Did Shakespeare Annotate this 16th Century Source for Hamlet?

Did Shakespeare Annotate this 16th Century Source for Hamlet?

by Tony Tambasco

The Guardian recently reported that independent researcher John Casson noted that marginalia in the British Library's copy of François de Belleforest’s Histoires Tragiques, a possible source for Hamlet, are likely to be Shakespeare's own notes, presumably to assist him in writing Hamlet. While an exciting possibility, there are several problems with Casson's reasoning.

"Who else was interested in this text in the late 16th century? There is only one person we absolutely know was interested in it, and that’s Shakespeare. No other person has been shown to definitely have an interest in this text," says Casson. But if we treat his first question as an honest one, the answer could be just about anyone. Casson's presumption is that, since we have a play by William Shakespeare from the 16th century for which a section of Histoires Tragiques may have been a source, no one else in the whole of early modern England (1), let alone the city of London, might have taken an interest in this book. With the path to royal succession in question, since it was clear that that Queen Elizabeth I would not herself have a child, being the foremost political question of the day, hat logic is simply incredible. Since one of the underlined passages that Casson uses to argue his point related directly to the question of succession, we can only stand his above question on it's head: with the fate of the nation at stake, who wouldn't be interested in questions of succession?

Casson also makes the point that these notes must pre-date Shakespeare's Hamlet because the notes make no mention of Shakespeare's play. "there is no mention of the play. If you were annotating after the play, you would put: ‘This was Shakespeare’s Hamlet; he refers to this.’ You wouldn’t be coy," he says. Which carries with it the dangerous presumption that just about anyone in early modern London could be relied upon to know or care about Shakespeare's Hamlet. Hamlet, for us, is one of the great works of Western Civilization, and Shakespeare the greatest dramatist of the same. For early modern Londoners, he was an actor and a writer, more or less equivalent to comic book authors, and certainly far less interesting than any of the wealthy aristocrats who were the real centers of power and fashion. Hamlet might have, at best, enjoyed the sort of response that a movie like Captain America: The Winter Soldier did upon its release, and in all likelihood wouldn't garner special attention from the political class or the traditional guardians of culture in early modern London.

And we also have to admit the possibility that, even if the annotator of this book was familiar with Hamlet, he might not have had it in mind when making these annotations. It is just as likely that a lawyer, having seen a production of a play called Hamlet, written by someone other than Shakespeare and now completely lost to us, was intrigued by the alien idea of king's succeeding to the throne in alternate ways than the English system, and becoming more intrigued by other aspects of the story, made his complete set of notes. This scenario is complete speculation, but it is no less speculative than Casson's.

Casson is an anti-Stratfordian, and believes the true author of Shakespeare's plays was the courtier Sir Henry Neville. That is simply not true, as better researchers than I have continually noted, and as Brian Vickers and John Mullan note in The Guardian article. But if Casson were correct, and Neville was the man behind Hamlet and the other plays, his entire argument might make more sense. Based on extent scenes in French from Shakespeare's plays (most notably Henry V), Shakespeare from Stratford, the actor and playwright, while clearly possessing some proficiency with the French language, probably did not know French well enough to use a book written in French as his primary source for anything, especially when an English translation was published just one year after the book Casson examines.

While Casson's theory is intriguing, it is based on the idea that no one else might have found the ideas in this particular section of Belleforest’s Histoires Tragiques especially noteworthy, and there's little reason to suppose that. Casson likewise assumes that anyone else would have necessarily been reading and noting Shakespeare's sources like a modern secondary school student working on a term paper, and given the status of plays in Shakespeare's London, that's pretty clearly not the case, either. There is simply insufficient grounds to presume that this is Shakespeare's book and the notes in Shakespeare's hand, and there is at least some extant evidence to the contrary.

If you're interested in reading Casson's article in the British Library's journal about his findings, which includes photographs of some of the pages in question, you can find that here: https://www.bl.uk/eblj/2016articles/pdf/ebljarticle72016.pdf. And if you're interested in reading an English translation of Belleforst's Histoires Tragiques that may serve as a source for Hamlet, you can find that here: http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/doc/Belleforest_M/complete/

Endnotes

1. Casson admits that the provenance of the copy of Histoires Tragiques is of an unknown provenance before being added to the British library by King George III.

---

Tony Tambasco is the artistic director of Bad Quarto Productions. 

Trust the Text - Part 1

Special thanks to Saralynn Evenson for the idea behind this post.

I have a theory that the best performances of Shakespeare all start with the acting clues already written into the script by Shakespeare himself. My work on Flewellen and The King of France for Bad Quarto’s 2014 production of Henry the Fift is proof this theory is correct!

Patrick Tucker's research suggests Shakespeare and his actors had busy performance schedules, often doing six or more different shows per week.

Patrick Tucker also suggests Shakespeare's actors never received the full script. This was done to save time writing and to prevent theft of the story.

With only their own lines to work from, the actors had no idea how the scenes would play out until they actually performed it in front of a paying audience. This meant their acting choices had to be bold and deliberate.

How did Shakespeare and his company pull off this impossible task?

SHAKESPEARE AS SHEET MUSIC

Imagine Shakespeare was a composer instead of a playwright, writing symphonies instead of plays.

To write these symphonies Shakespeare selects notes and chords for the proper effect, and indicates when to pause, when to grow louder, and when to speed up. Shakespeare’s musicians would have no problem reading the sheet music because they all speak the common language of music theory and musical notation.

This idea of “Shakespeare as composer” is more accurate than you might believe. Shakespeare used words and grammar like a composer uses notes and measures, creating a notation system with his actors to quickly communicate stage directions and character choices in his scripts.

Does this notation system work? What happens if we defy it?

THE SPEECH OF KINGS

Now you Lords of Orleance,
Of Bourbon, and of Berry,
You see the King of England is not slack,
For he is footed on this land alreadie.

— Scene 5

This is my first piece of dialogue as the King of France. This is what I know:

• The speech is written in verse
• The meter is iambic pentameter
• The first two lines are each only three measures long
• There are four , and one .
• The King references four people by title.

Verse Is Emotional

Language written in verse is more emotionally charged than prose and the character is choosing to speak this way. While speaking in verse suggests the King is fully invested in the invasion from England and has an opinion on the events, the fact that he's still speaking regular iambic pentameter suggest his emotions are still under control.

Short Lines Are Pauses

Short lines in a block of verse indicate a pause for stage business. The pause can be at the start of the line or at the end, but never in the middle. The stage business could be as simple as the King indicating each actor playing the lords. Or it could be used for a slow, methodical walk across the stage. Whatever the reason, it should be a bold, deliberate choice.

Thoughts Are Longer than You Think

The . indicates the end of a thought. The , are small gear shifts within that thought. Even though there are pauses for stage business in the speech, the momentum of the thought must be played through to the end.

Referencing People Means They're on Stage

The King's speech starts with Now you, which is a direct reference to someone in the playing space. This tells me Lord of Orleance, the Lord of Bourbon and the Lord of Berry are most likely on stage with the King during this scene. There may be other people on stage in addition to the three lords, but because the King doesn't reference them he might not know they are there.

The King of England is referenced indirectly, suggesting Henry is elsewhere during this scene.

Titles Reveal Relationship and Status

Addressing a character by name implies familiarity and equal social status. Addressing a character by title is more formal, and implies unequal social status. The King of France is the supreme head of state, and addressing the other characters on stage by their title of Lord suggests the King is still in command of his country.

The King of France references Henry by the title of King of England, suggesting recognition and respect of Henry as a legitimate monarch.

PERFORMING THE ROLE

The clues in this speech suggest the King of France is someone very thoughtful, who takes his time and calculates his every move. The King chooses his words carefully, and recognizes that his decisions about the war with England will decide the fate of his kingdom.

To emphasize the slow, methodical nature of the King, I may choose to move slowly and deliberately while on stage. To highlight the King's superior status, I may choose to remain in one place for the whole scene, forcing the other characters to change position.

LEAP OF FAITH

Whatever my choice as an actor, it must be bold because what I do on stage will influence the other actors' understanding of the scene. The King of France may think he's in command, so all my acting choices must announce this idea. The other characters on stage may disagree, so the actors must make strong choices to announce their disagreement.

Without rehearsal, there's no way of knowing how the scene plays out until its performed in front of the audience. As long as the King fights for what he believes in and the other characters do the same we have conflict, which is at the heart of every great play we love to watch.

Henry V and Shakespeare's Rape Culture

Tom Berger, scholar in residence at the American Shakespeare Center's graduate program at Mary Baldwin College, was fond of reminding us to be careful about applying our post-Enlightenment sensibilities to pre-Enlightenment works, which I have found to be a wise mantra for anyone who performs Shakespeare's plays. Shakespeare's misogyny, in particular, can be appalling, and early modern rape culture is on full display in Henry V, or at least in the Folio version of it.

In versions of Henry V based on the Folio text, audiences are familiar with Henry's threat to the Governor of Harfleur:

If I begin the batt'rie once againe,
I will not leaue the halfe-atchieued Harflew,
Till in her ashes she lye buryed.
The Gates of Mercy shall be all shut vp,
And the flesh'd Souldier, rough and hard of heart,
In libertie of bloody hand, shall raunge
With Conscience wide as Hell, mowing like Grasse
Your fresh faire Virgins, and your flowring Infants. (TLN 1266 - 1273)

The quarto text implies more than it actually says:

if we begin the battery once againe
I will not leaue the halfe atchieued Harflew,
Till in her ashes she be buried,
The gates of mercie are all shut vp.
What say you, will you yeeld and this auoyd,
Or guiltie in defence be thus destroyd? (TLN 1265 - 1270)

Who knows why, but it's not hard to imagine either Burbage, Shakespare, or even the printer not wanting the epitome of Christian Kings threatening to order his men to rape the women and children of the first town in France he conquers.

By the time the play was printed, the gory specifics of Harry's threat were a bridge too far, and though the coarser verse in the quarto text may be a result of cutting and re-assembly, there are also possible performance implications of King Harry, who has previously declared that his passions are restrained by his reason, is uncomfortable with the idea of having to threaten (and follow through) this kind of destruction. Notably, the Folio-text verse, including the lines specifically threatening rape, is much more regular.

That all said, sexual violence was and is a part of war; it's not the part they put on the recruitment posters, and it's the part they want you to forget when they tell you to support the troops, but if the national embarrassment that was Abu Ghraib teaches us nothing else, it's that even female soldiers are not necessarily free from the lure of sexual violence in military conflict. This is all to say that Shakespeare, in the Folio text, may simply be acknowledging the reality of his (and Henry V's) time.

Still, the Folio text, the version regarded as solely the work of Shakespeare's hand, goes further:

     Dolphin. By Faith and Honor,
Our Madames mock at vs, and plainely say,
Our Mettell is bred out, and they will giue
Their bodyes to the Lust of English Youth,
To new-store France with Bastard Warriors.
     Brit. They bid vs to the English Dancing-Schooles,
And teach Lauolta's high, and swift Carranto's,
Saying, our Grace is onely in our Heeles,
And that we are most loftie Run-awayes. (TLN 1406 - 1414)

Rape is here not regarded as a crime of violence against women, it is adultery, and the petty treason of wives conspiring against their husbands is elevated to a higher form. French women are not being raped, they are throwing themselves at their conquerers to breed superior children. In performance, it generally comes off as a joke about the comparative weakness of the French, but Shakespeare is indicting female sexuality in general here.These lines, like Harry's explicit threats to Harfleur (Harflew) cited above, are notably absent in the quarto text.

This, it seems to me, is another great reason for exploring the quartos of Shakespeare's plays. While previous generations of scholars and editors disparaged the quartos as being the products of the play house, and thereby tainted by other hands and minds, they present us with a picture of early modern philosophy that we might rather regard as "less misogynist."

It's worth saying again that we don't know exactly who or why these changes were made to the text, and that we should be careful about applying our own post-Enlightenment philosophies to pre-Enlightenment works. Still, when the quarto texts speak better to our post-Enlightenment sensibilities, Shakespearean companies who ignore them because of the judgments of Victorian minds are passing up the opportunity to give their audiences a Shakespeare that, among other things, is more inclusive and accessible to the modern world.