I think James has to be on the throne (and in the audience centrally, as
that audience's cynosure) for Macbeth's horror at the seat of honor being
pre-occupied by Banquo's ghost (in place & anticipation of Banquo's future
lineage), to have its full dramatic effect as double entendre. But the
prediction that James the Cradle King would occupy the throne, I would
argue, is being made -- via the changelling boy -- as early as Midsummer
Night's Dream, even if it was no fair guessing.
On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:22:58 +0100
Penny M <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Yes, I took that to be your i.e. Might we not then consider antedating
> Macbeth?? Please do not feel compelled to answer - it’s just a hobby horse
> which I have not forgot. Many thanks, Penny.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of James C. Nohrnberg
> Sent: 25 July 2008 17:03
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Elective Monarchy lights on Denmark
>
> I.e., Hamlet, Lear, and Macbeth, like the frame of The Arcadia, are
>riddled
> with the anxieties of The Succession.
>
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:02:46 +0100
> Penny M <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Thank you for the Denmark connection - and the Polish. Wasn't Philip an
>> elected count of Poland? But see also his Defence of Leicester, in which
>>he
>> claims that John Dudley was descended from the house of Berkeley which was
>> itself descended ‘lineally’ from a King of Denmark. Even while stressing
>> that in heraldic law, succession rightly lies with the one who descends
>>from
>> the oldest sister. (Not with Elizabeth, then: I think the Defence is no
>> naïve mistake, as some have claimed.)
>> Penny.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Sidney-Spenser Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> On Behalf Of James C. Nohrnberg
>> Sent: 24 July 2008 18:12
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Elective Monarchy lights on Denmark
>>
>> This sounds right to me. The republican strain is a stalking-horse, but
>> (for some literary reflections of all of this) Hamlet's dying voice is for
>
>> the election of Fortinbras, (as formerly Hamlet deplored the election [by
>> some kind of default] of Claudius [Ham. V.ii.65], and as earlier seems
>>about
>>
>> to light upon Laertes in a coup ["The rabble call him lord; / And .... The
>
>> ratifiers and props of every word, ' / They cry 'Choose we: Laertes shall
>
>> be king:' Caps, hands, and tongues applaud it to the clouds:"
>> IV.v.102ff.).
>>
>> Meanwhile Fortinbras has been stalking Poland, where the monarchy was
>> likewise elective--famously or infamously, apparently. Elizabeth's own
>> voice is said to have been, sotto voce, for James: for his succession,
>>but
>> also, in a way, for his election in lieu of Tudor issue lineally extract.
>> See, for the legendary character of the Polish constitution, and the
>> general rule (or practice) of elective monarchy amongst Germanic peoples,
>>to
>>
>> which English "vox populi" Republicans might appeal as precedent, esp. in
>> the deposition of Charles I, Earl R. Wasserman, "The Meaning of 'Poland'
>>in
>> [Dryden's] _The Medal_" in Mod. Lang. Notes 73:3 (March 1958). Cp. also
>> Hamlet III.ii.356, "You have the voice of the king himself / For your
>> succession" with Ros.&Guild. on "The cease of majesty" as a "massy wheel"
>> (Ham. III.iii.11 ff.) creating a gulf-like power-vacuum (implicitly,
>> perhaps, making for the emergence of elective [rather than dynastic]
>> monarchic politics).
>>
>> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:14:54 +0100
>> andrew zurcher <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> The disputation at Oxford in 1566 was probably not, as Colin says, an
> orgy
>>
>>>of republicanism (led by a demagorgue?), but I still suspect that the
> whole
>>
>>>event was pretty perilously politically charged. Parliamentary debate over
>
>>>the issue of the queen's marriage and succession had issued in two
>>>petitions in 1563, both of which the queen had answered according to
>>>contemporary accounts angrily, and another (perhaps informal?) petition in
>
>>>1566, which provoked a response preserved by none other than Harington (in
>
>>>which E promised to be no step-dame but a 'natural mother'). The prospect
>>>of the 'election' of a monarch after the death of a dhildless queen, the
>>>last of Henry VIII's children, was a real one. Thus a conclusion in favour
>
>>>of succession was tantamount to an exhortation to marry and procreate --
>>>which is just the same old heavyhandedness that angered Elizabeth in
>>>Parliament, now at arm's length. In other words, the politically sensitive
>
>>>part of this disputation was likely not the argument in favour of electio
>>>(a stalking-horse), but that in favour of successio!
>>>
>>> az
>>>
>>>> Leche of Merton asked 'An Princeps declarandus esset electione potius
>>>> quam successione' The same Leche 'elegantem orationem habuit contra
>>>> successionem et pro electione in creando Rege' (238). A Mr Matthew also
>>>> spoke for 'electio'. Then 'ad extremum Mr Cooper Magdel. pro successione
>
>>>> determinavit,cum adjectione maximi periculi si Regnum relinqueretur de
>>>> successione incertum' -so it probably wasn't an orgy of republicanism,
>>>> what with all the students crying out 'vivat regina' and all.
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> James Nohrnberg
>> Dept. of English, Bryan Hall 219
>> Univ. of Virginia
>> P.O Box 400121
>> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4121
>
> [log in to unmask]
> James Nohrnberg
> Dept. of English, Bryan Hall 219
> Univ. of Virginia
> P.O Box 400121
> Charlottesville, VA 22904-4121
[log in to unmask]
James Nohrnberg
Dept. of English, Bryan Hall 219
Univ. of Virginia
P.O Box 400121
Charlottesville, VA 22904-4121
|