 |
| Susan, Countess Montgomery & William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke |
So then, I take a moment, here, to contextualize and clarify a matter from its comment thread. The thread being public I include the name of the person making the comment. Replies to other comments in the thread will follow.
The first comment indulges, at the very least, in insupportable generalization.
I am not aware that there is any claim uniformly shared by all Oxfordians except that Edward de Vere wrote the works that go under the pen-name Shakespeare. Others are widely held among them such as that the Earl of Southampton is the “lovely boy” of the sonnets. In spite of that misapprehension begun by a scholar of loose methodology in the early 19th century, adopted by traditional scholars soon after, and erroneously recited as gospel by both sides in the authorship debate, I have long offered a less fanciful alternative.
As regards Edward de Vere's daughter Susan, I did highlight her relationship to the publication of the First Folio in my Edward de Vere was Shakespeare: at long last the proof (2013, 2017). It is likely that I have since mentioned the possibility that Vere's manuscripts might have been handed along to Susan upon his death or that of his Countess, Elizabeth Trentham.
Given the fact that the plays of Shakespeare show overwhelming evidence of having been rewritten one or more times from earlier versions, he must have kept copies of various versions at hand. Some of those manuscripts would likely have passed between family members in this way if they were valued as literature or merely as memorabilia.
If Mr. Buchan's assertion is correct, then some number of Oxfordians do indeed have a serious misconception. But I suspect he has worded his claim in order to rejigger an Oxfordian argument such that he can more effectively rebut it.
Susan did not have to be devoted to her father's literary legacy in order to preserve whatever part of his papers might have been handed along to her. She, having enough interest in the craft to have acted in a number of Court productions, might simply have wanted them as a memento. If she received them, she almost certainly received them well before 1616, when neither she nor the Herberts would have had a single example of how to preserve his legacy as a playwright. Ben Jonson's First Folio of that date was the first of its kind. Likely, they did little or no more than preserve the plays for possible continued production on stage.
When word got around, in 1619, that Thomas Pavier was printing a piecemeal First Folio of as many of the works of Shakespeare as he could get his hands on William Herbert as chief both of the Stationers Company and the King's Men would quickly be apprised. Susan and the brothers would know that it was all but certain that people would start asking who exactly the playwright had been. When had he been born? Where? What had he been like?
William, as Lord Chamberlain, just happened, at precisely that time, to send a letter to the Stationers forbidding the publication of any plays that had issued at any time from The Globe. In this fashion no Shakespeare plays could be published without his permission and no question would linger as to why Shakespeare's works in particular had provoked such an extraordinary order. Pavier changed all of the title pages of his Shakespeare folio issue to read 1619, or before, thus allowing him to recover the costs of their publication. Susan and the Herberts were left to decide what if anything was to be done next.
The decision, of course, was to assure that no further folios by outsiders would actually succeed in getting published, without their having been made aware in time, by taking on the project themselves. For this to succeed, however, they needed a biography for the playwright Shakespeare. As it happened, a Globe theater investor named Shakspere, who had occasionally taken advantage of the similarity of his name to play the part of the playwright, or, perhaps, his access to the Globe scriptorium to sell old Shakespeare plays from the stock for side-money, had died the same year as Jonson's folio was published. The ever censorious Jonson must have thought it a delicious piece of revenge to have his services commanded by his patron William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, to turn his greatest competitor from one of the preeminent Earls of the realm into the bumpkin Sogliardo from Stratford.
As for Susan, prior to the Pavier scare, she had just been living her best life acting and dancing in Court masques of James I. Not a thought needed to have come to her mind about her father's legacy much less twenty years of intensive thoughts. As a century or two of high quality literary detective work has revealed, only a few of the texts of the Folio plays show signs of possibly having been typeset from original manuscripts anyway. Far more were set from the texts of various quarto versions. One or two show signs of having been set from prompt copies.
Voila! All the incredible coincidences of the history of the First Folio are coincidences no longer.
Also at Virtual Grub Street:
Labeo and Shakespeare on the Ladies' Toilette. November 13, 2022. “What woman would be anything but offended to be described in such a way?”
- Edward de Vere and Marlowe’s Dido of Carthage. July 5, 2022. “It was an historical effort and an historical two years for Elizabethan theater.”
- The Character Montano, in Hamlet, and Polonius’ Famous Advice. May 25, 2022. “The reader may recall that Polonius calls upon Reynaldo to suggest to Laertes’ friends that he is privy to minor misbehaviors, at which he winks,…”
- The Death of Sir Edward Vere, son of the 17th Earl of Oxford and Anne Vavasour. May 8, 2022. “Mr. Sedgwick wrote to me for a prayer for Sir Edward Vere.”
- How Shakespeare gave Ben Jonson the Infamous Purge. November 7, 2021. “Of course, De Vere could not openly accuse Jonson of having outed him as Shakespeare.”
- Check out the Shakespeare Authorship Article Index for many more articles and reviews about this fascinating time and about the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
- Check out the Letters Index: Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford for many letters from this fascinating time, some related to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
26 comments:
1/ "Only coincidence?" I never mentioned the letter from the Lord Chamberlain, and certainly never said it was a coincidence.
Have you read Shakespeare, In Fact, by Irvin Matus? He discussed the letter in depth. Why do you assume that Philip Herbert was lying in his letter? He says that it was *the players* who complained about the plays being printed, not Herbert's spouse. Why don't you believe him?
Do you see the problems with your explanation?
"Susan did not have to be devoted to her father's literary legacy in order to preserve whatever part of his papers might have been handed along to her."
(There's no evidence that any of his papers were handed along to her. Edward de Vere died intestate, and under the law then, the estate would have passed under primogeniture to the new earl. This sentence seems to assume that Henry, Earl of Oxford, would have "handed along" his father's literary works to his half-sister. If there is any primary source for this theory I'd love to see it. For that matter, there's no evidence that Oxford had any literary works at the time of his death that hadn't been published or discarded. I'm not convinced he was principal author of any dramatic works; they were more likely at least co-written or ghost-written by John Lyly.)
"She, having enough interest in the craft to have acted in a number of Court productions, might simply have wanted them as a memento."
(But there's no evidence of her performing as an actor, or speaking lines, in theatrical performances. In Jonson's Masque of Blackness, performed on twelfth night in 1604/05, she was a dewdrop. All the women of the court including Queen Anne were in the masque, with non-speaking roles that mostly took the form of wearing an elaborate (and reportedly skimpy) costume and jewelry to perform in pantomime and dance. She may have wanted the literary works as a memento, but there's no evidence of that, or that her half brother gave the works to her, or had any to give.)
"If she received them, she almost certainly received them well before 1616, when neither she nor the Herberts would have had a single example of how to preserve his legacy as a playwright."
(Actually if there were any literary legacy to preserve, they had an excellent example of how to do so: their mother, Mary Sidney, had published works written by their uncle Philip Sidney (who Philip Herbert was named after) after Philip's untimely death. Philip died in 1586 at age 31. His sister published a version of his Arcadia in 1593, at a time when William was 13 and Philip was 9.)
"Ben Jonson's First Folio of that date was the first of its kind. Likely, they did little or no more than preserve the plays for possible continued production on stage."
(Likely, the plays were in the possession of the playing company that, as the letter to the Stationers Company stated, "had (for the special services of his majesty and their own use), bought and provided at very dear and high rates.")
Matus theorizes that the players' concern wasn't the publication of Shakespeare's works (which were between six and thirty years old by 1619, when the lost letter from William Herbert was sent, but their more recent purchases of plays by Beaumont and Fletcher. My own theory is that, after the death of Richard Burbage in 1619, the company was turning to its new generation of players in leading roles, with plays written by Fletcher and others (Beaumont having predeceased Shakespeare).
2/ As you know, plays were commissioned by playing companies and tailored to the principal cast members. The role would need to fit the player, not the other way around. Unlike contemporary practice where the principal roles would be cast for a new play from an open audition for roles, the playwrights would audition for the company. It has always made me think that Burbage's performances as Hamlet or Lear would have been astounding -- the roles were created for him to perform. And with his death in 1619, the plays he performed in would be reduced in the company's repertory. What better time to start thinking about publishing the plays as a memorial to their author, William Shakespeare?
Why would the Lord Chamberlain have intervened in a question between the players and the publishers? Because the players were Royal Servants (Grooms of the Chamber), under the direct control of the Lord Chamberlain's office through the Master of Revels. Moreover, William Herbert was a fan of the King's Men company and particularly of Richard Burbage. Two months after Burbage's death, Pembroke declined an invitation to a performance of Pericles, a role Burbage likely created, saying ‘I being tender-hearted, could not endure to see [the play] so soon after the loss of my old acquaintance Burbage.’
Far from saying that the letters from William (in 1619) and Philip (in 1637, 14 years after the publication of the First Folio) related to protecting Shakespeare's works from premature publication by rogue printers on behalf of Oxford's family, there's no evidence at all that Oxford's family had any interest in the matter.
“Given the fact that the plays of Shakespeare show overwhelming evidence of having been rewritten one or more times from earlier versions,”
What was that you were saying about inflatable generalisations??
“Given the fact that the plays of Shakespeare show overwhelming evidence of having been rewritten one or more times from earlier versions,”
What was that you were saying about insupportable generalisations??
3/ “The decision, of course, was to assure that no further folios by outsiders would actually succeed in getting published, without their having been made aware in time, by taking on the project themselves.”
(But there’s no “of course” here. It’s confirmation bias: you have a theory without evidence and see anything remotely consistent with it as evidence. This is really just a case of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy – you assume that because there is a timing coincidence between Pavier’s publication and Pembroke’s letter, that it could only be because Pembroke’s brother’s wife’s father was the real author of Shakespeare’s works, and Pembroke was acting on an undocumented request from Philip or Susan to intervene. But Pembroke said that it was the players who requested the action, and there’s no reason not to believe him. If you have evidence that he was lying, please identify it.
“For this to succeed, however, they needed a biography for the playwright Shakespeare. As it happened, a Globe theater investor named Shakspere, who had occasionally taken advantage of the similarity of his name to play the part of the playwright, or, perhaps, his access to the Globe scriptorium to sell old Shakespeare plays from the stock for side-money, had died the same year as Jonson's folio was published.”
Absolute nonsense. Shakespeare was clearly identified in numerous documents as a player. He performed in two of Ben Jonson’s plays, and presumably he wasn’t playing the part of the playwright (IIRC, there is no playwright character in either of the plays he is credited as performing in.) He’s also identified as a player in royal records as a “player” who received an allocation of cloth to have made clothes for a royal procession. He was also named as one of several “men players” by Cuthbert Burbage.
“The ever censorious Jonson must have thought it a delicious piece of revenge to have his services commanded by his patron William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, to turn his greatest competitor from one of the preeminent Earls of the realm into the bumpkin Sogliardo from Stratford.”
Again, evidence-free speculation. It’s merely historical fiction.
"Given the fact that the plays of Shakespeare show overwhelming evidence of having been rewritten one or more times from earlier versions, he must have kept copies of various versions at hand. Some of those manuscripts would likely have passed between family members in this way if they were valued as literature or merely as memorabilia."
Given that the letter from Pembroke refers to the Players having purchased the plays, and directing that the Stationers get permission from them (not from Pembroke or anyone in his family), it seems most likely earlier versions would have been in the players' custody. From Henslowe's diary, we can infer that playing companies maintained an archive of works. They'd have to, for safety's sake: they had to perform the "allowed book," signed by the Master of Revels. I don't know if they had to go back to the Master of Revels to have changes approved, but they at least needed a license for the initial script.
There's no evidence that any versions, early or late, were ever in Oxford's hands or his family's, unless they bought quartos or the folio when it was produced.
It might be essential to read my book to obtain a full background picture. Even so I wd suggest Mary Sidney was quite capable of putting the players up to objecting to the plays being printed up to her death 1621
I just ordered your book on Kindle, and I'll read it when I get a chance. I'll post a review on Amazon as a verified purchaser.
Why would we need to theorize that Mary Sidney put the players up to objecting? They'd have plenty of reason to object to publication of the works they've purchased from writers. Is there evidence of her involvement or is it theoretical?
I'll check your book, but I didn't think Mary Sidney would have been much of a fan of the Earl of Oxford, considering the notorious conflict between Philip Sidney and Edward de Vere, and her esteem for her brother. Perhaps another reason for Philip Herbert and Susan Vere to delay their announcement. Would Mary want to be related through marriage to Edward de Vere? After Oxford's death, that would no longer be an issue for her.
Good. Enjoy. Your third para is from the same hymnbook as mine save that Oxford's denigrations had been published and Mary S wd want to put him down to preserve her brother's reputation.
I hope you will put your review on this site, and I therefore postpone further comment
Best
Yes, I'll post here as well. So far I've gone through some of the introduction. I'm hoping to see documentation for many of the assertions made, but I'll go through the book to see if they are supported.
Good. But see my note on p.418 n.66, quoting Trevor Roper. E.H. Carr (his political opponent) "had demolished the discredited theory - that history derived from documents was s0omehow scientific. In fact it is just as subjective as any other form of history." TR suggested that a historian could "acquire stereoscopic vision" to see beyond
Rm
Unknown is of course Richard Malim see richardmalimampbk
I didn't buy Malim's book. I bought Gilbert's.
I'm reading "at long last the proof," that ends with the conclusion that the masque performed on Dec 27, 1604 on the occasion of the wedding of Philip Herbert and Susan Vere was a version of The Tempest. As you correctly acknowledge there is no extant copy of the text of this masque, and the form of a masque is usually distinct from that of a stage play -- though it's certainly possible that a contemporary description would use the two words interchangeably. I'm not aware of any masques attributed to Shakespeare. But Ottaviano Lotti called the performances on Dec. 27 and the one on Jan 5 "masques" rather than plays (see record in the Lost Plays Database: https://lostplays.folger.edu/Wedding_Masque_for_Sir_Philip_Herbert_(Juno_and_Hymenaeus).)
The play is described as concerning Juno and Hymenaeus, with a setting that included a temple to Juno. There's a lot of information about the play at the Lost Plays Database site, including a now-lost manuscript of the play that Edward Francis Rimbault claimed to possess in an 1852 article in Notes and Queries. I don't see any connection between this play and The Tempest.
Richard Malim: The Tempest aka The Spanish Maze was performed at Court on 11th February 1604/5. Thought it too good to be true it was my book that PB wd read. While I have no imprimatur from either the De Vere Society or the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship, it might be worth attention: so far it has 5 stars on Amazon,so I'm not sure I understand any reluctance to view the full Oxfordian case presentation
Are you saying that your version of the "full Oxfordian case" is better than Gilbert's? Or Anderson's (I've got his tome as well and am familiar with his arguments)? There are lots of Oxfordian books out there; none seems to be definitive and they all differ in their detail. I decided to carefully review Gilbert's version, which most likely is equivalent to yours in most details.
Gilbert's book says that The Tempest was performed on Dec 27, 1604, at the wedding, and that Oxford wrote it with the intention of performing the role of Prospero himself, but couldn't because of his death. You follow Stritmatter's claim to have identified The Tempest by somehow connecting the name "Spanish Maz" and the date of performance with the play. Stritmatter's book has not met with popular acceptance: it's been cited less than twenty times, mostly in Oxfordian publications. Both claim a much earlier first performance than the scholarly consensus. Of course, the Oxfordian theory has to account for the play that wasn't performed for years after Oxford's death, and that was based on an event that occurred after Oxford's death. The repeated failure to convincingly explain the plays that are dated after 1604 is one of several reasons that Oxford is generally rejected as a potential author.
There's no real information about the play identified as The Spanish Maz by Honnyng that you claim is an early version of The Tempest. He does not identify it as having been written by Shakespeare, and though he omitted attribution from a couple of Shakespeare's plays elsewhere in the Accounts, there isn't enough evidence to plausibly say who wrote it or what it's about. Lost plays database speculates that the play was most likely a tragedy (unlike The Tempest) and that "It is unlikely to have presented generalized anti-Spanish sentiment, and therefore also unlikely to have been a product of the Elizabethan war years".
Richard Malim: Has my reply been pulled? Much easier than confessing it is unaswerable?
What reply?
Richard Malim: Lines crossed somewhere. I pointed out that Oxford played a spoof of Prospero the sorcerer as recorded in the Gesta Grayorum of 1594, which means the date of the Tempest must be at least by then. (This also disposes of the Shakespeare 1594 receipt)It was case that convinced Stritmatter that the Spanish Maze and the Tempest were one and the same, the alteration of the name being necessary for the opening of the English Spanish peace negotiations of 1604. The whole case is analysed in my book which I merely say is different from Anderson and Purdy as I concentrate on presenting Oxford as the foremost writer in the History of World History The book is now costing $5 on Kindle - excellent value!
No, I hadn't seen this comment. I don't check the comment thread on every post on this blog, so you may have posted it somewhere that I'm not following.
Here's a link to the record you're referring to: https://shakespearedocumented.folger.edu/resource/document/gesta-grayorum-references-shakespeare-s-comedy-errors-gray-s-inn-revels-1594-95.
Are you referring to the commission of Oyer and Terminer the night after the so-called Night of Errors (bottom of page 22, continued on page 23,24?) I don't think the brief description of the action referring to "Sorceries and Inchantments" or the mock trial of a "Sorcerer or Conjurer" automatically turns this day's events into a spoof of Prospero.
It's another case of wish fulfilment--you see Shakespeare clues everywhere, but your description overstates what the primary source can possibly support. There's no evidence here that Oxford had anything to do with the event. By this time, Oxford was busy trying to get the tin concession; his days in Gray's Inn were long in the past.
Imagine if I told you that I'd seen a film about a sorcerer or wizard. If you had an existing mental framework where you had read everything Tolkien had ever written, you might immediately identify the film as one of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, or possibly The Hobbit. But there are many other possibilities, including the Harry Potter series. Jumping to the conclusion that this was an early version of The Tempest, based on the very sketchy description we receive, isn't credible. There just isn't enough information to support it, or really any clear
I read the Gesta Grayorum description as a lawyers' jest -- a day when the lawyers played out a mock trial over mock charges, to celebrate the successful "night of errors" and the members of the Inn who had organized it. The participants aren't identified by name. There's no reference to de Vere, and no reason to imagine he'd maintained his involvement with the Inn. He wasn't a lawyer; he was an Earl. Oxford was very proud of his social rank. There's just no evidence that he would perform on stage for a bunch of lawyers, let alone be in a drama where he's called a sorcerer and subject to gibes -- even ones made in jest -- by commoners.
Richard Malim; No doubt you will tell me where I can find a disappearing ship wreck, a disappearing banquet, a character who is a sorcerer whose author is vaguely linked to a same- named intellectual etc. prior to 1594, a take apparently linked a successful performance in a public play with a disappearing (not) scenario. Incidentally the performance of the C of E caused the half cousin to a riot with the result that the sorcerer/producer went on 'trial': and all the partaking lawyers are listed with their posts in GG: Oxford was an old boy of Gray's Inn. In my book you will read the full case for Oxford as a public actor
Richard Malim: in the absence of a reply I wd add that I think the lawyers' riot was an element in the opposing faction to Burbage's attempt to convert and launch the Blackfriars Theatre room as an indoor Theatre in 1596 - see Laoutaris' book
Richard Malim 14/1/23. I imagine I can claim total destruction of Oxfraud here as there is no possibility of any , let alone any adequate, reply
Sorry, but as a lawyer, I would strongly disagree with the claim that analysis of documentary evidence results in an entirely subjective pursuit.
The discussion here serves to highlight the objective nature of some documentary evidence. Mr. Purdy has claimed: 1. that William Herbert's 1619 Order to the Stationers' Company regarding the publishing of the King's Men's plays made sure that no such plays could be printed without Herbert's consent and 2. that the Order came out of nowhere. Documentary evidence provided objective evidence that contradicts both of those claims. The consent to publish resided in the players themselves and it was the players who had requested the protection. No "stereoscopic vision" to see beyond the face-value meaning of the statements contained in the documentary evidence. Objective, historical facts can be derived from that evidence. There is zero evidence supporting the spin of it claimed by Mr. Purdy.
Richard Malim: Gilbert Purdy can no doubt fight his own battles. I reply no further on this trail to Mark Johnson but my answer is found on the other trail "A Warning..." which please consult
Post a Comment