Elsinore Revisited

By Sten F. Vedi

This book challenges the general assumption that William Shakespeare was the sole author of Hamlet. It is maintained that the plot line and the characters were drawn up by someone else. This someone is thought to have been a person of high rank, a feudal prince, in the Elizabethan society. Being a nobleman whose constant presence at Court was expected, he must have been familiar with life, gossip and intrigues of the Court. Furthermore, he had knowledge about the Danish court and Elsinore, probably imparted to him by envoys who had visited Elsinore. The scene of the play is Elsinore, but it mirrors the English court. In Elsinore is revisited we walk in the footsteps of the Queens envoys to see if we can discover how and why the site of Elsinore entered into the play and we meet men like Ramelius alias Polonius, but also Rosencrantz and Guildenstern who all entered the portrait gallery of famous characters in world literature. The purpose of Revisiting Elsinore has been to find a key to unveil the secret co-author of Hamlet. This has been done partly by a renewed reading of some primary and secondary sources, partly by discovery of an hitherto overlooked or neglected primary source.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris UK
• Release date: May 23, 2012
• ISBN: 9781469170176

Sten F. Vedi

The author grew up in Norway. He has graduated in English language and literature, political science and history at the Universities of Bergen and Oslo. He has a Ph. D. from the University of Sheffield. For shorter periods he thought history at the Universities of Bergen and Trondheim, while holding other positions at those universities. He has worked as a University librarian at the University of Trondheim and the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, before taking up a position as Associate Professor at the Department of Cultural Studies at Lund University in Sweden. Since retiring from the university, he has taken a deliberate decision to indulge in different areas of knowledge.

Book preview

Copyright © 2012 by Sten F. Vedi. 303401-VEDI

ISBN: 978-1-4691-7017-6 (ebook)

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission

in writing from the copyright owner.

To order additional copies of this book, contact:

Xlibris Corporation

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

[e-mail]

Printed with contribution

from The Gyllenstierna

Krapperup´s Foundation

CONTENTS

Was There a Collaborative Authorship Behind Hamlet?

A Selection of Literature

Lord Willoughby’s Narration: ‘This Ientleman of Polonia’

‘The King Doth Wake Tonight and Take His Rouse’

Robert Dudley to Frederik II

Henrik Ramel to Frederik II

Henrik Ramel in Holinshed’s Chronicles

English Actors Visited Kronborg

A Drama ‘Written by an Elizabethan for Elizabethans’

Corambis or Polonius in the First and Second Quarto

Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern

Elsinore and Kronborg

When Was the First Version of Hamlet Performed on the Stage?

Early Modern English Theatre

The Lord Chamberlain’s Men

The Lord Admiral’s Men

Other Companies of Players

Attitudes towards Playhouses and Players:

Puritan Opposition to the Public Stages

Art Made Tongue-tied by Authority

Questions of Copyright and the Authorship

The Author’s ‘Profile’

Discussion – Things Are Not Always What They Seem to Be

References

Elsinore Revisited

‘This Ientleman of Polonia’: Polonius, a Character in Disguise

Sten F. Vedi

List of Images

1. Portrait of Henrik Ramel, probably by Jacob van Doordt

2. A Section of the Kronborg Tapestry by Hans Knieper

3. Chart of Denmark and Øresund by Abraham Ortelius:

Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, Antwerp 1570

4. Engravings of Kronborg and Øresund by Braun and Hogenberg,

Civitates Orbis Terrarum, vol. iv, 1588

5. Engravings of Elsinore and Kronborg by Braun and Hogenberg,

Civitates Orbis Terrarum, vol. iv, 1588

6. Kronborg. Drawing (1582) by Hans Knieper

To Marianne

Was There a Collaborative Authorship Behind Hamlet?

According to the dominant tradition, William Shakespeare from Stratford upon Avon wrote Shakespeare. His name was printed on the title page of the majority of the works which we know as Shakespeare’s canon, and he is also referred to in other contemporary textual sources. It is difficult and almost impossible to explain away why Shakespeare’s name occurred in those texts, which apparently are independent of each other, if he was not the author. For a review of the textual sources, the reader is first and foremost referred to a recent book by James Shapiro, Contested Will.¹ It is a book with well-balanced arguments for and against the different candidates, who, according to various supporters, aspire to the authorship. The discourse is as objective as can be expected, and it is free from emotional attacks which have been characteristic of the opposing parties in their struggle for supremacy of one candidate over another. After an enlightening analysis of the various candidates’ claims to be the author, Shapiro argues logically and convincingly in favour of Will from Stratford, primarily on the basis of the mentioned textual sources. It is hard not to be carried away by his arguments, and I dare not challenge his main conclusion, yet.

However, things are not always as simple as they appear to be. Maybe the authorship is more complicated. Is it correct to give Shakespeare credit for being the sole author? If there was someone else who created the plot and characters in Hamlet, as well as the site-specific dramatic scenes, would he not be an essential collaborator? In spite of the verdict passed on the above-mentioned basis of textual evidence, there are circumstantial pieces of evidence which make me uneasy as to whether we know the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the authorship. These are, for example, evidence related to the case of Polonius as well as site-specific knowledge in the play about Denmark and Elsinore. This evidence contradicts, at least partially, that William Shakespeare might have been the sole author of Hamlet. We know him to be a prominent shareholder in the Lord Chamberlain’s Men and the King’s Men. The latter succeeded the first-mentioned group. Is it possible that there were more hands on the manuscript(s), all of which are lost? In the same way, as there was a shared ownership of theatres, there may have been a consortium of writers behind the many plays, and that one person in this case and other cases was the ‘responsible’ author, i.e. a person who by agreement with the others represented them in different relations to the theatre, the Master of the Revels and the London Stationers’ Company.

The notion that there might have been more hands and minds behind Shakespeare’s plays is not absent in Shapiro² who refers to Shakespeare, Co-Author by Brian Vickers.³ ‘Brian Vickers, who took delight in mocking editors who had ignored these studies or continued to insist in defiance of the evidence that Shakespeare had worked alone.’ The question of collaborative authorship is in this connection related to later plays such as for example Pericles, Henry the Eighth, the Two Noble Kinsmen, Titus Andronicus, Timon of Athens who probably were co-authored by Wilkins, Fletcher, Peeles, Middleton (in the order mentioned). Shapiro even refers to rare glimpses we get of how playwrights may have cooperated in the Elizabethan and Jacobean era ‘such as [in] Nathan Field’s letter in 1614, pitching a new play to Henslowe, where he writes that Daborne and I have spent a great of time in conference about this plot, which will make as beneficial a play as hath come these seven years’. Shapiro goes on to state that

One of the great challenges, then, to anyone interested in the subject is that we know so little about how dramatists at the time worked together. We just know – primarily from Philip Henslowe’s accounts of theatrical transactions from 1591 to 1604 – that they did, and that in the companies that performed in his playhouses, it was the norm, not the exception. But it is risky to extrapolate too much from that evidence how Shakespeare himself worked. And it seems obvious that collaborations during his early years were significantly different from those after 1605 …

If we accept the challenge, it is not necessary to resort to theories and allegations of conspiracy from one or the other parties in the authorship controversy when investigating and trying to explain the phenomenon of collaborative authorship or division of labour. It remains, however, to be seen if this was a practice around the earlier works we know as Shakespeare’s plays and poems. A closer analysis than mine is necessary, as mine is more of a hypothetical nature built as it is on circumstantial evidence related to someone’s familiarity with Denmark. A renewed analysis of literary style, linguistic markers, sociolinguistic traits, plot and characters, dramatic structure, as well as the social perspective of the plays, to mention a few aspects, have to be called upon.

Vickers thinks that ‘since collaborative authorship was standard practice in Elizabethan and Caroline drama, it would be extremely surprising if Shakespeare had not shared this form of composition.’⁴ He goes on to enlist eight plays where Shakespeare took part in joint authorship (Henry VI, Edward III, The Book of Thomas More, Titus Andronicus, Timon of Athens, Pericles, The Two Noble Kinsmen, and Cardimo [now lost]), all of which are later plays. I shall not try to enlist Vickers as a possible supporter of my theory about a joint authorship of Hamlet. However, it is tempting to play with the idea, knowing that Elizabethan men of letters often shared in composing a play. As there are many ingredients of collaborative and joint ownership, it is my supposition that someone else than Shakespeare contributed to the plot and the portrayal of the characters. Those characters were recognizable to the Elizabethan society. Given the state of the documentary sources, we shall never know for certain who the collaborative authors were or how and why the arrangement was established. Neither is it probable that new evidence will come to the surface after centuries of search through archives, both public and private. So what I offer is a description and interpretation of some peculiar circumstances linked to the character of Polonius