe" and "at least in part" based on
>Burghley? Okay. Which parts?
I don't know for certain that Polonius was based in part of Burghley, but it
doesn't seem unlikely. The fact that Burghely was an advisor to the crown
makes it highly plausable that Shakespeare may have thought of him when he was
creating an advisor to the crown in "Hamlet."
Also, I'm intrigued by the Oxfordian arguement that the whole "Fishmonger" bit
in "Hamlet" is a reference to Burghley's promoting people eating fish.
However, teh Arden edition of "Hamlet" has a good alternate explanation for
the"fishmonger" bit. In fact, the Arden edition of "Hamlet" has a lot of good
arguments against Polonius being based on Burghley.
>His role as a close adviser to the monarch?
Yes, that's the main thing.
>The
>pun on the name of Corambis from Burghley's motto?
No. I don't find that convincing at all. The Arden edition says Corambis is
more likely to be derived from the proverb Crambe bis posita mors est, which
means Cabbage served twice is death.
> The son in Paris?
Possibly.
> The
>spying?
Possibly, but one of the points of "Hamlet" is that the court was full of
Machiavellian spying.
>The fatherly pontificating? The long-windedness?
No. I don't find this convincing at all. Where is the evidence that Burghley
was particularly known for long-windedness?
Polonius certainly seems far more foolish than Burghley.
>The young daughter
>in
>an unhappy relationship with the proud and iconoclastic young nobleman?
No. Absolutely not. Ophelia's unhappy relationship with Hamlet is almost 100%
the opposite of Burghley's daughter's relationship with Oxford.
>The
>fishmonger remark?
As I said above, I do find that intriguing. But the Arden edition has an
alternate explanation, i.e., that Elizabethans thought of a fishmonger was a
bawd.
>The constant meddling?
No. Anyone who is an advisor to the crown is going to meddle. That's his job.
>I think Corambis-Polonius was based in LARGE part on Lord Burghley. This HAS
>to
>cause some consternation in Stratfordians, right?
No, not at all.
As Shakespeare himself says a number of times, the common people love to gossip
about the powerful.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> Dr. Kathman, I thank you for referring me to Groslicki's The
> Counsellor, translated into English in 1598. The Polish
> statesman mentioned therein must have had a reputation that
> preceded him to have been parodied in a play probably written
> well before The Counsellor was published. I do not know this
> Polish statesman's name, but perhaps he was known to
> English-speakers as being loquacious. Or, maybe only as
> a person who spoke Polish, which may have come off as
> loquacious. Either way, I can just imagine the knowing nods in
> sending up a Polish statesman
Ha ha. But your sarcasm is ridiculously misplaced, Toby.
There is no reason to believe Shakespeare was parodying
ANYONE when he created Polonius. Some scholars, as Dave
says, think he may have BASED that character (in part) on
the Polish statesman--probably because he read about the
latter and thought him a good model for the kind of
character he wanted Polonius to be, period.
Your problem is that you think Stratfordians are as stupid
as Oxfordians and therefore believe Shakespeare would put
a caricature into a tragedy in order to elicit "knowing nods
in sending up a Polish statesman."
I think it has to do with your rigidnikry, on characteristic of
which is lack of visceral empathy. This prevents your absorption
in Polonius as a father in a tense family situation and as a
counselor in a tense political situation and as, simply, a
flawed old man; ergo, you must connect the man to History (and,
of course, to your crackpot rigidniplex, or delusional system,
with Earl Eddy and Queen Liz right in the middle, surrounded
by Important Associates like Burghley, and no messy commoners
anywhere in sight).
> (whose name, unfortunately,
> has not come down to us in this thread) in a great tragic
> role that strongly resembles the personality of the "rampantly"
> gossipped-about Lord Burghley.
Not so, as you have been shown.
SNIP
> Do you mean that the character may be a composite
> comprised of one part Lord Burghley (the most powerful
> man in England) and one part obscure Polish legate?
> That's called saving the appearances, professor!
If you knew anything about the way most authors create
characters, you would not suggest such a stupid thing.
I'm sure Dave means that Polonius MAY be based on
the Pole, but also have a few characteristics of
Burghley's . . . AND (which Dave didn't say because
it's so obvious) of more than a few others', including--
I believe--Shakespeare's father. (What?! A small-town
mayor having anything in common with a, a, a PRIME
MINISTER!? I'm afraid, yes, that's what I believe.)
--Bob G.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
MakBane
been a long time coming, but I've been working on my chops and was hoping for
the big break.
I realize, of course, that my conception of Shakespeare's construction of
Polonius is simplistic. Stratfordians are not expected to devise some recipe of
proportions in "identifying" Polonius with any one or a number of people
(zeugma!), but it is a satisfying coincidence of history that the leading
candidate for the Authorship was also a ward of William Cecil from an early age
and would have, thus, been in a privileged position to observe that character
in all its modes.
I am surprised at your colleagues' myopic assessment of the name Corambis,
though. We're not talking some crazy-assed Marlovian cryptographicosis here;
we're talking about a very obvious twist of Lord Burghley's own Latin motto. If
the very same quality of allusion were found in some equivalent Stratfordian
context, I'm sure there would be much crowing about it. Instead, such a
connection is pooh-poohed by orthodoxy as some arbitrary and unknowable (read
inconsequential) bit of Oxfordian wishfulness.
My opinion of Hamlet, in general, is that it is a work of many years and much
polish. I believe, with most of the rest of the world, that it is Shakespeare's
crowning achievement. I cannot imagine that the fight for its rightful
provenance would go easily or be conceded by orthodoxy at any point, however
obvious and dispositive.
Toby Petzold
David Kathman
>
> Dr. Kathman, I thank you for referring me to Groslicki's [sic] The Counsellor,
> translated into English in 1598. The Polish statesman mentioned therein must
> have had a reputation that preceded him to have been parodied in a play
> probably written well before The Counsellor was published.
I assume that you're being at least partly sarcastic here, Toby, but
I'll ignore that and give you a straight answer.
Actually, the Polish statesman of Goslicki's book is a type-figure,
a sort of parody/composite of a counsellor to the Polish state
rather than any specific person. The book says that it is "replenished
with the chief learning of the most excellent Philosophers and
Lawgivers... very necessary... the administration of a well-governed
Common-weal... and consecrated to the honour of the Polonian Empire"
(Goslicki, 1598 English translation, as quoted by Jenkins' Arden
*Hamlet*, p.422).
And yes, this *was*, in fact, a well-known figure long before
Shakespeare wrote *Hamlet*. The first edition of Goslicki's
book was published in Latin in 1568 (*De Optimo Senatore*),
30 years before its English translation. That's well before
even the fantasy dates for *Hamlet* imagined by Oxfordians.
I assume that your statement that *Hamlet* was "probably written
well before The Counsellor was published" is based on the fact
that a play called *Hamlet* certainly existed before 1598,
combined with the dogmatic but ignorant Oxfordian insistence
that this must have been Shakespeare's play, in the same form
we have it in the 1604 quarto. I'm sorry to have to break
this to you, Toby, but there were many, many Elizabethan
plays by different authors on the same general subject and
having the same or very similar titles, despite being
entirely different plays. For instance, the Queen's
Men had a play called *Richard III* which was written in
the 1580s and printed in 1594, three years before Shakespeare's
*Richard III* was first printed; the two plays have very
little in common except their general subject matter.
The Queen's Men also had *The Famous Victories of Henry
the Fifth*, which was written in the mid-1580s and printed
in 1598, possibly to capitalize on confusion with Shakespeare's
Henry IV and Henry V plays; while there are some broad
similarities, *The Famous Victories* is a very different
play. Then there's *King Leir*, another Queen's Men play
which was performed and entered in the Stationer's Register
in 1594 but not published until 1605, again probably to
capitalize on Shakespeare's play of essentially the same title.
While there are considerably more similarities between *Leir*
and Shakespeare's *Lear*, they are mostly structural, and
they're definitely very distinct plays. And I'm just
talking about some of the cases where both plays have
survived; there are many other cases where one or both
plays are no longer extant, but we can be reasonably sure
from the circumstances that they're differnent plays of
the same title.
Given all this, why do you apparently insist that the
*Hamlet* referred to in 1589-96 must have been Shakespeare's
play of that name? Do you have some information that
the rest of us don't? And even if you believe that
at least some of these references are to a play by
Shakespeare (which is not an outlandish idea), how do
you know that it's the same version represented in
Q1/Q2/F1? Couldn't Shakespeare have written or revised
an earlier version of *Hamlet* that doesn't survive,
then reworked it around 1600 into the version we know today?
I'm not saying that this is what happened, but it's at
least a possibility that you don't seem to be considering.
> I do not know this
> Polish statesman's name, but perhaps he was known to English-speakers as being
> loquacious. Or, maybe only as a person who spoke Polish, which may have come
> off as loquacious.
The type-figure in Goslicki's book is indeed loquacious. He
imagines himself being told that his "art... is rather to
be termed the science of prating" (cf. Hamlet's description
of Polonius as a "foolish prating knave" (3.4.215)), and
fears lest his discourse may seem long and tedious.
> Either way, I can just imagine the knowing nods in sending
> up a Polish statesman (whose name, unfortunately, has not come down to us in
> this thread) in a great tragic role that strongly resembles the personality of
> the "rampantly" gossipped-about Lord Burghley. I think it more likely that the
> general public (not to mention the court) would have recognized
> Corambis-Polonius as a take on Burghley (regardless of the name) far more
> quickly than on some Polish "statesman".
Your sarcasm aside, Goslicki's book was quite popular in
England, and even more popular after the 1598 English translation
appeared. It's also true that Burghley was a well-known public
figure and the subject of much gossip. I'm not sure what the
basis is for your belief that people would have recognized
Burghley as Polonius "far more quickly" than Goslicki, other
than your own prejudices. Your beliefs are not evidence.
> Also, I thank you for setting me straight about the vintage of the Stratfordian
> explanation about this fascinating (although unnamed) Pole as a model for
> Corambis-Polonius. If Matus did not originate it (as you say, Gollancz did), he
> can certainly be called one of its leading proponents now, I would think.
You would think wrong, although I'm sure Irv Matus would be
flattered to find you building him up into something he's not.
Maybe within the insular world of Oxfordianism, Matus might be
a "leading proponent" of this idea, but that's only because most
Oxfordians seem unfamiliar with real scholarship and know little
besides what they read in Oxfordian sources or direct responses
to them (such as Matus' book or our web page). Jenkins' 1982
Arden edition of the play (cited above) has had far more
influence in disseminating Gollancz's suggestion than Matus has.
> And,
> as for that, I do think it's a prop to occupy some time. You wrote that
> Burghley had just recently died when Hamlet was first performed and, so, it is
> "entirely possible" that Polonius "may be partly based" on him. But why not say
> that Corambis-Polonius is LARGELY based on Burghley, regardless of when Hamlet
> was actually written?
Because the evidence, such as it is, is far too ambiguous for
such a strong statement. Did you not even read what I wrote?
> Do you mean that the character may be a composite
> comprised of one part Lord Burghley (the most powerful man in England) and one
> part obscure Polish legate? That's called saving the appearances, professor!
Your feeble sarcasm and twisting of my words aside, it is fairly common
for an author to draw on several different real-life models (consciously
or unconsciously) in creating a single fictional character. Do you deny
this basic truism?
> You caught me at miscommunicating my opinion on the issue of Burghley's being
> nicknamed "Polus/Pondus". I did and do mean to say that Mr. Ross has
> essentially knocked that bit of nonsense down, although I would offer up that
> his translation of "polus" seems rather selective.
In what way? Can you give specific examples? Or are you just
blowing hot air?
> But, as far as I can see at
> this point in my understanding of the issue, I do not believe that Burghley was
> known by either of these names, although he must certainly been perceived as
> the great pole or axis about which Elizabethan England revolved.
Well... maybe. But even if one accepts that, it's a long stretch
to "Polonius".
> Lastly, I think I understand now about the numbering and dating of Q1 and Q2.
Good. It's not that difficult to understand.
> Regardless of priority or derivation, the wholesale change of Corambis and
> Montano's names to Polonius and Reynaldo is inexplicable and invites curiosity.
Yes, it is, and it does. Welcome to the wonderful world of *Hamlet*
textual scholarship, in which many very smart people have written
thousands of pages before you. If you're interested in educating
yourself on this particular crux, you might want to consult Harold
Jenkins' 1982 Arden *Hamlet* (pp. 421-2); G. R. Hibbard's 1987 Oxford
edition (pp. 74-5); Philip Edwards' 1985 Cambridge edition (pp. 25-6
and 71); and Kathleen Irace's 1998 edition of Q1 *Hamlet* (p. 13).
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
David Kathman
[snip]
> I am surprised at your colleagues' myopic assessment of the name Corambis,
> though. We're not talking some crazy-assed Marlovian cryptographicosis here;
> we're talking about a very obvious twist of Lord Burghley's own Latin motto.
No, it's not "obvious" at all, as Terry Ross has shown at great
and tedious length. The name "Corambis" cannot be derived from
Burghley's Latin motto using any form of Latin known to man.
The alleged "twist" was invented by Oxfordians based on ignorance
of basic Latin, and is not taken seriously by any scholars that
I know of.
> If
> the very same quality of allusion were found in some equivalent Stratfordian
> context, I'm sure there would be much crowing about it. Instead, such a
> connection is pooh-poohed by orthodoxy as some arbitrary and unknowable (read
> inconsequential) bit of Oxfordian wishfulness.
No, it's pooh-poohed because it's based on ignorance. Such an
idea would be laughed out of town no matter who proposed it.
> My opinion of Hamlet, in general, is that it is a work of many years and much
> polish. I believe, with most of the rest of the world, that it is Shakespeare's
> crowning achievement. I cannot imagine that the fight for its rightful
> provenance would go easily or be conceded by orthodoxy at any point, however
> obvious and dispositive.
As I've said repeatedly, your opinions, no matter how strongly
held, are not evidence for anything. In many cases those opinions
seem to be based on ignorance of the facts and/or excessive
gullibility.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
David Kathman
[snip]
> I think Corambis-Polonius was based in LARGE part on Lord Burghley. This HAS to
> cause some consternation in Stratfordians, right?
As I've been saying for more than six years in various forums, no.
Why on earth would a resemblance between Polonius and Burghley
cause any kind of consternation? Burghley was a very well-known
public figure who was often the target of parodies by the literati
of the day -- Spenser, Greene, and Nashe all did so, and in the
case of Spenser we have external evidence that Burghley was
generally recognized as the target. Why couldn't Shakespeare
have done the same? I really don't understand why Oxfordians
such as you and Mark Alexander are always imagining that
Shakespeare scholars are cowering in "consternation" over this
non-issue, when the vast majority of them don't care a bit.
Those few of them who are aware of the importance placed on
the alleged Polonius-Burghley connection by Oxfordians don't
give a rat's ass about it, as far as I can see. I'm afraid
you're vastly inflating your own importance and the visibility
of Oxfordian ideas in the Shakespeare scholarly community.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Mark Alexander
"David Kathman" <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3A5D397B...@popd.ix.netcom.com...
> MakBane wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I am surprised at your colleagues' myopic assessment of the name
Corambis,
> > though. We're not talking some crazy-assed Marlovian
cryptographicosis here;
> > we're talking about a very obvious twist of Lord Burghley's own
Latin motto.
>
> No, it's not "obvious" at all, as Terry Ross has shown at great
> and tedious length. The name "Corambis" cannot be derived from
> Burghley's Latin motto using any form of Latin known to man.
> The alleged "twist" was invented by Oxfordians based on ignorance
> of basic Latin, and is not taken seriously by any scholars that
> I know of.
You know very well, Dave, that Terry has shown no such thing.
1) Why does *spelling* suddenly matter in this name when Strats so
conveniently dismiss it in others? <G>
2) Who says it has to be a perfect Latin construction, especially in a
case when someone in high office is being parodied? The fact that such
parodies must often be somewhat circumspect in Elizabethan politics
means that you leave yourself an escape route when everyone *knows* what
you mean.
("Gee, I'm shocked the Star Chamber would take an interest in my
character of Corambis when, gentle sirs, you can obviously see that this
would not be the proper Latin construction!")
Cor-ambis, especially for a *listening* audience looking for topical
allusions (which they were), is enough to make the point.
You spread Terry's red-herring mischief here. You guys simply cannot
admit that in this case a better argument exists than that rather inane
argument of the Polish counsillor (?), which is the kind of allusion
that only a frustrated academic would make or even care to recognize,
not an Elizabethan audience looking for real topical allusions.
Besides, such an audience will go for the *obvious* parallels and then
examine Corambis and go "Ho Ho Ho <rib...rib> get it?" with only inane
prigs saying, "No, no, no, the Latin is not exact...."
Give us a break, Dave.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
MakBane
>the Polish statesman of Goslicki's book is a type-figure,
>a sort of parody/composite of a counsellor to the Polish state
>rather than any specific person.
This being the case, I find it even less likely that any audience would have
made any connection between the name of Polonius and the personality traits
shared by that character and this "type-figure" of Goslicki's. This
"type-figure" isn't even an actual, historical person; he's apparently a
rhetorical device or a quasi-allegorical idealization of a Polish politician.
We can only wonder why it took 30 years for such a "well-known figure" to make
it from Latin to English.
Unless Stratfordians simply believe that Shakespeare simply drew the names of
Corambis and Polonius out of thin air and meant nothing by them, then we are
left with this: Polonius, a character who shares many biographical details with
Lord Burghley, the most powerful man in England, is not to be thought of as a
FULL parodic representation of the latter because the name Polonius, itself, is
at least a PARTIAL allusion to the "type-figure" in a decades-old Latin book on
Polish statesmanship (newly-enough translated into English to elicit the
erudite approval of the average theater-goer). OR, we can believe that Corambis
(forgetting, somehow, the inexplicability of the change of name) is a pun on
some musty old proverb about some twice-served dish being death. I'm sure this
theory has been championed by halves of dozens!
Corambis is an extremely rich and allusive name. It could mean "the one who
encircles the throne (i.e., the crown)" or "the one who is coronally ambitious"
or "the one who goes around the crown" (in the sense of ambition or
two-facedness). I am, unfortunately, ignorant of how Burghley himself rendered
his own motto, but any of these definitons strongly suggests the essence of his
role in Elizabethan England, perhaps most especially to his enemies and
intimates.
I did concede to Mr. Ross that the authority for Burghley's nickname being
"Polus" or "Pondus" is non-existent. However, I do note that his translation of
polus as heaven (in the context of the Harvey address) ignores the stronger
definition of pole. With poetic license, Burghley could have been a pole around
which all else revolved. Nevertheless, I think the name Polonius was supplied
(by whom I do not know) because it is the more obscured of the two choices.
As for the history of the writing of Hamlet, I do not doubt that it was a
subject used many times by playwrights. But, since none but Shakespeare's seems
to have survived (please correct me if I'm wrong), it is not truly possible to
say that the earlier-known incarnation was NOT de Vere's. I do not know enough
about the Ur-Hamlet idea to say much else, but I do know that the pressure
against the 1589 date is inversely proportional to the strain of credulity if
one is told that Hamlet is the work of a 25 year-old. As I explained to Dr.
Kathman, I think Hamlet is the spit-shined jewel of all theatrical jewels; it
was not a knock-off to entertain the groundlings: it is the work of years and
toil.
Dr. Kathman also wrote that
>The type-figure in Goslicki's book is indeed loquacious. He
>imagines himself being told that his "art... is rather to
>be termed the science of prating" (cf. Hamlet's description
>of Polonius as a "foolish prating knave" (3.4.215)), and
>fears lest his discourse may seem long and tedious.
>
I think this is a fine parallel, only Polonius does not seem to be quite so
aware of his own prating, which is rather the joke. He is tedious, but cannot
help it and, instead, indulges it because he thinks he is demonstrating his
wisdom. If Goslicki's "type-figure" serves to discredit this kind of prating,
then the name of Polonius, as an allusion, is not entirely apt.
Toby Petzold
p.s. No, I do not deny that
> it is fairly common
>for an author to draw on several different real-life models (consciously
>or unconsciously) in creating a single fictional character.
But, this being so, I find it hard to believe that any Stratfordian would come
within a mile of the "real-life models" argument, seeing as how it is his stock
in trade to routinely minimize the influence of real life on the creation of
Shakespeare's characters. The world, as de Vere must have known it, is
reflected in the actions and attitudes of Shakespeare's noblemen and women. But
where is the real-life world of the man from Stratford? Where is that milieu
created in the Canon? NOwhere.
ken...@my-deja.com
Since you have apparently read "The Counsellor" and it is not a readily
available text, perhaps you could do us a favor and provide a slightly
more thorough comparison between it and Polonius, similar to Mark's
comparison between Polonius and Burghley. Not a full paper of course,
but a quick outline of the pertinent points that would lead one to see
that there are abundant similarities between the two that would lead
one to conclude that this was Shakespeare's chief source for his
character.
For example, does the councellor have a daughter approximately the age
Anne Cecil was when she married Oxford who is romantcally involved with
a prince or nobleman of high station?
This *is* an important Oxfordian argument. Therefore such comparisons
are very important. It may be possible that Shakespeare used both as
sources (the book and Burghley). It is the proportion and the amount of
Burghley "fingerprints" in the play that I think are significant for
the issue. Your prior discussion about the importance of such a
characterization is, of course, the crux of the matter.
Thanks,
Ken Kaplan
In article <3A5D396A...@popd.ix.netcom.com>,
ken...@my-deja.com
I believe one of the principle pieces of evidence that suggests
Shakespeare's Hamlet is 1594 or before is in Nashe's 1594 epistle to
"Christ's Tears Over Jerusalem" (missed by Hibberd in his book on
Nashe- Hibberd by the way does not believe the 1589 preface to Menaphon
by Nashe necessarily identifies Kyd as the author of Hamlet).
"Was neuer whore of Babylon so betrapt with abhominations as his stile
(like the dog house in the fields) is pestred with stinking filth. His
vaineglorie (which some take to be his gentlwoman) he hath *new painted
ouer an inch thicke.*(my emphasis) Some fewe crummes of my booke he
hath confuted, all
the rest of his inuention is nothing but an oxe with a pudding in his
bellie, not fit for any thing els, saue only to feast the dull eares of
ironmongers, ploughmen, carpenters, and porters. Maister Lillie, poore
deceassed Kit Marlow, reuerent Doctor Perne, with a hundred other quiet
senslesse carkasses before the conquest departed, in the same worke he
hath most notoriously & vilely dealt with; and to conclude, he hath
proued
him selfe to be the only *Gabriel Graue-digger vnder heauen.<*(my
emphasis)
Joseph W. DeMent notes in this passage:
[A] parallel . . . between Nashe’s phrase “new painted ouer an inch
thick”
and Hamlet’s rhetorical injuction to the skull of Yorick:<
Now get you to my lady’s chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch
thick, to this favour must she come. Make her laugh at that.< (DeMent,
Joseph W., “A Possible 1594 Reference to Hamlet”, Shakespeare Quarterly,
vol. xv, 1964, pp.446-7 at p. 446)
DeMent says that “paint an inch thicke” is not an Elizabethan
commonplace phrase. Thus, the phrase seems to be an allusion to the
graveyard scene in Hamlet. Moreover, the comparison is strengthened
because:
The metaphor that follows . . . makes it extremely unlikely that the
correspondence could be mere coincidence, for in it Harvey (Gabriel) is
a
gravedigger, shovelling the skulls of his deceased literary enemies—
Lyly, Marlowe, and Perne—out of the ground prior to desecrating them.
The image loses most of its effect if it is conceived of without
reference
to the graveyard scene [in Hamlet].<
Henslowe’s records show that there was a performance of Hamlet on June
9th, 1594. The 1594 “edition” of Christs Teares does not appear in the
Stationer’s Register; thus, we cannot tell whether it appeared before or
after June 9. . . < (p.447)
Nashe was obviously very interested in Hamlet, and this second allusion
to the play makes it much more likely, IMO, that his first allusion to
Hamlet in 1589 is reliable evidence that Hamlet was on the stage at
that time.
The allusion to a “oxe with a pudding in his bellie” in the same
passage is also Shakespearean, appearing in 1 Henry IV II.iv.444 when
Falstaff is described as “that roasted Manningtree ox with the pudding
in his belly”. Nashe uses the image again in The Unfortunate Traveller
(“an oxe roasted with a stag in the belly”. (DeMent, p.246)
I find it very unlikely that the "Ur Hamlet" by Kyd(or antone else) had
a graveyard scene with the "Alas poor Yorick" speech with the *exact
same lines* and gravediggers. Add to this fact that Q1 proclaims itself
as presented at the two Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, where
Nashe's first mention of Hamlet is made in 1589. It seems Nashe knew
his audience well and that Hamlet was popular enough that they would
get the rfeference. There seems to be is significant extant evidence
here to _reasonably_ assume that Hamlet from 1589 to 1596 is
Shakespeare's. Inspection of the differences in Q1 and Q2 strengthen
this point of view. (the lack of the mention of the children and their
being clapped as falcons is missing in Q1 suggesting later revision,
for example). Cairncross certainly thought this way, as have others.
Ken Kaplan
In article <3A5D396A...@popd.ix.netcom.com>,
dj...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
MakBane
>I'm afraid
>you're vastly inflating your own importance and the visibility
>of Oxfordian ideas in the Shakespeare scholarly community.
In recent flurry of posts, I must have missed this particular personal
observation, but will respond to it now by saying that Dr. Kathman's
characterization of me is gratuitous and nonsensical. I've posted here several
dozen times now and, except in the spirit of polemic, have been quite
deferential to my correspondents and honest about my shortcomings. What
"importance" might I be "inflating"? I cannot be much of a help to
Oxfordianism, in the strictly partisan sense, considering that I am constantly
being corrected and shown up for my ignorance. But, for my own purposes, I am
glad to be disabused of my erroneous beliefs. I am sloughing off the chaff.
Nevertheless, there is something to be gained, if for no other reason than
knife-sharpening, in rebutting my opinions and assertions. Dr. Kathman should
be glad to have such an obliging pinata around to swing at between writing his
biographies and maintaining his superior position.
Toby Petzold
p.s. The "consternation" that Stratfordians should be feeling about the
Polonius-Burghley connection has to do with the numerous parallels between the
two, to which de Vere is demonstrably more likely to have been a witness than
Shakspere. It is not my fault that orthodoxy doesn't afford this relationship
more "visibility," but I am confident that not even time can make false which
was once true.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> Dr. Kathman wrote to Toby Petzold:
>
> >I'm afraid
> >you're vastly inflating your own importance and the visibility
> >of Oxfordian ideas in the Shakespeare scholarly community.
>
> In recent flurry of posts, I must have missed this particular personal
> observation, but will respond to it now by saying that Dr. Kathman's
> characterization of me is gratuitous and nonsensical. I've posted here
> several dozen times now and, except in the spirit of polemic, have
> been quite deferential to my correspondents and honest about my
> shortcomings.
This is interesting, Toby, for it indicates that you are as poor at
reading what you yourself write as you are at reading what others
write. YOu come across almost always as a smart aleck.
> What "importance" might I be "inflating"? I cannot be much of a
> help to Oxfordianism, in the strictly partisan sense, considering
> that I am constantly being corrected and shown up for my ignorance.
> But, for my own purposes, I am glad to be disabused of my erroneous
> beliefs. I am sloughing off the chaff.
Not very efficiently.
> Nevertheless, there is something to be gained, if for no other
> reason than knife-sharpening, in rebutting my opinions and
> assertions. Dr. Kathman should be glad to have such an
> obliging pinata around to swing at between writing his
> biographies and maintaining his superior position.
I rather doubt it, since you're about his 509th pinata, and
you haven't said anything new yet.
> Toby Petzold
>
> p.s. The "consternation" that Stratfordians should be
> feeling about the Polonius-Burghley connection has to
> do with the numerous parallels between the two, to
> which de Vere is demonstrably more likely to have been a
> witness than Shakspere.
This is chaff, Toby.
> It is not my fault that orthodoxy doesn't afford this
> relationship more "visibility," but I am confident that
> not even time can make false which was once true.
And here is Toby, the smart aleck, ever confident of one
moronic position or another.
--Bob G.
KQKnave
(MakBane) writes:
>p.s. The "consternation" that Stratfordians should be feeling about the
>Polonius-Burghley connection has to do with the numerous parallels between
>the
>two, to which de Vere is demonstrably more likely to have been a witness than
>Shakspere. It is not my fault that orthodoxy doesn't afford this relationship
>more "visibility," but I am confident that not even time can make false which
>was once true.
>
That doesn't make any sense. Shakespeare was a member of the Lord
Chamberlain's Men and performed for the court and must have had access
to gossip and information from the courtly spectators. Given that there is no
evidence whatsoever that Oxford had anything to do with the writing of the
plays, why should we be concerned about the connection? Just about
every other alternative candidate for authorship also knew something
about Burghley, so how would it demonstrate anything?
Jim
ken...@my-deja.com
of the comparison and integrate these with the emotional tone of the
play and the point of view of the author. Recently I came upon Rebecca
West's article on Hamlet, "A Court and World Infected by the Disease of
Corruption.", which, although it is not a direct rebuttal, constitutes
a stinging rebuke to the Matus article on the K-R site debunking the
Oxfordian position on Hamlet as incorporating corruption of society and
court as a prime theme of the play.
From West, "Polonius is interesting because he was a cunning old
intriguer who, like an iceberg, only showed one eigth of himself above
the surfacve.... It has been insufficiently noted that Shakespeare
would never have held up the action in order that Polonius should give
his son advice... unless the scene helped him develop this theme. "And
this above all"... has considerable value when it is spoken by an old
gentleman who is presently going to instruct a servant to spy on his
son, and to profess great anxiety about his daughter's morals, when
plainly he needed to send her away into the country if he really wanted
her to retain any...
The girl is _not_ to be kept out of harm's way. She is a card that can
be played to take several sorts of tricks (set your entreatments higher
than a command to parley)...Surely Ophelia is one of the few authentic
portraits of that army of not virgin martyrs, the poor little girls who
were sacrificed to family ambition in the days when a court was a
'cat's cradle of conspiracies'. Particularly where monarchy had grown
from a yeast mass of feudalism, few families found themselves unable to
resist the temptation to hawk any young beauty in their brood, if it
seemed likely that she might catch the eye of the king -or any man
close to the king-."
Within this context, which surely echoes the Burghley- Oxford-Anne
Cecil triangle. specific imprints become more significant. In addition
to the many allusions to Burghley cited by Mark in his article, I add
these.
1) “You are a fishmonger”- One of the most cited comparisons ( I noted
it from the Encyclopedia of Shakespeare). Burghley was known
for trying to manipulate the fish trade for monetary gain.
2) Hamlet calls Polonius Jephthah, twice, and quotes from the Biblical
passage. Jephthah was a judge who lost his daughter unknowingly in a
bargain with God in order to gain worldly success.. Hamlet may suspect
Polonius was behind Ophelia's retreat from him, but why not talk
directly to him? From what happens in the play, Polonius' motives are
reasonable, in that he claims fearfulness that Hamlet's affections are
sexually driven. He even expresses that to Ophelia in what appears to
be a rare moment of honesty. And why does Hamlet insinuate through the
reference that Polonius will destroy his daughter? It is interesting
that Matus spectacularly misreads the play in assuming that Polonius is
telling the truth to the King and Queen that he warned his daughter off
because Hamlet's station is too great for her. Here he is clearly
fawning and lying, but Matus needs to try to establish this point to
supposedly counter the Oxfordian connection.
3) Continuing with these echoes, Hamlet says to Polonius, “Conception
is a blessing but not as your daughter may conceive.” This is extremely
telling. Whatever one thinks of the entire argument, there is no doubt
historically that Oxford questioned Ann’s conception as his own.
4)Diet of Worms- not conclusive, due to the Lutheran- Wittenberg
associations in the play, but important for we know for sure that
Burghley changed hisbirth date in his diary to coincide with it.
Sources are certain enough to say he “referenced it”. (5 months apart)
All of these "imprints" have to be fit into the play's entire mood,
tone and point of view. West continues, "It is Shakespeare's contention
that the whole of the court is corrupt, socirty is corrupt. There is a
flaw running horizintally through humanity wherever it is gathered
together in space.(The previous HLAS discussion of Horatio as the one
honest man underscores this, the court is a fetid place and all in it
except him,from Hamlet's view,(except possibly Laertes) display
dishonesty, immorality, and betrayal.)It would seem natural that Hamlet
should obey the ghost and punish Claudius, who controls the court, who
is an emblem of society, but the flaw runs vertically also, it runs
through time into the past...The ghost was indeed a sinner, the voice
of tradition speaks from a tainted source. The evil in the world is not
a product of this specifically corrupt generation, it has its roots in
the _race_...This is the situation of our kind as it is shown to us in
Hamlet *which is as pessimistic as any great work of literature ever
written*.
These sentiments about the deep melancholic tonen of the play are
echoed in one form or another by many other noted critics, from
Berryman and Frye, to Bradley. But West also keys in on something I had
not seen developed elsewhere(in my limited experience), the theme of
sexual corruption. It is instructive that in Q2, as opposed to Q1,when
Hamlet confronts the Queen, he DOESN'T EXPLICITELY TELL HER ABOUT THE
MURDER, he barely alludes to it. He rants on for 80 lines and his
entire focus is her _sexual corruption_. This is remarkable, in my
opinion. From the "mole of nature speech"(again not on Q1), to
Polonius' warnings to Ophelia, to Hamlet's confrontation with the
Queen, this "taint", this "blot" runs like a subterranean river through
the play. Frye curiously notes it when he comments on Hamlet's constant
insistance that Claudius is "lecherous". Yes he married the Queen but,
aside from ambition, he prersents himself as a fairly competent leader
who has not shown himself to be overly lecherous.
One has to wonder then, about the shrillness of tone and the author's
clear focus on this issue. Within this context(which although complex,
is still only part of a larger more complex psychlogical,
religious,etc. framework), the imprints of Burghley, which to me seem
unmistakable, gain greater meaning and force, and demand of us
questions of the author's motive and relationship to not only him, but
the King, Queen, and court as society as well.
It mat be that William of Stratford had these feelings and these
viewpoints, but often I think authorship questions can be significant
for triangulation, for inspecting the emotional state and soul of the
author. Maybe Eric Sams is right when he believes that the villains in
Shakespeare derive from those who took advantage of his father, but
there are more than eerie echoes in Claudius and Gertrude to Leicester,
who surely was one of the great flatterers of all time, and Elizabeth,
who formed her liason with him out partly out of sexual attraction, and
who together stole between 10 and 20 million dollars from Oxford(892
pounds a year from rents from his land during his wardship-then forced
to spend 5000 pounds to sue for his livery.)From this vantage point,
the obsession with the Queeen's sexual "wantonness"
"Oh Hamlet, speak no more, Thou turn'st mine eyes into my very soul,
and there I see such black and grained spots as will not leave their
tinct"
makes sense. The specific Oxfordian imprints are hard to escape, and in
this respect Terry Ross was right, Burghley as Polonius, with so many
specific cues does help lead to a consideration of Oxford as Hamnlet,
especially when other specific Oxfordian imprints(captured by pirates,
falling out at tennis, 'se offendo' among others) are present.
One last point. Whether Oxford is Shakespeare or not, knowing a highly
regarded relative was capriciously beheaded by Henry VIII, having to
sit on the trial of Mary Queen of Scots, watching Campion killed for
his religious beliefs, seeing writers disfigured ,thrown in prison and
tortured for their opinions, watching the fall of Essex, and in general
probably being disgusted with the bullshit at court are not "petty
greivances" as Matus would have us believe. Maybe he also thinks 'Long
Day's Journey into Night" is a petty contemplation of O'Neil's
concerns over his familiy's dysfunction. In this case, Oxford's life
fits with and informs the circumstances and deep emotional anguish of
this most highly regarded literary work. In the case of Hamlet, it is
these types of evidentiary clues, among so many others in Oxford's
life that lead to the contemplation that he was the soul and mind
behind the works of Shakespeare.
>
KQKnave
>It makes sense when one moves beyond the material and literal aspects
>of the comparison and integrate these with the emotional tone of the
>play and the point of view of the author.
In other words, it makes sense if you ignore the facts and just assume
that everything which fits your authorship fantasy is proof of that
fantasy.
[snip of blather]
Anyone who has ever been a part of any organization, whether it's
a court or political organization, or a company, or a school, or a
theatre, can identify with the games and politics that are going on
at Elsinore. Shakespeare was a poet, and Elsinore is a metaphor,
that's why we can still relate to it today.
Jim
ken...@my-deja.com
asked the question, I gave you a thoughtful answer. You respond with
the usual insults. You have no interest in dialogue. So keep this last
thought in mind, hotshot, as I part. You said that Shakespeare could
have easily satirized Burghley and what's the big deal. The big deal
is, if Burghley is pointedly characterized in Polonius, why did the
author choose to create that image in an *intimate relationship* with
the central character in what is univerally considered one of
Shakespeare's most personal plays, an intimate relationship that
mirrors startlingly the real life relationship between a high ranking
courtier and his councilor father in law? If all Shakespeare was
interested in was adding fuel to the fire in the footsteps of Spencer
and others, as Kathman and you suggest, why this form, why this
personal, why this reflective of a real life situation? With such
specific qualities of that reflection (that you conveniently ignore).
Similar to questions surrounding the sonnets, eh?
Of course, such subtleties such as author motivation aren't part of
your makeup. After all, he wrote everything for the actors and money,
right? God forbid he had real feelings which went into these works, and
even worse, they somehow related to his _life experience_. And even if
William of Stratford is the real author, these questions would still be
important to me. And in all the reading I've done among all those fine
Strat biographers there are so, so few who even dare to try to find the
man behind the pen, most are so fucking clueless. Damn, Schoenbaum even
had the guts to admit it. And those who do go beyond the norm, because
they're highly intuitive, as in Berryman's perceptions, what comes out
sounds an awful lot like Oxford. Mysterious, isn't it.
Goodbye.
Ken Kaplan
In article <20010112192823...@nso-co.aol.com>,
Crows Dog
There's no need for Shakespeare to have known Oxford.
Oxfordians have asserted for so long that incidents from Oxford's life can be
found in the plays, that many people believe this.
It's nonsense. There are damned few parallels between the life of Oxford and
the events in Shakespeare's plays.
Mark Steese
<93op85$ri7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
[snip]
>The big deal
>is, if Burghley is pointedly characterized in Polonius, why did the
>author choose to create that image in an *intimate relationship* with
>the central character in what is univerally considered one of
>Shakespeare's most personal plays, an intimate relationship that
>mirrors startlingly the real life relationship between a high ranking
>courtier and his councilor father in law?
This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if Oxfordians are not
actually residents of a parallel universe which has radically different
versions of Shakespeare's plays. Where is your evidence that Hamlet and
Polonius have an intimate relationship? Polonius misunderstands Hamlet
from the first to the last, and Hamlet has nothing but casual contempt for
him. Also, Hamlet is not a high-ranking courtier and Polonius is not his
father-in-law.
>If all Shakespeare was
>interested in was adding fuel to the fire in the footsteps of Spencer
>and others, as Kathman and you suggest, why this form, why this
>personal, why this reflective of a real life situation? With such
>specific qualities of that reflection (that you conveniently ignore).
>Similar to questions surrounding the sonnets, eh?
And why do you ignore the specific details of Polonius's life that have
nothing to do with Burghley's? Or have you some reason to believe that
Burghley did play Julius Caesar in his university days? And what happened
to Burghley's other son?
>Of course, such subtleties such as author motivation aren't part of
>your makeup. After all, he wrote everything for the actors and money,
>right? God forbid he had real feelings which went into these works, and
>even worse, they somehow related to his _life experience_. And even if
>William of Stratford is the real author, these questions would still be
>important to me.
Yet you don't see how it might be significant that Shakespeare's most
personal play is also the one most concerned with acting? Or do you find
the fact that the play's climax takes place while the characters are
watching a play to be uninteresting?
>And in all the reading I've done among all those fine
>Strat biographers there are so, so few who even dare to try to find the
>man behind the pen, most are so fucking clueless. Damn, Schoenbaum even
>had the guts to admit it. And those who do go beyond the norm, because
>they're highly intuitive, as in Berryman's perceptions, what comes out
>sounds an awful lot like Oxford. Mysterious, isn't it.
It's exceptionally mysterious that you would think Berryman's Shakespeare
resembles Oxford, yes.
-Mark Steese
--
Bibrau is the name of the girl who sits in the blue
-Runic inscription from Greenland, c. 11th C. A.D.
Mark Alexander
<snip>
> And why do you ignore the specific details of Polonius's life that
have
> nothing to do with Burghley's? Or have you some reason to believe
that
> Burghley did play Julius Caesar in his university days?
Burghley at least had a profound interest in plays and players. From
Conyers Read's "Mr Secretary Cecil and Queen Elizabeth, p. 133:
"It was at this juncture that Feria protested against comedies in London
which made mock of his royal master. He said that Cecil had supplied the
authors of them with their themes. According to Feria, Elizabeth
practically admitted that Cecil was the guilty man. From what we
otherwise know of Cecil it is not easy to picture him in the role of
coach to obscure playwrights composing ribald comedies. But Feria could
hardly have invented the tale. As it stands, without any confirming
evidence, it is an interesting revelation of the use of the stage for
political propaganda."
It does not take much looking to see the potential for political
propaganda in Shakespeare's plays. And what a coincidence that
Burghley's son-in-law was mixed up with plays and playwrights.
Oh, but those are coincidences, of course <wink wink>...So many
coincidences...So little time to ignore them, to argue past them, to
deny any circumstantial value to them, blah blah blah blah blah blah....
Such blatent blindness.
But then, these same people probably believe that even though the U.S.
is $4 trillion in debt, there is a surplus, or that Bill Clinton did not
rape Juanita Broderick, or that MTBE actually was designed to help keep
gasoline from polluting the air.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
Mark Steese
<fSv86.29754$U4.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>:
[snip]
>Burghley at least had a profound interest in plays and players. From
>Conyers Read's "Mr Secretary Cecil and Queen Elizabeth, p. 133:
>
>"It was at this juncture that Feria protested against comedies in London
>which made mock of his royal master. He said that Cecil had supplied the
>authors of them with their themes. According to Feria, Elizabeth
>practically admitted that Cecil was the guilty man. From what we
>otherwise know of Cecil it is not easy to picture him in the role of
>coach to obscure playwrights composing ribald comedies. But Feria could
>hardly have invented the tale. As it stands, without any confirming
>evidence, it is an interesting revelation of the use of the stage for
>political propaganda."
>
>It does not take much looking to see the potential for political
>propaganda in Shakespeare's plays. And what a coincidence that
>Burghley's son-in-law was mixed up with plays and playwrights.
Don't be silly. There were many, many nobles of Burghley's acquaintance who
were "mixed up with plays and playwrights," nobles being the principal
patrons of the theater. Burghley's sovereign was a theatrical patron -
perhaps he was slipping her propaganda for her 'Shakespeare' persona.
>Oh, but those are coincidences, of course <wink wink>...So many
>coincidences...So little time to ignore them, to argue past them, to
>deny any circumstantial value to them, blah blah blah blah blah blah....
You do a good job of summing up your argument, but I fail to see what it
has to do with the non-resemblance of Polonius with Burghley. In fact,
from the passage you quote above, Burghley looks more like Hamlet, slipping
propaganda speeches into plays in order to discomit royalty. Aha!
Burghley was Shakespeare! The truth is revealed.
>Such blatent blindness.
>
>But then, these same people probably believe that even though the U.S.
>is $4 trillion in debt, there is a surplus, or that Bill Clinton did not
>rape Juanita Broderick, or that MTBE actually was designed to help keep
>gasoline from polluting the air.
And these same people are aware that her name is spelled 'Broaddrick.'
Perhaps by spelling it differently you are providing a secret signal that
she is really the actor Matthew Broderick? It could hardly be a
coincidence, after all.
>Cheers
>
>Mark Alexander
Gesundheit,
Mark Steese
--
Ein Rabe saß auf einem Meilenstein
und rief Ka-em-zwei-ein, Ka-em-zwei-ein...
-Christian Morgenstern
ken...@my-deja.com
mst...@home.com (Mark Steese) wrote:
> 8 göter ok 22 norrmen ok ken...@my-deja.com wrote in
> <93op85$ri7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>
> [snip]
> >The big deal
> >is, if Burghley is pointedly characterized in Polonius, why did the
> >author choose to create that image in an *intimate relationship* with
> >the central character in what is univerally considered one of
> >Shakespeare's most personal plays, an intimate relationship that
> >mirrors startlingly the real life relationship between a high
ranking
> >courtier and his councilor father in law?
>
> This is the kind of thing that makes me wonder if Oxfordians are not
> actually residents of a parallel universe which has radically
different
> versions of Shakespeare's plays. Where is your evidence that Hamlet
and
> Polonius have an intimate relationship? Polonius misunderstands
Hamlet
> from the first to the last, and Hamlet has nothing but casual
contempt for
> him. Also, Hamlet is not a high-ranking courtier and Polonius is not
his
> father-in-law.
Perhaps intimate is the wrong word. Engaged in a meaningful
interpersonal relationship, or meaningful interpersonal interactions(in
the dramatic sense)of consequence is maybe more apt. I'm not here to
quibble. At the end of this post I am printing Mark's piece and reply
to David Kathnan's other "allusions" to Burghley from other sources. As
you will see, and Mark addresses this, *none* of them come close to the
human reality setting oriented with so many specific imprints with
which Shakespeare presents Polonius as Burghley.
Also, why must you be so literal? The situation mirrors Oxford-Burghley
*before* Oxford married Anne. Can you really protest that Polonius is
not a possible or prospective father in law before the murder occurs?
That he is not angling for a marraige close to the throne? That this
desire does not prompt him to manipulate Ophelia so he can better
determine Hamlet's intentions? Does Hamlet really have to _exactly_
represent Ocford's actual station rather than echoe it? Give me a break.
>
> >If all Shakespeare was
> >interested in was adding fuel to the fire in the footsteps of Spencer
> >and others, as Kathman and you suggest, why this form, why this
> >personal, why this reflective of a real life situation? With such
> >specific qualities of that reflection (that you conveniently ignore).
> >Similar to questions surrounding the sonnets, eh?
>
> And why do you ignore the specific details of Polonius's life that
have
> nothing to do with Burghley's? Or have you some reason to believe
that
> Burghley did play Julius Caesar in his university days? And what
happened
> to Burghley's other son?
Actually I almost included this because I had read somewhere that
Burghley bragged of this and it was also an imprint. But because I do
not have the direct source, I decided to leave it out. But I really am
puzzled at your argument here. It is clear Polonius is to be satirized,
this is not historical biography. Although Oxfordians sometimes make
the mistake of trying to turn Hamlet into absolute biography, there is
a difference between that and _"biographical echoes"_. All the King's
Men was clearly about Huey Long, did it recapitulate every fact about
his life? Citizen Cane was a commentary and satire, often bitter, on
William Randolph Hearst, so much so that Hearst shut down release of
the film, and ruined Wells' career. Were these biographically exact in
every facet? I think not. There are countless novels, plays, movies,
poems in which it is obvious that a certain person is being dealt with,
yet rarely do they hue to historical exactness. Is this the best that
you can do?
Let's look at the Burghley imprints. Remember, most of these have been
discovered and commented upon by _STRATFORDIAN_ scholars.
1)Polonius role as counselor mirrors Burghley's role
2)The precepts mirror Burghley's, Chambers said Shakespeare must have
had a pocket version.
3)Polonius' tedious verbosity mirrors Burghley's. Read Ogburn if you
disagree.
4)Ophelia's circumstances with Hamlet strikingly mirror Anne's with
Oxford, even down to the general age of Ophelia.
5)The name Corambis satirizes Burghley's motto, 'Cor Una, Via Una'. I
know there is contention here but think closely, Shakespeare was one of
the most self conscious writers who ever lived in his choice of words.
This name was not drawn out of thin air.
6)"You are a fishmonger". I am certain that knowing audiences chuckled
when they heard this. Or is this just another of Shakespeare's
allusions that have no particular meaning.
7) "Conception is a blessing but not as your daughter may conceive"- a
highly personal barb related to the Oxford Anne marraige.
8) Diet of Worms- Burgley was born five months apart from this
conference. He changed the date in his diary to match it. I find it
almost inconceivable that at various points in his life he didn't fudge
truth to brag about this. Since we have no extant evidence of his
publically talking about it, only one intimate with him would have
heard about it(like a son in law brought up in his house who might have
gotten tired if hearing about it).
9)Polonius' manipulation of his daughter, as Rebecca West pointed out
is chillingly close to the possible manner in which Burghley angled to
get Anne to marry Oxford, and is an "echo" of the process.
10)Polonius' perception of Laertes' character and his spying on his
trip to paris strikingly mirror Burghley's similar relationship to his
son Thomas. Read Mark's full account for the details.
Given _all_ of these, my question is not what Shakespeare partly
borrowed of Burghley but what of Polonius _isn't_ Burghley. Remember,
whether Oxford or William is the author, this is a satirization, a
lampoon. It is apparently not the author's intent to present the
character's strengths and noble qualities (which are present in almost
no one in the play), even though he is portrayed as cunning. Richard
Nixon, for example, had many strengths as a politician, but satires of
him rarely pay homage to those qualities. Rather his weaknesses and
buffoonish characteristics were accentuated.
>
> >Of course, such subtleties such as author motivation aren't part of
> >your makeup. After all, he wrote everything for the actors and money,
> >right? God forbid he had real feelings which went into these works,
and
> >even worse, they somehow related to his _life experience_. And even
if
> >William of Stratford is the real author, these questions would still
be
> >important to me.
>
> Yet you don't see how it might be significant that Shakespeare's most
> personal play is also the one most concerned with acting? Or do you
find
> the fact that the play's climax takes place while the characters are
> watching a play to be uninteresting?
What are you talking about? The play's "climax" takes part in a duel.
If you are referring to the play within the play, what does that have
to do with authorial motivation which is deeply philosophic and
unusually infused with melancholy and despair. I am always irritated by
this notion that Oxford somehow wasn't or couldn't have been attuned
to, and appreciated the dynamics of the stage and actors and
incorporated that talent. I was only remarking that this play, which
has been seen by many as the pinnacle of literature has a point of
view, a philosophy, and an extraordinary existential despair that I
find impossible to reconcile with a primary motive of either
commercialism or to provide a "really good show" or a "showcase for
actors". Especially when you track the changes from Q1 to Q2.
>
> >And in all the reading I've done among all those fine
> >Strat biographers there are so, so few who even dare to try to find
the
> >man behind the pen, most are so fucking clueless. Damn, Schoenbaum
even
> >had the guts to admit it. And those who do go beyond the norm,
because
> >they're highly intuitive, as in Berryman's perceptions, what comes
out
> >sounds an awful lot like Oxford. Mysterious, isn't it.
>
> It's exceptionally mysterious that you would think Berryman's
Shakespeare
> resembles Oxford, yes.
What have you read of Berrynan on Hamlet? Please tell me and I will
give you the passages that struck me the most with their similarities.
Ken Kaplan
Shakespeare Authorship Sourcebook
Part Four: The Avoidance of Strong Arguments Since 1981
(I am skipping Mark's arguments on the backtracking of Stratfordians
since Ogburn, but that is highly instructive in itself, just as Peter
Dickson discovered the dropping of Henry DeVere from history books
concerning the Spanish Marraige Crisis.
David Kathman
It is somewhat refreshing to find that David Kathman has less trouble
admitting possible Polonius/Burghley connections. He
discusses the issue in a brief essay "Alleged Parallels between the
Plays and Oxford's Life", but he fails to address any of the
strong arguments that he knows exist. Instead of facing the arguments
directly and pursuing any possible implications, he jumps
into arguing that there is absolutely no significance in any parallels.
He even provides a link to Matus's muddy and misleading
essay.
It is interesting how Kathman attempts to deflate the notion of topical
illusions while simultaneously presenting examples of
topical allusions that are much more obscure than that of Polonius as
Burghley. He actually provides more support for the
Polonius/Burghley connection. What then is his purpose? He attempts to
dilute the significance of the Polonius/Burghley
connection by attempting to argue that attacking Burghley was a kind of
popular public sport. (This notion directly contradicts a
mainstay of Matus's argument that nobody would even think to ridicule a
great man such as Burghley. By linking to Matus's
article, and by supporting Matus's book, Kathman indirectly and
incredibly uses Matus for support, even though he probably
does not agree with Matus on this point.) Here is the final paragraph
of Kathman's essay. Notice the opening sentence where
he casually says "the standard Oxfordian argument" as if no
Stratfordian ever entertained the notion. [Note: This is Kathman's
actual text as of May 31, 1998. After this discussion, he may find the
need to alter it.]:
One more thing on this topic. "E" drags out the standard Oxfordian
argument that Polonius was modeled on Burghley, and how
could a commoner like Shakespeare know enough about Burghley to
lampoon him, let alone get away with such impudence?
Well, we had this argument last year on SHAKSPER, and I don't want
to repeat all that, so I'll just say this. I don't know whether
Polonius was partly modeled on Burghley; some of the Oxfordian
arguments on this point are a mighty stretch, but you can make
a respectable case. Even if he was, that is absolutely no reason
to say or imply that William Shakespeare could not have written
Hamlet. First of all, we have abundant evidence that court gossip
was extremely popular at all levels of Elizabethan society, and
that Burghley was one of its most popular topics. For example,
John Manningham's Diary, written in 1602-3, has several
unflattering anecdotes about Burghley, and the man had been dead
for four years. (The diary of Manningham, a commoner, is
full of court gossip, as are the letters of John Chamberlain,
another commoner.) Spenser's Mother Hubbard's Tale, published in
1591, contained a vicious parody of Burghley in its fable of the
Fox and the Ape, and we know from external evidence (a letter
dated March 19, 1591) that Burghley was widely known to be the
target. Thomas Nashe also parodied Burghley in Pierce
Pennilesse, and D. Allen Carroll has recently made a strong case
that Burghley was attacked in the notorious Greene's
Groatsworth of Wit. If these commoners could attack Burghley, why
couldn't Shakespeare, who as a member of the
Chamberlain's Men often played at Court, where he undoubtedly had
access to the latest gossip?
"I don't know whether Polonius was partly modeled on Burghley;" means
that he doesn't want to get too close to
exploring the implications that immediately arise once he concedes that
a strong case exists. "...some of the Oxfordian
arguments on this point are a mighty stretch," means that he would like
there to be more attention on the weak arguments
and none on the strong arguments. "...but you can make a respectable
case." We must bow our heads in appreciation for
this much of an acknowledgement. If only he mentioned what he thinks
that "respectable case" is. "Even if he was, that is
absolutely no reason to say or imply that William Shakespeare could not
have written Hamlet." Actually it is. But here is
where Kathman attempts to derail any examination of the direct
implications of Polonius as Burghley.
Kathman points out that other "commoners" had attacked Burghley, and he
leaves the reader with the notion that "abundant
evidence" exists for these attacks. He makes no statement about the
relative openness or obscurity of the attacks. He does not
give any direct examples to support his claim. The implication is that
Shakespeare was only doing something that was quite
common, and that there is no reason to think that anyone would have
taken special notice.
Shakespeare's "attack" was in the form of a very public play with an
extended and direct dramatic presentation of the
character. Since we can assume that Kathman would naturally cite the
most obvious examples that come to his mind, examples
that should be somewhat comparable to Shakespeare's play in their
public nature and direct presentation, let's examine them.
We should first note that none of his examples are plays.
John Manningham's diary: Leaving aside that this is merely a
personal diary that obviously was not meant
for publication, let's see how directly it "attacks" Burghley.
According to the index supplied by Robert Parker
Sorlien in his complete The Diary of John Manningham, there are
five entries that refer to Burghley:
1) "Tarlton called Burley house gate in the Strand towardes
the Savoy, the Lo[rd] Treasurers Almes
gate, because it was seldome or never opened. (Ch. Davers)"
(Sorlien 46)
2) "Upon a tyme when the late Lord Treasurer, Sir William
Cecile, came before Justice Dyer in the
Common Place with his rapier by his side. The Justice told
him that he must lay a side his long
pen-knife yf he would come into that court. This speache was
free, and the sharper, because Sir
William was then Secretary. (Bradnux)" (Sorlien 70)
3) "When there came one which presented a supplication for
his master to the Counsell, that upon
sufficient bond he might be released out of Wisbishe Castle,
where he lay for recusancy, that he
might looke to his busines in harvest, the L[ord] Admirall
thought the petition resonable, but the old
L[ord] Treasurour, Sir W. Cecil, said he would not assent,
'For,' said he, 'I knowe howe such men
would use us yf they had us at the like advantage, and
therefore while we have the staffe in our
handes lett us hold it, and when they gett it lett them use
it.' (Mr. Hadsor narr.)" (Sorlien 98)
4) "The old L[ord] Treasurors witt was as it seemes of
Borrowe Englishe tenure, for it descended to
his younger sonne, Sir R[o]b[er]t, (W[?])" (Sorlien 123)
5) "Their talke is of advauncement of the nobility, of the
subsidies and fifteenes taxed in the
Q[ueenes] tyme; howe much indebted shee died to the commons,
notwithstanding all those charges
layed upon them. They halfe despayre of payment of their
privey seles, sent in Sir William Ceciles
tyme; they will not assure themselves of the lone." (Sorlien
209)
The first represents a general sense of humor that is more
directed at the office than the man. The second appears
to be the Justice's humorous way of informing Burghley of a matter
of court decorum. The third holds no
relevance. The fourth, like the first, seems more for the joke
itself than its target (keeping in mind that Manningham
was now a member of the Middle Temple and surrounded by lawyerly
humor). And the fifth, like the third, holds
no relevance.
Why Manningham's diary would be the first example to leap into
Kathman's mind perhaps indicates the general
weakness of his argument. It does not contain "several
unflattering anecdotes" as he claims.
Kathman parenthetically mentions John Chamberlain's letters.
Norman McClure's index in his 2-volume edition
of The Letters of John Chamberlain lists five references to
Burghley, none of them relevant (most refer to his
illness, death and funeral). Since Kathman does not explicitly
claim these letters as support, I give only the page
numbers: 33, 41, 46, 162, all in volume I.
Kathman points out that Spenser's Mother Hubbard's Tale
contains a vicious parody of Burghley. Crowell's
Handbook of Elizabethan and Stuart Literature states:
In the second part, the Ape and the Fox are again
discredited, and here Spenser's tale is confined entirely to the
bestiary. They discover a Lion asleep in a wood with crown
and scepter, which they steal to usurp the thrown.
The Fox in the tale acts as the Ape's power-behind-the-throne
and chief mentor, and many scholars see in this a
satirical portrait of Elizabeth's lord treasurer, William
Cecil, Lord Burghley. The Fox so ravishes the land with his
injustices (including his persecution of poets and scholars)
that the Olympian gods interfere to save the kingdom.
(Ruoff 304)
Apparently, the book was recalled (after Burghley's death), and
this has led scholars to speculate as to why.
(Beckingsale 224) However, we do know that Burghley actually
supported many scholars and was a lover of
books. His biographer Conyers Read says that his household "indeed
was currently regarded as the best training
school for the gentry in England." (Read 124-125) There is a "well-
known anecdote" that Burghley reduced
Spenser's pension for The Fairie Queen (thus supplying motive for
a Spenser attack). I do not know how
credible the anecdote is, or its source.
Since Mother Hubbard's Tale is available on the Web, I invite the
reader to read and discover the "vicious"
parody that Kathman speaks of. I also invite Kathman to present
the circumstantial evidence that reveals this
"topical allusion." He claims that "we know from external evidence
(a letter dated March 19, 1591) that
Burghley was widely known to be the target." Perhaps he can send
me the text of that letter. I will gladly print
it here. (Invitation made May 31, 1998)
I also invite him to present the circumstantial evidence in Mother
Hubbard's Tale itself that clues in the reader that
Burghley is the object of a vicious parody. He can use the same
"three-angled" method I use in arguing that
Polonius was Burghley, though I suspect that the allusion is much
more ambiguous and hidden. In any event, a
reading of the Tale reveals that it comes nowhere close in the
kind of directness that is true of Shakespeare's
dramatic characterization. I believe that Mother Hubbard's Tale is
much too veiled for a strong case to be made
that the Fox is Burghley. Nevertheless, I would not be surprised
that Spenser did supply a veiled attack.
If Thomas Nashe's Pierce Penilesse parodies Burghley, it is an
obscure parody. Perhaps scholars see the
parody in the Fox, taking Mother Hubbard's Tale as a cue. But if
Nashe's Fox is Burghley, the circumstantial
support appears to be almost non-existent. Crowell's does not
mention it, nor does the Penguin edition of The
Unfortunate Traveller and Other Works, nor does G.B. Harrison in
the Bodley Head Quartos edition. Once
again, I invite David Kathman to supply his "three-angled"
circumstantial support for his claim that this is a parody
on par with that of Polonius (from internal evidence only, that
is).
[Several days after writing the above, D. Allen Carroll's book
arrived.] We finally come to Kathman's
final example, D. Allen Carroll's argument in his 1994 Greene's
Groatsworth of Wit. The argument is found in
Appendix C, "Lamilias Fable", pages 107-113. It is an interesting
argument that is worth reading in its entirety.
But what should fascinate us are the second and third paragraphs:
Two features of this fable seem certain. First, after the
public reaction to Spenser's Mother Hubberd 's Tale in the
Complaints volume (ens. 29 December 1590), any such fable
would be taken to allude to serious matters
involving those in high places. For some time now, based on
indirect evidence, scholars have suspected that
Spenser's volume was called in because of its fable of the
fox and the ape. Now, with the recent discovery by
Richard Peterson of a contemporary letter dated 19 March 1591
, we can be absolutely sure. Writing within two or
three months of the publication of Mother Hubberd's, the
author describes how scandalous its fable was thought
to be and notes the scarcity and high cost of the forbidden
book. After Mother Hubberd 's, an animal fable would
put a book in great demand. Nashe's Pierce (ens. 8 August
1592) had an elaborate beast fable and beasts
scattered throughout, to which Gabriel Harvey, who wanted
Nashe to get into trouble for Pierce, alerted the
authorities in Four Letters: "they can tell parlous Tales of
Beares and Foxes, as shrewdlye as Mother Hubbard,
for her life," and in Pierce's Supererogation: "my leisure
will scarcely serve, to moralize Fables of Beares, Apes,
and Foxes: (for some men can give a shrewd gesse at a courtly
allegory)." Nashe had repeatedly to defend
himself: his only intention in presenting a fox, he said, was
"to figure an hypocrite." "Lamilias Fable" is designed
to exploit the demand started by Mother Hubberd 's, and it
would have been read for the same kind of meaning.
Greene, the apparent author, was beyond consequence.
Second, the fox in the fable would be taken for Burghley. The
fox had long been a generalized emblem of
malicious hypocrisy, as Nashe suggests. More recently, in
allegories on the difficulties of the religious
settlement, it represented Anglican churchman with covert
Catholic sympathies. But a fox in the early nineties has
to be Burghley because of Mother Hubberd's. Nashe has
Burghley in mind for the Pierce foxes, as Anthony G.
Petti has shown, and Burghley conforms neatly to the role of
the fox in our fable. He was the chief marriage maker
of his day, being, in Joel Hurstfield's view, which is based
on Burghley's correspondence, "a matchmaker for all
England." He took special interest in and considerable profit
from the marriages of his own wards, which included
the choicest available during his tenure as Master of the
Court of Wards. The badger here, having lost all family
and friends, has become, in effect, a ward and is urged to
marry by the fox. "It was imagined," Burghley's
domestic biographer tells us, that "he made infinite gain by
the wards." The gray, which is either another, related
fox or another badger (gray is regularly listed in
dictionaries of the time for badger), might stand for Gray's Inn,
Burghley's Inn, where he saw to it that his wards enrolled.
While he seems to have been busy at this time about
arrangements for the marriage of one of his wards, Henry
Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, of Gray's Inn,
Badger does not clearly point to the earl or any of his other
wards. The fable relies, it seems, on this particular
sphere of activity for which Burghley was well known and
criticized in order, by association, to draw attention to
activity in another sphere for which he was not known and
deserved criticism. (Carroll 107-109)
From these paragraphs we can immediately see several interesting
things:
1) Kathman used Carroll for all of his arguments, except
Manningham's Diary. 6
2) Kathman probably based his claim "we know from external
evidence (a letter dated March 19, 1591) that
Burghley was widely known to be the target" on the authority of
Carroll as well. However, Carroll does not
quote the letter. But he does say that the author "describes how
scandalous its fable was thought to be and notes
the scarcity and high cost of the forbidden book." In other words,
the author does not make the claim that
Burghley was the target. If you read Carroll closely, all he is
saying is that the letter confirms that the book "was
called in because of its fable of the fox and the ape."
If the text of the letter does say that Burghley was widely known
as the object of the attack, Kathman now must
provide the text of the letter in order to support his claim. (In
a footnote, Carroll indicates that the text is in a
"forthcoming" essay in Spenser's Studies, so it is possible that
Kathman has yet to even read the text of the letter
on which he bases his claim.)
3) Carroll bases his argument on Spenser's Mother Hubberd's Tale
and on the arguments of Anthony G. Petti
that Nashe had Burghley in mind with his Fox. This approach shows
that Carroll would have trouble making his
case based on Green's text alone. I think it quite possible that
Greene and the others were ridiculing Burghley, but
the real point is that if someone were to accept the
circumstantial evidence that the Fox in Spenser, Nashe, and
Greene was Burghley, then one must accept that Polonius was
Burghley, since the circumstantial case there is far
superior in quality, internal consistency, and variety.
Conclusion
At the beginning of this presentation I made three claims that I can
now claim to have strongly supported:
That the character of Polonius in Shakespeare's Hamlet
so strongly mirrors William Cecil,
Lord Burghley, that no reasonable person would deny that the
author of the Shakespeare plays to a
great extent consciously modeled Polonius after Burghley,
with no other interpretation coming nearly
as close to having such circumstantial support.
That many notable Stratfordian scholars have supported this
interpretation.
That major Stratfordian scholars and critics, while
presenting the Oxfordian case, have failed to
mention most or all the strong arguments supporting the
Polonius/Burghley connection.
That some recent Stratfordian scholars and critics suppress strong
arguments advanced by Oxfordians and misdirect attention
to weak or non-existent arguments is not limited to the
Polonius/Burghley connection. The same pattern can be seen in a
number of areas, including Shakespeare's knowledge of the classics and
Shakespeare's knowledge of the law.
Given the examples of Matus and Kathman, I encourage the serious
student investigating authorship issues to focus attention on
two areas:
The history of various arguments, with the understanding that
strong arguments are often made decades in
the past and left deserted by Stratfordian scholars and critics.
Sources that are cited but not quoted, with the understanding
that Stratfordian scholars and critics may
intentionally or unintentionally distort sources.
Notes
1. You can read Ogburn's argument here on the Polonius/Burghley
connection. Many of the weaker arguments he presents, as
well as those of Whalen and Sobran, gain strength when considered
in the context of the strong arguments I have presented.
return
2. You can read Whalen's argument here on the Polonius/Burghley
connection. return
3. You can read Sobran's argument here on the Polonius/Burghley
connection. return
4. 'A minor detail: the coat of arms in the quarto was no longer
the royal arms when it was published. Upon the accession of
King James in March 1603, the lion of the monarch's native
Scotland and the harp of Ireland replaced the old arms of England
and the "new" arms of France in two of the quarters of the royal
arms. In fact, what appears in Hamlet is nothing more than a
printer's decorative ornament known as a headpiece. This is
confirmed by its appearance in later books. It was passed on to
Jaggard when he bought out Roberts, and he made similar use of
that ornament in the misdated quartos of 1619, where it is to be
found in Henry Vl, Part Three, The Merchant of Venice, King Lear
and Pericles. Surely these were not printed with royal
sanction. Furthermore, it is also found in the first English
translation of the entire Decameron, which was duly entered to
Jaggard on March 22, 1620, though the imprint of his son, Isaac,
appears in the books. Although the work was licensed by the
Bishop of London's secretary, the Register entry notes it was
"recalled by [the Archbishop] of Canterbury's command." There is
no doubt this ornamental headpiece was not a royal cachet.' return
5. On page 63: "He [Henry Wriothesley] made himself a patron of
scholars like John Florio, the exiled Italian who translated
Montaigne's Essays, some of the phrases from which Shakespeare
mischievously gave later on to Polonius in Hamlet, when
Polonius is pompously advising his son how to behave when he is
away in Paris." One can only stand in jaw-dropping
astonishment. return
6. This fact helps explain why Kathman put the Manningham example
first, even though it was the weakest of the arguments.
Manningham was Kathman's one original instance in support of his
argument, so we can understand why he put it first. We
must now not hold Kathman to the idea that he listed first what he
thought to be the "best" example. return
If you see any need for correction or commentary,
please let me know.
Copyright © 1997, 1998 by Mark Alexander. All
Rights Reserved.
International Rights Reserved.
THE SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP SOURCEBOOK is trademarked
1997
by Mark Alexander.
Text on this entire web site may be downloaded
for personal use only.
Publishers interested in information on a comprehensive and
expanded version for publication, please contact me.
Shakespeare Authorship Sourcebook Main Page
>
> -Mark Steese
> --
> Bibrau is the name of the girl who sits in the blue
> -Runic inscription from Greenland, c. 11th C. A.D.
>
Mark Steese
[snip]
>Perhaps intimate is the wrong word. Engaged in a meaningful
>interpersonal relationship, or meaningful interpersonal interactions(in
>the dramatic sense)of consequence is maybe more apt. I'm not here to
>quibble. At the end of this post I am printing Mark's piece and reply
>to David Kathnan's other "allusions" to Burghley from other sources. As
>you will see, and Mark addresses this, *none* of them come close to the
>human reality setting oriented with so many specific imprints with
>which Shakespeare presents Polonius as Burghley.
>
>Also, why must you be so literal?
Me? I'm not the one claiming that _Hamlet_ is Oxford's blank-verse
autobiography.
>The situation mirrors Oxford-Burghley
>*before* Oxford married Anne. Can you really protest that Polonius is
>not a possible or prospective father in law before the murder occurs?
>That he is not angling for a marraige close to the throne? That this
>desire does not prompt him to manipulate Ophelia so he can better
>determine Hamlet's intentions? Does Hamlet really have to _exactly_
>represent Ocford's actual station rather than echoe it? Give me a break.
Give me one. Cite textual evidence that Polonius is "angling for a marriage
close to the throne." On the contrary, Polonius tells Ophelia to reject
Hamlet's suit, and then imagines that Hamlet has gone mad because of this.
As for your question re: Oxford's actual station, the play neither
represents nor echoes it. Oxford was Burghley's ward before he became his
son-in-law; nothing in the play suggests that Hamlet was in a comparable
relationship to Polonius. Oxford entreated Burghley for help numerous times
(see his letters); Hamlet never seeks Polonius's help. The anti-parallels
go on and on.
>> >If all Shakespeare was
>> >interested in was adding fuel to the fire in the footsteps of Spencer
>> >and others, as Kathman and you suggest, why this form, why this
>> >personal, why this reflective of a real life situation? With such
>> >specific qualities of that reflection (that you conveniently ignore).
>> >Similar to questions surrounding the sonnets, eh?
Erm, I don't think _I'm_ the one conveniently ignoring facts that tend to
disprove my hypotheses.
>Actually I almost included this because I had read somewhere that
>Burghley bragged of this and it was also an imprint. But because I do
>not have the direct source, I decided to leave it out. But I really am
>puzzled at your argument here. It is clear Polonius is to be satirized,
>this is not historical biography.
It is not clear that Polonius is meant to be a satire of anyone, your
assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.
>Although Oxfordians sometimes make
>the mistake of trying to turn Hamlet into absolute biography, there is
>a difference between that and _"biographical echoes"_.
Yes, 'biographical echoes' are a lot easier to invent. I see a grand total
of two resemblances between Polonius and Burghley: the precepts that
Polonius recites to Laertes, and the fact that Polonius is a minister in a
royal court.
[snip]
>Let's look at the Burghley imprints. Remember, most of these have been
>discovered and commented upon by _STRATFORDIAN_ scholars.
>1)Polonius role as counselor mirrors Burghley's role
Fair enough.
>2)The precepts mirror Burghley's, Chambers said Shakespeare must have
>had a pocket version.
I have no problem with this.
>3)Polonius' tedious verbosity mirrors Burghley's. Read Ogburn if you
>disagree.
If I don't buy your arguments, what in God's name makes you think I'd buy
Ogburn's? Ogburn on Shakespeare is about as reliable as von Däniken on the
Maya.
>4)Ophelia's circumstances with Hamlet strikingly mirror Anne's with
>Oxford, even down to the general age of Ophelia.
Strikingly mirror? So Burghley told Anne that she was out of Oxford's star?
Oxford pretended to be insane and Burghley thought it was because of Anne?
Anne drowned herself after Oxford killed Burghley? Or are you thinking of
the scene in _Hamlet_ where Polonius tries to marry Ophelia to Sir Philip
Sidney?
>5)The name Corambis satirizes Burghley's motto, 'Cor Una, Via Una'. I
>know there is contention here but think closely, Shakespeare was one of
>the most self conscious writers who ever lived in his choice of words.
>This name was not drawn out of thin air.
And it wasn't a satire of Burghley's motto, either. I am happy to take
Terry Ross's word for it, as he can actually read Latin, a talent you have
not demonstrated.
>6)"You are a fishmonger". I am certain that knowing audiences chuckled
>when they heard this. Or is this just another of Shakespeare's
>allusions that have no particular meaning.
Again, I would prefer a more reliable source than Ogburn; but if you are
certain, I suppose I shall not dissuade you. Hamlet also refers to
Polonius as a "great baby," "old Jephthah," and "a calf." Why should
"fishmonger" be taken as more significant?
>7) "Conception is a blessing but not as your daughter may conceive"- a
>highly personal barb related to the Oxford Anne marraige.
In the absence of supporting evidence, this is an unconvincing assertion.
>8) Diet of Worms- Burgley was born five months apart from this
>conference. He changed the date in his diary to match it. I find it
>almost inconceivable that at various points in his life he didn't fudge
>truth to brag about this. Since we have no extant evidence of his
>publically talking about it, only one intimate with him would have
>heard about it(like a son in law brought up in his house who might have
>gotten tired if hearing about it).
Or the evidence is no longer extant, or the allusion in _Hamlet_ is an odd
coincidence, or he did not, in fact, brag about it to De Vere, your
inability to imagine same notwithstanding. This is nonsense, not argument.
>9)Polonius' manipulation of his daughter, as Rebecca West pointed out
>is chillingly close to the possible manner in which Burghley angled to
>get Anne to marry Oxford, and is an "echo" of the process.
The 'possible' manner? That's convincing. Polonius certainly manipulates
Ophelia, but not to get her to marry Hamlet, rather to seek out the sources
of Hamlet's 'madness.' An echo? Awfully faint one.
>10)Polonius' perception of Laertes' character and his spying on his
>trip to paris strikingly mirror Burghley's similar relationship to his
>son Thomas. Read Mark's full account for the details.
Mark Alexander, the Ogburn acolyte? I've read him. No more convincing than
you are.
>Given _all_ of these, my question is not what Shakespeare partly
>borrowed of Burghley but what of Polonius _isn't_ Burghley. Remember,
>whether Oxford or William is the author, this is a satirization, a
>lampoon. It is apparently not the author's intent to present the
>character's strengths and noble qualities (which are present in almost
>no one in the play), even though he is portrayed as cunning. Richard
>Nixon, for example, had many strengths as a politician, but satires of
>him rarely pay homage to those qualities. Rather his weaknesses and
>buffoonish characteristics were accentuated.
But these were qualities he actually possessed. Polonius is a bumbler, a
dupe, and completely out of his depth; to the end, he never realizes that
Hamlet is only feigning madness. He's a rather sad character, like
Gertrude, really. There is no evidence, internal or external, that he is
meant to represent a real individual.
[snip]
>> Yet you don't see how it might be significant that Shakespeare's most
>> personal play is also the one most concerned with acting? Or do you
>find
>> the fact that the play's climax takes place while the characters are
>> watching a play to be uninteresting?
>
>What are you talking about? The play's "climax" takes part in a duel.
Good heavens, you've confused the catastrophe and the climax. Sorry, I
thought you were more familiar with standard literary terms.
>If you are referring to the play within the play, what does that have
>to do with authorial motivation which is deeply philosophic and
>unusually infused with melancholy and despair. I am always irritated by
>this notion that Oxford somehow wasn't or couldn't have been attuned
>to, and appreciated the dynamics of the stage and actors and
>incorporated that talent. I was only remarking that this play, which
>has been seen by many as the pinnacle of literature has a point of
>view, a philosophy, and an extraordinary existential despair that I
>find impossible to reconcile with a primary motive of either
>commercialism or to provide a "really good show" or a "showcase for
>actors". Especially when you track the changes from Q1 to Q2.
Of course you find it impossible; you have no imagination. Or too much,
perhaps, since you can imagine Oxford, the self-pitying whinger, was
capable of being "deeply philosophic." I note that some have suggested
that perhaps the death of Shakespeare's only son, Hamnet, might have
influenced his state of mind while he was working on the play. Do you find
this unlikely? The play does concern the death of a lineage, among other
things, and it is suffused with the idea of death and mourning.
>What have you read of Berrynan on Hamlet? Please tell me and I will
>give you the passages that struck me the most with their similarities.
Why do you need to know what I've read before you can cite the passages?
Crows Dog
>2)The precepts mirror Burghley's, Chambers said Shakespeare must have
>>had a pocket version.
>
>I have no problem with this.
I have a problem with this, although you don't. Polonius' advice to Laertes is
really not very similar to the advise Burghley gave his son. Sure, they're
both lists of precepts a father might give his son, - but the actual precepts
aren't nearly as close as the Oxfordians typically claim.
Mark Steese
<20010116233321...@ng-fo1.aol.com>:
I should have clarified - I didn't mean that I accepted it as true; I meant
that, if it _is_ true, I don't see it as evidence that Polonius is a
caricature of Burghley or that Shakespeare didn't write Hamlet.
-Mark
ken...@my-deja.com
this later but your hypocricy is _exactly_ the kind of backtracking
Mark detailed so well in his essay. Listen up, it was STRATFORDIAN
SCHOLARS, more than one, _many of them, some of the most esteemed
Shakespearean critics in history who noticed and suggested the
ressemblance between Burghley and Polonius and one of the most
significant factors they consistently noted was the precepts. Please
don't give me detail about the "differences" until I respond fully,
which should be within a few days. There are reasons why I, and I
believe reasonable people, don't think it affects the argument. I will
eludicate. Then you can respond if you wish.
Ken Kaplan
In article <902CD08B1ms...@24.7.143.114>,
Erik Nielsen
ken...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> You guys are fucking unbelievable. I'll have a longer response to all
> this later but your hypocricy is _exactly_ the kind of backtracking
> Mark detailed so well in his essay.
Is every change in opinion "backtracking"?
> Listen up, it was STRATFORDIAN
> SCHOLARS,
A redundancy.
> more than one, _many of them, some of the most esteemed
> Shakespearean critics in history who noticed and suggested the
> ressemblance between Burghley and Polonius and one of the most
> significant factors they consistently noted was the precepts.
Since when were you so inclined to trust "Stratfordian" scholars? Only
when something they say serves your warped views? In any event, while
the Polonius/Burghley comparison was indeed brought up by reputable
scholars, it never approached the status of anything like gospel, and is
now almost wholly discredited for the reasons you've already heard.
Just an idea, an idea that was brought up, met with general though
polite disbelief, and would be permitted to lie dead and buried if it
didn't support some lunatics' flimsy webwork of fantasy.
> Please
> don't give me detail about the "differences" until I respond fully,
> which should be within a few days. There are reasons why I, and I
> believe reasonable people, don't think it affects the argument.
Well, maybe you, but reasonable people? That's going a bit far.
> I will eludicate. Then you can respond if you wish.
>
Do so. I'm confident that whatever you can say will be refuted by
examination of the facts in question.
--nielsen
Mark Alexander
From: "Erik Nielsen" <enie...@bu.edu>
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Was Polonius Seen as Burghley Then?
> Since when were you so inclined to trust "Stratfordian" scholars?
Only
> when something they say serves your warped views? In any event, while
> the Polonius/Burghley comparison was indeed brought up by reputable
> scholars, it never approached the status of anything like gospel, and
is
> now almost wholly discredited for the reasons you've already heard.
It had to be discredited, since it so clearly opens the door to Oxford
as Hamlet. The politics of the new "spin" is necessary, because there is
no way to acknowledge strong parallels between Polonius and Burghley
without giving credence to the *further* and obvious parallels between
Oxford and Hamlet.
Although the new Strats are attempting to deflect attention away from
the obvious parallels, their offerings are comparitively weak, vapid,
and simply laughable.
Harold Jenkins works hard at it, and he is especially good at *not*
presenting the better arguments against him, but any honest and thorough
investigator will see through his transparent attempts to avoid the
evidence.
I understand. It must be psychologically devastating to admit that your
life's work and the writings on which your reputation rests are built on
quicksand and the conditional goodwill of your peers. Few have the
personal integrity to face that dark hole within, so the psychologically
sound thing to do is to look for an escape hatch, even one that does not
hold up under close examination.
But that's all right. None of your peers (and none of the critically
deficient students) will bother with a personal investigation. They will
surrender to your authority, and the potential for ridicule from their
peers.
It's all very elegant, really...and perfectly human.
To Review:
BURGHLEY AND POLONIUS
(1920) Stratfordian Lilian Winstanley in _Hamlet and the Scottish
Succession_: "Polonius, throughout the play, stands isolated as the one
person who does really enjoy the royal confidence; he is an old man, and
no other councillor of equal rank anywhere appears. This corresponds
almost precisely with the position held by Burleigh..Burleigh's eldest
son - Thomas Cecil - was a youth of very wayward life; his
licentiousness and irregularity occa-sioned his father great distress
and, during his residence in Paris, his father wrote letters to him full
of wise maxims for his guid-ance; he also instructed friends to watch
over him, and bring him reports of his son's behaviour. So Polonius has
a son - Laertes - whom he suspects of irregular life; Polonius provides
that his son, when he goes to Paris, shall be carefully watched, and
that reports on his behaviour shall be prepared by Reynaldo."
(1937) Stratfordian J. Dover Wilson in _The Essential Shakespeare_:
"Polonius is almost without doubt intended as a caricature of
Burleigh.."
(1958) Stratfordian Joel Hurstfield in _The Queen's Wards_, on Burghley'
s wordiness: "It is the authentic voice of Polonius."
(1963) Stratfordian A.L. Rowse in _William Shakespeare: A Biography_:
"Nor do I think we need hesitate to see reflections of old Lord Burghley
in old Polonius - not only in the fact that their positions were the
same in the state, the leading minister in close proximity to the
sovereign . there are certain specific references reflecting Burghley's
known characteristics."
(1966) _The Reader's Encyclopedia of Shakespeare_: "Hamlet's reference
to Polonius as a 'fishmonger' may also be an allusion to Burghley's
attempt as treasurer to stimulate the fish trade."
OPHELIA AND ANNE
(1869) Stratfordian George French in _Shakspeareana Genealogica_:
"[M]arriage was proposed by their fathers to take place between Philip
Sidney and Anne Cecil, the 'fair Ophelia' of the play."
(1920) Stratfordian Lilian Winstanley in _Hamlet and the Scottish
Succession_: "Intercepted letters and the employment of spies were,
then, a quite conspicuous and notorious part of Cecil's statecraft, and
they are certainly made especially characteristic of Shakespeare's
Polonius. Polonius intercepts the letters from Hamlet to his daughter;
he appropriates Hamlet's most intimate correspondence, carries it to the
king, and discusses it without a moment's shame or hesitation: he and
the king play the eaves-dropper during Hamlet's interview with Ophelia:
he himself spies upon Hamlet's interview with his mother. It is
impossible not to see that these things are made both futile and hateful
in Polonius, and they were precisely the things that were detested in
Cecil..
"Cecil, in fact, was always particularly careful not to let Elizabeth or
anyone else think that ambition for his daughter could tempt him into
unwise political plans. In exactly the same way we find Polonius
guarding himself against any suspicion that he may have encouraged
Hamlet's ad-vances to Ophelia. "The king asks [Act II., ii.]: "How hath
she received his love?" and Polonius enquires, "What do you think of me?
"The king replies: "As of a man faithful and honourable"; Polonius
proceeds to explain that, such being the case, he could not possibly
have encouraged the love between Hamlet and his daughter.."
The primary source for the Hamlet story is Saxo Grammaticus's Historiae
Danicae. The text, referring to the couple later represented as Hamlet
and Ophelia, states: "For both of them had been under the same fostering
in their childhood; and this early rearing in common had brought Amleth
and the girl into great intimacy."
This mirrors Anne and Oxford. Both were raised together in their youth.
Stratfordian Conyers Read in _Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth_:
"Oxford.entered Burghley's household as a ward in 1562, at the age of
twelve."
Winstanley says, "[There] is a further curious parallel in the fact that
when Cecil's daughter [Anne] married De Vere, Earl of Oxford - the
husband turned sulky, separated himself from his wife, and declared that
it was Cecil's fault for influencing his wife against him."
She then quotes Hume's _The Great Lord Burghley:_ "A few days later
Burghley had reason to be still more angry with Oxford himself, though
with his reverence for rank he appears to have treated him with
inexhaustible patience and forbearance.... Oxford declined to meet his
wife or to hold any communication with her; Burghley reasoned,
remon-strated, and besought in vain. Oxford was sulky and intractable.
His wife, he said, had been influenced by her parents against him and he
would have nothing more to do with her."
Finally, she draws the parallel, "So, also, in the drama we find
Polonius interfering between his daughter and her lover, we find his
machinations so successful that Hamlet turns sulky, and is alienated
from Ophelia for good."
HAMLET AND OXFORD
(1911) Stratfordian Frank Harris in _The Man Shakespeare and His Tragic
Life-Story_: "Even if it be admitted that Hamlet is the most complex and
profound character of Shakespeare's creations, and therefore probably
the character in which Shakespeare revealed most of himself, the
question of degree remains to be de-termined." Harris proceeds to
demonstrate great degree.
(1937) Stratfordian John Dover Wilson in _The Essential Shakespeare_:
"Elizabethan drama was a social institution which performed many
functions.. Among other things it was, like the modern newspaper, at
once the focus and the purveyor of the London gossip of the day. In a
word it was topical."
(1950) Stratfordian Harold C. Goddard in _The Meaning of Shakespeare_:
"To nearly everyone both Hamlet himself and the play give the impression
of having some peculiarly intimate relation to their creator."
(1962) Hugh Trevor-Roper, "What's in a Name?" in _Réalités_
(English-language edition):
"Shakespeare wrote another play which, it is now widely agreed, is
largely autobiographical: that most bewildering, most fascinating of all
his plays, Hamlet. Hamlet, the over-sensitive man, whose chameleon
sympathy with all around him, whose capacity to enter into all men's
doubts and fears, enabled him to mount a brilliant play but disabled him
from imposing his personality on events or leaving any personal trace in
history - this is Shakespeare himself."
The several connections already discussed (between Polonius and
Burghley, Ophelia and Anne, Laertes and Thomas) demand that we
acknowledge the parallels between Hamlet and Oxford:
? Both were noblemen and courtiers.
? Both had mothers who remarried after their father's death.
? Both were spied upon by Polonius/Burghley.
? Both were patrons to players.
? Both were playwrights.
? Both had a great friend named Horatio.
? Both had a lover (Ophelia/Anne) whose father was the immediate
counselor to the throne.
? Both had a lover (Ophelia/Anne) accused of infidelity.
? Both had a lover (Ophelia/Anne) who dies untimely.
? Both had been thought mad, foolish, or foppish by others in Court.
? Both on their way to England were attacked by pirates.
If Polonius is Burghley, and there is compelling reason to think that
people at that time would have easily recognized him as such, then the
further parallels between Laertes and Ophelia and Burghley's offspring
cement the identification, and compel us to look at who would then be
Hamlet.
Despite attempts to identify Hamlet as Philip Sidney or Essex (neither
mistreated Anne nor had intimate relations with her), Oxford is clearly
the reasonable, indeed the natural, candidate. Once the number of
parallels between Hamlet and Oxford are identified - some highly
unusual - then the identification is compelling. Only those who have
professional or private con-cerns with that identification have reason
to argue against it.
Sorry...the Polish Counsillor connection is embarassingly weak, except
to sophists and those lacking a willingmess to look within.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
John W. Kennedy
> I understand. It must be psychologically devastating to admit that your
> life's work and the writings on which your reputation rests are built on
> quicksand and the conditional goodwill of your peers. Few have the
> personal integrity to face that dark hole within, so the psychologically
> sound thing to do is to look for an escape hatch, even one that does not
> hold up under close examination.
Et ille respondens ait: tu dicis.
--
John W. Kennedy
(Working from my laptop)
Crows Dog
keep correcting him:
(snip)
>The several connections already discussed (between Polonius and
>Burghley, Ophelia and Anne, Laertes and Thomas) demand that we
>acknowledge the parallels between Hamlet and Oxford:
>
>? Both were noblemen and courtiers.
I'll grant this one, but being a nobleman and a courtier is such a commonplace
in the plays, this scarcely qualifies as evidence that there's a connection
between Hamlet and Oxford.
>? Both had mothers who remarried after their father's death.
True. And I'm glad Mark doesn't repeat the old Oxfordian lie that Oxford's
mother's remarriage was untimely. But the re-marriage of a mother is common.
I'm surprised that Mark doesn't argue that Hamlet is Oxford because they both
had two eyes, one nose, and one mouth.
>? Both were spied upon by Polonius/Burghley.
I'll grant this one.
>? Both were patrons to players.
There is no evidence that Hamlet was a patron to players, if by "patron" Mark
means the common definition of being a financial sponsor. There's no evidence
in "HAMLET" that Hamlet ever offered any financial support. He did enjoy
plays.
>? Both were playwrights.
Nonsense. Hamlet is not a playwright. He writes one speech of some 12 to 16
lines. This does NOT make him a playwright. There are Stratfordians who make
the same claim, that Hamlet was a playwright, but the fact that Mark can find
Stratfordians who agree with him does not make this claim true.
>? Both had a great friend named Horatio.
I've asked Mark before for evidence that Oxford had a great friend, as opposed
to a relative, named Horatio. Mark has yet to supply any evidence.
>? Both had a lover (Ophelia/Anne) whose father was the immediate
>counselor to the throne.
Okay, but the dissimilarities in the relationships far outweigh the
similarities.
>? Both had a lover (Ophelia/Anne) accused of infidelity.
Hamlet accuses women in general of being unfaithful, but he does not accuse
Ophelia of having actually been unfaithful herself - certainly not in a sexual
sense.
>? Both had a lover (Ophelia/Anne) who dies untimely.
But again, the dissimilarities far outweigh the similarities. Anne's death was
nothing like Ophelia's, except that it was unexpected.
>? Both had been thought mad, foolish, or foppish by others in Court.
Mark has changed this. In the past he claims they were both thought mad. I
asked for evidence that Oxford was ever thought mad. Now it is apparently
enough of a similarity that Hamlet was thought mad, and Oxford was thought
foolish and foppish.
>? Both on their way to England were attacked by pirates.
>
I'll give him this point, but it's hardly a striking parallel.
Mark Alexander
"Crows Dog" <crow...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010119170347...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
> >? Both on their way to England were attacked by pirates.
> >
>
> I'll give him this point, but it's hardly a striking parallel.
This answer is the most revealing. This parallel is the very definition
of a striking parallel, and yet you cannot even give it any significance
whatsoever.
Fence-sitters, take note.
Cheers
Mark Alexander
KQKnave
Alexander" <mark...@earthlink.net> writes:
>> >? Both on their way to England were attacked by pirates.
>> >
>>
>> I'll give him this point, but it's hardly a striking parallel.
>
>This answer is the most revealing. This parallel is the very definition
>of a striking parallel, and yet you cannot even give it any significance
>whatsoever.
>
[yawn...same ol' same old]
The Belleforest and Saxo Grammaticus stories that were the basis
for Hamlet are available at
http://hamlet.hypermart.net/othdoc.html
Here is a sample from Belleforest. Piracy is mentioned in
the story, so we don't need any presumed biographical
input to find a source for Shakespeare's plot change:
"Now the greatest honor that men of noble birth
could at that time win and obtaine, was in
exercising the art of Piracie vpon the seas;
assayling their neighbours, & the countries
bordering vpon them: and how much the more
they vsed to rob, pill, and spoyle other
Prouinces, and Ilands farre adiacent, so
much the more their honours and reputation
increased and augmented:"
In the original story, Hamlet stays with the King
of England for a year. Introducing pirates just
shortens the sense of time in the play.
It's also amusing to read in Belleforest the scene
where Hamlet confronts his mother. He chews her
out just like Sh. play, maybe worse. I wonder what
the Freudians (or those who can't understand why
a guy would focus on a woman's sexuality to chew her
out) will think.
The similarities between Hamlet and the old stories is
also amusing. Shakespeare was the great rip off artist
with regard to plots (and sonnets, and funeral elegies....)
Jim
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> > > Both on their way to England were attacked by pirates.
> > I'll give him this point, but it's hardly a striking parallel.
>
> This answer is the most revealing. This parallel is the very
> definition of a striking parallel, and yet you cannot even
> give it any significance whatsoever.
>
> Fence-sitters, take note.
> Mark Alexander
I consider this coincidence Near-PROOF that Hamlet was not
Oxford's autobiography. A spectacular occurrence in his
life like being attacked and captured (wasn't he) by
pirates, and NOWHERE in his plays does he use the incident--
except in the DIALOGUE of Hamlet!
--Bob G.
Mark Steese
<9479ju$g47$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>[snip] I'll have a longer response to all
>this later but your hypocricy is _exactly_ the kind of backtracking
>Mark detailed so well in his essay. Listen up, it was STRATFORDIAN
>SCHOLARS, more than one, _many of them, some of the most esteemed
>Shakespearean critics in history who noticed and suggested the
>ressemblance between Burghley and Polonius and one of the most
>significant factors they consistently noted was the precepts.
As this was posted in response to my message, I would like to point out
that I have _never_ believed that the character of Polonius was based on
Burghley, so I am not backtracking. Are you under the impression that
"some of the most esteemed Shakespearean critics in history" were incapable
of making mistakes? Virtually all of them fluffed the dedication to the
Sonnets.
>Please
>don't give me detail about the "differences" until I respond fully,
>which should be within a few days. There are reasons why I, and I
>believe reasonable people, don't think it affects the argument. I will
>eludicate. Then you can respond if you wish.
If you believed reasonable people, you wouldn't have bought into the
Oxfordian fantasy in the first place.
Yours,
Mark Steese
MakBane
artist" and the long string of parallels between Hamlet and Oxford must be
dismissed. Mr. Alexander is right about the psychological devastation that
Stratfordians must endure once the edifice begins to crack and crumble. What's
the stage of grief they're at now? DENIAL.
I am wondering: did Shakspere read Belleforest's translation of
Saxo-Grammaticus in French or did he apply his grammar school Latin and take on
the original? What a hard-working popular dramatist he was! I wonder why he
never turned to translating or intelligence work with his knowledge of Latin,
French, and probably Italian. Shakspere must have been a self-taught man in the
age of the private library, but what a difficulty for a man who, at the end of
his life, owned no books. Not even his own! Can there actually be scholars who
believe this?
If Burghley is Polonius and Oxford is Hamlet, then there's nothing left to do
but let Gabriel blow his horn. Let reactionary old men moulder away, one by
one. Eventually, modern media will corrupt the youth of the English-speaking
world with its credence in Oxfordianism to such a point that ALL of the Canon
will reassessed in a new light. Is this the new unhistorical philistinism?
Sure, but truth will out, be it ever so old.
Toby Petzold
p.s. Imagine the poignancy of Oxford's first time to hear or read of the old
Hamlet story, and how that story would keep coming back to him, like some easy
prophecy that he would have felt a compulsion to fulfill on stage.
Mark Steese
>It had to be discredited, since it so clearly opens the door to Oxford
>as Hamlet. The politics of the new "spin" is necessary, because there is
>no way to acknowledge strong parallels between Polonius and Burghley
>without giving credence to the *further* and obvious parallels between
>Oxford and Hamlet.
Sure there is. I just don't happen to see the "strong parallels" in either
case. Never did. You see, the standard I go by is that fictional
characters based on real ones ought to behave in a manner consistent with
the known behavior of their models. This is untrue for both Polonius and
Hamlet. I have no trouble believing that Shakespeare, magpie that he was
when it came to source material, might have incorporated bits and pieces
from the life of Burghley into Polonius, and possibly Oxford to Hamlet; but
it amounted to no more than that.
>Although the new Strats are attempting to deflect attention away from
>the obvious parallels, their offerings are comparitively weak, vapid,
>and simply laughable.
Projecting again. Tch...
[snip]
>I understand. It must be psychologically devastating to admit that your
>life's work and the writings on which your reputation rests are built on
>quicksand and the conditional goodwill of your peers. Few have the
>personal integrity to face that dark hole within, so the psychologically
>sound thing to do is to look for an escape hatch, even one that does not
>hold up under close examination.
Yes. Well, I doubt if you'll ever need it, Mark, but if so I hope you find
it; realization of the truth, after making such an ass out of yourself so
many times publicly on Usenet, would be pretty hard to take.
[snip]
>OPHELIA AND ANNE
>
>(1869) Stratfordian George French in _Shakspeareana Genealogica_:
>"[M]arriage was proposed by their fathers to take place between Philip
>Sidney and Anne Cecil, the 'fair Ophelia' of the play."
This rather tends to suggest that Sidney was the model for Hamlet, doesn't
it?
>(1920) Stratfordian Lilian Winstanley in _Hamlet and the Scottish
>Succession_: "Intercepted letters and the employment of spies were,
>then, a quite conspicuous and notorious part of Cecil's statecraft, and
>they are certainly made especially characteristic of Shakespeare's
>Polonius. Polonius intercepts the letters from Hamlet to his daughter;
No he doesn't. Ophelia gives them to him.
>he appropriates Hamlet's most intimate correspondence, carries it to the
>king, and discusses it without a moment's shame or hesitation:
Polonius thinks that he himself is responsible for Hamlet's madness,
because of the advice he gave Ophelia, and he discusses the letters in this
light.
>he and
>the king play the eaves-dropper during Hamlet's interview with Ophelia:
>he himself spies upon Hamlet's interview with his mother. It is
>impossible not to see that these things are made both futile and hateful
>in Polonius, and they were precisely the things that were detested in
>Cecil.
Futile, yes; hateful, no. Polonius honestly thinks Hamlet is mad, and is
desperately trying to solve a problem that does not in fact exist. Both
Claudius and Hamlet are manipulating him.
[snip]
>She then quotes Hume's _The Great Lord Burghley:_ "A few days later
>Burghley had reason to be still more angry with Oxford himself, though
>with his reverence for rank he appears to have treated him with
>inexhaustible patience and forbearance.... Oxford declined to meet his
>wife or to hold any communication with her; Burghley reasoned,
>remon-strated, and besought in vain. Oxford was sulky and intractable.
>His wife, he said, had been influenced by her parents against him and he
>would have nothing more to do with her."
>
>Finally, she draws the parallel, "So, also, in the drama we find
>Polonius interfering between his daughter and her lover, we find his
>machinations so successful that Hamlet turns sulky, and is alienated
>from Ophelia for good."
This is idiotic. Hamlet rejects Ophelia because (a) he is pretending to be
insane and (b) he does not want to let her interfere with his plans for
revenge. Polonius does not reason, remonstrate, or beseech Hamlet to
reconcile with Ophelia. Lilian Winstanley may have been a Stratfordian, but
she was no critic.
[snip]
>(1937) Stratfordian John Dover Wilson in _The Essential Shakespeare_:
>"Elizabethan drama was a social institution which performed many
>functions.. Among other things it was, like the modern newspaper, at
>once the focus and the purveyor of the London gossip of the day. In a
>word it was topical."
Gossip. I.e., rumors picked up by others. _Not_ thinly-disguised
autobiographical plays by incognito noblemen.
["Parallels" between De Vere and Hamlet]
>? Both were noblemen and courtiers.
Hamlet is royalty, not nobility; and he is not a courtier, either.
>? Both had mothers who remarried after their father's death.
Oxford's mother did not marry his uncle, however. A widow remarrying was
(and is) such a common circumstance that it can hardly count as a parallel.
>? Both were spied upon by Polonius/Burghley.
Doubtful.
>? Both were patrons to players.
Hamlet wasn't a patron, as others have pointed out.
>? Both were playwrights.
Again, others have already pointed out that writing a single scene does not
make one a playwright.
[much else snipped]
Hoch,
Mark Steese
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
by pirates, never based a scene on his experience in his otherwise
densely autobiographical oeuvre, Toby? All you can do is sputter
about old farts like me who, like FOUR generations of old farts
before us, continue to hold to the idiotic assumption that direct
concrete evidence means more than Oxfordian fantasies.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
like Tom and Thomas and Eric who are as ardently Stratfordian as
I? And what about Richie Miller who spent over a year, I'm sure,
trying frantically to accept Oxfordianism but failed, and, I'm
pretty sure, is under thirty--not to mention Dave Kathman,
probably our most formidable reactionary but not much over
thirty?
Crows Dog
He just had a run in with pirates.
MakBane
the company of such young men with such old men's beliefs. Of course,
Oxfordianism may smell of the senility of royalty-watchers, too, but no system
of belief is entirely orthodox.
I agree with you that, for a true autobiographical detail like a piracy
incident at sea, it is passing strange that Oxford gave it such scant attention
in his works. Maybe he was ashamed of it or didn't think that a play that
featured such an incident could be well-executed. There's no telling.
Toby Petzold
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> My understanding is that Oxford wasn't captured by pirates.
>
> He just had a run in with pirates.
You may well be right. I just checked Ogburn and he says Oxford's
ship was captured by pirates while crossing the channel. According
to the French ambassador, he was stripped of his shirt and
escaped with his life only because a Scotsman had recognized him.
(Pirates can recognize him but theatre-goers wouldn't.)
Anyway, if Ogburn says he was captured, he probably wasn't.
Crows Dog
pirates. If that's accurate, then I suppose Oxford, being on the ship, was
captured, but he wasn't held prisoner in the sense that Hamlet was held
prisoner.
And, for that matter, Ogburn may well be wrong, as you say.
If Hamlet were clearly, undeniably held by the pirates, as Hamlet was, Mark
would be telling us so. Mark doesn't hesitate to make up parallels that can't
be confirmed - e.g., that Hamlet and Oxford were both patrons of the theater, -
so I'm sure he wouldn't hesitate to claim Oxford was a captive of pirates if he
felt it could be proven.
Mark Alexander
Mark
> would be telling us so. Mark doesn't hesitate to make up parallels
that can't
> be confirmed - e.g., that Hamlet and Oxford were both patrons of the
theater, -
> so I'm sure he wouldn't hesitate to claim Oxford was a captive of
pirates if he
> felt it could be proven.
Let's clean up a bit of your slop!
The parallel is NOT that "Hamlet and Oxford were both patrons of the
theater," as you state.
The parallel is that "Both were patrons to players."
That's quite a difference and the play can fairly be read that way,
given Hamlet's theatrical nature and his relationship with, and his
words exchanged among, the players.
When you slip into personal attacks, CD, your arguments slip in the slop
you create. Thanks for demonstrating once again your true methods. ;-)
Cheers
Mark Alexander
MakBane
>Hamlet is not a playwright. He writes one speech of some 12 to 16
>lines. This does NOT make him a playwright. There are Stratfordians who
>make
>the same claim, that Hamlet was a playwright, but the fact that Mark can find
>Stratfordians who agree with him does not make this claim true.
This is a stupid argument. Obviously, the speech that Hamlet wrote for the
visiting players was a token of a more general involvement in playwriting. Are
you saying that, because the speech was relatively short, it should be
dismissed as such a token? What nonsense! Is there a certain number of lines
more that Hamlet would have had to have penned that would have made his
association with playwriting clearer?
The fact that Burghley has been seen by many orthodox scholars in the role of
Polonius is, in the end, a great (albeit unwitting) blow against the
entrenchment of the Stratfordian interest. How else can it be seen? First, you
diminish Shakespeare as an artist of learning and language to situate him more
closely to Shakspere on the continuum of feasibility, and then you have to
diminish the assessment of orthodox scholarship when it can be invoked to make
an opposing point. That's partisanship at its baldest.
Toby Petzold
Mark Steese
<20010120200511...@ng-df1.aol.com>:
>Richard wrote:
>
>>Hamlet is not a playwright. He writes one speech of some 12 to 16
>>lines. This does NOT make him a playwright. There are Stratfordians
>>who make
>>the same claim, that Hamlet was a playwright, but the fact that Mark
>>can find Stratfordians who agree with him does not make this claim
>>true.
>
>This is a stupid argument. Obviously, the speech that Hamlet wrote for
>the visiting players was a token of a more general involvement in
>playwriting. Are you saying that, because the speech was relatively
>short, it should be dismissed as such a token? What nonsense! Is there a
>certain number of lines more that Hamlet would have had to have penned
>that would have made his association with playwriting clearer?
Of course, the clearer his association with play writing, the clearer his
association with the noted playwright William Shakespeare. You may
remember that the other fellow was associated with exactly one (1) play,
and that a comedy, and it was so little known that not even its name has
come down to us. You may also remember that his play writing was noted by
a grand total of two (2) authors, one of whom was copying the other.
I am also curious as to how the speech Hamlet writes is "a token of a more
general involvement in playwriting," given that Hamlet is a fictional
character who has no existence outside of the play. You might as well say
that Gertrude's happiness with Claudius is a token of her unhappiness with
Hamlet's father.
>The fact that Burghley has been seen by many orthodox scholars in the
>role of Polonius is, in the end, a great (albeit unwitting) blow against
>the entrenchment of the Stratfordian interest. How else can it be seen?
As evidence that "many orthodox scholars" are fallible, like the rest of
us.
[snip]
Yours,
Mark "Bald Partisan" Steese
Mark Steese
>ENOUGH of old men and their received wisdom! Shakespeare was just a
>"rip-off artist" and the long string of parallels between Hamlet and
>Oxford must be dismissed. Mr. Alexander is right about the psychological
>devastation that Stratfordians must endure once the edifice begins to
>crack and crumble. What's the stage of grief they're at now? DENIAL.
Oxford? Dude, get with the program! Oxfordianism is like, sooo five days
ago. Didn't you see where Mark Alexander posted the PROOF that Burghley
was Shakespeare? Check it out:
http://x69.deja.com/=dnc/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=715877451.1
What an irony that his scotomatous vision couldn't see the truth that he
himself posted -- the awesome truth of Burghleyism! Listen closely - you
can already hear the Oxfordian edifice crumbling. Sorry, guess it must be
tough for you Oxfordians, but truth will out! That name again is
BURGHLEYISM! Watch for the t-shirts.
Yours,
Mark "Cecil" Steese
Tom Lay
Do Oxfordkans really think that the only Shakespeare scholars is to
protect the attribution of the plays? I spend many hours a week in an
English department, which includes working for a Professor who
specializes in Renaissance lit, and in all those hours, I think I've
only heard a total of fifteen seconds of discussion on the topic.
Tom
David Kathman
Oxfordians live in a fantasyland in which their own
importance is hugely inflated. While all Shakespeare scholars
are at least aware of the authorship question, the vast majority
of them consider it a nuisance at best, and spend very, very
little time thinking about it. They make their arguments and
draw their conclusions based on what makes the most sense given
all the evidence; Oxfordian fantasies are never in the picture.
It's really rather sad and pathetic the way Oxfordians assume
that everything Shakespeare scholars do is a reaction to them;
if they knew how little those scholars actually know and think
about Oxfordians, I'm sure they would be crushingly disappointed.
Just as mathematics professors have better things to do than
think about all the cranks claiming to have squared the circle,
Shakespeareans have better things to think about than the
distorted pseudohistory spouted by Oxfordians. I'm sorry,
but that's just the way it is.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Erik Nielsen
> Oxfordians live in a fantasyland in which their own
> importance is hugely inflated. While all Shakespeare scholars
> are at least aware of the authorship question, the vast majority
> of them consider it a nuisance at best, and spend very, very
> little time thinking about it. They make their arguments and
> draw their conclusions based on what makes the most sense given
> all the evidence; Oxfordian fantasies are never in the picture.
> It's really rather sad and pathetic the way Oxfordians assume
> that everything Shakespeare scholars do is a reaction to them;
> if they knew how little those scholars actually know and think
> about Oxfordians, I'm sure they would be crushingly disappointed.
> Just as mathematics professors have better things to do than
> think about all the cranks claiming to have squared the circle,
> Shakespeareans have better things to think about than the
> distorted pseudohistory spouted by Oxfordians. I'm sorry,
> but that's just the way it is.
>
entire thing by a professor, and it was a joke, and anyway, he mentioned
Francis Bacon.
--nielsen
MakBane
regard of the orthodox professoriat. The assholes whose salaries you'll be
paying for years to come never seem to raise the Question? I am thinking about
the many thousands of English literature professors and schoolteachers in our
culture who CANNOT BUT BE influenced by the life and work of Shakespeare, and
yet can be found SATISFIED with the state of his biography. What biblethumpers!
They seem like a grand hierarchy of moles all ageed to dig only so deep and be
only so curious. Stratfordianism is the Papacy and Oxfordianism is the
Protestant Reformation. Seen by old men as heretical and blasphemous and of no
account. Hard to be done with. Annoyed by schismatics.
If there's nothing to the Question, then why indulge yourselves here in
confrontation? Is there something at stake? Or, do you just like beating up on
the retarded kids after school? I say it's pathetic that a college kid today
would not hear something about the Question, at the very least as a matter of
historiographic importance. Is that unreasonable? LET them know on what slender
reeds the identity of "the greatest writer in human history" is hung. Nobody's
crying for Homer: SEVERAL Greek towns still claim him for their favorite son.
And so it shall be for Shakespeare. There will be two identities: Plausible and
Implausible. And people will buy them both.
Toby Petzold
Paul Crowley
Where in the canon is 'capture of the hero by a
pirate' clearly an omission from the plot?
Pirates do figure, and are referred to, in many
plays, such as Pericles. I'd suggest that they
are much more common in the canon than in
the work of any other contemporary playwright.
However, I see from later posts that Bob
accepts (in some peculiar reasoning) that
there is no special reason why piracy should
so figure prominently. Presumably, in his mind
that's still 'Near-PROOF that Hamlet was not
Oxford's autobiography'.
It must be nice to be in a state of total rigidniky,
where you're always right about everything and
nothing can ever change your mind.
Paul.
--
Email: pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> > I consider this coincidence Near-PROOF that Hamlet was not
> > Oxford's autobiography. A spectacular occurrence in his
> > life like being attacked and captured (wasn't he) by
> > pirates, and NOWHERE in his plays does he use the incident--
> > except in the DIALOGUE of Hamlet!
>
> Where in the canon is 'capture of the hero by a
> pirate' clearly an omission from the plot?
Note how Paul avoids answering my argument, which is that
if Oxford were the autobiographer in the plays he allegedly
wrote, where's his capture by pirates in The Oeuvre?
Paul, I was arguing from the Standard Looneic/Alexandrian
Point of View which is that Shakespeare was writing the
Autobiography of His Own True Self in the Plays. If
he was, then he would SURELY have included in his work
a scene depicting one of the most dramatic occurences
in his life, his capture by pirates (and, as I later
found out, his loss of shirt, which--knowing Ed the way
I do--must have been APPALLING) somewhere into his plays.
But he not only never did, he only grazingly mentioned
it in his most complete autobiography, HamFord, Cess
and Annie (the name of which was quickly changed to
protect the British Empire).
> Pirates do figure, and are referred to, in many
> plays, such as Pericles. I'd suggest that they
> are much more common in the canon than in
> the work of any other contemporary playwright.
I'd suggest they probably are not, but who cares.
> However, I see from later posts that Bob
> accepts (in some peculiar reasoning) that
> there is no special reason why piracy should
> so figure prominently. Presumably, in his mind
> that's still 'Near-PROOF that Hamlet was not
> Oxford's autobiography'.
Yes. If we consider him an autobiographer rather
than a playwright. There's no reason piracy would
figure much in Shakespeare's plays if their author
were Shakespeare, even if he, too, had been captured
by pirates, because Shakespeare picked his scenes for
subliterate dramatico-aesthetic reasons, not in order to
disclose the events of his life.
> It must be nice to be in a state of total rigidnikRy,
> where you're always right about everything and
> nothing can ever change your mind.
One might think so, Paul--but if that were the case,
why is it you are so grouchy all the time?
Paul Crowley
> Oxfordians live in a fantasyland in which their own
> importance is hugely inflated. While all Shakespeare scholars
> are at least aware of the authorship question, the vast majority
> of them consider it a nuisance at best, and spend very, very
> little time thinking about it. They make their arguments and
> draw their conclusions based on what makes the most sense given
> all the evidence; Oxfordian fantasies are never in the picture.
> It's really rather sad and pathetic the way Oxfordians assume
> that everything Shakespeare scholars do is a reaction to them;
> if they knew how little those scholars actually know and think
> about Oxfordians, I'm sure they would be crushingly disappointed.
> Just as mathematics professors have better things to do than
> think about all the cranks claiming to have squared the circle,
> Shakespeareans have better things to think about than the
> distorted pseudohistory spouted by Oxfordians. I'm sorry,
> but that's just the way it is.
Of course that's the way it is. Anyone who thought it was
otherwise would have been completely mistaken. How
much time do you think the Aristotelian professors spent
considering the validity of the Copernican model?
How much time did the 'fixed-continent' geologists spend
considering Wegener's theory? How much time did the
pre-germ-theory-of-disease doctors spend in considering
the that theory of disease? How much time did the
palaeontologists spend considering the likelihood of
catastrophic impact theories in the history of evolution?
That's the way it always has been and always will be.
One day those scientists and practitioners woke up and
found that they had no students or no patients. The
world had quietly and suddenly deserted them. Then
they were deeply hurt and utterly mystified.
You could say that they only had themselves to blame.
Everyone else could see which way things were going.
But that would be to fail to understand their psychology.
When you face an uncertain but devastating threat,
about which you can do absolutely nothing, there's an
immensely strong temptation to deny its existence.
You simply get on with your life, ignoring the whole thing.
After all, what else can you do? In a group, this usually
takes the form of a complete silence on the topic; it
becomes traitorous even to mention it.
Crows Dog
Toby spat:
>I do not take as an authoritative denunciation of Oxfordianism the glib and
>low
>regard of the orthodox professoriat.
That sentence does not make sense - but then, you seldom do make sense.
I assume you meant to refer to the "Stratfordian professoriat." Are you
denying that those regarded as authorities denouce the theory that Oxford wrote
the plays? You may choose to deny the truth of their beliefs, but you can't
deny they hold the belief.
>The assholes whose salaries you'll be
>paying for years to come never seem to raise the Question?
Yes, that's simply a statement of fact. You may not like it, but your likes
and dislikes do not alter reality.
> I am thinking
>about
>the many thousands of English literature professors and schoolteachers in our
>culture who CANNOT BUT BE influenced by the life and work of Shakespeare, and
>yet can be found SATISFIED with the state of his biography. What
>biblethumpers!
The professors and scholars are not satisfied with the state of his biography,
in that they wish there were more information available about him. But the
fact that there is little information available about him does not mean someone
else wrote the works.
You yourself have stated that you believe Shakespeare from Stratford was a
front for Oxford, and that only a few people knew he wasn't the actual author.
So, according to your theory, most people from Shakespeare's time believed
Shakespeare wrote the plays. If you had an ounce of intellect, you'd see this
"theory" of yours demolishes your own argument that there would be more
information about Shakespeare if he'd written the plays!!!! You believe most
people at the time thought he wrote the plays!!!!! So if the people who left
behind their documents thought he wrote the plays, why on earth would there be
more references to him if he'd actually written them??? Can you find an answer
in your tiny little brain?
>They seem like a grand hierarchy of moles all ageed to dig only so deep and
>be
>only so curious. Stratfordianism is the Papacy and Oxfordianism is the
>Protestant Reformation. Seen by old men as heretical and blasphemous and of
>no
>account. Hard to be done with. Annoyed by schismatics.
>
Because there is no evidence whatsoever that Oxford wrote the plays, and the
arguements put forth by idiots such as yourself are filled with contradictions.
>If there's nothing to the Question, then why indulge yourselves here in
>confrontation?
It's fun.
If there is something to the Question, why don't you put forth some actual
evidence?
>Is there something at stake? Or, do you just like beating up
>on
>the retarded kids after school?
I do appreciate the analogy. It's more accurate than most of your arguments.
I've never beaten up on what you call a "retarded" kid. But if I met a child
who was mentally handicapped who claimed he knew more than I did, I would try
to set him straight.
> I say it's pathetic that a college kid today
>would not hear something about the Question, at the very least as a matter of
>historiographic importance. Is that unreasonable? LET them know on what
>slender
>reeds the identity of "the greatest writer in human history" is hung.
But it's not on a slender basis. That's just another Oxfordian lie. There are
many references from the time to the fact that the author was named WILLIAM
SHAKESPEARE. There is so much evidence that William Shakespeare of Stratford
was connected with the theater, that even you are willing to acknowledge it.
You've even admitted that in your idiotic theory, Oxford used Shakespeare as a
front, and only a few people knew Oxford was the actual author, and most people
thought Shakespeare of Stratford was the author. If most people thought this,
then you have to admit there was some evidence for it. But there is NO
EVIDENCE - NONE - that Oxford wrote the plays.
>Nobody's
>crying for Homer: SEVERAL Greek towns still claim him for their favorite son.
>And so it shall be for Shakespeare.
Again, you've stopped making sense. You said once there was no great author we
knew less about than Shakespeare. I mentioned Homer. I assume you are trying
to respond, but you aren't making any sense. Are you trying to say we know
more about Homer than Shakespeare????
>There will be two identities: Plausible
>and
>Implausible. And people will buy them both.
>
>Toby Petzold
There's a third - Completely idiotic. And you buy it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Crows Dog
Richard: >>Hamlet is not a playwright. He writes one speech of some 12 to 16
>>lines. This does NOT make him a playwright. There are Stratfordians who
>>make
>>the same claim, that Hamlet was a playwright, but the fact that Mark can
>find
>>Stratfordians who agree with him does not make this claim true.
Toby: >This is a stupid argument. Obviously, the speech that Hamlet wrote for
the
>visiting players was a token of a more general involvement in playwriting.
Richard: Why "obviously"? Where is there any evidence whatsoever that Hamlet
did any playwrighting whatsoever, - other than writing those tweleve to sixteen
lines, which I would not call playwrighting. The only other evidence we have
of Hamlet's dramatic/poetic art is his love letter to Ophelia, which is so bad
Mark doesn't believe it was actually written by Hamlet. Where is there
evidence Hamlet was involved in playwrighting? Wishful thinking does not count
as evidence.
Toby: >Are
>you saying that, because the speech was relatively short, it should be
>dismissed as such a token?
Richard: No, I'm saying it should be dismissed as LESS THAN a token.
Toby: What nonsense! Is there a certain number of lines
>more that Hamlet would have had to have penned that would have made his
>association with playwriting clearer?
Richard: Yes. In order for him to be a playwright, he would have had to have
written a play. I once contributed a paragraph to an episode of the television
series "The Paper Chase." I don't feel that makes me a television writer.
Toby: >The fact that Burghley has been seen by many orthodox scholars in the
role of
>Polonius is, in the end, a great (albeit unwitting) blow against the
>entrenchment of the Stratfordian interest. How else can it be seen?
Richard: Shakespeare, from Stratford, was a member of an acting compnay that
performed at court. Shakespeare the playwright said that common people liked
to gossip about the nobility. Shakespeare would have known who Burghley was.
IF the author wanted to use some elements of Burghley in "Hamlet," that is not
a blow to Shakespeare writing the plays.
Toby: > First,
>you
>diminish Shakespeare as an artist
I have never diminished him as an artist
>of learning
Yes, I've said he didn't need the great amount of classical learning you
believe was only available to the nobility (a crackpot notion).
>and language
I think Shakespeare was a master of the English language.
>to situate him
>more
>closely to Shakspere on the continuum of feasibility, and then you have to
>diminish the assessment of orthodox scholarship when it can be invoked to
>make
>an opposing point.
But you haven't made an opposing point. You belief that Oxford was based on
Burghley doesn't in any way hurt the idea that Shakespeare of Stratford wrote
the plays.
Crows Dog
Give us ANY evidence that Hamlet was a patron to the players.
The play CAN be read and performed a number of different ways - e.g., that
Hamlet lusts after his mother; that Hamlet has no sexual feelings for his
mother at all; that Hamlet is a man of action; that Hamlet is a coward; that
Hamlet never gives a cent to the players; that Hamlet gives financial support
to the players --
But if you're going to argue actually parallels between Hamlet and Oxford, you
should give us ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Hamlet is a patron of the players, rather
than saying this is one of the ways the play can be read.
John W. Kennedy
>
> So, you have nothing to say about why Oxford, captured (I believe)
> by pirates, never based a scene on his experience in his otherwise
> densely autobiographical oeuvre, Toby?
Errr.... Well, one might point out Suffolk's death. Let's not allow
the heat of controversy to blind us to the data.
--
John W. Kennedy
(Working from my laptop)
John W. Kennedy
> Obviously, the speech that Hamlet wrote for the
> visiting players was a token of a more general involvement in playwriting.
Oh yeah. Obviously. Of course.
You'll have to be patient with us. Remember, we can't hear the Voices.
John W. Kennedy
> Stratfordianism is the Papacy and Oxfordianism is the
> Protestant Reformation. Seen by old men as heretical and blasphemous and of no
> account. Hard to be done with. Annoyed by schismatics.
So you're a religious bigot, too?
> If there's nothing to the Question, then why indulge yourselves here in
> confrontation? Is there something at stake?
Yes. The truth.
> Or, do you just like beating up on
> the retarded kids after school?
("Retarded kids"? Et ille respondens ait: Tu dicis.)
No. Dave and others like him have taken on the unpleasant duty of
thrashing the feeble-minded bullies who keep trying to steal the younger
kids' lunch money. It's a dirty, tiring, and, after the first rush,
incredibly BORING job, that takes away valuable time from their work,
their reading, and their social lives, but which someone must volunteer
to do, lest all be lost.
And yet candor compels me to confess that those of us who watch our
inner selves are also aware of the perpetual need to suppress a
Bethlehem-Hospital sort of fascination with the effusions of the
disordered minds of anti-Stratfordians. One that, in my case, is
marbled with an instinctive horror of madness and the mad. Yet the work
must be done, at the risk of our souls.
> I say it's pathetic that a college kid today
> would not hear something about the Question, at the very least as a matter of
> historiographic importance.
"Historiographic" indeed, for it is one of the most fascinating chapters
in the history of bad history. But, for the rest, it receives just
about as much attention as flat-Earth, creationism, Apollo-faking,
homeopathy, Atlantis, phlogiston, and the complete collected works of
the Weekly World News, and that is what it deserves.
> Is that unreasonable? LET them know on what slender
> reeds the identity of "the greatest writer in human history" is hung.
It's not much evidence. But it's 100% of all the evidence there is.
Anti-Stratfordianism is based on ignorance. It's based on what
non-writers think about who writers are and how they work. It's based
on non-lawyers' estimations of Shakespeare's knowledge of law and on
non-historians' ideas of history. Watch Crowley, especially, and see
how often he bases an argument on what "everybody knows", when, in point
of fact, "everybody" knows no such thing.
> Nobody's
> crying for Homer: SEVERAL Greek towns still claim him for their favorite son.
> And so it shall be for Shakespeare. There will be two identities: Plausible and
> Implausible. And people will buy them both.
Yes, and so there will always those who prefer to believe that William
Shakespeare, instead of coming from the middle class (like virtually all
great artists in the history of the world), a town with a perfectly good
free school, and the working theatre, must instead have been an
arrogant, murdering, wasting, child-molesting, cowardly thug whose only
known accomplishments are a few lines of doggerel, a fart heard 'round
the world, and a paper degree and a pension he obtained solely because
of who his father was; a man so utterly without any justification for
living that, when he might have been tried and executed for desertion in
the face of the enemy, his C.O.'s only reaction was, instead, relief at
being rid of the worthless homunculus.
John W. Kennedy
> Of course that's the way it is. Anyone who thought it was
> otherwise would have been completely mistaken. How
> much time do you think the Aristotelian professors spent
> considering the validity of the Copernican model?
But they did.
> How much time did the 'fixed-continent' geologists spend
> considering Wegener's theory?
Wegener's theory was wrong. When someone came up with plate tectonics
(a theory that, although it implied continental drift, like Wegener's,
was not Wegener's theory), it was accepted almost at once.
> How much time did the
> pre-germ-theory-of-disease doctors spend in considering
> the that theory of disease?
Actually, it fit in perfectly with existing Listerian practice, and was
accepted almost at once. (Lister had met with considerable resistance,
but the fact that doctors had to assume a big load of guilt along with
carbolic acid was a major factor there.) The main delay in accepting
Pasteur was due to the historic accident that he wasn't a medical man at
all, but a chemist.
> How much time did the
> palaeontologists spend considering the likelihood of
> catastrophic impact theories in the history of evolution?
A great deal. It was a basic pillar of anti-Evolutionary thinking, and
there came to be a considerable stain on the word due to that. Despite
that prejudice, Alvarez was accepted quite quickly when he produced
actual evidence, even though he was not a paleontologist. (The other
main resistance was over the then-accepted notion that the stratigraphic
evidence showed a slow decline before the K-T boundary; once it was
demonstrated that the evidence could as easily be interpreted as
uncertain measurements of a sharp termination, just about everyone fell
into line.)
> That's the way it always has been and always will be.
> One day those scientists and practitioners woke up and
> found that they had no students or no patients. The
> world had quietly and suddenly deserted them. Then
> they were deeply hurt and utterly mystified.
Yeah. No medical quackery to be seen today, no sir! (I just got into a
quarrel on the Internet _this_ _week_ with someone who prefers magic to
medical science.)
Oh, by the way, don't get the wrong idea about Alvarez and Pasteur.
They were outsiders, but they were qualified, working scientists in
other disciplines. Anti-Stratfordians are rarely, if ever, scholars at
all. (I recall one sad case at Fairleigh Dickenson, but, after all,
that was only Fairleigh Dickenson.)
Crows Dog
Toby B's argument that Hamlet obviously wrote plays, in addition to the speech
of 12 - 18 lines, his comparison of Oxfordians to (in his words) "retarded
kids," his argument that Shakespeare should have been referred to in
newspapers during his lifetime, -- he can't really be serious, can he?
This all has to be a put on, right?
David Kathman
I used to think the same thing about Baker, but I eventual came to
the sad conclusion that he was being all too serious.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
MakBane
agree with you that he wrote a single play which did not survive. I think he
had a REPUTATION for comedies and other play-writing.
Also, I understand that Hamlet is a fictional character. But, inasmuch as he is
an autobiographical representation of Oxford, I do believe that he is very
well-acquainted with the players around him. Hamlet-Oxford is in his element in
their company, whoever they are as individuals or whether they are personally
known to him. For the purpose of demonstrating his acquaintance with the
dramatic craft and its craftsmen, Hamlet's inclusion of the speech in the
play-within-the-play should be seen as a token or gesture of this.
I would also very much like to say, with respect to the autobiography that
Oxfordians draw from the Canon, that we are not talking about 1:1
representations. We are not looking for proportions of historical identities in
those of dramatic identities. But, in many cases (few of which I am yet
qualified to substantiate), there are characters in Shakespeare who are WIDELY
REGARDED as being based on real persons. Your apparent dismissal of this is,
frankly, a failure of your imagination. I would be most interested to know WHO
in the world of Shakespearean scholarship and criticism (outside this little
backwater of ours) DOUBTS that Polonius is a parody of Lord Burghley. The
blinkered rationale of such scholars must be the equal of a Stratford tour
guide.
Toby Petzold
MakBane
players as being a token of Oxford's own role as a courtly maker and playwriter
is evidence of my schizophrenia. To this, I can only respond that I pity Mr.
Kennedy for his belief.
Toby Petzold
MakBane
possible; thus, by this very standard of yours in which you belittle the
intelligence of others, I equate your character in dealing with nuisances like
me in the context of the Question to that of schoolyard bullies who beat up on
retarded kids. Am I wrong in imputing to you a certain sadism?
Yes, of course, orthodox scholars deny the Oxfordian Claim (when they deign to
acknowledge a controversy at all, right?). Isn't that the gist of all this?
That they're fastidiously burying the turds of their uncertainty? Once their
little litterbox fiefdoms are cleared, they can go about their business of
UNDERSTANDING (for publication, mind you) a man about whom they know JACK
UNLESS they manage to FIND HIM in the body of his works. I mean, there's
nothing worth knowing of Shakspere IN the RECORD, so you would think they would
go reconstructing him based on his words. But SOME schools of "thought" say
there's no REASON to go dragging biography into the question, so they are
safely entombed in their ignorance. What joyless, ahistorical analyses they
must engage in! Do they understand the language of the time timelessly? Do they
understand the customs and situations of the time without regard to the
historicity and political sensibilities OF THE TIME? Then what is the basis of
their UNDERSTANDING of the plays if the identity of the Author is immaterial?
His identity MUST be important because it is grounded in its own milieu. I
don't care what the priesthood of Stratfordiana says. They are simply wrong to
ignore the Question. How goes that Latin phrase? Non salus extra ecclesiam?
Ultimately, you are wrong in saying that the lack of information about
Shakspere is no proof against his authorship. At some point, despite the
depredations of time and men upon the written word, the BIG EMPTY at the heart
of the remembrance of him by his neighbors OUGHT to be recognized. The
dissonance between the mundane Stratford record and the literary triumph of his
life in London is simply incredible.
My remarks about Homer were probably ill-phrased. I mean to say that most
classical scholars believe or are willing to accept that Homer is a generalized
and composite-type identity to which the Odyssey and the Iliad are acribed. No
serious classical scholar believes that Homer was the originator of those
poems; "he" was a scribe to an oral tradition. Now, when we refer to Homer,
there is SOME sense of an historical identity, but we may not go seeking it out
because his poems are not autobiographical. But, BECAUSE of the proximity of
our time to Elizabethan England, the likelihood of discovering historiographic
proofs of minor events is greatly increased; we BELIEVE that there is an
immediate identity to be revealed and we seek it out (with the inevitable
disappointment, but which Stratfordians have already salved for us with their
dismissal of biographical relevance itself). Nevertheless, I would predict a
long period in which the conflicting identities behind Shakespeare will
co-exist until one demolishes the other in the popular conception.
Also, I have NEVER said that "there was no great author we know less about than
Shakespeare." I am not informed enough to know that, although its "proofs are
extant."
Lastly, I will try to deal with the following charge you made:
>You yourself have stated that you believe Shakespeare from Stratford was a
>front for Oxford, and that only a few people knew he wasn't the actual
>author.
I believe that is correct, although the nature of that "fronting" remains to be
imagined, undoubtedly with the steel-breeze abandon of my schizophrenia.
>So, according to your theory, most people from Shakespeare's time believed
>Shakespeare wrote the plays.
Possibly not. Many of the plays were printed anonymously, being pirated
quartos. Nor can I speak to the general public's associating any of these plays
with the name of any author at all. Stratfordians are always talking about the
low opinion in which plays were held and how they were not yet considered
literature. To know anything more than the playwright's name may have been of
no interest.
> If you had an ounce of intellect, you'd see
>this
>"theory" of yours demolishes your own argument that there would be more
>information about Shakespeare if he'd written the plays!!!!
Didn't respect for and interest in playwrights only begin with Jonson?
Shakspere's "fellowes" didn't think to include him in their anecdotes because
they knew that playwrights were low-class and figured that they would not
bother to provide to posterity anything that it might only expect of
PLAYWRIGHTS WHO CAME AFTER BEN JONSON.
>You believe most
>people at the time thought he wrote the plays!!!!! So if the people who left
>behind their documents thought he wrote the plays, why on earth would there
>be
>more references to him if he'd actually written them???
I've gone over this like the Zapruder film and can't make anything of it. For
God's sakes, Nathan, quit wasting your Viagra on the newsgroups!!!
> Can you find an
>answer
> in your tiny little brain?
'tis catarrh.
Toby Petzold
MakBane
>Dave and others like him have taken on the unpleasant duty of
>thrashing the feeble-minded bullies who keep trying to steal the younger
>kids' lunch money. It's a dirty, tiring, and, after the first rush,
>incredibly BORING job, that takes away valuable time from their work,
>their reading, and their social lives, but which someone must volunteer
>to do, lest all be lost.
Lest all be lost? Ha, ha. That is SWEET!!! Well, I almost got choked up there,
thinking of how these Col. Travises and Davy K. Crocketts of the HLAS Alamo are
beating back the hordes (at the expense of their social and professional
lives). Ha, ha. Oh, brother!
>And yet candor compels me to confess that those of us who watch our
>inner selves are also aware of the perpetual need to suppress a
>Bethlehem-Hospital sort of fascination with the effusions of the
>disordered minds of anti-Stratfordians. One that, in my case, is
>marbled with an instinctive horror of madness and the mad. Yet the work
>must be done, at the risk of our souls.
I must confess (candidly) that, in all my years of reading stuff on the
internet, this one passage, more than any other, has perfectly evoked in my
mind and in my limbs all that is best in the post-defecatory shiver. If
self-righteousness were malt, sirrah, you would be fined for hoarding it.
Please, oh please, come out from your sepulchre and HEAL ME OF MY BLINDNESS!!!
Toby Petzold
(unemployed for only another week!)
John W. Kennedy
> Give us ANY evidence that Hamlet was a patron to the players.
Well, to be fair, he damn well behaves like one.
Crows Dog
John,
Are you saying that by telling the players how to do their jobs, demanding that
they do a particular speech, selecting the play, etc., he's acting like their
patron?
I thought he was just acting like a prince.
I see no evidence in the play that he is a patron of these players.
John W. Kennedy
> Are you saying that by telling the players how to do their jobs, demanding that
> they do a particular speech, selecting the play, etc., he's acting like their
> patron?
>
> I thought he was just acting like a prince.
"He who calls the tune...." As a general rule of decorum, even a prince
who makes a special request is normally expected to provide some kind of
quid-pro-quo, or at least the promise thereof.
Crows Dog
Toby: >Richard, your method of argument is to be as vicious and ad hominem as
>possible;
Richard: Only to those who, to my mind, deserve it. And my posts contain, I
think, roughly equal amounts of insult and logical argument. You choose to
ignore the logical arguments and concentrate on the insults.
Toby: >Toby: thus, by this very standard of yours in which you belittle the
>intelligence of others, I equate your character in dealing with nuisances
>like me in the context of the Question to that of schoolyard bullies who beat
up
>on retarded kids.
Richard: I do find the comparison of Oxfordians to retarded kids uncomfortably
apt. You really have made me feel some guilt about this.
Toby: Am I wrong in imputing to you a certain sadism?
>
Richard: Sadism? No. Anger? Yes. I would only be guilty of sadism if I
felt I were actually hurting anyone. Are you saying that my insults actually
bother you? I always assumed Oxfordians never believed anything Stratfordians
say, so they wouldn't pay any attention to my insults. The insults are
intended for the amusement of others, rather than hurting the feelings of
Oxfordians.
Toby: >Yes, of course, orthodox scholars deny the Oxfordian Claim (when they
deign
>to
>acknowledge a controversy at all, right?). >Isn't that the gist of all this?
Richard: Of course it is. That's what you seemed to be denying in a prior
post.
Toby: >That they're fastidiously burying the turds of their uncertainty?
Richard: No. That's another fantasy. Stratfordians don't have any
uncertainty - at least not about the identity of the author.
Toby: > Once their
>little litterbox fiefdoms are cleared, they can go about their business of
>UNDERSTANDING (for publication, mind you) a man about whom they know JACK
>UNLESS they manage to FIND HIM in the body of his works.
Richard: I'm asking again, are you saying that if there is an author who
really is the author of the works, and there isn't much known about him, we
must pretend someone else is the author, even though he really isn't, because
we have more biographical facts about him????? Does that really make sense to
you????
Toby: > I mean, there's
>nothing worth knowing of Shakspere IN the RECORD, so you would think they
>would
>go reconstructing him based on his words.
Richard: Depends on what you mean by "worth knowing." We have enough
information about him to know he's the author.
Toby: >But SOME schools of "thought" say
>there's no REASON to go dragging biography into the question, so they are
>safely entombed in their ignorance.
Richard: What do you mean? What question? If you mean there are those who
say that the identity of the author of the works is so firmly established that
there's no point to looking into biography as an element of identifying the
author, you're right. Again, you seem to be saying that even if evidence
conclusively identifies Shakespeare as the author, if we don't have enough
biographical information to satisfy us, we should choose another candidate,
even though he didn't really write the plays.
Toby: > What joyless, ahistorical analyses they
>must engage in! Do they understand the language of the time timelessly?
Richard: "Do they understand the language of the time timelessly?" You write
as poorly as Richard Kennedy!!!!
Toby: > Do
>they
>understand the customs and situations of the time without regard to the
>historicity and political sensibilities OF THE TIME? Then what is the basis
>of
>their UNDERSTANDING of the plays if the identity of the Author is immaterial?
Richard: I can honestly say I don't have the slightest idea as to what you are
talking about. The fact that you claim you teach children is terrifying.
Toby: >>His identity MUST be important because it is grounded in its own
milieu.
Richard: > ?????????? Do you really expect anyone to make sense of what
you're typing?
Toby: > I
>don't care what the priesthood of Stratfordiana says. They are simply wrong
>to
>ignore the Question. How goes that Latin phrase? Non salus extra ecclesiam?
>
>Ultimately, you are wrong in saying that the lack of information about
>Shakspere is no proof against his authorship. At some point, despite the
>depredations of time and men upon the written word, the BIG EMPTY at the
>heart
>of the remembrance of him by his neighbors OUGHT to be recognized.
Richard: But you yourself have said that you believe most people from
Shakespeare's time thought he WAS the author of the play. You said that Oxford
used him as a front, and only a few people knew that Oxford was the real
author. Therefore, according to your view, most people thought Shakespeare was
the author. As to what his townspeople thought, they lived in Stratford, not
London. The plays were, for the most part, performed in London. Sure, the
company went on tour, but people who lived in Stratford wouldn't necessarily
care about what went on in the theater scene in London. Furthermore, we don't
HAVE records about what people were saying in Stratford. The records aren't
there. I don't know why that is so hard for you to understand.
Toby: > The
>dissonance between the mundane Stratford record and the literary triumph of
>his
>life in London is simply incredible.
>
Richard: No it isn't. There aren't a lot of records in Stratford. And
Stratford wasn't where the plays were performed. And again, YOU YOURSELF SEEM
TO BELIEVE MOST PEOPLE THOUGHT SHAKESPEARE WROTE THE PLAYS!!!! Or are you
going to change your story?
Toby: >>My remarks about Homer were probably ill-phrased. I mean to say that
most
>classical scholars believe or are willing to accept that Homer is a
>generalized
>and composite-type identity to which the Odyssey and the Iliad are acribed.
Richard: Are you saying that most scholars now believe that The Illiad and The
Odyssey were not written by a single writer? I'm not sure that's true.
Toby: >No
>serious classical scholar believes that Homer was the originator of those
>poems; "he" was a scribe to an oral tradition.
Richard: Sure, the stories had been told, or sung, be many. But there are
many scholars who firmly believe there was one author who put them in the
version that has come down to us. (Or, possibly, one individual for "The
Illiad," and another for "The Odyssey.")
Toby: Now, when we refer to Homer,
>there is SOME sense of an historical identity, but we may not go seeking it
>out
>because his poems are not autobiographical.
Richard: Right. And the plays of Shakespeare are not autobiographical, except
in your fantasies. The Sonnets may be, to some extent, autobiographical, but
they are clearly NOT the autobiography of Oxford. They are explicitly NOT the
autobiography of someone with proud titles.
Toby: But, BECAUSE of the proximity of
>our time to Elizabethan England, the likelihood of discovering
>historiographic
>proofs of minor events is greatly increased; we BELIEVE that there is an
>immediate identity to be revealed and we seek it out (with the inevitable
>disappointment, but which Stratfordians have already salved for us with their
>dismissal of biographical relevance itself).
Richard: It's WRONG to say that Stratfordians are not interested in the
biographical facts of Shakespeare's life. That is just 100% wrong. But they
dismiss biographical relevance to the so-called "authorship" question, because
there is no question. The evidence for Shakespeare of Stratford as the author
is overwhelming.
Toby: Nevertheless, I would predict a
>long period in which the conflicting identities behind Shakespeare will
>co-exist until one demolishes the other in the popular conception.
>
Richard: You don't think that's already happened?
Toby: >Also, I have NEVER said that "there was no great author we know less
about
>than
>Shakespeare." I am not informed enough to know that, although its "proofs are
>extant."
>
Richard: Sorry, I may have misquoted you. I could have sworn you posted words
to that effect.
Toby: >Lastly, I will try to deal with the following charge you made:
>
Richard (quoted by Toby)>>You yourself have stated that you believe Shakespeare
from Stratford was a
>>front for Oxford, and that only a few people knew he wasn't the actual
>>author.
>
Toby: >I believe that is correct, although the nature of that "fronting"
remains to
>be
>imagined, undoubtedly with the steel-breeze abandon of my schizophrenia.
>
Richard (quoted by Toby): >>So, according to your theory, most people from
Shakespeare's time believed
>>Shakespeare wrote the plays.
Toby: >Possibly not. Many of the plays were printed anonymously, being pirated
>quartos.
Richard: We don't know that they were pirated. In any event, the plays were
clearly attributed again and again and again to William Shakespeare, both in
many publications and in comments of Meres and others.
Toby: > Nor can I speak to the general public's associating any of these
>plays
>with the name of any author at all.
Richard: Why not? You continually ask why there aren't more references to
Shakespeare in Stratford, and then you claim the general public isn't
interested with associating the plays with any author at all! Can't you see a
contradiction there??????
Toby: Stratfordians are always talking about
>the
>low opinion in which plays were held and how they were not yet considered
>literature. To know anything more than the playwright's name may have been of
>no interest.
Richard: Okay, if you accept that, then why are you surprised that there
aren't more references to Shakespeare in Stratford??????
Richard (quoted by Toby): >> If you had an ounce of intellect, you'd see
>>this
>>"theory" of yours demolishes your own argument that there would be more
>>information about Shakespeare if he'd written the plays!!!!
Toby: >Didn't respect for and interest in playwrights only begin with Jonson?
Richard: There were lots of people who didn't respect Jonson. They made fun
of him for publishing his plays. What is your point? Are you agreeing with
the Stratfordians that people didn't have a lot of interest in the life stories
of playwrights? If so, what does that do to your argument that there should be
more records about Shakespeare?
Toby: >>Shakspere's "fellowes" didn't think to include him in their anecdotes
Richard: How many anecdotes do you think we have from Shakespeare's fellows?
Toby: >because
>they knew that playwrights were low-class and figured that they would not
>bother to provide to posterity anything that it might only expect of
>PLAYWRIGHTS WHO CAME AFTER BEN JONSON.
>
Richard: I believe you must be trying to say that Hemmings and Condell didn't
include a lot of biographical information about Shakespeare in the first folio
because they thought the public wouldn't be terribly interested. I think
that's correct.
Richard (quoted by Toby):>>You believe most
>>people at the time thought he wrote the plays!!!!! So if the people who
>left
>>behind their documents thought he wrote the plays, why on earth would there
>>be
>>more references to him if he'd actually written them???
Toby: >I've gone over this like the Zapruder film and can't make anything of
it.
Richard: What's so hare for you to understand. You believe that Oxford used
Shakespeare of Stratford as a front. You think only a few people knew Oxford
was the real author. Therefore, you must believe that most people who had any
interest in the identity of the author thought Shakespeare was the author? Is
that not correct. So if most of these people thought Shakespeare of the
author was the author, why would the number of references to him by these
people change if he REALLY was the author?
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Toby: > For
>God's sakes, Nathan, quit wasting your Viagra on the newsgroups!!!
>
Richard: Huh?
Richard (quoted by Toby):>> Can you find an
>>answer
>> in your tiny little brain?
>
Toby: >'tis catarrh.
>
>Toby Petzold
>
>
Well, I tried to be less mean to the retarded kid in this post.
John W. Kennedy
>
> Mr. Steese, Oxford was known for his comedy, which I construe plurally. I don't
> agree with you that he wrote a single play which did not survive. I think he
> had a REPUTATION for comedies and other play-writing.
Ah yes, the old
everybody-knew-about-it-but-it-was-a-state-secret-so-terrible-it-couldn't-even-be-put-in-the-archives
argument.
> Also, I understand that Hamlet is a fictional character. But, inasmuch as he is
> an autobiographical representation of Oxford, I do believe that he is very
> well-acquainted with the players around him.
That's called affirming the consequent. _First_ you have to produce
some kind of rational evidence for your thesis -- then you can start
drawing conclusions from it.
John W. Kennedy
> Richard, your method of argument is to be as vicious and ad hominem as
> possible;
Yet another Internet idiot who doesn't know what "ad hominem" means.
> so you would think they would
> go reconstructing him based on his words.
An endeavor proven time and time again to be worthless. C. S. Lewis
reported that every time, without exception, that people tried to
extract biographical data from his writings, they got it completely
wrong. A year or so ago, someone on one of the Babylon 5 groups
speculated on the very close and loving relationship between J. Michael
Straczynski and his father -- JMS has, in fact, publicly acknowledged a
childhood spent one step ahead of the sheriff, and has further remarked
that he got a vasectomy so as not to subject the world to any more
members of his family.
> My remarks about Homer were probably ill-phrased. I mean to say that most
> classical scholars believe or are willing to accept that Homer is a generalized
> and composite-type identity to which the Odyssey and the Iliad are acribed. No
> serious classical scholar believes that Homer was the originator of those
> poems; "he" was a scribe to an oral tradition.
D'jever notice how anti-Strats are always a century out of date?
John W. Kennedy
> Lest all be lost? Ha, ha. That is SWEET!!!
Your cloven hoof is showing.
"[Exposing fake mediums] may occasionally be an unpleasant duty. It's
an uncommonly base pleasure."
-- Fr. Brown
Erik Nielsen
> "[Exposing fake mediums] may occasionally be an unpleasant duty. It's
> an uncommonly base pleasure."
>
> -- Fr. Brown
I don't know that you could call it "base" at all. In the ridiculing of
these fools, I get a feeling of a job well done, a victory for reason
over the tides of irrational silliness. Of course, there would be more
to it if some of the fools ceased their foolishness as a result...
--nielsen
Geralyn Horton
"John W. Kennedy" wrote:
- JMS has, further remarked
> that he got a vasectomy so as not to subject the world to any more
> members of his family.
Thanks for this tidbit, John! A character in my play
"Good Blood and High Standards" does this-- and it is
nice to hear that such things do happen in Life.
Geralyn Horton, Playwright
Newton, Mass. 02460
<http://www.tiac.net/users/ghorton>
David L. Webb
<dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Tom Lay wrote:
[...]
> > Do Oxfordkans really think that the only Shakespeare scholars is to
> > protect the attribution of the plays? I spend many hours a week in an
> > English department, which includes working for a Professor who
> > specializes in Renaissance lit, and in all those hours, I think I've
> > only heard a total of fifteen seconds of discussion on the topic.
> Oxfordians live in a fantasyland in which their own
> importance is hugely inflated. While all Shakespeare scholars
> are at least aware of the authorship question, the vast majority
> of them consider it a nuisance at best, and spend very, very
> little time thinking about it. They make their arguments and
> draw their conclusions based on what makes the most sense given
> all the evidence; Oxfordian fantasies are never in the picture.
> It's really rather sad and pathetic the way Oxfordians assume
> that everything Shakespeare scholars do is a reaction to them;
> if they knew how little those scholars actually know and think
> about Oxfordians, I'm sure they would be crushingly disappointed.
> Just as mathematics professors have better things to do than
> think about all the cranks claiming to have squared the circle,
> Shakespeareans have better things to think about than the
> distorted pseudohistory spouted by Oxfordians. I'm sorry,
> but that's just the way it is.
Some mathematicians and other scientists, especially those at state
universities, feel that we have a duty to give crackpots a hearing and
to try to explain to them where they have gone wrong. (Indeed, one
science department at a major state university even gave its graduate
students the task of politely answering the steady strem of letters
from cranks as part of their graduate TA duties.) This is almost
always an enormous waste of time, since cranks generally have no
understanding of standards of mathematical proof (let alone of the
technical details of the area in which they claim to have solved some
significant problem), but many of us are willing to take the pains to
try to explain their errors to them politely and to suggest helpful
references -- *once*, at any rate. One tends to lose patience, though,
if the same person keeps repeatedly trotting out the same incorrect
proof. Thus I cannot but admire the saintly patience that you and
Terry Ross bring to the task of refuting the *same* nonsense over and
over, particularly when some of the individuals whose pet delusions
have not withstood scrutiny resort to the ridiculous expedient of
accusing you of dishonesty, of cowardice, of involvement in some
bizarre "coverup" conspiracy, etc.
Your analogy of pseudohistorians with scientific cranks is apt, and
indeed the two categories sometimes overlap. Raeto West's web site
contains all sorts of pseudohistory -- Holocaust revisionism, Oxfordian
claims, etc. -- as well as pseudoscience, including the suggestion that
modern physics is a "fraud" -- one finds claims that quantum mechanics,
special relativity, particle physics, etc. are inherently wrong,
accompanied by critiques that betray fundamental and often farcical
misunderstandings of these disciplines. The site subjects modern
biology to a similar treatment. Similarly, in this newsgroup, Paul
Streitz has claimed that AIDS is "a hoax." Indeed, even the timing of
your analogy is quite apt, as John Baker has just posted more of his
supposed proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem.
I am still bewildered by one odd trait exhibited by many
anti-Stratfordians, a trait that is far more understandable and even
rather commendable when displayed by "respectable" scientific cranks
(by "respectable" cranks I mean people who, although they do not
understand even rudimentary mathematical proofs, are nonetheless
fascinated by something like Fermat's Last Theorem or Goldbach's
Conjecture and continue to think about the problem, and usually
continue to generate incorrect proofs; thus I exclude from
"respectability" both cranks who attempt to prove something that is
known to be false and crackpots who have some ideological obsession
with Velikovksian or analogous flavors of pseudoscience). I have in
mind the Oxfordian tendency to strive haplessly to resurrect long
discredited canards. For instance, several Oxfordians have
acknowledged, when confronted with the record, that Ward furnishes no
evidence of the dowager Countess of Oxford's supposedly "hasty"
remarriage. One would expect that any rational person would abandon
this particular myth, as there seems to be no evidence for it. Yet the
lack of evidence does not deter various Oxfordians from trying, mostly
by means of wishful thinking, to invent some evidence for it -- for
instance, Stephanie Caruana has struggled on several occasions, each
funnier than the last, to resuscitate this moribund canard. This
tendency strikes me as curious -- when someone watches virtually every
piece of supposed "evidence" for Oxford's authorship evaporate, one
would expect a dispassionate, rational person to reassess his or her
adherence to the creed, as Richie Miller has wisely done. Instead,
many Oxfordians seem to dig in their heels, to invent "evidence" for
the myth, and even to continue to repeat it, *even* when their error is
pointed out (the case of Nabokov's supposed anti-Stratfordian sympathy
is one my pet peeves). This trait is more praiseworthy in the case of
mathematical cranks -- after all, there *was* reason to believe that
the Fermat conjecture might be true before Wiles found a proof and
there was no reason to think otherwise, and similarly there is good
reason to think that the Riemann hypothesis might be true. Thus
mathematical cranks are engaging in the same curiosity-driven
exploration that professional scientists are, although generally
without the benefit of even a rudimentary understanding of the problem.
Many anti-Stratfordian cranks, however, appear to be engaged in
something altogether different, whose motivation I find extremely
difficult to fathom.
David Webb
John W. Kennedy
> Some mathematicians and other scientists, especially those at state
> universities, feel that we have a duty to give crackpots a hearing and
> to try to explain to them where they have gone wrong.
And, of course, there is always the slight possibility of discovering
the next Ramanujan.
Unfortunately, history, unlike mathematics, cannot be done by pure
ratiocination.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
of the players who performed the mouse-trap play in any
sense except as one hiring them. Here's the evidence from
ACT II, scene II:
Rosencrantz has told Hamlet that some players are on their
way to Elsinore.
Hamlet: What players are they?
Rosencrantz: Even those you were wont to take such delight
in, the tragedians of the city.
--Bob G.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> Some mathematicians and other scientists, especially those at state
> universities, feel that we have a duty to give crackpots a hearing and
> to try to explain to them where they have gone wrong. (Indeed, one
> science department at a major state university even gave its graduate
> students the task of politely answering the steady strem of letters
> from cranks as part of their graduate TA duties.) This is almost
> always an enormous waste of time
I disagree, or claim that it should not be an enormous waste of time
(at least not until the crank goes into his repeated assertion mode).
I believe it useful in clarifying one's ideas and the expression
thereof to argue with those against one's ideas, however idiotically.
I believe a scientist's first duty is the discovery of truth, but
that his second, equally important, duty is to express it so that
every rational person will be able to understand and agree with it.
An impossible ideal but one to shoot for. What better way to do
this than to practice on cranks?
I also think that exposure to bizarre ideas in one's field can
loosen one's mind, and increase creativity.
But, of course, I'm a crank in more fields than I'm not, so I'm
biased.
Crows Dog
Bob Grumman wrote:
Andt then Hamlet says, "How chances it they travel? THier residence, both in
reputation and profit, was better both ways."
Clearly, this is not Hamlet's company.
What's more, he did not know they were coming to the castle, so they're not
coming at his request.
I suppose it is possible that once they show up, he elects to pay them, but
there is NOTHING in the play to indicate this is so.
KQKnave
(Crows Dog) writes:
Hamlet obviously likes plays, likes to know what's going on in the playhouses.
From this it is possible to say that if a character could have a life outside
of the play, that Hamlet at one time may have acted as a patron for
a troupe. However, he is, just as clearly, not a patron IN THE PLAY, which
is what we are talking about. If Oxenforde were really the author, and if
it is really so neccessary, as the Oxenfordians like to insist, that his life
is revealed in the plays, why wasn't Hamlet clearly made a patron of
the players? And why wasn't he portrayed as a boy buttf*****? (Sorry
couldn't resist).
Jim
ken...@my-deja.com
brought up Annabel Patterson who wrote a book on the role of
communication and censorship in England of that era. There were 25
hoots and hollars(check it out) until David Kathman calmed everyone
down by mentioning the new historicism and validating the point that
yes, there were those who considered Shakespeare political and topical,
perhaps far more than coventionally considered, but that it was
essentiallty no big deal. But there was never discussion that I've seen
from him that was willing to deal with that issue in depth.
I've always thought that this ng has shied away from that topic in a
particularly obvious way, partly because the implications move the
discussion into areas that have been more insisted and commented upon
by Oxfordians. In fact, Mark's essay on Polonius and Burghley was a
direct response to and outgrowth of the denial inherent in most of the
Strat posts to his efforts to discuss Patterson. At least in _this_
discussion, there has been some minimal attempt to deal with the
_significance_ of such a characterization, rather than continuing the
denial of it, although some, like Mark Steese, still fervently carry
that banner.
The point being that Patterson, as well as Donna Hamilton, in
Shakespeare and the Politics of Protestant England, make it very clear
that, as Hamlet says, the theater was the "brief abstracts and
chronicles of the times..." and that there was a highly sophisticated
and _OBLIQUE_ method of communication that commented _very
specifically_ on current affairs, personalities and affairs of state.
Thus a satirization of Burghley would be suicide if it were exact, as
many here seem to demand. Jonathon Bate seems to understand that when
he said Polonius _couldn't be Burghley, the author would have ended up
in prison. Good point. Why wasn't he? Especially if you consider the
probably seditious hidden commentaries on state persecution of
religious dissidents, especially Edmund Campion, in the dark house
scene in Twelfth Night. (see Allusions to Edmund Campion in Ever Reader
#2). Let's see. Essex rebellion and Richard II, 1601. Twelfth Night and
biting commentary on Campion, et al, 1602.(By traditional dating).
Hamlet in print with Burghley satirization, named Corambis, in 1603.
Quite a little busy political beaver, our author. Amazing he wasn't put
on the rack, but mighty clever.
Therefore, all this moaning about biographical exactness to a "T" is
nonsense. If DeVere is the author, he would nEVER put up a sign saying,
oh, by the way, Edward Oxenford wrote this. The same way the Earls in
the history plays are OXFORD, why announce yourself directly if
concealment is yuour issue? But slipping in telling moments from your
life and cutting comments or allusions about the character involved
(like signing the letter to Malvolio "Your most fortunate unhappy",
which Harvey used to lampoon Hatton) would be picked up by those in the
know, especially if the references were so quick they could only be
picked up in print. Try reading the intro to the dark house scene and
inagine all but the most quick in the audience missing the reference.
And I'll bet 99.9% of ALL actors playing the fool have not had a clue
as to what those words were about, or who they were referring to. "Good
day Sir Toby, as the Old Hermit of Prague who never saw pen and ink..."
In this light, the satirization of Burghley is DANGEROUSLY explicit and
specific references and echoes to Oxford's life and emotions are
plentiful. If you want to argue the merits of the application of the
topicality, such as Sidney is Hamlet, not Oxford, fine, but don't deny
them. And if we begin this deeper consideration of a more political
Shakespeare, which most critics of all stripes seem to have missed,
then perhaps we may enlarge our appreciation of the author, no matter
who he is. In my mind, this has been one of the great fruits for me of
the authorship issue, and if there had been more openness and real
dialogue, instead of the hostility and attacks, not just here, but
throughout the entire Shakespeare community over the years, maybe more
people would have been enriched. But that was not the intention, here
or there, and you, and many otheres may have forgone a greater
understanding of the man you claim to love so dearly.
Ken Kaplan
In article <20010123113458...@nso-fx.aol.com>,
Mark Steese
<20010122020118...@ng-cc1.aol.com>:
>Mr. Steese, Oxford was known for his comedy, which I construe plurally.
>I don't agree with you that he wrote a single play which did not
>survive. I think he had a REPUTATION for comedies and other
>play-writing.
As I believe I mentioned, there are a grand total of two (2) references to
De Vere's comedy, one of which is derived from the other. If he had a
REPUTATION for comedy, very few people bothered to note the fact; if he had
a reputation for "other play-writing," none of his contemporaries noted it.
>Also, I understand that Hamlet is a fictional character. But, inasmuch
>as he is an autobiographical representation of Oxford, I do believe that
>he is very well-acquainted with the players around him. Hamlet-Oxford is
>in his element in their company, whoever they are as individuals or
>whether they are personally known to him. For the purpose of
>demonstrating his acquaintance with the dramatic craft and its
>craftsmen, Hamlet's inclusion of the speech in the play-within-the-play
>should be seen as a token or gesture of this.
As John Kennedy already pointed out, you cannot make assumptions about
Hamlet based on your undemonstrated assumption that he represents De Vere.
It is quite clear from the text that the players who visit Elsinore are
already known to Hamlet (and to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as well), but
there is no suggestion that he has patronized them except inasmuch as he
has enjoyed seeing their performances.
>I would also very much like to say, with respect to the autobiography
>that Oxfordians draw from the Canon, that we are not talking about 1:1
>representations. We are not looking for proportions of historical
>identities in those of dramatic identities. But, in many cases (few of
>which I am yet qualified to substantiate), there are characters in
>Shakespeare who are WIDELY REGARDED as being based on real persons. Your
>apparent dismissal of this is, frankly, a failure of your imagination. I
>would be most interested to know WHO in the world of Shakespearean
>scholarship and criticism (outside this little backwater of ours) DOUBTS
>that Polonius is a parody of Lord Burghley. The blinkered rationale of
>such scholars must be the equal of a Stratford tour guide.
It is comical to see an accusation of imaginative failure come from someone
who cannot imagine that a middle-class man with a grammar-school education
could possible have written _Hamlet_. Especially since the accusation
apparently refers to my unwillingness to see Polonius as a "parody" of
Burghley. As I have previously noted, the idea makes no sense; a parody
exaggerates; it does not substitute nonexistent qualities for existent
ones. As to characters in Shakespeare being WIDELY REGARDED as being based
on real persons -- some of them _are_ real persons (e.g., Henry V); some of
them are probably based on real persons; some of them are based on well-
known fictional persons and/or stock figures of the stage; and some of them
spring wholly from the playwright's imagination.
By the way, the middle-class Stratford burgher Shakespeare is WIDELY
REGARDED as being the author of his own plays. Your dismissal of this is,
frankly, absurd.
Yours,
Mark Steese
--
Bibrau is the name of the girl who sits in the blue
-Runic inscription from Greenland, c. 11th C. A.D.
Mark Steese
<94lka3$7b4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
[snip]
>I've always thought that this ng has shied away from that topic in a
>particularly obvious way, partly because the implications move the
>discussion into areas that have been more insisted and commented upon
>by Oxfordians. In fact, Mark's essay on Polonius and Burghley was a
>direct response to and outgrowth of the denial inherent in most of the
>Strat posts to his efforts to discuss Patterson. At least in _this_
>discussion, there has been some minimal attempt to deal with the
>_significance_ of such a characterization, rather than continuing the
>denial of it, although some, like Mark Steese, still fervently carry
>that banner.
There is no 'still' to it. I have yet to see a convincing case made that
the character of Polonius is meant to be in any way a representation of
Burghley. If real evidence, as opposed to misinterpretation, supposition,
and coincidence, is put forward, I will reconsider. I do not object to the
idea that Polonius could have been based on Burghley; but the case has not
been made -- though you obviously disagree.
>The point being that Patterson, as well as Donna Hamilton, in
>Shakespeare and the Politics of Protestant England, make it very clear
>that, as Hamlet says, the theater was the "brief abstracts and
>chronicles of the times..." and that there was a highly sophisticated
>and _OBLIQUE_ method of communication that commented _very
>specifically_ on current affairs, personalities and affairs of state.
>
>Thus a satirization of Burghley would be suicide if it were exact, as
>many here seem to demand. Jonathon Bate seems to understand that when
>he said Polonius _couldn't be Burghley, the author would have ended up
>in prison. Good point. Why wasn't he? Especially if you consider the
>probably seditious hidden commentaries on state persecution of
>religious dissidents, especially Edmund Campion, in the dark house
>scene in Twelfth Night. (see Allusions to Edmund Campion in Ever Reader
>#2). Let's see. Essex rebellion and Richard II, 1601. Twelfth Night and
>biting commentary on Campion, et al, 1602.(By traditional dating).
>Hamlet in print with Burghley satirization, named Corambis, in 1603.
>Quite a little busy political beaver, our author. Amazing he wasn't put
>on the rack, but mighty clever.
If, as you claim, these were intentional satires written by De Vere, why
wasn't he put on the rack? Are you seriously suggesting that he could have
successfully concealed his authorship? If everyone (or anyone, for that
matter) who saw these plays recognized their seditious content, how is it
that _no one_ made note of the fact at the time? _Richard II_ had
seditious content in the context of Essex's rebellion; no such evidence
exists for either _Hamlet_ or _Twelfth Night_. (And Malvolio makes a
singularly unsympathetic stand-in for Edmund Campion.)
Are you familiar with Katherine Elwes Thomas? She wrote a book about the
seditious political allusions concealed in popular English nursery rhymes.
Her style of argument shares a certain similarity with yours.
>Therefore, all this moaning about biographical exactness to a "T" is
>nonsense. If DeVere is the author, he would nEVER put up a sign saying,
>oh, by the way, Edward Oxenford wrote this. The same way the Earls in
>the history plays are OXFORD, why announce yourself directly if
>concealment is yuour issue? But slipping in telling moments from your
>life and cutting comments or allusions about the character involved
>(like signing the letter to Malvolio "Your most fortunate unhappy",
>which Harvey used to lampoon Hatton) would be picked up by those in the
>know, especially if the references were so quick they could only be
>picked up in print. Try reading the intro to the dark house scene and
>inagine all but the most quick in the audience missing the reference.
>And I'll bet 99.9% of ALL actors playing the fool have not had a clue
>as to what those words were about, or who they were referring to. "Good
>day Sir Toby, as the Old Hermit of Prague who never saw pen and ink..."
And of course some of the plays were printed during De Vere's lifetime, and
yet, no investigation ever resulted. And it is of course greatly
convenient for the Shoxfordians to do away with biographical exactness.
They can then cite any coincidental parallel with Oxford's life as a 'hit,'
and any obvious non-parallel as... a 'hit'! Because he was deliberately
concealing his authorship while at the same time making it obvious to
everyone who knew him! And what in Gloriana's name makes you suppose that
the plays' original audiences missed any of the allusions because they went
by too quickly? Are you under the impression that people would have
enjoyed seeing a performance where the actors read their lines so quickly
as to be unintelligible?
>In this light, the satirization of Burghley is DANGEROUSLY explicit and
>specific references and echoes to Oxford's life and emotions are
>plentiful.
As I wrote: if it's a hit, it's a hit; if it's a miss, it's a hit. Please
provide an example of a well-known Elizabethan figure whose life and
emotions are _not_ specifically referred to in Shakespeare's work. If you
can provide such, I venture to say I can easily prove you wrong.
>If you want to argue the merits of the application of the
>topicality, such as Sidney is Hamlet, not Oxford, fine, but don't deny
>them.
I will accept them as soon as convincing evidence is provided. You may be
unaware that convincing evidence has been provided for many of the topical
references and allusions in Shakespeare's plays. However, since Hamlet was
a literary character long before Oxford, Sidney or Shakespeare was born, he
is clearly not based on any of them.
>And if we begin this deeper consideration of a more political
>Shakespeare, which most critics of all stripes seem to have missed,
>then perhaps we may enlarge our appreciation of the author, no matter
>who he is. In my mind, this has been one of the great fruits for me of
>the authorship issue, and if there had been more openness and real
>dialogue, instead of the hostility and attacks, not just here, but
>throughout the entire Shakespeare community over the years, maybe more
>people would have been enriched. But that was not the intention, here
>or there, and you, and many otheres may have forgone a greater
>understanding of the man you claim to love so dearly.
Perhaps not everyone feels that misreading plays as political satires on
long-dead topics containing offensive caricatures of people who did not
deserve such opprobrium does anything to enrich them. It is rather
reminiscent of the many books written claiming various professions for
Shakespeare (doctor, soldier, lawyer, sailor, etc.) based on wishful
thinking and a general ignorance of Elizabethan literature. If you are
genuinely interested in Elizabethan political satire, of which there is
quite a large amount, you might start reading the real stuff - some of it
is quite interesting.
Crows Dog
Polonius gives Laertes actually does mirror the advice Burghley gave his son.
Is this it?
I don't trust Oxfordians with their so-called parallels, because most of it
turns out to be lies. Burghley's advice does NOT mirror Polonius's advice.
But I suppose Kaplan will say that's because Oxford didn't dare to actually
mirror Burghley.
Greg Reynolds
Mark Steese wrote:
> As I wrote: if it's a hit, it's a hit; if it's a miss, it's a hit. Please
> provide an example of a well-known Elizabethan figure whose life and
> emotions are _not_ specifically referred to in Shakespeare's work. If you
> can provide such, I venture to say I can easily prove you wrong.
Warm up on these:
George Buc
Mary Arden
Edward de Vere
Cuthbert Burbage
Cuthbert Burby
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
you, Ken, is that you can't seem to see the difference
between considering autobiography and political allusions
to be unimportant in the works of Shakespeare, as most
Stratfordians believe, and considering them to NOT to
be there, as anti-Stratfordians generally claim is the
case with Stratfordians. To me, this is rigidnikry,
one feature of which is a terrible susceptibility to
the middleless continuum.
--Bob G.
Brad Filippone
arguments and effectively tramples over them one by one.
Brad
John W. Kennedy
> Are you under the impression that people would have
> enjoyed seeing a performance where the actors read their lines so quickly
> as to be unintelligible?
Pretty hard to be as quick as that, anyway. I've seen an absolutely,
utterly, scrofula-and-all, uncut "Macbeth" come in in just under two
hours, and I had no problem following the words. (And, up to a point,
rapidly spoken language has been proven to be _easier_ to understand.)
ken...@my-deja.com
I can'y reply all at once and I want to deal with Mark's post in a
little more detail. Crow's Dog, I said I would explain why I thought a
one to one correspondance with Burghley's precepts was not essential,
not that I would prove their similarities. My opinion concerning that
was in the last post. I can elaborate more later. Time is hindering me
at the moment. Bob, I tried to get you to loop at this before. Maybe
you have, but you said you weren't interested in internal evidence. For
you, and all the "lurkers", this article goes to the heart of my
comments at the end of my last post. Unimportant? I don't think so.
Skip to the comments on Campion in Twelfth Night if you don't need to
go over his biography.
P.S. The point is not the actors "saying" the lines too quickly to be
recognized. The references are so adroitly and eloquently well hidden
that they would be missed unless one were incredibly perceptive or
tuned to the topic. Also, why does Shakespeare wait twenty two years to
comment on this? Think about it.
Ken Kaplan
Allusions to Edmund Campion
in Twelfth Night
C. Richard Desper
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
This article first appeared in the Spring/Summer 1995 Elizabethan Review
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
The Elizabethan Age underwent a continuing crisis of religion that was
marked by a deepening polarization of thought between the supporters of
the recently established Protestant Church and the larger number of
adherents to the Roman Catholic faith. Of these latter, Edmund Campion
may be taken as the archetype. Well known as an Englishman who fled to
the Continent for conscience's sake, he returned to England as a Jesuit
priest, was executed by the English government in 1581 and was
canonized by the Roman Catholic Church in 1970.
It has been observed that the author of the Shakespeare plays displays
a considerable sympathy and familiarity with the practices and beliefs
of the Roman Catholic Church.i The intent here is to show a link
between this English Catholic leader and the writer of the drama,
Twelfth Night, as revealed by allusions to Edmund Campion in Act IV,
scene ii of that play.
A Brief Outline of Campion's Life
Though Edmund Campion (1540-1581) was a scholar at Oxford University
under the patronage of Queen Elizabeth I's court favorite, Robert
Dudley, Earl of Leicester, Campion's studies of theology, church
history, and the church fathers led him away from the positions taken
by the Church of England. From Campion's point of view, to satisfy the
new orthodoxy of the Church of England, a reconstructionist
interpretation of church history was being set forth, one chat he found
difficult to reconcile with what he actually found in the writings of
those fathers [2]. Had the veil been swept away? Were St. Augustine and
St. John Chrysostom really Anglicans rather than Roman Catholics? Or
were the church authorities trimming their sails to the exigencies of
temporal policy? Questions such as these dogged Campion, and eventually
his position at Oxford became untenable since he could not make the
appropriate gestures of adherence to the established church [3].
Instead, Campion retreated from Oxford to Dublin in 1569, where he drew
less attention and enjoyed the protection of Sir Henry Sidney, Lord
Deputy for Ireland, and the patronage of Sir James Stanihurst, Speaker
of the Irish House of Commons, who planned to have Campion participate
in the founding of what was to become Trinity College in Dublin [4].
During this period a number of significant events took place. In 1568,
the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, was driven from her realm into
England, where she came under the protection and custody of the English
Crown. Immediately after came the rebellion of the northern Earls of
Northumberland and Westmoreland in the winter of 1569, who sought to
place Mary on the English throne. Then, in the spring of 1570, Pope
Pius V issued a hull excommunicating Queen Elizabeth and releasing her
subjects from their obligation of obedience to her. After the death of
Pius V, an inquiry to Rome regarding this bull elicited the response
that "as long as the Queen [Elizabeth] remained de facto ruler, it was
lawful for Catholics to obey her in civil matters and cooperate in all
just things... that it was unlawful for any private person, not wearing
uniform and authorized to do so as an act of war, to slay any tyrant
whatsoever, unless the tyrant, for example, had invaded his country in
arms" (Waugh, p. 94-95)
In short, English Catholics were rejoined to follow the path of Sir
Thomas More, being the Crown's loyal servant in all matters save
religion. However, as Waugh concedes, "It was possible to deduce from
this decision that the [English] Catholics were a body of potential
rebels,who only waited for foreign invasion to declare themselves. This
was the sense in which [William] Cecil [Lord Treasurer and the Queen's
most trusted councillor] read it, for he was reluctant to admit the
possibility of anyone being both a patriotic Englishman and an opponent
of his regime (Waugh p. 95). The English government then enacted laws
more restrictive to English Catholics. In 1570, the year of the Papal
Bull, it was made an act of high treason, punishable by death, to bring
into the country "any bull, writing, or instrument obtained from the
Bishop of Rome" or "to absolve or reconcile" any of the Queen's
subjects to the Bishop of Rome (Waugh p. 117). In this atmosphere even
Dublin became dangerous for Campion. He fled Ireland for Belgium in
June of 1572, arriving at the English College founded by exiled English
Catholics in Douai. The next year he went on to Rome to join the
Society of Jesus. After training in Vienna, he became Professor of
Rhetoric at the new Jesuit University in Prague, where he was ordained
a priest in the Society of Jesus in 1578 (Waugh p. 81-84). It was in
Prague in 1580 that he received the call to return to England to
minister to English Catholics (More p.72-73). During his ministry,
which lasted from the summer of 1580 to the summer of 1581, Campion
traveled from town to town in disguise, passing via an underground
network of English Catholics, offering the Mass and other Church
sacraments to Catholics. He was arrested in the town of Lyford by
English authorities, with the assistance of a paid informant, in July
1581, and conveyed to the Tower of London [5].
Since his ministry had attracted a great deal of public attention, the
government initially made an effort to persuade Campion to abandon his
faith. Failing that, it made a second effort to discredit him. Four
times in September, Campion was brought from his dungeon in the Tower
for public "conferences," at which scholars and clergymen representing
the Crown and the Church of England disputed with him in an effort to
best him intellectually. William Cecil (Lord Burghley) and First
Secretary Sir Francis Walsingham, Burghley's spymaster, also sought to
taint Campion with the brush of treason by maintaining that the primary
goal of his mission was to incite the English to rebel against Queen
Elizabeth and replace her with Mary, Queen of Scots. While Campion's
ministry was in itself, by English law, sufficient for the death
penalty (in that he offered Mass and heard confessions), the government
preferred to show that his ministry also involved stirring English
Catholics to rebellion. Finally, on November 20th, a trial was held in
which Campion and seven other Catholics taken with him were charged
with treason. Suitable witnesses endeavored to make the label of
traitor stick; the trial ended in a guilty verdict, and Campion was
executed by hanging at Tyburn on December 1, 1581 [6] [7] .
Twelfth Night and Edmund Campion
The allusions to Campion are found in a single scene --Act four, Scene
two in which Feste the Clown disguises himself as "Sir Topas the
Curate" to harangue the unfortunate Malvolio, who has been shut up in a
cellar as a lunatic as the result of pranks engineered by Feste, Sir
Toby Belch and Maria. In the following speech by Feste to Maria and Sir
Toby, the Campion allusions are highlighted in boldface.
Clown: Bonos dies, Sir Toby: for, as the old hermit of Prague, that
never saw pen and ink, very wittily said to a niece of King Gorboduc,
"That that is is" ; so I, being master Parson, am master Parson;
for,what is "that" but "that"; and "is" but "is"? (IV.ii.15-19) [8]
In this speech of less than 50 words, which appears to resemble nothing
but clownish nonsense, there are no less than five phrases which refer
directly to Edmund Campion and his 158O-81 mission to England.
The old hermit of Prague: Prague was Campion's last assignment before
his mission to England; indeed, nearly six of his less than nine years
on the Continent were spent in Prague. He may be thought of as a hermit
in either of two ways in that hermits were holy men who sought solitude
in their quest for holiness, or that Campion's stay in Prague was
considered to be an exile not only from England but from Englishmen.
Waugh notes that, while at Prague, "the only Englishmen with whom he
appears to have had any contact (besides Father Ware, who was at the
college with him), is Philip Sidney [son of the former Lord Deputy for
Ireland], who arrived in 1576 as English Ambassador to congratulate the
Emperor Rudolph on his succession" (Waugh p. 81-82).
Never saw pen and ink: This refers to an episode which occurred in the
"conference" of September 24, 1581, the third of four such conferences,
in which Campion was opposed by one Master Fulke:
"If you dare, let me show you Augustine and Chrysostom," he [Campion]
cried at one moment, "if you dare."
Fulke: "Whatever you can bring, I have answered already in writing
against others of your side. And yet if you think you can add anything,
put it in writing and I will answer it."
Campion: "Provide me with ink and paper and I will write."
Fulke: "I am not to provide you ink and paper."
Campion: "I mean, procure me that I may have liberty to write."
Fulke: "I know not for what cause you are restrained of that liberty,
and therefore I will not take upon me to procure it.'7
Campion: "Sue to the Queen that I may have liberty to oppose. I have
been now thrice opposed. It is reason that I should oppose once."
Fulke: "I will not become a suitor for you." (Allen 15)
In this exchange, we see that Campion, having been deprived of the
means of preparing a defense, such as access to books containing the
teachings of St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom, seizes upon Fulke's
apparent offer of writing materials. Fulke immediately realizes that
the has made a tactical error, for the government's plan in no way
involves providing Campion with the means to write, since much of
Campion's success lay in his writings. First there had been an
exposition and explanation of his mission, written by Campion in the
summer of 1580 immediately after arriving in England, which circulated
throughout the country in handwritten copies, yet comes down in history
under the ironic title of "Campion's Brag.77 In it, Campion disavows
any political aspect to his ministry. Then a book bearing the name Ten
Reasons was published by an underground Catholic press (Edwards p. 19).
It first appeared at the Oxford University Commencement of June 27,
1581, having been surreptitiously placed on the benches of the church
at which the exercises took place.
In the exchange quoted above, Campion plainly had bested Fulke in their
battle of wits, for Fulke denies Campion the wherewithal to write even
though he himself had challenged Campion to do so. Nonetheless, it may
be said of Campion with good reason that he "Never saw pen and ink."
Niece of King Gorboduc: Gorboduc was a mythical King of England and the
subject of an early Elizabethan play by Norton and Sackville [9]. Since
the play contains no role for a "niece," the allusion is not to be
found in the text. Let us look at the issue from another point of view:
did Queen Elizabeth I have an uncle who can be identified as a
"mythical King of England?" Arthur, Prince of Wales, was the first son
of King Henry VII and older brother to Elizabeth's father, Henry VIII.
This prince would have become "King Arthur" except that he died before
his father, who was succeeded instead by the younger brother, Henry. If
you are seeking the niece of a mythical King of England, the niece of a
potential King Arthur might do.
A second possible link between Elizabeth and the "niece to King
Gorboduc" may be found through one of the dramatists, Thomas Sackville,
Lord Buckhurst, and later 1st Earl of Dorset. The father of Lord
Buckhurst, Sir Richard Sackville, had been a first cousin to Anne
Boleyn, Queen Elizabeth's mother [10]. Given the predilection of people
of the time for imprecision in designating family relationships
(cousin, uncle or niece was taken to mean almost any blood
relationship), it is not farfetched to consider Queen Elizabeth I to be
a "niece" of one of the authors of King Gorboduc.
*Elizabeth and Leicester personally interviewed Campion before his
trials attempting to get him to recant, therefore literally he said "to
the niece", herself*-Ken
"That that is is": Spoken by the Hermit of Prague, this is taken as a
religious affirmation, just as Campion's mission to England was a
religious affirmation. The reconstructed church history that Campion
was expected to embrace at Oxford was, from the Catholic viewpoint, a
denial of reality, and his mission was to affirm the truth in the face
of official displeasure. On a deeper level, this could be an allusion
to one of the most profound passages in the Old Testament, in which the
Lord, speaking to Moses (who had asked what name he should give for the
Lord) declares, "I am that I am." [11]. This may be interpreted as,
"Because I exist, I exist," which very neatly identifies the subject
"I" in scholastic logic. In other words, all that exists owes its
existence to a separate Creator, save one, the Creator of all, who is
the source of all existence, even his own. The Hermit of Prague is not
the Creator; thus, he renders the phrase in the third person, declaring
that God Is, because He Is; he owes his existence to no earthly agency,
certainly to no King or Queen. To such a Person, Campion owes a higher
allegiance than his allegiance to the Crown. Thus, "That that is is" is
the essence of Campion's position vis-a-vis his God and his Queen.
Master Parson: Robert Persons was a fellow Jesuit who traveled with
Campion from Rome to France; the two separated to enter England and,
for reasons of security, pursued their ministries in England
individually, meeting each other occasionally. Persons, sometimes
referred to as Parsons and a former Oxford classmate of Campion's,was
in charge of the Jesuit mission to England, including the clandestine
press that was used to set forth the Catholic position until its
capture [12]. Persons continued his ministry within and without England
for several decades after Campion's death.
The allusions referred to here should not be thought of as topical in
being timely references from which the theatrical audience would be
expected to recognize and draw delight. Certainly, events during 1580-
1581 would no longer be timely in 1602, the first production of Twelfth
Night, as noted in Manningham's diary. Moreover, considering the
official attitude toward Campion and his fellow Jesuits, inserting
sympathetic allusions to Campion into a play would have been quite
risky during the 1580s, and would remain so well into the next century.
Nonetheless, one would have needed specific background knowledge about
the Campion situation to recognize the allusions, and by 1602, most of
the principals in the capture, interrogation and trial of Campion --
including Lord Burghley, Sir Francis Walsingham, and the Earl of
Leceister-- were deceased. Others, such as Anthony Munday, would not
have been admitted to a private performance at the Middle Temple
intended for members and their guests. Further, we should not expect
that the Queen would be in attendance at an Inns of Court performance.
(This is deduced from the historical record of the Gorboduc
performances, in which the Inner Temple performance was followed by a
second performance at court.) I think instead that the allusions were
intended for posterity, and were written into the text in the hope that
the play would some day appear in print.
It should also be recognized that the allusions to Edmund Campion have
little bearing on characterizations and allusions outside their
immediate context. Thus, Malvolio is identified as a Protestant,
specifically as a Puritan, earlier in the play (II.iii.151-56), but in
the Campion allusions, he figures as a Catholic priest. This is not a
contradiction since the audience for the play was not expected to hear
the Campion allusions. Indeed, it could have boded ill for the
playwright had they done so. On one level, the dramatist may have been
using the Malvolio character as a caricature of the courtier
Christopher Hatton, as some have proposed. For one scene, however, the
author has Malvolio imprisoned and sees the opportunity for inserting
something he has been suppressing for decades: his bitterness over the
trial and execution of one he saw as an innocent man. The average
audience member was expected to take the allusions as theatrical
nonsense and then to forget about them as the next speech was delivered.
Further Allusions to Campion in Act Four, Scene Two
Having established the allusions to St. Edmund Campion in the Clown's
opening speech (IV.ii.5-12), the tenor of the remainder of the scene,
in the context of Campion's imprisonment, becomes apparent. The Clown
is seen assuming the role of the learned man to dispute with the
prisoner, just as men of learning brought Campion to dispute at the
aforementioned conferences. The dramatist's attitude is revealed early
on by Sir Toby, as the Clown, posing as Sir Topas the Curate, begins
his encounter with the prisoner:
Sir Toby: The Knave counterfeits well, a good knave. (IV.ii.21-22)
Thus is established at the outset that the playwright regards the
conference to be held, like the conferences Campion was brought to, as
a sham, a counterfeit, with a knave posing as a learned man acting as
the examiner. "Sir Topas" proceeds to deal with Malvolio as a man
possessed and in need of exorcism, even though, as the Clown, he knows
full well that Malvolio, whatever his faults might be, is neither
insane nor possessed.
Clown: Out, hyperbolical fiend! How vesext thou this man! Talkest thou
nothing but of ladies? (IV.ii.29-30)
The irony in the play now develops to match that of the Campion
conferences, where Campion was called upon to assent to facts which,
from his point of view as a scholar and a Catholic, were not facts at
all.
Malvolio: Good Sir Topas, do not think I am mad. They have laid me here
in hideous darkness.
Clown: Fie, thou dishonest Satan!... Say'st thou that house is dark?
Malvolio: As hell, Sir Topas.
Clown: Why, it hath bay windows transparent as barricadoes...
Malvolio: I am not mad, Sir Topas. I say to you, this house is dark.
Clown: Madman, thou errest. I say, there is no darkness but ignorance,
in which thou art more puzzl'd than the Egyptians in their fog.
(IV.ii.33-48)
Next the dramatist shows us the dishonesty of the situation from his
own perspective. Malvolio asks for a test of his lucidity, and the
Clown asks a question, to which Malvolio gives what would be, to any
Christian scholar, the correct answer in terms of the teachings of
their faith.
Malvolio: ...Make the trial of it in any constant question.
Clown: What is the opinion of Pythagoras concerning wild fowl?
Malvolio: That the soul of our grandam might haply inhabit a bird.
Clown: What think'st thou of his opinion?
Malvolio: I think nobly of the soul, and no way approve his opinion.
Clown: Fare thee well. Remain thou still in darkness. Thou shalt hold
th' opinion of Pythagoras ere I will allow of thy wits... (IV.ii.52-63)
Thus, rather than maintaining the Christian teaching of the
resurrection on the last day, the Clown chides Malvolio for not
upholding the pagan teaching of Pythagoras concerning the
transmigration of souls. Likewise, Campion, first during his days at
Oxford and then at his conferences, was expected to provide answers
which, by his view, were illogical and indefensible, but which accorded
with the needs of the political powers of the day. The playwright thus
demonstrates for us a world turned upside down, with clowns passing
themselves off as men of learning, while men of learning such as
Campion are pressed to deny what they believe to be true to serve
political ends. I think the dramatist's opinion about such proceedings
is revealed early on in the scene, when the Clown dons an academic gown
for his impersonation of Sir Topas:
Clown: Well, I'll put it on, and I will dissemble my self in't, and I
would I were the first that ever dissembled in such a gown (IV.ii.5-7)
Campion's Innocence or Guilt
As noted earlier, the English government wanted to convict Campion not
for his religion but for treason against the Crown; specifically, for
plotting the assassination or overthrow of Queen Elizabeth I. Despite
questioning scores of witnesses under duress, they were unable to show
any treasonable aspect in Campion's speech, writing or activities
during his English ministry. The first indictment drawn up against
Campion stated that he "did traitorously pretend to have power to
absolve the subjects of the said Queen from their natural obedience to
her majesty," with a blank space left farther down the indictment for
the name of a prosecution witness who had been absolved as stated
(Waugh p. 206-207).
No suitable witness could be found to testify against Campion to this
effect, however, and so this count of the indictment was dropped.
Eventually, witnesses were obtained, the chief being Anthony Munday, a
journeyman writer and traveler who had presented himself to exiled
English Catholics as a co-religionist. He accused Campion of having
formed a conspiracy in Rome and Rheims in 1580 to assassinate Queen
Elizabeth, to encourage a foreign Catholic invasion and also foment a
rebellion of English Catholics. The evidence brought forth to support
these charges has been found wanting by the Dictionary of National
Biography and The Encyclopedia Britannica. [13] Campion's own writings
deny such a charge. In the previously mentioned Campion's Brag he is
"strictly forbidden... to deal in any respect with matter of State or
Policy" (Waugh p. 236). Simpson reports that Campion "determined,
therefore, as far as he might, to confine himself to the merely
religious aspects of the controversy... and to refuse to make himself
an umpire between two high contending parties so far above him as Pope
and Queen" (Simpson p. 274).
Religious Attitudes in Twelfth Night
If the passage cited alludes to Edmund Campion, one must also ask in
what spirit is the allusion to be taken: as tribute or jeer. To
properly answer the question, we should examine the religious leanings
of the author indicated elsewhere in the play as well as in the other
Shakespeare plays. Mutschmann and Wentersdorf see that "Sir Topas," the
pose of the clown Feste in the scene, "is of the same stamp as other
Protestant ministers in Shakespeare's plays and was conceived with the
deliberate intention of creating an undignified and ludicrous
impression" (329). The steward Malvolio, protagonist of the play, is
portrayed as a Puritan with "overweening" pride, and given to vanity
and foppery --all in the most unflattering spirit. In contrast, the
priest who secretly marries Sebastian and Olivia, while appearing only
in scenes IV.iii and V.i with a single speech, is depicted as someone
we can confide in with complete trust. Indeed, the entire drama is
steeped in sympathy toward the Catholic faith.
The comic knight Sir John Falstaff is also cited ( Mutschmann and
Wentersdorf p. 345-349) as being a caricature of the Puritan type,
leading a licentious life but counting himself among the saved.
Significantly, the original name given to the character was Sir John
Oldcastle, a 15th century Lollard who was executed during the reign of
Henry V. The author was evidently compelled by authority, in response
to objections by Oldcastle's descendants, to change the character's
name to that of Falstaff. Interestingly, a rival play, Sir John
Oldcastle, written by the same Anthony Munday who testified against
Campion, was staged in 1599 and portrayed the historical figure of
Oldcastle in a much more favorable light. Yet this same Munday is
regarded as the author of the play, Sir Thomas More, which offers a
highly favorable portrait of this Catholic martyr [14]. (In the play,
More is condemned for refusing to lend his signature to certain
unspecified articles; historically, these constituted King Henry's Act
of Supremacy, allowing them to assume supreme power over the Church in
England.) Whether Munday wrote the play as author or copyist has been
the subject of much debate [15]. One must conclude that Munday's
contribution to Sir Thomas More as author or copyist was made when
Munday was an apparent Catholic, before his testimony against Edmund
Campion Indeed, Munday's later publications, including a pamphlet which
detailed the execution of Edmund Campion and his companions, were
aggressively anti-Catholic.
Campion and Gorboduc
The historical record offers other links between Gorboduc and the
Campion allusions in Twelfth Night. There is the coincidence with the
title of the latter play, for Gorboduc originally was intended for a
single performance on Twelfth Night; that is, January 6, 1562 [16]. A
second performance was given at Whitehall at the command of the Queen,
on January 12, 1562. (The original performance of Gorboduc took place
in the Inner Temple, one of the four Inns of Court in London. )
Remarkably, the only known performance of TN during its author's
lifetime was at another Inn, the Middle Temple, as reported by
Manningham in his diary: "At our feast we had a play called Twelve
Night, or What You Will " (Neilson and Hill p. 279). Such a performance
would have been a private one, limited to those connected with the
Middle Temple or invited by its members.
Yet another coincidence relates to one of the dramatists of Gorboduc --
Thomas Norton, listed in the original edition of 1565 as the author of
Acts l-III (Cauthen p. xxix). Norton played a prominent role on the
English government's behalf in the suppression of Catholics, traveling
in 1579 as far as Rome, where he sought out damaging information about
English Catholics living in the city. In 1581, he was one of the
commissioners at the trial of Edmund Campion. The following year he
complained to Sir Francis Walsingham about the nickname, "Rackmaster
General," that was being applied to him for his part in torturing
Catholics (Simpson p. 266; Cauthen p. 80).
Concluding Thoughts
During the Feast of the Epiphany in Elizabethan times, which took place
on January 6 and was commonly known as Twelfth Day, gifts were
exchanged in commemoration of the gifts of the Magi. It was a holiday
of feasting, celebration and revelry. This is the tradition usually
associated with the origin of the name of the play Twelfth Night. On
the other hand, if the playwright had allusions to Edmund Campion in
mind, then a covert meaning for the title could have been intended. In
this regard, one should recall the spirit associated with these
revelries: that nothing is what it seems; that meanings are turned
inside out. To quote Feste: "Nothing that is so is so" (IV.ii.9).
Perhaps this spirit explains the paradox of a play which, on the face
of it, is a boisterous, rollicking comedy, yet also contains allusions
to that fateful time of Campion's mission, and so serving as the
playwright's Ave Atque Vale for this tragic figure of the period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Notes
1. H. Mutschmann and K. Wentersdorf, Shakespeare and Catholicism. 1969.
16-21, 329-351. Roland M. Frye, Shakespeare and Cristian Doctrine.
1963. Hugh R Williamson, The Day Shakespeare Died. London, 1962. 11-25.
2. Henry More, The Elizabethan Jesuits: Historia Missionis Anglicanae
Societatis Jesu (1660). Trans. Francis Edwards, SJ. London, 1981. 43.
3. Evelyn Waugh, Edmund Campion. London, 1946.
4. Dictionary of National Biography. Eds. Sir L. Stephen and Sir S.
Lee. Oxford, 1921. III, 851.
5. William Cardinal Allen, A Brief History of the Glorious Martyrdom of
the 12 Revenend Priests: Fr. Edmund Campion and his Companions. 1584.
Ed. H. Pollen, SJ. London, 1908. 10.
6. Francis Edwards, SJ, The Jesuits in England: from 1580 to the
Present Day. Kent, 1985. 20.
7. Richard Simpson, Edmund Campion. London, 1848. 279-313.
8. All quotations of Shakespeare are taken from The Complete Plays and
Poems of William Shakespeare. Eds. W A. Neilson and C.J. Hill. 1942.
279.
9. Thomas Sackville and Thomas Norton, Gorboduc, or Ferrex and Porrex.
1565. Ed. Irby B. Cauthen Jr. Regents Renaissance Drama Series.1970.
iii.
10. DNB, XVII, 585-589.
11. Exodus, III, 14 (King James). The phrase "I am that I am" also
appears in Shakespeare's sonnet 121, a particularly poignant verse
about a good man unjustly perceived as an evil person. "Tis better to
be vile than vile esteemed...''
12. The name "Persons," sometimes rendered as "Parsons" in writings of
the day, was pronounced with something of a Irish lilt, the first
syllable rhyming with "fair." According to Simpson (387), "Pearsons"
might well stand as a modern rendering of the name. Also see DNB, III,
851.
13. DNB, III, 850-854; The Encylopaedia Britannica. 1973. 4, 721.
14. The play Sir Thomas More survived as a manuscript written largely
in a hand identifiable as that of Anthony Munday, surfacing in 1727 in
the possession of one Alexander Murray and his patron, the 2nd Earl of
Oxford (of the Harley creation).
15. Sir Thomas More. Attributed to Anthony Munday. Eds. V. Gabrieli and
G. Melchiori. 1990. 12-16.
16. The Diary of Henry Machyn. 1565. Ed. J.G. Nichols. London, 1848.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
John W. Kennedy
> Religious Attitudes in Twelfth Night
> If the passage cited alludes to Edmund Campion, one must also ask in
> what spirit is the allusion to be taken: as tribute or jeer. To
> properly answer the question, we should examine the religious leanings
> of the author indicated elsewhere in the play as well as in the other
> Shakespeare plays. Mutschmann and Wentersdorf see that "Sir Topas," the
> pose of the clown Feste in the scene, "is of the same stamp as other
> Protestant ministers in Shakespeare's plays and was conceived with the
> deliberate intention of creating an undignified and ludicrous
> impression" (329). The steward Malvolio, protagonist of the play, is
> portrayed as a Puritan with "overweening" pride, and given to vanity
> and foppery --all in the most unflattering spirit. In contrast, the
> priest who secretly marries Sebastian and Olivia, while appearing only
> in scenes IV.iii and V.i with a single speech, is depicted as someone
> we can confide in with complete trust. Indeed, the entire drama is
> steeped in sympathy toward the Catholic faith.
The above paragraph demonstrates an almost wholesale ignorance of the
English Reformation and the Elizabethan Settlement.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> > One large problem with most anti-Stratfordians including
> > you, Ken, is that you can't seem to see the difference
> > between considering autobiography and political allusions
> > to be unimportant in the works of Shakespeare, as most
> > Stratfordians believe, and considering them to NOT to
> > be there, as anti-Stratfordians generally claim is the
> > case with Stratfordians. To me, this is rigidnikry,
> > one feature of which is a terrible susceptibility to
> > the middleless continuum.
> >
>
> little more detail.
You needn't reply to my minor comment, Ken, but I would appreciate
it if you'd try, when arguing whether politics and autobiography
were important ingredients of Shakespeare's plays (a legitimate
topic of discussion), to avoid suggesting that those of us who
feel they were not are claiming that politics and autobiography
are not in the plays.
--Bob G.
--Bob G.
ken...@my-deja.com
I don't understand this post at all. You claim that most Stratfordians
believe that autobiography and political allusions are unimportant in
the plays (your words below). You then claim that I avoided your minor
argument and put words in your mouth that claim you say (erroneously)
_any_ such allusions,etc. are not there at all.
Quite the contrary. I took your point of view very seriously. Why do
you think I reprinted the entire article? It was to demonstrate
precisely my belief that topical allusions could be _very_ important in
a Shakespeare play, and to demonstrate the oblique nature of the way
those allusions and comments on political affairs were hidden, thus
countering the claim for a need for an "exact" correspondance, for
example, in either Polonius as Burghley or Oxford as Hamlet. We talk
often of the "genius" of Shakespeare, here imo it is in action in an
amazing way, not commonly picked up. Is this not a potential
significant enlargement of the appreciation of his range, scope,
interest and dexterity?
If people do not accept the Campion allusions, what then is the clown
referring to? My impression of Shakespeare is that he was one of the
most conscious and self conscious writers who ever lived? Are we to
believe that speeches, names, phrases are inserted without specific
purpose and meaning? This is an incredibly particular author. Words are
like music. "Notes" are not written unless for a reason. He may fail
sometimes in the complete realization of the overall effort, or even
part of it, but not because words and language are carelessly thrown
about. And in a play that is considered one of his most sublime and
successful creations, are we to assume he just wanted to toss in
gobbleygook? In a scene that many critics feel turns the emotion of the
play tremendously, as does Shylock in MoV?
Ken Kaplan
In article <94q893$8uh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
> Bob,
> I don't understand this post at all. You claim that most Stratfordians
> believe that autobiography and political allusions are unimportant in
> the plays (your words below). You then claim that I avoided your minor
> argument and put words in your mouth that claim you say (erroneously)
> _any_ such allusions,etc. are not there at all.
Here's what I originallys said:
One large problem with most anti-Stratfordians including
you, Ken, is that you can't seem to see the difference
between considering autobiography and political allusions
to be unimportant in the works of Shakespeare, as most
Stratfordians believe, and considering them to NOT to
be there, as anti-Stratfordians generally claim is the
case with Stratfordians. To me, this is rigidnikry,
one feature of which is a terrible susceptibility to
the middleless continuum.
The above is the minor comment I made. Then I asked you to honor
my implicit request:
> > You needn't reply to my minor comment, Ken, but I would appreciate
> > it if you'd try, when arguing whether politics and autobiography
> > were important ingredients of Shakespeare's plays (a legitimate
> > topic of discussion), to avoid suggesting that those of us who
> > feel they were not are claiming that politics and autobiography
> > are not in the plays.
What is there not to understand? I'm not arguing, I'm just asking
you to stick to your argument about the importance of political
and autobiographical allusions in Shakespeare's work and not
accuse my side of thining them non-existence. I think you did
that in the post I'm responding to now, so thanks. I don't have
time to read about the Campion thing right now (it's pretty
tedious), but I suspect others with a better grip on the
history of the time will respond. And I may later.