Text excerpts are reproduced under provisions of 17 USC 107, pertaining
to the fair use of a copyrighted work, for purposes of criticism, comment,
teaching, scholarship, research, and non-profit educational purposes
and are not intended for use of a commercial nature.
Part Four: The Avoidance of Strong Arguments Since 1981
Any accurately presented framing of the Oxfordian authorship must include
the Polonius/Burghley connection. In many ways it functions as an axis
for other Oxfordian arguments.
With the publication of Charlton Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare
(1984, revised 1992) 1 and Joseph Sobran's positive review in
his syndicated column in 1984, the Polonius/Burghley connection was once
again out in the open. More pro-Oxfordian books followed, which sold well,
including Richard F. Whalen's Shakespeare: Who Was He? (1994) 2 and Joseph Sobran's Alias Shakespeare
(1997). 3
Many books defending Stratfordian authorship and attacking Oxfordian
authorship directly (or indirectly through the arguments alone without
mention of Oxford) arrived on the scene as well: Schoenbaum's revised
Shakespeare's Lives (1991), Ian Wilson's Shakespeare: The Evidence
(1993), and Irvin Leigh Matus's Shakespeare, IN FACT (1994).
(We will see that Andrew Gurr in his 1995 William Shakespeare: The
Extraordinary Life also perpetuates one Stratfordian weak argument.)
Let's examine these arguments.
Schoenbaum's Shakespeare's Lives
Samuel Schoenbaum brings up the Polonius/Burghley connection (parenthetically)
safely outside of any of his authorship discussions, and outside any discussions
concerning Oxford (although he does glance at Oxfordians), in the first
paragraph of the chapter "Dark Ladies." However, he is careful
to ensure that the context will make readers cringe at being in the company
of anyone who argues in favor of topical allusions -- the preceding chapter
he entitles "Studies Mad and Bad":
The sonnets Shakespeare composed for his own lute rather
than his Maker's went on inspiring hypotheses, less bizarre perhaps
than Shatford's hallucination, but not necessarily more persuasive.
Hopeful explicators continued to pursue the real-life counterparts of
Shakespeare's dramatis personae. (Did Shakespeare satirize William
Cecil, Lord Burghley, a member of the Queen's Privy Council and, throughout
most his career, Elizabeth's most trusted adviser -- as Polonius in
Hamlet? Maybe Shakespeare saw Burghley's Certain Precepts,
or Directions (1616), written for his son Robert Cecil, in manuscript;
after all, the few precepts which Polonius gives his son parallel
Burghley's Precepts. Of course, many cunning parallels obtain
between literature and life, and parental maxims, savouring of worldly
prudence, were traditional in this period; but these have given comfort
to those who envision Shakespeare at home in the corridors of power,
as well as to Oxfordian schismatics.) (Schoenbaum 493-494)
This is very good in its diplomacy. Schoenbaum knows all of the
strong arguments supporting the Polonius/Burghley connection, so he knows
the danger of being found out if he directly contradicts the connection.
So what does he do? Following Jenkins, he only admits to the Precepts
connection and accomplishes it in such a way that it can be read as
acknowledging the connection while also dismissing any value in it.
Wilson's Shakespeare: The Evidence
Ian Wilson is also very good at avoiding discussion of the Polonius/Burghley
connection. He first mentions that Burghley was Oxford's father-in-law
well into his book, over 100 pages after he discusses Oxfordian authorship
on pages 18-20:
On succeeding to his earldom at just eight years old
Henry had become a royal ward, under the tutelage of Elizabeth's first
Minister, Lord Burghley. Among much else, Burghley supervised the youngster's
education, sending him at the age of twelve to his own Cambridge college,
St John's, and in the Armada year of 1588 likewise to his old law school,
Gray's Inn. Two years later, when Southampton was still only seventeen
Burghley set his sights firmly on Southampton marrying his grand-daughter,
Lady Elizabeth Vere, the fifteen-year-old daughter of Burghley's recently
deceased favourite daughter Anne, and the wayward Edward de Vere, seventeenth
Earl of Oxford (whom, of course, we have already met as one of the candidates
for the Shakespeare authorship). (Wilson 137)
Then, over 100 pages after that, he takes a glance at the Polonius/Burghley
connection:
Now all this is of course but incidental to what Shakespeare
was really aiming to do with Hamlet, and arguments over the play's
many nuances will continue till doomsday. On any level, Hamlet is
a masterpiece of brilliant scenes, from its teeth-chattering opening
on Elsinore's battlements in the dead of night (note how this would
have had to be staged convincingly in afternoon light), to its second
scene of the black-clad Hamlet as the odd man out in Claudius's otherwise
so colourful court (a reprise of the device used with Marcade in
Love's Labour's Lost's closing scene); from Hamlet's unwitting murder
of the eavesdropping Polonius, hidden behind a curtain or 'arras' to
its breath-takingly bloody denouement. With characters as varied as
the infinitely interpretable Hamlet, the Lord Burghley-like Polonius
and the foppish Osric, the play is a treasure house of masterly characterisations.
(Wilson 267)
The Lord Burghley-like Polonius. Thank you, Mr. Wilson, for your
in-depth discussion of a central Oxfordian argument.
Since Wilson has read both Ogburn and Looney, we know he is familiar
with the strong arguments. Perhaps he finds them too "uncomfortable"
to mention.
Matus's Shakespeare, IN FACT
One who does not find the topic uncomfortable is Irvin Leigh Matus.
He works very hard to show the reader that he is fairly and thoroughly
confronting the argument and showing its weaknesses:
It is a fact, however, that Oxford was a royal ward,
though he was actually brought up under the supervision of William Cecil,
Lord Burghley. According to the Oxfordians, he is impersonated in the
part of Polonius in the play in which the earl is cast in the title
role: Hamlet. According to the Oxfordians, Polonius is an unmistakable
lampoon of the lord who was Queen Elizabeth's closest counselor. So
satisfied are they that that's a fact, they go on to assert that such
audacity in a common playwright would have resulted in the play being
censored and its author punished. Instead, they note, it was given the
royal seal of approval, signified by the royal arms on the first page
of the 1604 Hamlet printed by James Roberts.
According to Oxfordians. Matus knows that the Polonius/Burghley
connection has long been supported by Stratfordians. Why would he want
to suppress that evidence? (The very next paragraph is a digression that
I have relegated to a footnote.4) But without
presenting any of the strong arguments he knows exist, he goes on:
But then, it is doubtful anyone would have recognized
Burghley in the buffoonish counselor in Hamlet in the first place.
His relationship with Elizabeth has been called "one of the most
remarkable partnerships in English history." He was present at
the queen's first council meeting in November 1558 and, until his death
forty years later, guided her through one of the most dangerous periods
in that nation's history. He was rewarded with one of only ten new peerages
that were created during the queen's 44-year reign and was one of only
two new peers who did not already possess ancestral claims or blood
relationship to the queen. He was alone in being raised to the peerage
"exclusively on the grounds of political and administrative services
to the Crown."
So Matus thinks that Burghley would be so universally admired that the
playgoers of the day would not even come close to seeing a parallel. As
far as I have been able to determine, Matus is the only person to have
advanced this rather "interesting" argument. Still avoiding
presenting any of the strong arguments he knows exist, Matus is
ready to slander Oxford.
About all that can be said for the Oxfordian conjecture
is that it would be entirely consistent with Oxford's character to so
abuse Burghley. After all, the earl taxed the counselor for failing
to rescue him from the financial straits he got himself into, as well
as for not getting him the preferments he sought. But this pales beside
the misery he visited on Burghley by marrying his daughter Anne. Abroad
in Italy, Oxford joyfully greeted the news of the birth of his first
child in July 1575. By the time he returned from his Grand Tour in April
1576, he was convinced the girl was not his. He would allow his wife
to come to court, provided that she did not come when he was present,
"nor at any time have speech with me." It would be six years
before they were reconciled but, despite the birth of two more daughters
thereafter, the relationship remained an uneasy one. On May 5, 1587,
Burghley wrote to Sir Francis Walsingham of the state of Oxford's household:
No enemy I have can envy me this match; for thereby
neither honour nor land nor goods shall come to their children; for
whom, being three already to be kept and a fourth likely to follow,
I am only at charge even with sundry families in sundry places for
their sustenance. But if their father was of that good nature as to
be thankful for the same I would be less grieved with the burden.
Certainly Burghley's daughter was not Oxford's Ophelia
-- anymore than Oxford was a bereaved Hamlet when his wife died. Instead
of leaping into his beloved's grave in an extravagance of grief, upon
her death in June 1588, Oxford is not named among those who attended
the funeral.
Matus has accomplished quite a contortionist's feat here. He still has
not presented any of the strong arguments that he knows exist, but instead
twists the evidence to show, rather bizarrely, that since Oxford did not
leap into Anne's grave, Anne is therefore not meant to be Ophelia. But
Matus is not done.
It comes as no surprise that those who would see Burghley
in Polonius should see Oxford in Hamlet. It would be a surprise, however,
if Oxford's contemporaries saw the earl in Ophelia's description of
the prince:
The courtier's, soldier's, scholar's, eye, tongue,
sword,
The expectancy and rose of the fair state,
The glass of fashion and the mould of form,
The observ'd of all observers.
The only substantial biography of Oxford is by B. M.
Ward, written with the declared purpose of rescuing the earl from his
reputation as "an eccentric of doubtful character and boorish manners."
Ward did indeed quite thoroughly comb archival records relating to Oxford
specifically and, on the face of it, his biography seems authoritative.
Unfortunately, in his determination to rehabilitate his subject, he
did not do his research on events surrounding the earl's public life
quite as thoroughly. (Matus 234-237)
Matus has done nothing to show that he is willing to argue here.
He presents none of the strong arguments he knows exist. His technique
is one of suppression of evidence and misdirection.
This is a book that Publishers Weekly thinks "dismantles
the arguments of those who claim that someone other than William Shakespeare
wrote the plays." David Bevington of the University of Chicago finds
"Matus's account fair, balanced, and persuasive." Andrew Gurr
of the University of Reading and the author of William Shakespeare:
The Extraordinary Life of the Most Successful Writer of All Time (in
which he actually claims that Shakespeare used Montaigne's Essays
as the source for Polonius's precepts to his son 5) says, "It is rare and valuable for the way that
it offers sane and dispassionate review of the evidence and the arguments
in this much-trampled and disputed territory." (All on the dust
jacket.)
Since the publication of his book, Matus has given a talk entitled "Why
There Is a Shakespeare Authorship Question," delivered at the Library
of Congress, April 24, 1997. A portion of that talk is made available
by The Shakespeare Authorship Page (maintained by Terry Ross and David
Kathman) under the title "The
Oxfordian Hamlet: The Playwright's the Thing" where Matus once
again succeeds in entirely avoiding stating the strong arguments that
he knows exist and instead misdirects attention, this time claiming in
a very poorly supported argument that most scholars (without naming any)
agree with Chambers' speculation regarding The Counsellor by
Polish statesman Laurentius Grimalius Goslicius:
Which leads directly to the next assertion. It is a
fact that, after his father's death, Oxford became a ward of William
Cecil, Lord Burghley. What follows is not. We are told that Burghley
is "the man most scholars today recognize as the inspiration for
the character of Polonius." In fact, most Shakespearean scholars
do not. They prefer instead the prolix author of The Counselor [sic],
a book of advice on affairs of state published in English translation
in 1598. The author, known as Goslicius, was a bishop and statesman
who happened to be Polish -- hence the character's name: Polonius.
Inasmuch as the purpose of this Oxfordian claim is
that courtiers would have recognized Polonius as a lampoon of Burghley,
we should consider the image of him in the words of William Camden,
perhaps the most reliable commentator on the famous figures of his day.
Writing years after Burghley's death, he said of him,
Certainly he was a most excellent man who, to say nothing
of his reverend presence and undistempered countenance, was fashioned
by nature and advanced with learning, a singular man for honesty, gravity,
temperance, industry and justice. Hereunto was added a fluent and elegant
speech, and that not affected but plain and easy, wisdom strengthened
by experience and seasoned with exceeding moderation and most approved
fidelity.
Coincidentally, just as Polonius had a daughter, so
did Burghley; thus does Ann Cecil become Ophelia. Picking up the story
according to Stritmatter, "Once he became de Vere's guardian, [Burghley]
betrothed the young Earl of Oxford . . . to a Cecil daughter for the
political advancement of the Cecil clan." But in the play the situation
is just the opposite: Polonius expressly forbids his daughter to marry
the prince because he is above her station. More to the point, precisely
what political advantage did Oxford have to offer Burghley, who Elizabeth
made her principal secretary days after her accession in 1558? From
that day until his death 40 years later, he would be her most valued
counselor, forming what has been characterized as "one of the most
remarkable partnerships in English history."
In regard to Oxford's betrothal to Burghley's daughter,
a letter by him at the time states that this marriage was the earl's
wish. It would not be long before Burghley regretted granting it. Oxford
was estranged from his wife for a good part of their marriage and it
has been said of it on the whole that he made Ann's life "such
a living hell that her early death came as a merciful relief."
It is impossible to imagine Oxford as the grief-stricken Hamlet leaping
into the grave of his beloved -- especially not when he didn't even
bother to attend his wife's funeral.
This "argument" is suppression of evidence and misdirection
plain and simple. Again, he offers none of the strong arguments.
But this is typical of Matus's style throughout his book. No reader
can safely assume that Matus is fairly or accurately framing the arguments
of those he claims to refute. As Peter R. Moore points out in "Recent
Developments in the case for Oxford as Shakespeare", "Irvin
Matus' book, Shakespeare, In Fact, is a complete exercise in shooting
holes in ... weak arguments and errors, while totally ducking all of the
strong arguments."
Matus's "arguments" are weak in critical scholarship.
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 ismerely
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 Talecontains 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
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.