A New Look
Because it contains comments acknowledging Shakespeare’s death, the Folio seems as good a place as any to start the Project’s re-examination of material that has been out in the open for 400 years; material that has probably been read millions of times over; mostly by scholars – really smart Shakespeare professors and experts – with years of training and a keen eye.
The first known published comments about Shakespeare post-death, reproduced on an earlier webpage, appeared as elegies in 1623’s Folio, seven years after his death. Remember Leonard Digges? Portions of Digges’s 1623 Folio elegy seem somewhat deserving of a second look:
Nor shall I e’re believe, or thinke thee dead
(Though mist) until our bankrout Stage be sped
(Imposible) with some new straine t’out-do
Passions of Juliet, and her Romeo;
Or till I heare a Scene more nobly take,
Then when thy half-Sword parlying Romans spake.
Till these, till any of thy Volumes rest
Shall with more fire, more feeling be exprest,
Be sure, our Shake-speare, thou canst never dye, But crown’d with Lawrell, live eternally.
L. Digges.
It’s a great example of dignified mourning and a vociferous defence of a few of Shakespeare’s scenes and characters: Digges won’t believe or think Shakespeare dead until the now bankrupt stage has some new straine t’out-do / Passions of Juliet, and her Romeo. That is to say, Digges will not view Shakespeare dead until the stage has some new scene to best – out-do – the suicide scenes of Juliet and her Romeo. Passions. Suicides. Digges isn’t referring to their speeches or, even less likely, their emotional love for each other; he’s referring to the suicides of the two grief-laden lovers. Even if the reader is unwilling to equate ‘Passions’ with suicide – which would be an error, but regardless – the fact is, Digges still refers to two suicides by name: Juliet and her Romeo. It is somewhat interesting, and quite possibly due to nothing other than coincidence, Digges identifies two of Shakespeare’s characters by name and both committed suicide; would there be more extant material to test the additional weight of Juliet and her Romeo to see whether their presence in Digges’s elegy is pure coincidence or advertently connected to their suicides.
Digges’s next reference from the same excerpt is Or till I heare a Scene more nobly take / Then when thy half-Sword parlying Romans spake. Here, Digges won’t think Shakespeare dead until he hears a scene more nobly undertaken than when Shakespeare’s half-sworded Romans have spoken. It is unfortunate Digges didn’t identify the Romans to whom he was referring; or at least leave some clues elsewhere. Or, did he?
1640
1640 saw the publication of Poems: Written by Wil. Shake-speare, Gent.[1] It was compiled and published by book-seller John Benson (d. 1667) and printed by Thomas Cotes, printer of the Second Folio. Poems: Written included Shakespeare’s Sonnets, The Passionate Pilgrim, A Lover’s Complaint, The Phoenix and Turtle and poems by others.
Poems: Written also included an obligatory, introductory marketing pitch and two elegies; of interest to this investigation is the elegy by, intriguingly, Leonard Digges. While retaining a few lines from his 1623 Folio elegy, Digges develops and changes it considerably in this later 1640 version. Be advised, Digges was dead by 1640, he having died in 1635; it is possible Digges wrote this ‘new’ piece around the same time he wrote his 1623 Folio elegy but might not have wanted it published immediately. If this was so, it may be due to the fact Digges takes direct, biting shots at Jonson in this later piece and with Jonson dying in 1637 there would be no reason, in 1640, for it not to be published given both author Digges and target Jonson were dead. Or, the delayed publishing might have been due to a different motive.
The reason for including Digges’s 1640 piece here is due to the fact – as luck would have it – he did leave some clues: he names the names he left blank in 1623 when he commended Shakespeare’s noble Roman scenes but left the reader wondering who the half-sword parlying Romans were. First, a quick review of what Digges partially wrote for the Folio in 1623:
Or till I heare a Scene more nobly take, Then when thy half-Sword parlying Romans spake…
Here is what Digges wrote about the noble, half-sworded Romans in his 1640 Poems: Written elegy:
And on the Stage at halfe-Sword parley were,
Brutus and Cassius: oh how the Audience,
were ravish’d, with what wonder they went thence…[2]
There they are. Brutus and Cassius are Shakespeare’s half-Sword parlying Romans Digges was referring to in 1623; Brutus and Cassius were responsible for the noble scenes. Therefore, in all, Digges in 1623 directly refers to Juliet and her Romeo and indirectly refers to Brutus and Cassius. Though Digges doesn’t refer to Brutus and Cassius by name in his 1623 Folio elegy, he does refer to Brutus and Cassius in his 1623 Folio elegy. Brutus and Cassius are both suicides. In real life and in Julius Caesar. Digges, therefore, won’t believe Shakespeare gone until he hears on the stage a more noble scene than when Brutus and Cassius have spoken, i.e., have killed themselves. They have spoken – nobly – by committing suicide.[3]
Of some note, Brutus and Cassius killed themselves with small swords, big daggers really, the Roman gladius: half-swords. The half-swords spoke, parlying – by way of suicide – for the two Romans wielding them. Digges is not referring to conversations between Brutus and Cassius as they strode the stage with a half-sword slung around their hips; he’s referring to the noble scenes of Brutus’s and Cassius’s half-sword suicides.
Bringing both references together Digges, in 1623, is predicting that until these scenes – the passions of Juliet and her Romeo and the noble scenes of Brutus and Cassius – four persons who killed themselves – are bested, Shakespeare can never die and will live eternally. It’s great imagery.
In 1640, Digges not only fills in what Romans he was actually talking about in his Folio elegy but also cryptically expands that 1623 imagery:
oh how the Audience, were ravish’d, with what wonder they went thence…
Digges, in this second 1640 piece, gives modernity a deeper glimpse as to how the audience reacted to the two Romans: O, they were ravished and with what wonder they left the playhouse after witnessing Brutus and Cassius on stage. Digges is not saying the audience was ravished because Brutus and Cassius had some really great lines;[4] he’s cryptically referring to their self-inflicted, half-sworded, noble deaths as ravishing the audience with wonder. An explanation suggesting it was their dialogue that ravished the audience and made them leave the playhouse in wonder would be an interesting one. Parse it anyway – and as many times – one will, Digges is referring to their deaths at the end of the play – just before the audience went thence in wonder – not their dialogue.
It’s rather peculiar – and head-scratching – Digges calls on half-Sword parlying Romans in 1623 to add to the memorable characters of Juliet and Romeo instead of using, say, characters like Julius Caesar or Octavius; you know, better known characters. The significance of Digges referencing only suicides in his Folio elegy isn’t just the fact he referenced only suicides; the significance increases, not inconsiderably, due to how he referenced them. Recall, suicides were viewed as sinful, polluted, criminal corpses in 17th century England; Digges, on the other hand – for some reason – seems to think four of Shakespeare’s self-murderers will actually make him live eternally, never die and be crowned with laurel.
A fascinating question to put to Digges would be thus: why? However, without the benefit of his answer modernity must still ask the following questions: why did Digges refer to specific, and allude to other, characters in his Folio elegy – only characters who killed themselves? Why did he characterize four suicides, in 1623, with such admiration and reverence? Why did he specifically mention the suicide weapon for two of them? Why did he call on these characters to remember Shakespeare? When Digges did reference Brutus and Cassius by name in 1640 why did he allude to their deaths as opposed to just referencing them as characters? Did he just pull a bunch of names out of a hat in 1623 and all of them just happened to be suicides? Did he refer to only suicides in his Folio elegy just because? Out of the blue with no purpose or reason behind it? Were Juliet and Romeo and Brutus and Cassius his favourite characters?
After pondering the above rhetorical questions, after understanding how Digges characterizes scenes in which four suicides appear and after acknowledging – as fact – all the characters he referred to in 1623 killed themselves it is at this point a few more Investigative Findings seem appropriate:
IF – Leonard Digges is the only elegist in 1623’s Folio to name any of Shakespeare’s characters – Juliet and her Romeo; he alluded to others.
IF – Using a subsequent 1640 elegy as aid, the other characters Digges alluded to in 1623 were Brutus and Cassius. Out of the hundreds of characters Digges could have picked he picked four suicides.
IF – Digges, in 1623, referred to these characters who committed suicide – and only suicides – on purpose and for a specific reason; it is not coincidence
Curiously, and of no small consequence, Digges uses the exact same five words – of Juliet and her Romeo[5]– Shakespeare ended the play with; spoken by Prince Escalus as he’s standing over the two suicide corpses of Juliet and Romeo still on-stage; it’s powerful stuff. Further, Shakespeare concludes, via Hamlet, it is ‘nobler’ to commit suicide than suffer outrageous fortune; in Julius Caesar, Shakespeare has Mark Antony, as he’s looking at Brutus’s suicide corpse, lament: This was the noblest Roman of them all.[6] Shakespeare explicitly refers to the act of suicide as ‘noble’ four times in Antony and Cleopatra.[7] A discussion trying to pick Shakespeare’s most noble Roman suicides might very well arrive at the same two Digges picked: Brutus and Cassius.[8] [9] Digges, for his part, concludes he won’t believe or think Shakespeare dead until he hears on the stage a Scene more nobly take than when Brutus and Cassius have spoken. Digges uses the word ‘nobly’ on purpose – a very direct, dignified purpose; just like he referred to only suicides on purpose. Disproving the next Investigative Finding might prove difficult:
IF – Given how Digges refers to the Juliet, Romeo, Brutus and Cassius scenes – including mentioning, oddly, the suicide weapon for two of them and referring to the deaths of Brutus and Cassius and not just their characters – and understanding how and why he uses the word ‘nobly’ Digges is straight-on referring to, and defending, suicide. In his 1623 Folio elegy memorializing Shakespeare. Whose death was blanketed in silence.
Digges is the only Folio elegist out of six to refer to any of Shakespeare’s characters; all the characters he referenced – not one out of four, not two, but a perfect four for four – killed themselves. One must admit, Digges was being incredibly clever: defending suicide without letting on he was doing so by actually identifying – for all to read – only characters who killed themselves. He didn’t even throw in a King Henry to throw readers off the scent; maybe he figured he didn’t need any obfuscation. Digges even used the word Shakespeare used – more often than not – to describe suicide: noble. For good measure, Digges also included the suicide weapon for two of them. You have to hand it to Digges, tricky sirrah; he wanted to remember and praise Shakespeare in his 1623 elegy without calling attention to his defence of suicide. He almost got away with it too, slippery knave; well, he did get away with it for 400 years, 402 to be exact. His defence lay perfectly hidden in plain sight for four centuries, evading everybody – all the great Shakespearean biographers over the last few hundred years, every single knowledgeable professor and scholar in academia and all the publishing consultants and editors that advise publishing companies on areas of Shakespeare publishing. Digges’s words were cleverly disguised to evade everybody. But, alas, Digges’s defence of suicide wasn’t hidden well enough to escape the attentive eye of the Project nor to be concealed for all time. He certainly gave it a good run though – 400 years ain’t bad. But what’s the old saying, every riddle meets its match?
When mysteries get investigated – instead of relying on custom – by changing the way you look at things the things you look at, well, they change; Max Planck wasn’t wrong. When you change the way you look at the weird silence and absence of documented mourning surrounding Shakespeare’s death and the strange lack of a documented funeral, then understand the actual and intended meaning of Digges’s 1623 Folio elegy and lastly add his 1640 clues the silence-suicide foundation, surprisingly, not only doesn’t crumble spectacularly but, interestingly, seems to bear the extra evidentiary weight with somewhat startling strength.
But the investigation can’t end there – maybe Digges had more to say.
SDRP
[1] Poems: Written By Wil. Shake-speare. Gent., (London: Printed by Tho. Cotes, 1640).
[2] Digges, Poems: Written, 3v. https://digitalcollections.folger.edu/bib161408-153876 Accessed 05 December 2023.
[3] At the risk of being trite, on balance, Shakespeare held a positive – noble – view of suicide. And, at the hazard of stating the overly-obvious, his grandest view holding suicide as noble doubles as perhaps the most recognizable phrase/monologue in the English language, courtesy of ‘To be or not to be’: Hamlet, 3.1.56-88, 1047.
[4] They don’t.
[5] Romeo and Juliet, 5.3.309, 939.
[6] 5.5.68, 998. In Caesar, Shakespeare refers to the ‘noble’ Brutus or a variation thereof 15 times and likewise for Cassius, seven.
[7] 4.14.95, 1188; 4.15.86-88, 1190; 5.2.237, 1194; 5.2.283, 1195.
[8] Though, one would be wise not to count Mark Antony or Cleopatra out of the running. And, Lucrece, don’t forget about Lucrece; hers, possibly the noblest of them all.
[9] Shakespeare has Cassius kill himself on his birthday; Cassius acknowledges it as such, twice: Julius Caesar, 5.1.71-72, 995 and 5.3.23-25, 996. A few lines later Cassius runs onto his sword, held and thrust by his servant Pindarus, and thus his suicide is on This day I breathed first. An enduring mystery has centered around whether Shakespeare’s death date – 23 April – was also his birthday. Maybe.