Comments on: On Three Shakespeare-Related Poems By John Davies

By: Jeffrey Lague

Jeffrey Lague — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:43:13 +0000

Thank you, Bob. My investigations won’t lead me any further than the 6th. Earl of Derby as long as the supporters of the orthodox position continue to promise to provide all sorts of hard evidence to prove that their man was the author of the Shakespeare canon only to retire with apologies about lack of time, etc., etc., when pressed to do so.
As far as I’m concerned those who organised the deception about the authorship of the works fooled an awful lot of people at the time (as was the intention!) and still continue to do so, including all those who part with good money when they visit “Shakespeare’s Birthplace” and “Anne Hathaway’s cottage” under the mistaken impression that those places are actually what the Stratford tourist board claims them to be!
Still, congratulations on actually tackling the subject of the Davies epigram. His meanings are often obscure today (and might well have been intentionally so way back then, written only for the “in-crowd” to fully understand) but I personally regard the Will: Shakespeare epigram (along with Donne’s sonnet to “The E. of D.” and Spenser’s “Tears of the Muses” and “Colin Clouts come home againe”) as among the most significantly suggestive pieces of evidence that Derby wrote the Shakespeare works….or at least that those writers believed him to have been the real author.

By: Bob Grumman

Bob Grumman — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 15:33:43 +0000

Jeffrey, I think the main difference between us is that I need less airtight an explanation for things than you do. It just doesn’t and can’t bother me that a few details in the Shakespeare story are odd, and that there’s a lot about him that we don’t know. The reverse is true for you. So, I’m sure we’ll never agree about the authorship. In any case, I really do have too many projects to take care of (or try to take care of) to get into another debate about something I’ve already argued dozens of times, often for years, with skeptics. So this really will be my last post to our discussion. Good luck with your investigation.

–Bob

By: Jeffrey Lague

Jeffrey Lague — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 12:05:45 +0000

Sorry, sent the first part of the reply by mistake?
I was going to say that I’m waiting for someone to explain the “meaner sort” line in the Davies epigram with reference to Stratford Will. The “Arden Shakespeare” editor of Henry VI/1 explains the use of the term in the play as “Those whose claim to the crown, and whose rank, were inferior to his own.” How can this possibly apply to the Stratford actor who had no claim whatsoever to the crown of England? The term would certainly apply to an earl though.

Finally, I was intrigued by the line from the Microcosmos poem that you include in your article,
“And though the stage doth staine pure gentle bloode”

Why would Davies be mentioning “pure gentle bloode” when writing about actors unless he knew of instances when those who possessed it associated themselves with the stage? Shakespeare of Stratford doesn’t appear to have been a member of the blue-blooded set. Is this conjunction of the initials W.S. with a reference to the aristocracy another example of Davies being ” in the know” I wonder?

By: Jeffrey Lague

Jeffrey Lague — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 11:48:53 +0000

Thanks for the replies, but what I really want as documentary evidence is something like a letter that mentions that Will Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon wrote Hamlet, or anything else at all for that matter. There is actually more real documentary proof that Derby was a playwright in the form of a Jesuit spy’s letter of 30.06.1599 that reports that Derby was “busyed only in penning commodyes for the commoun players.”
Without seeing the Armin poem I can’t assess Davies’ use of the “in sport” term; what I would require to convince me is a definition dating from Davies’ time that “sport” referred to acting, and not the opinion of a commentator who fails to supply such evidence in support of such an interpretation. But, even if such was forthcoming, it would not rule out Derby as the real dedicatee of the epigram as it could be construed that by appearing as an actor he had compromised any chance he might have had to become Elizabeth’s consort. Furthermore a name on a title-page can be, and often is, a pseudonym. Other things like the monument, might have been part of a deception or evidence that others had been fooled by the various (supposed) subterfuges.
As for the hyphen, I’d like to have other instances of a proper name being separated in this way by printers of the time. As for your suggestion that it was more “eye-catching” do we have any contemporary play-bills etc., that even mention Shakespeare as an actor and, if so, is the name hyphenated. Strange that you posit all sorts of explanations for the use of the hyphen, but deem the one that says it’s a pseudonym to be the idea solely of cranks!
You mention as part of your documentary evidence for the Stratford man’s authorship lack of documentary evidence against him. This seems to constitute no proof at all in my opinion. In fact there seems to be plenty of indirect contemporary evidence against him. The “Poet Ape” sonnet of Jonson and the “Sogliardo” character in “Every man out of his humour” are generally thought to be allusions to him and hardly accord with the rapturous praise he bestows on the author Shakespeare in the first folio dedication. And I’m sure you are familiar with the “John Benson” parody which is included in the second edition of the sonnets with an engraving based on the Droeshout portrait and begins,
This shadowe is renowned Shakespear’s? Soule of the age
The applause? delight? the wonder of the Stage.

The Ostler poem describes the dedicatee as “The Roscius of these times.”
The Wiki article on Roscius states “By the Renaissance, Roscius formed the paradigm for dramatic excellence.” so I take it that when Davies’ addresses Ostler as “Sole king of actors” he meant just that and the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the King’s Men. I cannot comment on the Armin verse because I can’t find it either.

I still await

By: Bob Grumman

Bob Grumman — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 01:00:22 +0000

I skimmed through my essay and didn’t find anything about “in sport.” So I went to HLAS and found this in an entry by Terry Ross:

“Terence was an ancient Roman playwright who came from humble origins, just like Shakespeare. Davies’s references to ‘playing’ parts ‘in sport’ refer to acting, and his repeated references to ‘kings’ is a play on the name of the King’s Men; the only other poems in the volume that similarly play on ‘king’ are those to Robert Armin and William Ostler, also members of the King’s Men, and the poem to Armin also refers to playing ‘in sport.’”

I tried to find a copy of Davies’s Armin poem but failed.

By: Bob Grumman

Bob Grumman — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:23:32 +0000

My book, Shakespeare and the Rigidniks, lists most of the documentary evidence for Shakespeare. I’m hoping to have a third edition out before long. It is presently out of print. But there’s little in it that you wouldn’t already be familiar with. Things like Shakespeare’s monument, the First Folio, all the times his name was on title-pages–as well as the complete absence of direct documentary evidence against him, or for anyone else–e.g., a letter mentioning that Derby wrote Hamlet, for instance.

There are all kinds of explanations for the hyphen’s use besides the obvious one, that it separated two words. One is that Shakespeare was an actor, so perhaps liked an eye-catching name. Artists are strange, you know. One of my poet friends, born Michael Anderson, is now known as “mIEKAL aND.”

Oh, and writers and printers were not crazy back then, but spelling was was erratic enough to be called a bit crazy. Reread my essay–I’m sure I explain “in sport” in it. I think Davies used it in a poem to Robert Armine.

By: Jeffrey Lague

Jeffrey Lague — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:26:07 +0000

Perhaps punctuation in Davies’ time was “crazy” but in Davies’ work it seems pretty consistent; the only abbreviation using a colon which I have been able to find is the case in question. Epigram 156 ” To my well-accomplish’d friend Mr. Ben. Johnson” uses a single dot so that can’t be where you thought you’d seen it abbreviated as Ben: Jonson.
Crank though I might be I still haven’t seen a satisfactory explanation for why the hyphen should be used to divide a proper name in two. If Davies’ printer had a notion to do this sort of thing, why didn’t he adopt the same practise for a name like Edmund Ashfield, (with its Sylvan overtones) the dedicatee of epigram 169? Oh, I forgot, writers and printers were all crazy back in those days.
I’m intrigued by what means you managed to divine that John Davies used the word “Sport” to refer to acting as, on searching the “LEME” (Lexicons of Early Modern English) site, I was unable to discover a single definition of the word which links it with the activity; the nearest I came to it was in one of the definitions by Thomas Thomas (1587) “Play in actes” (which if it connects to the theatre at all, must refer to the play itself rather than those who act in it). Definitions of the word overwhelmingly favour the idea of “mirth” or “jest.” If anyone is straining after a reading it appears that you are in this case.
By contrast, my reading of the puns on the words “Honesty” and “Stocke” (both emphasised by use of a different font style) are not at all strained when viewed in context: ” And honesty thou sow’st, which they do reape.” What could be more obvious than the horticultural allusion?
Finally, if you have time, please direct me to the “massive direct documentary” (sic) which establishes the Stratford Shakespeare as the poet Shakespeare as, in thirty or more years of studying the subject, I’ve failed to come across it. And, no….I won’t be at all surprised if you fail to answer this response.

By: Bob Grumman

Bob Grumman — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 17:19:46 +0000

Thanks for visiting, Jeffrey–and for commenting on my essay at length. You’re the first one to do so here. I’m too busy with other matters to wage an all-out campaign against your postition right now. I do have time for a few comments, though. One is that punctuation was, by our standards, crazy in Shakespeare’s day, so I can’t see that the colon in “Will:” means anything. Many printers used a colon similarly–perhaps mainly for nicknames, for I’m sure I’ve seen Jonson referred to in print as “Ben: Jonson.” The main explanation for the hyphen in “Shake-speare” is that it separated two words, as hyphens still do. Its use raises suspicion of a pseudonym only for cranks, I’m afraid. The great probability is that a single printer decided he liked it that way, and some other printers followed his course of action. Here we don’t know, by the way, who used the hyphen, Davies or the printer of his poem. I believe that in my essay I mention that Davies used “sport” to refer to acting. Another poem of his seems to specify that he considered Shakespeare an actor who was also a poet. I find your reading of puns strained–as strained as other readings of puns by anti-Stratfordians that posit a different True Author than you do. Aside from all that, massive direct documentary establishes Will: Shake-speare, the poet, as Will Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon.

Feel free to fire a response to this at me, but don’t be surprised if I fail to answer it. I fear I feel I’ve fully answered the authorship question in my book, Shakespeare and the Rigidniks.

–Bob

By: Jeffrey Lague

Jeffrey Lague — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 16:02:23 +0000

Forget Oxford as Shakespeare and consider William Stanley, 6th. Earl of Derby, as Shaksepeare and Davies’ epigram begins to make sense. The dedication “To our English Terence Mr. Will: Shake-speare” is suspicious quite apart from the allusion to Terence.
“Will:” is abbreviated using a double dot in exactly the same way as Stanley abbreviated his forename in his signature , ” Will: Derby” (see plate VIII in Titherley’s “Shakespeare’s Identity” or the website “The URL of Derby”). Other names are not abbreviated in this way by Davies in The Scourge of Folly (e.g Epigram 155, To my worthily-disposed friend Mr. Sam. Daniell.) The hyphenated “Shake-speare” raises suspicion of a pseudonym. It has been suggested that contemporary printers used a hyphen between “e” and “s” to prevent the font from collapsing and this is why the author’s name appears in this form on the title page of many printed editions of the plays. However, in “The Scourge of Folly” other dedications (using the same font) that contain the two letters in conjunction are set without the hyphen (e.g. Epigram 184 “Against Women that weares locks like womanish men.”) suggesting that Davies’ orthography for the Shakespeare epigram was quite intentional.
The first line of the epigram suggests that it was written with tongue firmly in cheek (“Some say good Will (which I, in sport, do sing)) while the mention of the dedicatee playing Kingly parts in sport (i.e. for amusement) seems to rule out the Stratford Shakespeare who was a professional actor. William Stanley would have been a possible consort for Queen Elizabeth (the term “King” was sometimes used to describe a female monarch) due to his own entitlement to the throne through the female side of his family (the “meaner sort”)

(CF. The death of Mortimer from Henry VI part I
MORTIMER
“For by my mother I derived am
From Lionel Duke of Clarence, the third son
To King Edward the Third;”
and later
PLANTAGENET
Here dies the dusky torch of Mortimer,
Choked with ambition of the meaner sort:)
had he not compromised himself by getting involved with the theatre.

The second half of the epigram seems to be based around puns. “Raile” could be derived from the old French word “reille” and might be punning on one of its meanings “rule” which ties in with the idea of Kingship in the first half of the poem. The last two lines contain probable puns on the names of two plants “honesty” and “stock” (both given without italics) the first of which was known as “The money plant” and the second of which has a number of connotations including monetary and theatrical ones. There is a strong suggestion here of others prospering from the upright efforts of another. Considering what we know about the character of Shakespeare of Stratford it seems highly unlikely that he would have accepted such a situation with equanimity.
John Davies was an intimate of the Stanley family and, although he dedicated epigrams to other members of the clan (as well as scores of other “worthies” of his acquaintance) there is, very oddly, nothing intended for William Stanley, the sixth Earl of Derby….unless, of course, Davies regarded Stanley as “Our English Terence.”