Dear Albert,
Though I
had been planning for some time to return to the Ignoto project, I was
galvanized into getting materials together by the recent postings by R. Hess of
the work by Charles Willis—and Hess’ recent announcement that the issue of the
author of AEP was now settled in favor of George Puttenham. Is it really so?
From remarks made by Hess it is apparent to me that he, once again, knows
little of the subject of which he speaks. The question is: Is C. Willis correct
in his 5 year research project that concluded George (not his brother Richard
as was formerly thought) Puttenham was the true author and the identity behind
Sir John Harington’s disclosure in 1591 that “Ignoto” wrote AEP? Of course, the
issue is crucial to my work (dedicated to you) “Ignoto, the Complete Poems,
etc.” as I include in it the poetry taken from AEP. So, I must either
significantly amend my work or make my argument taking into consideration
recent writings on the subject.
An Issue of Coincidences? Credits Where Credits Are Due "Ignoto"
I came to
my conclusion that “the same Ignoto” (as Sir John Harington phrases it) who
wrote AEP was indeed the same Ignoto that I have identified as Lord Oxford—who,
I contend, wrote all, not just some, of the Ignoto poems. I am now making a new
review of my old conclusions. As you know, and as we discussed in our
correspondence, an in-depth examination of the issue of “Ignoto” is a subject
long avoided by the scholars. Looney, for one, was under the impression that
there was a “group” of Oxfordians who wrote under the name of “Ignoto.” And, because of this view, he stated that
some of the poems bearing the name Ignoto were of inferior quality to others,
and hence by different authors. You aptly remarked in an email to me (Aug.,
2001) that apparently Looney thought that all of the Ignoto poems had to be of
the “same quality” to qualify as an Oxford-Ignoto poem. To my knowledge, the
brief footnotes of Looney constitute the most extended commentary on the
subject of the “multiple” Ignotos. And his was only a passing remark. Bond
argues in his seminal work on Lyly that it was Lyly who was the identity behind
the Ignoto sobriquet who signed his name “Infelice Academico Ignoto”—the author
of the Queen’s Funeral poem and oration. (A work of mine that was, and is,
completely avoided by Oxfordians who received copies of my essay claiming that
Oxford was the author of said works). So far as I know, no one has undertaken a
serious examination of the question “Who was Ignoto?” Was Ignoto a sobriquet of
a band of poets, as Looney thought, or was he a single individual? And, if he
was either a group or an individual, when did they (or he/she) first adopt the
name?
The
closest thing that comes to a credible examination of the subject of Ignoto,
that I know of, is that by W.J. Frazer Hutcheson (1950)—a copy of whose work on
the subject you supplied to me circa August, 2001. Though Hutcheson’s work is
entitled, Shakespeare’s Other Anne,
it could more appropriately have been entitled, Shakespeare’s Other Anne: Ignoto, as most of the chapters in the
small book deal with the subject of Ignoto. Indeed, Hutcheson, throughout the
book, plenteously and routinely substitutes the name “Ignoto” as a synonym for
“Anne.” The names of most of the
chapters make the point (e.g. Ignoto; Ignoto’s Portrait; Ignoto And “The Faerie
Queen;” Ignoto In Anthologies; Ignoto As Axiophilus). Nonetheless, Hutcheson,
in fact, merely touches on the subject of Ignoto and the chapter titles
actually seem to promise much more than they deliver. As Hutcheson supplies
very few references for his use of source material, if the reader is not
thoroughly grounded in the available documents to which he refers, and has
independent knowledge of them, there is no way to assess the value of his
comments or from whence they emanate.
Hutcheson
himself, in his preface, describes his book as a “really swift and shallow skim
over Elizabethan literature. . .” And, indeed, it is so. But, he also notes in
the same preface, that “The portraits of Ignoto or A.W. are particularly
valuable as Shakespearean items.” And that, too, is true—although he only makes
a weak attempt, if that, to explicate the “Shakespearean items” to which he refers.
It must be borne in mind Hutcheson does not equate “Ignoto” with
“Shakespeare”—they are separate entities in his mind. Moreover, Hutchenson
doesn’t refer to any critical works, nor does he deal with any scholars in the
field (with but few exceptions). What Hutcheson does do, nonetheless, is to
make numerous associations with Ignoto and various Elizabethan works attributed
to Ignoto. So, although he makes little or no attempt to justify his
identifications (and generally, as said, supplies no references for his
sources), he makes a number of correlations which I independently arrived at.
Given the fact that Hutcheson made his correlations (whether substantiated or
not) some 50 years before I arrived at my own, Hutcheson deserves credit for
his labors—even if they were a “swift and shallow skim”—and his insights across
a wide range of subjects.
Before I
deal with some of his more notable discoveries and insights it needs be stated
that Hutcheson believes that “Ignoto” was, in fact, a lady, a lady who became
a nun and who almost married William Shagsper in 1582. (Interestingly he has a
document which appears to confirm this). To maintain the view that the gender
of Ignoto was female Hutcheson routinely disregards all the masculine pronouns
applied to Ignoto and, throughout, refers to Ignoto in the feminine gender. So,
although Hutcheson believed Ignoto was a masculine sobriquet adopted by Anne
Whateley to conceal her identity what is most interesting about Hutcheson’s
book is the linkages he routinely makes between the works ascribed to “Ignoto”
and other literary works and authors of the times. We glean what is valuable in
Hutcheson, in my opinion, by disregarding the issue of Anne Whateley and
focusing on her alleged alter ego,
Ignoto. Hutcheson begins his book with this remark: “Who was the mysterious
author who lived in the Elizabethan period, from 1561 to 1600, wrote all kinds
of poetical pieces and usually signed them Ignoto,
‘Unknown’ in Italian?”
When we turn to examine the dates of the life
of this Ignoto we find that Hutcheson has fetched the dates “1561 to 1600”
from presumed dates of the birth and death of Anne Whateley, not dates
applicable to Ignoto, as Ignoto, i.e., the literary entity. The “birthdate” of
“Ignoto” so far as we know was 1589/1590, the date of the first known poem
signed Ignoto contained in the dedicatory poems published with Spenser’s The Faery Queen. The death of “Ignoto,”
the literary alter ego, we hold to be 1603, the date of Queen Elizabeth’s
Funeral Oration and Poem—despite the fact that numerous poems attributed to
Ignoto were published post-1603. But, more of such matters later. Below is a
series of points that coincide, in great measure, with my own reconstructions,
identifications, and speculations:
1.
Hutcheson refers to “Ignoto’s tome ‘The Arte of English Poesie” (pg. 23) and
hence establishes the identification of Ignoto as the rightful author of AEP.
3. Hutcheson identifies other poems in APR as
by Ignoto under the names of A.W., Anomos, Incerto. “in Davison’s priceless
holograph list the lot are assigned to A.W.” (pg. 28, 73).
4. Hutcheson identifies the poem “Ye ghastly
groves. . .” as written by A.W./Ignoto, not Davison himself: “Davison had his
list, which we assume he wrote out for himself and thus he should have known if
any poems therein were his own composition of A.W.’s but he mentions one that
commences with ‘Ye ghastly groves, that hear my woeful cries’ as by A.W., yet he
prints it and signs it with his own name Francis Davison. It looks like a clear
case of piracy.” (pg. 29). (I included this very poem in my Lord Oxford
Trilogy, for the same reason that Hutcheson gives).
5. Hutcheson identifies the poem Partheniades
as by Ignoto and AEP as “one of her Ignoto publications.” (pg. 30). The
“Partheniades” was, of course, mentioned in AEP as by the author, you sent me a
copy of this work and it is incorporated in Ignoto,
the Complete Poems.
I was
unaware of this fact, that Poems in divers humors contains a six line poem to
Shakespeare ending with the above quoted couplet. Which to me “almost spells my
name” with use of the odd phrase, “Live ever you” and “in Fame liver ever.”
This indicates to me that Barfield probably knew Oxford
He also
notes that one poem in the collection has an ‘An Ode’ commencing: ‘As it fell
upon a day’ and he observes that this same poem is found in England’s Helicon where it is signed by
“Ignoto.” He also notes that there is a poem in EH entitled ‘The Unknown
Shepherd's Complaint,; “by Ignoto and that it is followed by yet another by
Ignoto, ‘Another of the same Shepherd's’ (pg. 65-66).
8. Hutcheson notes the “Shakespearean ring” to
an Ignoto [A.W.] poem in APR (Eternal Time! That wastest without waste. . .”
(pg. 72). Here and elsewhere in his book, Hutcheson notes the similarities
between the writings of his Ignoto and Shakespeare!
9. Hutcheson notes that the poem “Ye walls that
shut me up from sight of men. ..” that appeared in APR without a title was
given a title “The Passionate Prisoner” in a subsequent publication (pg. 74).
In my commentary on In Prison Pent I believe I make this same point. In any case, I was aware of it.
Thy
dearest name, which doth me still betray:
For grace,
sweet Grace, thy name doth sound,Yet ah! In thee no grace is found. . .
[Check
this out! H. says that “Anne” means “grace”]. There are perhaps grounds here
for attributed this poem to Anne Vavassour.
Speed: Are they not lamely writ?
Val: No, boy, but as well as I can do
them—Peace! HereShe comes
Speed: O excellent motion. O exceeding puppet! Etc. . .
The rest of the dialog goes on to, indeed, spell out ANOMOS. I’m not sure of what play it is from and Hutcheson does not supply the name of it. But, it will be easy to find in a Shakespeare Concordance.
“p.231
[of G. C. More Smith’s book] References to some twenty poets ranging from
Chaucer to the King of Scotland. ‘No marvell, though Axiophilus be so slowe in
publishing his exercises. . .More of Chaucer, & his Inglish traine in a
familiar discourse of Anonymus.’ The last pen-name is obviously an oblique
reference to Ignoto, the Unknown, the Anonymous.” (p. 101). Here Hutcheson
concludes that use of the name “Anonymous” is merely a substitution for the name
“Ignoto.” He may be right.
See also,
Hutcheson’s page 102, Morley Smiths reference from Harvey’s Marginalia, at the
place where he write of Shakespeare and the “younger sort”, ‘Axiophilus shall
forget himself, or will remember to leave sum memorials behinde him: & to
make an use of so many rhapsodies, cantos, hymnes, odes, epigrams, sonnets, and
discourses, as at idle howers, or at flowing fitts he hath compiled. God knows
what is good for the world, & fitting for this age.” Interestingly, I had
also arrived at the same conclusion that this entry refers to
Shakespeare/Oxford. As it was reportedly written by Harvey in his Chaucer
volume in 1598, we have a correct statement—especially when we consider the
“hymnes, odes, epigrams, sonnets,” in APR and his “discourses” in AEP—all
written in “flowing fits” awaiting his
decision as to “what is good for the world & fitting for the age.” Who else
but Shakespeare/Oxford would restrain publication wondering on what was good
for the world and fitting for the age? I had been waiting to release this
information but have not done so as yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment