The Chronicle Mirror
Shakespeare's (Edward de Vere's) models for his characters
Geoffrey Hamilton
November 26, 1996
How does Shakespeare build his characters? It turns out by modeling them on people
he knew. The dramatic techniques, of foil, rhetoric, structure, and
action all make more sense once the historical models are discovered and outlined. As
you will see Hotspur is made Hal's foil for contemporary reasons,
Polonius' rhetoric is meant to ridicule a famous personage, and even
plot structures are biographical and mimic contemporary events.
The play Hamlet is often used as an authoritative text to
study the nature of art and of drama in particular. The character
Hamlet has two famous passages touching on drama. The first
states, "The players. . . are the abstracts and brief chronicles
of the time". The other gives
a complementary purpose, ". . . to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to
nature; to show virtue her own feature, scorn her own image . . . ."
If the question as to how Shakespeare built his characters
is going to be addressed, I think it is fair to use these two precepts
as his artistic foundation. What the precepts suggest is the
possibility that actual people and events are chronicled and mirrored
within some aspects of the plays. I will show that such was the case.
By using his contemporaries as models he engender a humanity
onto his sources.
To demonstrate the wide recognition precepts similar to
Shakespeare's were held in his own age, there is the famous
circumstance surrounding the rebellion of Essex and Shakespeare's
friend, Southhampton. These two Earls believed that staging the
play Richard II would demonstrate these precepts so well
that it would help overthrow the Queen. During their trial it was
stated that the reason why they had it performed was to awaken the
London populous against the Queen. Elizabeth responded to this aspect
of the coup attempt by saying, "I am Richard the Second; know ye not that?"
This circumstance shows how easily parallels were
drawn between stage characters and important personages in the period.
However, whereas in this case the parallel is incidental, in many
of Shakespeare's plays the parallels are intentional and serve both as a
model for the writer, and as a model for the audience to help them imagine the
characters more fully.
There are at least five
sources Shakespeare drew from: history, the classics, contemporary works, folk tales and,
most importantly, contemporary life. Why most importantly? Because
despite his genius, Shakespeare demonstrates a common propensity to
use 'mechanicals' (as Puck calls them). This is done for the simple
reason, outlined by screenwriter Robert Benton, who said, "Unless I'm
careful I will find myself writing characters that are general rather
than specific. That is, they never rise above the needs of the
plot....." Drawing characters and stories from general
sources heightens the danger of them remaining abstractions.
A writer gets around this problem with a simple and common solution.
As Benton says, "What I try to do most often is find somebody
that I know, or have known, as a model for my character. If you
take somebody that you know fairly well, you're bound to have
certain insights into them". Several plays by 'Shakespeare' demonstrate
how drawing from life has served to make the prefabricated "abstracts"
consist of a more rounded nature.
There are many examples. Regarding the history plays,
Henrys IV and V, several anachronistic additions were made to the
first version, The Famous Victories of Henry V , and to the
three later Folio versions, and these offer clues as to whom may have
been the models.
In the first version a slew of contemporary (Shakespeare's)
Earls were flattered as name-sakes in the service of the historic
Henry IV, including the 1585 Ninth Northumberland, Henry Percy. The
second versions of the story were written after this contemporary
Percy's father; the previous Northumberland, died a traitor and
Percy himself was suspected of treason. Given how Hotspur is made
decades younger then he was historically, and in line with the
contemporary Percy, the seemingly coerced foiling of Hal and Hotspur
can be explained as convenient and dramatically advantageous. Hotspur's treason
therefore is given the illumination of a man in Shakespeare's day.
The Boar's Head Tavern in Eastcheap is well known to have
existed only within the author's period, but what is little
realized is the currency of the robbery to the time of the play's
authorship. An incident of 1573 reflects the same basic circumstances
and also accounts for the fabrications within the many versions
of the play. While a robbery is accorded to Prince Hal,
the fabricated location and date are nearly identical with a 1573
robbery. It was during the fourteenth year of the Queen's reign on
May 21st that Lord Oxford, considered a prince of the realm, and
three of his men were reported to have robbed the Lord Treasurer's
gold at Gad's Hill. Exchange Henry IV for Elizabeth, Hal for
Oxford, and may 20 for may 21, (the date is most likely a disagreement)
and it is the same event as fabricated for the plays. Finally there
was no fourteenth year in Henry IV's reign, a further anachronism
pointing to Elizabeth's era .
Incidentally in the Famous Victories it is Oxford
who is flattered the most out of the contemporary nobles listed
by the inclusion of his ancestor in the un-historic role of savior
to Henry IV. As Elizabeth's Oxford was a famous martial spirit who
was noted by that same Lord Treasurer for his lewd friends and
tavern nights, his exploits are like Hal's and could well have
served as the whole model to round out Hal's character.
While the story of the The Merchant of Venice seems
to come from a 1579 play called The Jew , the illumination
of this play's characters is once again possible by the insights
of contemporary events.
In 1577 Martin Frobisher proposed a
north-west expedition to look for gold on Baffin Island, all the notables
of the period contributed money. Oxford again figures in this tale, as
it was he who staked the largest investment, 3000 pounds. The source of
his stake was a Jewish banker named Lok. When the expedition failed Lok
was accused by Frobisher of cheating Oxford by knowing in advance how
the expedition would turn out. Lok lost his 3000 loan to Oxford and
was thrown into Fleet Prison . The 'shyster' Lok became Shylock, London
became Venice, the pounds ducats, and Oxford became Antonio. Given the
great scandal the incident caused, it most likely served the purpose of
offering insight into the various characters concerned.
The play Hamlet is not only the longest of
Shakespeare's plays it is the most famous -- most likely for it's
great portrayal of character. Although it is based on a 12th century
Latin history of Amleth of Denmark, the play dramatizes important
personages of the Elizabethan age, and none is more clearly
characterized than William Cecil, the Lord Treasurer, mentioned
formerly in relation to Oxford/Hal's highway robbery.
For nearly half a century William Cecil was the most
powerful minister at court. He went from commoner to Baron in
his lifetime and became one of the richest men in England. He is
widely seen as the model for Polonius, but how far that jibe went
is rarely noticed. Cecil, in his lifetime, was called Pondus and
Polus, after the pole by which the heavens rotated. In the first
quarto of Hamlet Polonius is called Corambis which
is Latin for two-hearted; Cecil's actual motto was Latin for "one
heart, one way". Such an insult forced the change to 'Polonius' by
the time of the second quarto.
The most frequently used proof that Polonius is Polus is the
character mimicry in Hamlet . The long winded Polonius and
his 'lack of art' is offered and it mirror's Cecil's writing
perfectly -- but on the less windy side of ridicule.
Here is a small sample of Polus' writing, "But your
Majesty may think my suit will be very long where I am so long
ere I begin it; and truly, most gracious sovereign lady, it is
true that the nature of my cause is such as I have no pleasure
to enter into it, but rather seek means to shut it up for them
to lay it open, not for lack of the soundness thereof on my part,
but for the wickedness of others . . . ." This typifies his writing
and it makes a rich source of insights into Polonius' character.
But there is much more ridicule that finds its way
into Hamlet . Charlton Ogburn point's out the other tie-ins.
Hamlet calls Polonius a fishmonger as it was Cecil who passed a
bill in Parliament to make Wednesdays as well as Fridays meatless;
this in order to promote the fisheries. It was called 'Cecil's Fast'.
Hamlet describes the dead Polonius as at a convocation of
politic worms. The passage ridicules Polus' frequent reference to
being born during the Diet of Worms where Luther defended his
doctrines.
The famous precepts which Polonius gives to his son Laertes
are parallel to those Cecil published for own son Robert and also
told to his wards of court -- Oxford being chief amongst those wards.
So it is to Oxford that I turn again.
Oxford as the model for Hamlet is far from the conventional
understanding of the character, unlike Cecil for Polonius. However
the relationship Hamlet has is very similar to that which Oxford
bore and he could very well have offered the depth which is found
in Hamlet's characterization. A reading of the play in it's entirety
is the only way to prove it, as, it is the relationships between the
characters that demonstrates how deeply the parallels go; and it is
where the play differs from the Latin Amleth where this is clearest,
so each of these parallels is at variance to Amleth.
Oxford was not only acquainted with Polus, he was a
ward and, later, a son-in-law at twenty-two: this by his marriage
to Polus' fourteen year old daughter Anne. Anne, like Ophelia, was
always under Polus' control, she was considered very diminutive and
intelligent and Anne was mistreated by Oxford, in a manner similar
to Ophilia by Hamlet. This was so until her death when Oxford made
his regrets known. The mistreatment of Anne by Oxford is referred
to by Mary Queen of Scots in a letter to Elizabeth.
Claudius parallels Earl of Leicester. It's true Leicester
could never marry the Queen as he was believed to have poisoned an
earlier wife for the opportunity. However Leicester acted much
like a co-regent for twenty years. Leicester took over most of
Oxford's lands as his own and was suspected of murdering Oxford's
father-like mentor Sussex. Oxford and Leicester where constant and
deadly enemies. Oxford was of high rank and might have married
Elizabeth after Leicester's death if she had felt that she could
have controlled him, and if he had not been close to so many
'lewd friends', as Polus called them. She called Oxford her Turk,
while others (Gabriel Harvey) called him that singularly odd man.
Gertrude is both Elizabeth and Oxford's mother. Gertrude
married within two months and so did Oxford's mother. Elizabeth
frustrated Oxford's ambition to be co-regent and to name their son
as heir. Gertrude serves similar frustrated desserts to Hamlet
by supporting Claudius as the new king. Other models are found in
Polus' two sons robert and thomas for Laertes, in Oxford's cousin
Horace for Horatio, and in many others.
As the flattery of Famous Victories towards
Oxford extends into Henry VI Pt.3 and Richard III it
has been assumed that Shakespeare knew Oxford well and was patronized
by him. Presumably, he knew Oxford well enough to know his life and
how to use it as a model for Hamlet.
It might be argued that the mixing of two characters into
one skews the parallels, as with Gertrude being paralleled to both
Elizabeth and Oxford's mother. However, this is also a common
practice with writers. Robert Benton says, "I use people over and
over -- using different aspects of them". This experience of
writers is common practice.
But to continue with the parallels, it is Hamlet who very
much resembles the model which Oxford supplies. In addition to the
examples supplied above there are these. Like Hamlet, Oxford had
to contend with Polus' spies. He even killed someone who was most
likely a spy, as in the 'rat' scene. He contended with such spies
all his life. Like Hamlet he was captured by pirates, but not once,
but twice.
In reference to the North-West expeditions, Oxford too
was also, "...mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly..."
he knew a hawk from a handsaw . Even the famous soliloquy, "To be
or not to be..." is remodeled from a book which Oxford was
instrumental in bringing into print. Cardanus Comforte was
translated for and discovered by Oxford, 'commanded' into print and
paid for, and he also added a supporting preface of his own. To pin
down the reference from another angle, the book asked of by Polonius,
the one referred to by Hamlet as written by a satirical rogue, is
Cardanus Comforte again. This is demonstrated by the play's
reference to a passage called "Old men's company unpleasant". Oxford,
like Hamlet, patronized the players and had several companies of
player and various theatres of his own, and he was quite capable
of setting down some lines: he was called the best for comedy by
Meres in 1598. Such was the model which Oxford and others represented
to Shakespeare for the play Hamlet . With such models
rich opportunities for discovering insights would have been available.
With this overwhelming proof, and more in reserve, it seems
likely that Shakespeare used models which his age afforded and he
grafted them on to the bare bones of other's stories. This is how
Shakespeare built characters. Given this, it is not surprising that
the specifics of these actual people offered insightful material for
the bringing to life of the characters, their rhetoric and their
actions. Possibly this is the reason why today they remain some of
Shakespeare's, and the world's, most famous and compelling characters.
GRH
back
