 |
 |
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