In private notebooks published after Ben Jonson's death, there is a paragraph that deserves our attention. Speaking about Shakespeare, Jonson says, "I loved the man and do honour his memory on this side idolatry as much as any". From an orthodox perspective, this reflection on Shakespeare is valuable; though published posthumously, it is taken to demonstrate that Jonson knew the author personally. This passage became public when his private notebooks were published after his death under the title Timber, or Discoveries [Being Observations]on Men and Manners. We'll refer to that book as Discoveries. It will be useful to have the passage in front of you while you look at it - you'll find it in the resources section. Here is the passage in full: "De Shakspeare nostrat. Augustus in Hat. I remember the players have often mentioned it as an honour to Shakspeare, that in his writing (whatsoever he penned) he never blotted out a line. My answer hath been, 'Would he had blotted a thousand', which they thought a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity this but for their ignorance who chose that circumstance to commend their friend by wherein he most faulted; and to justify my known candour, for I loved the man, and do honour his memory on this side idolatry as much as any. He was, indeed, honest, and of an open and free nature, had an excellent phantasy, brave notions, and gentle expressions, wherein he flowed with that facility that sometimes it was necessary he should be stopped. 'Sufflaminandus erat', as Augustus said of Haterius. His wit was in his own power; with the rule of it had been so, too. Many times he fell into those things, could not escape laughter, as when he said in the person of Caesar, one speaking to him, 'Caesar, thou dost me wrong'. He replied, 'Caesar never did wrong but with just cause' and such like, which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his vices with his virtues. There was ever more in him to be praised than to be pardoned."" De Shakspeare nostrat' is truncated Latin meaning either 'Our countryman Shakspeare' or 'Our native Shakspeare'. 'Augustus in Hat' is truncated Latin for 'Augustus to or against or on or about Hat(erius)'. (We cannot know which preposition is intended without having the Latin ending for Haterius; sadly, we don't have this.) 'Sufflaminandus erat' is translated in the footnotes to the 1891 edition as 'He had to be repressed'. Ben Jonson writes of 'the players', but clearly references Heminge and Condell by their letter prefacing the First Folio (the letter which Jonson himself may have had a hand in), which stated that Shakespeare 'never blotted a line'. He refers to Shakespeare as 'their friend', confirming a personal friendship with these actors and company shareholders. From an orthodox perspective, Jonson declares his own warm friendship with Shakespeare: 'I loved the man'. He commends him for many positive attributes and even has a friendly dig at his free-flowing verbal facility. He highlights things he regarded as careless aspects of his writing, suggesting he should have edited his works a little more thoroughly. When Jonson says "His wit was in his own power; would the rule of it had been so, too", he simply means that Shakespeare was not careful enough in his mode of expression, which ties in with the overall thrust of his argument. It also fits in with his private comment, reported by William Drummond, that Shakespeare 'wanted Art' (i.e. skill). Nevertheless, he acknowledges Shakespeare as the author of Julius Caesar and, despite his gripes, he ends on a note of praise. Non-Stratfordians are bound to read it differently. From their perspective, Shakspere of Stratford is the best fit for Jonson's 'Poet-Ape', who transitioned from brokerage to representing the works of others as his own. They regard him as Jonson's target in Every Man In His Humour's Sogliardo, and consider that Jonson made a very pointed distinction in addressing his Folio eulogy to 'The AUTHOR William Shakespeare'. Non-Stratfordians approaching this passage must consider whether Jonson is talking about Shakespeare the author, or Shakspere the broker. There are arguments for both. Beyond the reference to liness being 'blotted' there is nothing in this passage explicitly connected to writing. Diana Price argues that it is about speaking, and therefore about Shakspere the broker. Johnson compares Shakspeare to Haterius, a Roman orator famous for going on too long. The Caesar part, too, references speaking: "as when he said in the person of Caesar, one speaking to him..." etc. Could this be someone attempting to quote that line of the play, and getting it wrong; something like Gullio of the Parnassus plays, for example? The lines in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar are different - the only text we have is from the 1623 Folio, and if the lines once said what Jonson claims, they have been corrected. If Johnson's portrait is of Shakspere the broker, what can he mean by wishing he had 'blotted a thousand' lines, this utterance which the players 'thought a malevolent speech'? How could the reference to blotted lines mean anything when applied to a broker? Let's consider instead the idea that Jonson is referring to a man he called 'The AUTHOR William Shakespeare'. In this case, most of the orthodox commentary holds true; Johnson is criticising his writing. The fact that so much of it relates to verbal fluency is due to the fact that Jonson has stolen the structure and much of the phrasing of this passage from a similar passage by Seneca, about an orator. Whether "I loved the man and do honor his memory on this side of idolatry as much as any" is personal rather than impersonal testimony is arguable; one might say the same, for example, of Elvis Presley. That "...he was indeed, honest, and often open and free nature, had an excellent phantasy, brave notions and gentle expressions" certainly seems to apply to the writing - and therefore the writer - through his knowledge of their writing. Since it is a writer who is being discussed, "As when he said in the person of Caesar" is much more likely to mean the writer speaking 'on the page' as Caesar - written dialogue - than that he is in the habit of speaking as Caesar. As noted before, if Shakspere did act, it seems to have been in minor roles, not lead characters. Is it significant that Jonson speaks of it being necessary to 'stop' this author, and quotes the Latin phrase 'he had to be repressed'? Does this relate to the author's reference in Sonnet 66 to 'art made tongue-tied by authority'? Or does this reference appear simply because it appears in the passage in Seneca on which this passage was modelled without Jonson's bothering to adapt it very much? Authorship doubters comparing Shakspere's ungainly signatures with Heminge and Condell's admiration that Shakespeare never 'blotted out a line' see a great inconsistency in the two pieces of evidence. For Jonson, this was not about penmanship. Unblotted verse was bad verse, unedited, unrevised and unperfected. He, Heminge and Condell weren't referring to the inkblots created by someone inexperienced with a quill, but rather to the crossings-out necessary to create good writing. In his translation of Horace's Art of Poetry, Jonson wrote, "blot all, and to the anvil bring /Those ill-torn'd verses, to new hammering". In his private notebooks, Jonson seems to say Shakespeare didn't do this, yet in the poem fronting the First Folio he said just the opposite, writing that Shakespeare "struck the second heat /Upon the Muses' anvil". We have already looked at Ben Jonson's apparently inconsistent attitude to Shakespeare, and considered whether these contradictions are simply a matter of his being hypocritical, saying one thing in private and another in public. Yet he seems to know his private musings will become public: "I had not (i.e. would not have) told posterity this but for their ignorance". Of what are Heminge and Condell ignorant? Of the revisions it takes to make a good piece of writing? Of the fact they are receiving manuscripts that have been copied by a scribe, and it is that - rather than the author's genius - that provided them with unblotted manuscripts? Jonson undoubtedly knew more than he ever wrote in a notebook. But everything he says about Shakespeare here can be read as a reaction to his writing, even "I loved the man, and do honor his memory on this side idolatry". [MUSIC]
