All material copyright (c) 2011 by Jonathan Star
♦Ben Jonson’s Eulogy
“To the memory of My Beloved, the Author”
“To the memory of My Beloved, the Author”
Ben Jonson’s poem, ‘To the Memory of My Beloved, the Author,’ is so full of hints towards the identity of the true writer that [when considering the Shakespeare Authorship Question] we must place it at the head of the list [of works] to be analyzed. (James and Rubinstein, The Truth Will Out)
Jonson’s opinion of Shakspere is highly relevant to the Authorship question. Everything, in fact, depends on it, because Jonson’s eulogy of Shakespeare in the Folio, plainly identifying him as the man of Stratford, is the strongest bastion of the orthodox, Stratfordian case. Every heretical writer has had to confront it. It has been the most hotly debated text in the entire controversy. Stratfordians regard it as the clinching evidence in favor of their own candidate, while their rivals ingeniously pick holes in it, claiming either that Ben Jonson was insincere in his flattery of Shakespeare or that he was secretly praising another man [or woman], the real author, whose identity he knew.
(Michell, Who Wrote Shakespeare?, p.74)
Ben Jonson's Eulogy to the Author >>
Sectional Breakdown of Jonson's Eulogy:
Section 1: (Title) “To the memory of my beloved, The Author.”
This title, addressed to “my beloved,” lets us know that the Author was very dear to Ben Jonson and that this was a person for whom Ben Jonson would openly admit his affection. Jonson also adds the modifier, “The Author,” which may be one way of distinguishing “William Shakespeare, the Author” from “William Shakespeare, the actor” who is listed as a Principal Actor (in the prefatory material of the First Folio).
Section 2a: (lines 1-6) In the first lines of his eulogy, Jonson tells of his predicament and his frustration of not being able to praise the Author in the manner that he had hoped for.
Section 2b: (lines 7-16) In this section, Jonson talks about the ways that the Author’s pristine work may have been lowered and ‘disfigured’ by profiteering theater-owners so as to make the work suitable for the public theaters. He likens these low characters (with perhaps Will Shakspere included among them) to pimps and whores and he intimates that their corruption of the Author’s work came as an insult to the Author and her art.
Section 3: (lines 17-18) This section opens the eulogy with a short praise of the Author.
Section 4: (lines 19-24) In this section a poem by William Basse is referenced. The poem, written in 1622, puts forth the position that the great playwright, “Shakespeare”—whom Basse assumed was a recently deceased person—should be honored, along with all the other great Poets, by being buried along with them in Westminster Abbey. Jonson then does Basse “one better”: he states that the Author is so much greater than the other poets named by Basse, and entombed in Westminster Abbey (Chaucer, Spenser, and Beaumont), that he should not be entombed with them. Moreover, Jonson states that the Author is a “moniment without a tomb”—that his works are immortal and can never be buried, as such.
Section 5: (lines 25-40) In this section Jonson references a well-known entry found in Francis Meres’s book, Palladis Tamia: Wits Treasury (1598), which lists and compares “Shakespeare” with various poets and playwrights of his age. Jonson, however, refutes Mere’s positive comparisons by saying that no one can be compared to the Author, and that the greatest of the ancient playwrights should come to life so that they can sit in the audience and watch the Author’s plays. Most significantly, within this essay is found a small Latin verse whereby Mary Sidney is honored by name (and where she is compared to a Greek poetess). This direct reference to Mary Sidney in the Meres essay offers an insight into Jonson’s intended meaning of the line: And though thou hadst small Latine, and lesse Greeke, From thence to honour thee.
Section 6: (lines 41-50) This section refers to Mary Sidney’s illustrious brother, Philip Sidney. This section opens with an address to the Author but then the subject shifts to her brother:“Triumph, my Britaine [to Mary], thou hast one to show [referring to her brother, Philip] To whom all Scenes of Europe homage owe.” Jonson’s famous line, “He was not of an age, but for all time” is a third person reference to the Author’s brother, Philip, and not the Author herself (Mary Sidney).
Section 7a: (lines 51-54) The first part of this section mentions how some of the ancient dramatists have been abandoned because their work is “not of Nature’s family.” These four lines appear as a throw-back to Section 5 where numerous Latin and Greek dramatists are cited and compared unfavorably to the Author. These somewhat orphaned lines, however, may be a reference to a poem by the English epigramist, Thomas Freeman, who, in 1614, may have criticized Shakespeare as a playwright—and his was the only piece of writing that found fault with Shakespeare’s literary acumen. Thus Jonson may be suggesting that Freeman’s work (and the negative sentiment it carries) was “not of Nature’s family” and, therefore, has been abandoned. (If Freeman's poem is read as sarcasm, its tone is decidedly negative; if it read otherwise it may be interpreted as lukewarm praise).
Section 7b: (lines 55-65) In this section Jonson refutes the comment attributed to Hemings and Condell (in the “Note to the Variety of Readers”) wherein they state that the papers they received from their "friend" had scarce a blot on them (i.e., were near perfect upon first draft). Jonson refutes this statement (and any claim suggesting that Will Shakspere of Stratford was, or could have been, the Author) by stating that a “praise-worthy” play cannot be written extempore, and must be revised— and, moreover, that all of the plays written by the Author (and any writer of worth) could only have been produced through careful revision. Jonson goes on to say that a playwright who does not rewrite his plays, and hands them in without revision (as Hemings and Condell suggest was the case with their "friend"), would only produce works of poor quality—works that would be worthy of scorn (as opposed to praise). Thus, the papers received by Hemings and Condell, “with scarce a blot on them”—from whomever—could not have been the plays written by the Author, nor the plays found in the Folio. (Hemings and Condell may have received newly penned copies of plays, with scarce a blot on them, from Shakspere of Stratford (or someone assigned to make plays ready for public showing); however, these would have been plays which had been newly edited for the public stage, not the plays as conceived by the original Author.)
Jonson’s ‘dismissal’ of Hemings and Condell’s statement, is also a dismissal of their ‘front’ as being the collators and editors of the Folio. Virtually all scholars agree that these two men were not capable of editing the First Folio nor had the wherewithal to bring about its publication; they only loaned (or sold) their names as "editors," while the real editing and production of the First Folio was carried out by Ben Jonson (and William Herbert). Most scholars also agree that all written pieces in the Folio attributed to Hemings and Condell—such as the Dedication, and the “Note to the Variety of Readers”—were written by Jonson.
Section 8: (lines 65-70) This section is a tribute to the Author’s literary heritage or ‘race,’ and in it Jonson seems to acknowledge that the Author received support and actual help from her literary peers—which, in this case, were most likely members of the Author’s family. Jonson is again refuting the notion that these plays were written in a vacuum, by a lone author (and writing for profit); he is suggesting that the plays were a product of the Author’s literary heritage, and that they could not have been written by someone who was not supported by a literary tradition and culture—nor by someone who did not share any of the same life experiences as the characters depicted in the plays. In sum, Jonson is saying that William Shakspere of Stratford—or anyone else who lacked the education, heritage, culture, and life-experience—and who wrote in isolation, from book-knowledge—could not have written the plays.
Section 9: (lines 71-80) This section offers a final praise of the Author and her work, beginning with a direct reference to Mary Sidney as the “Sweet Swan of Avon.” Jonson also suggests that the plays were written for the delight of a royal audience, and shown privately—and were neither written nor intended for showing at the public playhouses. (What was shown at the public playhouses were not the plays, as originally conceived by the Author, but some “disfigurement” of the true and original versions).
<< Home ^ Top ^ Section 1 >>