 |
 |
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