Deconstructing Digges

It is the Project’s conclusion Leonard Digges’s 1623 Folio elegy is an ode to suicide. This statement might, at first blush, seem conspiratorial to some or nothing more than delusional. However, after a full examination – viewed through an objective, reasoned lens – a statement suggesting Digges’s Folio elegy is not an ode to suicide would be delusional.

Below is the deconstruction methodology the Project used to arrive at the conclusion Digges wrote an ode to suicide. Word by word, line by line it is time to deconstruct portions of Digges’s elegy to determine what he was actually saying. Here is Digges’s entire 1623 Folio elegy.

To The Memory Of The Deceased Author
MAISTER W. S H A K E S P E A R E.

Shake-speare, at length thy pious fellowes give
The world thy Workes : thy Workes, by which, out-live
Thy Tombe, thy name must when that stone is rent,
And Time dissolves thy Stratford Moniment,
Here we alive shall view thee still. This Booke,
When Brasse and Marble fade, shall make thee looke
Fresh to all Ages: when Posteritie
Shall loath what’s new, thinke all is prodegie
That is not Shake-speares; ev’ry Line, each Verse
Here shall revive, redeeme thee from thy Herse.
Nor Fire, nor cankring Age, as Naso said,
Of his, thy wit-fraught Booke shall once invade.
Nor shall I e’re beleeve, or thinke thee dead
(Though mist) untill 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.

Digges is the only Folio elegist – out of 6 – to name any of Shakespeare’s characters: Juliet and her Romeo. Both committed suicide. This fact alone, the fact Digges named two of Shakespeare’s suicides, does little – by itself – to suggest the elegy is an ode to suicide. On the contrary, without more, the fact Digges names two suicides by name means nothing.

Digges then refers to more of Shakespeare’s characters, but not by name: half-Sword parlying Romans. Shakespeare wrote of many Romans; without more, these half-sword Romans do not assist the deconstruction. If the Romans could be identified that might assist the re-examination, might; depending on how Digges refers to them.

The fact is Digges does identify his half-Sword parlying Romans: in his 1640 elegy contained in Poems: Written by Wil. Shake-speare, Gent. This compilation, Poems: Written, was 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.

While retaining a few lines from his 1623 Folio elegy, Digges develops and changes it considerably for this later 1640 elegy. 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 he names the names he left blank in 1623 when he commended Shakespeare’s 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-Sword parlying 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

There they are. Brutus and Cassius are Shakespeare’s half-Sword parlying Romans Digges was referring to in 1623. Therefore, in all, Digges in 1623 refers to Juliet and her Romeo and to Brutus and Cassius: all four are suicides. His 1640 elegy provides the positive identification of Brutus and Cassius being the ‘half-Sword parlying Romans’ he was referring to in his Folio elegy; the unknown identity of whom has confounded scholars for 400 years.

With Digges being the only Folio elegist to refer to any of Shakespeare’s characters it is somewhat interesting he identifies four characters and all four committed suicide.

Due to the fact Digges only identifies suicides in his 1623 elegy the next phase of the deconstruction must focus on whether anything else in Digges’s elegies about the four characters are connected to their suicide deaths as opposed to just naming them as characters. If nothing else in Digges’s 1623 elegy points to a suicide connection then him naming only suicides could be coincidence. More internal deconstruction must occur.

In 1640, Digges not only fills in what Romans he was actually talking about in his Folio elegy but also expands his 1623 imagery:

oh how the Audience,

were ravish’d, with what wonder they went thence…

Digges, here, in his second 1640 elegy, gives modernity a deeper glimpse as to what aspects of Brutus’s and Cassius’s persona he was referring. He did this by showing 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;[1] he’s referring to their self-inflicted, half-sworded, noble, suicide 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 suicide deaths at the end of the play – just before the audience went thence in wonder – not their dialogue.

Therefore, by using Digges’s language in his 1640 elegy to inform his 1623 elegy it is clear he is referring to, and bringing to the fore, their deaths; their suicide deaths and not some other characteristic of their persona.

Re-examination of Digges’s reference to Romeo and Juliet – some new straine t’out-do/Passions of Juliet, and her Romeo – must occur. It is now clear 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 their emotional love for each other; he’s referring to the suicides of the two grief-laden lovers. Curiously, and of no small consequence, Digges uses the exact same five words – of Juliet and her Romeo – 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.

Of some note, Brutus and Cassius killed themselves with small swords, big daggers really, the Roman gladius: a half-sword. 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 scenes of Brutus’s and Cassius’s half-sword suicides at the end of the play – which Digges depicted as O how the audience were ravish’d, with what wonder they went thence. Both Brutus and Cassius killed themselves at the end of the play with Brutus’s suicide coming just 30 lines before the final curtain.

In his 1623 Folio elegy Digges adds another hint as to what all of this means when he uses the word ‘nobly’: or till I heare a Scene more nobly take/then when thy half-Sword parlying Romans spake.

Here, Digges won’t believe or think Shakespeare dead until he hears a scene more nobly undertaken then when Shakespeare’s half-sword Romans have spoken. How did Shakespeare view suicide? Noble.

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. Shakespeare explicitly refers to the act of suicide as ‘noble’ four times in Antony and Cleopatra. A discussion trying to pick Shakespeare’s most noble Roman suicides might very well arrive at the same two Digges picked: Brutus and Cassius.[2]

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.

When a sentence includes the words ‘Romans’, ‘nobly’ and ‘half-sword’ and the Romans are Brutus and Cassius there is only one meaning to that sentence. Just one. An interpretation attempting to suggest a sentence containing ‘nobly’, ‘half-swords’ and ‘Romans’ – and the Romans are identified as Brutus and Cassius – does not refer to suicide would be incorrect; and wilfully blind.

Because Digges references only suicides and how he referenced those suicides was advertent, not coincidental, one last seemingly innocuous line must be deconstructed in order to find its true and intended meaning:

…ev’ry Line, each Verse

Here shall revive, redeeme thee from thy Herse.

Redeem or redeeme can have two meanings. One, simply, to reclaim something or buy something back; this is the secular usage. The second meaning and usage has overt religious connotations. Seeing Digges coupled redeeme with Herse he’s using the word for its religious meaning and therefore the word redeeme must be read in its religious context. As such, when Digges uses the word redeeme he is connecting it to the religious meaning of ‘redemption.’

A simple online search put Oxford Languages definition of ‘redemption’ first: the action of saving or being saved from sin, error or evil. Dictionary.com says ‘redemption’ means an act of atoning for guilt, a fault or mistake.

So, when Digges says ev’ry Line, each Verse/Here shall revive, redeeme thee from thy Herse what he means is ‘Shakespeare, your lines and verses here in the Folio shall redeem you from any sin, error, evil, guilt, fault or mistake.’

And why would Shakespeare need to be redeemed from his herse? Why would Shakespeare – his soul – require redemption? Well, a couple of lines later Digges provides the reason: he connects Shakespeare’s death with four of his characters who killed themselves: Juliet, Romeo, Brutus and Cassius; their suicide deaths would be viewed in 17^th century England as a crime against the King and a sin against God. And because Digges is connecting Shakespeare’s death with the death of four of his self-murderers Digges is saying, ‘don’t worry, Shakespeare, your lines in the Folio will save you from your sin, you will enjoy redemption, you will be redeemed from your herse.’

Digges constructed his elegy in such a fashion that accomplished two aims: 1) his language was subtle enough so as not to seem he was blabbering about his defence of suicide and 2) overt enough to show anyone – who understood his true meaning – how he felt about his friend’s death. It’s quite brilliant, actually. And to think it only took the omission of two words: ‘Brutus’ and ‘Cassius.’ Brilliant. Had Digges included those two names in his 1623 Folio elegy a 400 year old mystery becomes not so. Of course, the obvious reasons for not including the extra two names are many, logical and utterly practical.[3] Absolutely. Brilliant.

Standing alone, each word, each line, each piece of information means nothing. Put them together in an elegy memorializing a deceased friend and the meaning becomes clear, crystal.

Shakespearean scholar, John Jowett, when he was unpacking for-and-against arguments as to whether Shakespeare had a hand – or more – in writing Sir Thomas More, had this to say about interpreting bodies of evidence:

Though no volume of poor evidence will produce a sound conclusion, and though no volume of probable evidence will produce an absolute certainty, the accumulation of evidence showing good probability moves the case progressively towards the point of certainty.[4] [Emphasis added.]

Digges’s 1623 Folio Elegy is an ode to suicide.

SDRP

[1] They don’t.

[2] 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.

[3] The reasons why Digges did not include the two names in 1623 are set out in the larger research work.

[4] John Jowett, ed., The Arden Shakespeare: Sir Thomas More, 439.