Recent Discoveries

By “recent, I mean anything I happened to learn or think of that is relevant to the paper — either about Hamlet or Measure for Measure, or simply Shakespeare. In no particular order, here is a list:

Confirmation that Juan de Mariana’s views on debasement were published at the latest in 1592, in his History of Spain. See Juan de Mariana Page, which quotes Eric Graf
Realization that Shakespeare served as a Groom of the Chamber to the Spanish Delegation (I learned this AFTER the on-line debate, but before final publication of the paper, so it made it into the paper)
Connection between Shakespeare, Mariana, and Cervantes through Pedro Mantuan; in particular Eric Graf’s contention that Cervantes was influenced by Mariana, and the fact that Cervantes included Mantuan in two places in Journey to Parnassus (see email reproduced below).
Passing references to picture in little as coins in various places including:
1. Frank Marshall, A Study of Hamlet (1875) (“‘It is not very strange ; for my uncle is King of Denmark , and those that would make mows at him while my father lived , give twenty, forty , fifty , a hundred ducats a-piece, for his picture in little’ has puzzled me much, and I have often been tempted to think that the right sense of it has been missed, and that what Hamlet really means is that now his uncle is King of Denmark the people give ‘twenty, forty, fifty , a hundred ducats a – piece’ for his picture on gold coins. If the sums named could be proved to be of the same value as of coins current at the time, I should be bold enough to advance this theory : at present I only offer it as a conjecture.”)
2. EK Chamber’s Arden edition of Hamlet, 1895, p. 148 (“383. his picture in little . Does this mean a miniature, or his picture on a coin?”)
3. Cay Dollerup, Denmark, Hamlet, and Shakespeare: A Study of Englishmen’s Knowledge of Denmark Towards the End of the Sixteenth Century with Special Reference to Hamlet, Volume 1 (Edwin Mellen Press, 1975), p. 140 (“It is most clearly a Danish coin in Hamlet’s speech ‘It is not very strange , for my uncle is king of Denmark , and those that would make mows at him while my father lived , give twenty , forty , fifty , a hundred ducats apiece for his picture in little.'”).
4. Scott Cutler Shershow, Laughing Matters: The Paradox of Comedy (1986), p. 69 (“‘. . . .make mouths at him while my father liv’d, give twenty, forty, fifty, a hundred ducats a-piece for his picture in little. . . .’ As the face on the coin may be worth more than the face on the man , so the “ aery of children ” has turned the heads of the adult world”).
The similarity of the names Ann Hathaway and Kate Keepdown. The paper noted that Lucio has been seen as representing Shakespeare, and that like Shakespeare, Lucio had been forced to marry a woman he had gotten pregnant. Thus, Shakespeare could have been pointing out that if Measure for Measure seemed impertinent (like Lucio’s whole character), he had already been punished for his impertinence. I later realized the additional point that Hathaway and Keepdown mean virtually the same thing — each begins with a verb (“keep” or “have”) meaning approximately the same thing, and ends with a preposition (“down” or “away”) which likewise have similar meanings. See Shaksper post here.
19th Century use of the “mildew’d ear, blasting his elder brother” as a metaphor for coinage debasement (see email below, which also has other points of interest).

And here’s an off-line exchange I had in 2019 with a fellow Shakespeare enthusiast, who was nice enough to read my paper and provide feedback.

Re: The Basement Hamlet

Hi ___ — I’ve reproduced your email below and respond in bold to the various points and questions, in some cases with illustrations. Hopefully your email program will reproduce this reasonably faithfully, including the pictures. I hope in this somewhat over-filled response I’m not wearing out my welcome!

Tom, I had written my comments to Hardy before emailing you, so I sent it off anyway. Thanks for the pdf. I had tried to get the article by copying both addresses, not noticing there were two.

I’ve not not read the MM part yet. Your “debasement” theme in Hamlet is very convincing. I’ve always been impressed with overlooked wordplay that jumps out once we catch on (e.g., Hamlet responds to the Gravedigger’s flatulence with double-talk because the clown didn’t allow double-talk). But first we have to catch on, which I didn’t on coining.

Thanks for your open-mindedness Jerry — a nice contrast with some of the Shaksper crowd. But you lost me with the Gravedigger’s flatulence – I just reread that scene and still don’t get it. What am I missing?

My assumption is that Shakespeare didn’t fall to wordplay accidentally; all is on purpose—if overdone (by the punny affliction). One may carry any conviction to unfortunate extremes, but Hamlet lives on wordplay; in this case you are right.

Somewhere I’ve read and credited that ‘the beaten way of friendship’ refers to beaten gold but I don’t recall where I read it (2.2.270). The R&G friendship was certainly debased and Hamlet speaks to them only in riddles.

I haven’t seen this, and just tried searching and could find it. So if you are able to remember a bit more of where you saw it I’d be grateful.

Yes, the origins of Q1 are a big black box, but it can be productive to consider the substance of the differences between Q1 and Q2/F in order to gain insight into those origins. That’s essentially what Terry Bourus did – she saw several ways in which she thought Q1 was closer to Belleforest (including a younger and more active Hamlet), and concluded that Q1 was therefore closer in time to Belleforest, and thus an early draft. That would not be entirely implausible, if the evidence were stronger. Arguing on Bourus’s own turf, I point out that all of the changes that Bourus notes – plus many others that she doesn’t – point in the direction of a play that has been edited to avoid offending King James (removing the parallels between his family background and Hamlet’s, making the Queen more sympathetic, removing favorable references to pirates and unfavorable references to Poles, and of course, removing references to debasement). Given the extra scene with Horatio in which the Queen is portrayed favorably, it does seem clear to me that whatever Q1 is a reconstruction of, it is not strictly Q2 or F. And so we can assume that there was another version, edited – by who knows whom – to take into account the new and possibly scary fact that King James was now the company’s patron. I don’t disagree that the somewhat hidden references to debasement might or might not have been caught by a reconstructor; I’m just saying that there could be a reason they were not in the version of the play that was being reconstructed to begin with.

But of course it’s just a theory, and it’s always hard to evaluate whether a pattern is really there or if it’s all the result of coincidence. My sense of Shaksper is that most of the contributors think that their theories are right, but that everyone else’s theories mistake coincidences for patterns. It is refreshing to hear from someone like you, who is willing to take a fresh look at things.

As centuries have not yielded it all up, one needn’t condemn the “reconstructors” as dummies; but they were surely not coached by the author or explicit stage directions—at any ‘stage’ of the play.

I don’t completely understand what you are getting at here. Maybe the disconnect is that my theory is that the reconstructors’ starting point was a play that had already been edited (perhaps by Shakespeare, perhaps by someone else entirely) with the concern that King James would see, read, or hear of it. (BTW I readily acknowledge that aspects of my MM theory could suggest that by 1604, the King’s Men were no longer so concerned about what King James would think).

Do you have references for ‘body’ and ‘ears’ as coining terms? Speaking of ‘body’; my own memory is always so faulty that I must refer directly to text to keep matters straight. Yesterday I wondered if ‘coinage of your brain’ might actually be meant to be spoken by Hamlet. At a glance, I stand corrected.

But on second glance, the dialogue seems corrupt—not that I’ve figured it out. Q2 reads:

Ger. This is the very coynage of your braine,

This bodilesse creation extacie is very cunning in.

Ham. My pulse as yours . . .

The phrase, ‘is very cunning in’ doesn’t make sense to me (even if his mom is cut off); ‘very cunning’ could be a first crack at reading ‘very coinage’; and This, repeated, could have caused both eyeskip omission and miscorrection. Her second line is too long and may indicate proofing.

One would expect ‘coinage’ to be Hamlet’s word, debasement-wise; Her first line could possibly belong to him. However, I can’t say how, and probably not.

For ears, the article makes the following point:

In naming the usurping issuer of debased coins “Claudius” and referring to coins as “ears,” Shakespeare may have been recalling the Roman Emperor Claudius’s reconquest of Britain from Cunobelin (Shakespeare’s model for Cymbeline). The coinage of both rulers featured ears of grain,49 but whereas Cunobelin’s coinage was pure, Claudius’s supplanting coinage was—to Shakespeare’s eyes—debased.

49 See Graham Webster, Boudica: The British Revolt Against Rome, AD 60 (New York: Routledge 2d ed. 2000), 44; C.H.V. Sutherland, Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy: 31 B.C.–A.D. 68 (London: Methuen 1951), 132–33.

Since grain is associated with commerce, it has always been common to find it on coins. Of course, U.S. pennies had ears of wheat on them until 1959:

Google Books did not exist at the time I wrote my article, but every time I go into it, I find something that seems supportive of something I’ve said. Your question about “ears” prompted me to search “mildewed ear coin” in google books, and the following two passages turned up:

From John M. Gordon, Southern Rights and Northern Wrongs: An Allegory (1870):

From John Torrey Morse (Jr.), ‎Henry Cabot Lodge, ‎Robert Percival Porter, in The International Review – Volume 5 – pp. 834-835 (1878):

It is not clear whether any of the authors here thought the lines they were quoting were intended to evoke coinage debasement, but it’s telling that they all used it as an apt metaphor for debasement, with or without that realization. Back in the nineteenth century, when people were more concerned about debasement — as in Shakespeare’s day — the metaphor would have been that much more apparent.

On body, I assume you are referring to this passage from the article:

Hamlet returns to the debasement theme in a later conversation with Rosencrantz and Guildernstern. As already mentioned, when Hamlet tells Rosencrantz that like a sponge, he “soaks up the King’s countenance” (4.3.14), Hamlet is telling the dynamic duo that he knows they are in the King’s pay. A few lines later, the following exchange occurs: Ros. My Lord, you must tell us where the body is, and go with us to the King. Ham. The body is with the King, but the King is not with the body. The King is a thing— Guil. A thing, my lord? Ham. Of nothing. Bring me to him. (4.2.13–29). Harold Jenkins posits that Hamlet’s statement that “[t]he body is with the King, but the King is not with the body” may be a joke about the fact that Polonius is in the castle—that is, “with the King”—but that the King is not with Polonius, since the King is not dead.74 Others have simply dismissed the remark as nonsense.75 But Hamlet’s remark can be taken as yet another reference to debasement, especially coming as it does on the heels of his comment about the King’s “countenance.” Thus, in “[t]he body is with the King,” “body” refers to the substance of the coinage—its precious metal content—which has been taken out of the coin, and is now with the King. Likewise, “the King is not with the body” refers to the fact that the King’s face now adorns debased coinage that does not contain the “body” (i.e. precious metal). Finally “[t]he King is a thing . . . [o]f nothing,” means that both the King and his coin are of no substance—debased.

I found a book that suggests that John Donne in Metempsychosis (1601) and elsewhere had equated body with coins and debasement, so perhaps that’s something (note also the equation of “picture” with coin):

To be honest, I’ve always felt this particular point was a bit of a stretch on my part, but if “body” in “The body is with the King, but the King is not with the body” is a reference to coins here, then it certainly could be that “bodiless creation” had something to do with coins too. I agree with you that something must have gone wrong with the “cunning in” line. For what it’s worth I note that cuneus is the Latin root word for coin, but I can’t really see how that gets us anywhere.

Your question did prompt me to see if “king’s countenance” had been interpreted as coins before (when I first proposed it, I had found no examples). And I was surprised and pleased to find that the 1971 edition of Cliff’s Notes for Hamlet makes the same point about “king’s countenance” being a reference to coins:

I should also note that after publication of my article, I learned from Google Books that others had suggested that “picture in little” might refer to coins too, most prominently Frank Marshall, a 19^th century Shakespeare scholar. But in general, that interpretation seems to have been overlooked or ignored.

Other post-publication points that have occurred to me is that “adulterate” in the ghost’s “Ay, that incestuous, that adulterate beast” could be an echo of Claudius’s penchant for adulterating the coinage (and could exonerate Gertrude from accusations of adultery based on this passage), and also that “hyperion’s curls” might have been a reference to something Shakespeare had seen on a coin:

(see entry for Hyperion’s curls directly below. While the coin above is an image of Helios, confusion between Helios and Hyperion (his father) was common, as indicated in the excerpt from Shakespeare’s pictures)

I run from all the “problem plays” until they catch up to me. Often, they aren’t so difficult after all. I’ll be interested in your MM observations. Your topic is far from talked out; it’s too bad most of Hardy’s group isn’t up to the effort. On the other hand, it’s hard to keep up.

The one thing I’ll mention right now about the MM part is that some of my critics on Shaksper seemed to think that I was not entitled to argue that “Mariana” could represent Juan de Mariana, on the basis that Mariana’s treatise on debasement did not come out until 1605, and thus his views could not have been known by Shakespeare. As I explained to them, I never saw that as a problem – if the other evidence for Mariana as Juan de Mariana is persuasive, then that just means that Shakespeare must have known of Mariana’s views. In the meantime, as my “hypothesis” might have predicted, I’ve learned that Mariana did in fact express concerns about debasement in his history of Spain, first published in 1592. See Eric C. Graf’s “Juan de Mariana and the Modern American Politics of Money: Salamanca, Cervantes, Jefferson, and the Austrian School” https://mises.org/library/juan-de-mariana-and-modern-american-politics-money-salamanca-cervantes-jefferson-and

The other thing that I would love to develop more — but have never had the time — is the connection between Shakespeare and Cervantes. Not only did Shakespeare borrow Cardenio from Cervantes (or could it have been the other way around?), but as noted in the article, Shakespeare may well have encountered Pedro Mantuan at the Somerset Peace conference. When I wrote the article, I knew that Mantuan had written a treatise critical of Mariana — and thus might have been Shakespeare’s source of information about Mariana — but subsequently I learned that Mantuan is named twice in Cervantes’s Journey to Parnassus:

I turn me round and MANTUANO see,

Whose patron is VELASCO the renowned,

No worthier Maecenas could there be;

The names of these two worthies yet shall sound

Throughout their own, and foreign lands to boot,

Phoebus hath willed it, so it shall be found.

…

And as the difference begins to show

Betwixt the boastful champions and the brave,

The pleasure grows with each descending blow;

O PEDRO MANTUANO, wise and grave,

‘Twas thou who, out of these conflicting views,

Didst separate the true man from the knave!

Admittedly that could be a dead end, but I’ve always thought the possible Spanish connection to Shakespeare has been under-explored.

I’ll get back to you and Shaksper about your article, perhaps next week. You did a good job. Jerry

Thanks Jerry – again, I appreciate the kind words, and the chance to bat things around with you.

Tom
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 2:33 AM _____ wrote:

Tom, I had written my comments to Hardy before emailing you, so I sent it off anyway. Thanks for the pdf. I had tried to get the article by copying both addresses, not noticing there were two.

I’ve not not read the MM part yet. Your “debasement” theme in Hamlet is very convincing. I’ve always been impressed with overlooked wordplay that jumps out once we catch on (e.g., Hamlet responds to the Gravedigger’s flatulence with double-talk because the clown didn’t allow double-talk). But first we have to catch on, which I didn’t on coining.

My assumption is that Shakespeare didn’t fall to wordplay accidentally; all is on purpose—if overdone (by the punny affliction). One may carry any conviction to unfortunate extremes, but Hamlet lives on wordplay; in this case you are right.

Somewhere I’ve read and credited that ‘the beaten way of friendship’ refers to beaten gold but I don’t recall where I read it (2.2.270). The R&G friendship was certainly debased and Hamlet speaks to them only in riddles.

I am too skeptical of Q1 origins to be easily convinced that the players involved would alter the theme on James’s account. I have taken them (whoever they were) to have understood virtually none of the wordplay (just as Hamlet would expect of all but Horatio). As centuries have not yielded it all up, one needn’t condemn the “reconstructors” as dummies; but they were surely not coached by the author or explicit stage directions—at any ‘stage’ of the play.

But on second glance, the dialogue seems corrupt—not that I’ve figured it out. Q2 reads:

Ger. This is the very coynage of your braine,

This bodilesse creation extacie is very cunning in.

Ham. My pulse as yours . . .

The phrase, ‘is very cunning in’ doesn’t make sense to me (even if his mom is cut off); ‘very cunning’ could be a first crack at reading ‘very coinage’; and This, repeated, could have caused both eyeskip omission and miscorrection. Her second line is too long and may indicate proofing.

One would expect ‘coinage’ to be Hamlet’s word, debasement-wise; Her first line could possibly belong to him. However, I can’t say how, and probably not.

I’ll get back to you and Shaksper about your article, perhaps next week. You did a good job. Jerry

Thomas Krause <tkrause637@gmail.com>	Oct 12, 2019, 6:33 PM
to ___