The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 20.0275 Sunday, 31 May 2009
Date: Wednesday, 27 May 2009 09:52:05 -0700
Subject: John Shakespeare's Testament and Hamlet
Raising up this old chestnut again, but I hope only briefly.
I recently noticed the close verbal parallels between Article I of "John
Shakespeare's Spiritual Last Will and Testament" and the ghost's words
"I may be possibly cut off in the blossom of my sins, and called to
render an account of all my transgressions externally and internally,
and that I may be unprepared for the dreadful trial either by sacrament,
penance, fasting, or prayer, or any other purgation whatever . . ."
Cut off even in the blossoms of my sin,
Unhousel'd, disappointed, unanel'd,
No reckoning made, but sent to my account
With all my imperfections on my head:
O, horrible! O, horrible! most horrible!
I find that Eric Sams noticed on this (and commented on it somewhat
gushingly) -- as have others, I'm sure. I also found through LION and
Google that "blossom" and "sins" is a singular conjunction -- I don't
find any pre-Hamlet parallels.
At first I found here support for one my fond notions regarding a
correlation between the dates of King Hamlet's death and John
Shakespeare's, which itself touches on the composition/revision date(s)
But on reconsidering, these verbal parallels seem to me to give much
stronger support to the idea that John Jordan fabricated the first
articles of the testament -- that he knew his Hamlet, and showed it
there. (Those opening articles do not appear in the various-language
exempla of such testaments that are extant, and there is the issue of
the missing first leaf or two of John Shakespeare's testament, a
transcript of which later inexplicably appeared.)
This does not necessarily impugn the authenticity of the testament as a
whole -- especially the latter parts which do parallel contemporaneous
exempla -- just the opening articles.
I haven't seen this Hamlet issue raised in any writings regarding the
authenticity of the testament, and would be interested in hearing if
others come to the same conclusion I do.
While I'm here, I've been meaning for years to reply to one statement in
Peter Bridgman's 2004 shaksper reply
to Robert Bearman's 2003 Shakespeare Survey article on the testament:
While disagreeing strongly with most of Bearman's points, Bridgman
credits Bearman's assertion that Robert Pearson's desire for "three or
four thousand or more of the testaments" refers to Douay-Rheims New
Testaments in English, not to Borromeo-style testaments:
"This is the strongest point Bearman makes in his essay, and I think he
is probably correct."
At the time I found the assertion implausible, and still do. Were
infiltrating Catholic priests truly hoping to smuggle thousands of
copies of an 800-page tome into England undetected, and then somehow
cart them around the countryside for distribution? It seems unlikely to me.
I see that Joseph Pearce makes the same argument in his 2008 book The
Quest for Shakespeare (which -- despite its obvious
pro-Shakespeare-as-Catholic axe-grinding -- I find on having read forty
or fifty pages to be a well-researched, sourced, and cited, largely
well-reasoned, and generally quite useful book).
See page 30 for the chapter on the testament.
(I also find convincing Pearce's argument that John Shakespeare stopped
attending borough council meetings in January 1577 as a result of
Elizabeth's 1576 Grand Commission, which over the last half of that year
took to energetically enforcing requirements for those in public office
to take the Oath of Ascendancy.)
I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of other list members on these
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.