Thursday, April 11, 2024

Munday and Chettle, Sir Thomas More (2011)

Sir Thomas More.
Edited by John Jowett.
Original Text by Anthony Munday and Henry Chettle.
Censored by Edmund Tilney.
Revised by Henry Chettle, Thomas Dekker, Thomas Heywood, William Shakespeare, and the scribe "Hand C".
The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series.
London: Bloomsbury Press, 2011.

Book Information: Publisher; Google Books; Wikipedia; Amazon.com.

Book Series: The Arden Shakespeare, Third Series.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Editor: John Jowett
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wikipedia Articles, etc:

Thomas More, the man:
  • Thomas More (1478–1535).
  • Evil May Day or Ill May Day, 1517.
    This was an event of apprentice and artisan unrest and anti-foreigner riots in London. In 1517 Thomas More was a Privy Counsellor; More had previously served as one of the two undersheriffs of the City of London.
    Note that 1517 was also the year of Martin Luther's Ninety-five Theses, a major step in the Reformation.
    Is it too much to see some symbolism or parallels in the play's use of this event? A lower class rebellion against foreigners in their midst could represent local secular rulers and lower level priests objecting to the authority in their locality of the (foreign) church in Rome. Thomas More supported both the submission of riotous London artisans to the King's peace / authority and Henry VIII's submission to the Roman Pope's authority.
    (How else to understand the large fraction of the play's text devoted to this otherwise minor event? It is a massive distortion to attribute More's rise as a government official to this one event, as is done in the play.)
  • Alice More (1474–1546 or 1551), second wife of Thomas More.
  • Margaret Roper née More (1505–1544), daughter of Thomas More and his first wife Joanna.
  • William Roper (c.1496-1578), husband of More's daughter Margaret; author of a biography of Thomas More.
  • Thomas More: Indictment, trial and execution.
  • Henry VIII (1491–1547), King of England 1509–1547.
  • William Roper (1496-1578). The Life of Sir Thomas More. London: Burns & Oates, 1905.
    [Archive.org.]
  • Peter Ackroyd (b.1949). The Life of Thomas More. London: Chatto & Windus, 1998. New York: Anchor Books (Penguin Random House), 1999.
    [Publisher; Google Books; Amazon.com.]
Sir Thomas More, the play: English Renaissance Literature, Drama: England during Shakespeare's Time:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jowett writes in the concluding paragraphs of his Introduction to Sir Thomas More (page 120):
"It is perennially 'new' to the Shakespeare canon, yet perennially unconvincing as a Shakespeare play when ranked alongside the accepted oeuvre."
At best Shakespeare (along with three others) revised limited portions of somebody else's (Munday's and Chettle's) play.

Shakespeare's contributions consist of:
  • Scene 6, the first 165 of 255 lines (More calms the rebellious artisans); manuscript Addition II; this is the Hand D manuscript now recognized as Shakespeare's handwriting; discussed by Jowett in Appendix 2 pages 378-383 and Appendix 4 pages 437-453.
  • The opening monologue of Scene 8 (More reflects on his rise as a government official); 21 lines; manuscript Addition III transcribed by Hand C; discussed by Jowett in Appendix 4 pages 454-456.
  • Part of the opening monologue of Scene 9 (More reflects on the recent visit and departure of Erasmus); manuscript Addition V transcribed by Hand C; discussed by Jowett in Appendix 4 pages 456-458. On page 457 Jowett demonstrates how removing the incorporated lines by Heywood from this text more clearly shows a residual core of 12 lines probably by Shakespeare.
These contributions show Shakespeare as a working professional dramatist, collaborating with others on a play that, despite the efforts of four playwrights, was never put into a form that would be licensed for performance. This shows Shakespeare in a different light when contrasted with his reputation as the intimidating monolithic First Folio author.

If one looks beyond the nearly 200 lines of text now attributed to Shakespeare, should the remainder of Sir Thomas More be of interest to general readers?

There is no evidence that Sir Thomas More was ever performed during the Seventeenth Century. The play was revised after the censor made his notes; after the revisions were made there is no evidence that a final manuscript was ever licensed for performance. The unfinished manuscript was set aside and forgotten. The play was first printed in 1844; the identification of Shakespeare as a contributor to the play (Addition II / Scene 6) was first made in 1871 and 1872 (Jowett page 437); the play was first performed in 1922 as an academic curiosity.

Consider the fate of Sir Thomas More in its context: during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, Shakespeare and his contemporaries (Kyd, Marlowe, Dekker, Heywood, Jonson, Marston, Fletcher, Webster, Middleton, Beaumont, and Ford to name only eleven) wrote and successfully staged many tens, even hundreds, of plays that were printed during or shortly after their authors' lifetimes and then remembered across the centuries.

If one's interest is the historical person Thomas More, one could read (a) several of his own works instead of a play that ignores the philosophical and theological topics that made him memorable; (b) works in history and biography that explore his life and times with more detail and accuracy than the dramatization presented in Sir Thomas More.

If a reader is interested in Shakespeare then perhaps that reader should read and study all of the works in the universally acknowledged Shakespearean canon first before thinking about spending one's limited time on Sir Thomas More.

In my opinion, only after exhausting your time and attention on these three categories of topics (Shakespeare, Shakespeare's contemporaries, Thomas More), only if you are really interested in the mechanics of how playwrights of Elizabethan and Jacobean England revised a never-performed and forgotten manuscript, only then should you consider Sir Thomas More.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sunday, April 07, 2024

Huxley, Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited (2005)

Aldous Huxley.
Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited.
New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics, 2005.

Book Information: Publisher; Google Books; Wikipedia; Amazon.com.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wikipedia Articles:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Audio, Video:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Harper Perennial 2005 edition of Brave New World has a Forward by Christopher Hitchens.

Hitchens doesn't seem to acknowledge the pervasiveness of propaganda (and censorship) in the United States, which was especially heavy handed during 2002 and 2003 before and after the beginning of the Iraq War which Hitchens vigorously supported. This may have something to do with Hitchens' evolution across the 1990s and 2000s deeper into the mainstream media and his role as a propagandist for the Iraq War.

Hitchens seems to prefer Orwell's forecast of looming Western totalitarianism over Huxley's, that the hard version of Orwell should be feared more than the soft version of Huxley. I think the soft version has been present forever in the institutions of church, school and government; it got a strong boost during the First World War, and flourished across the Twentieth Century with the evolution of media technologies. Given this well established history I think it is only rational to expect that all areas of technological development will be exploited to further enslave the masses. Huxley's greater emphasis on biological and pharmacological technologies in contrast to Orwell seems to me important and complementary to the more overt tools of propaganda and physical force. I do not doubt that the human future will consist of a fusion of all available technologies to manage the masses. Note that Hitchens wrote a book about Orwell, Why Orwell Matters (2002).

On page xiv of Hitchens' Forward to Brave New World we find these questions:
Can the human being be designed and controlled, from uterus to grave, "for its own good"? And would this version of super-utilitarianism bring real happiness?

This quote reveals a fundamental misunderstanding by Hitchens. This is so fundamental that I think we should instead consider it a deliberate misdirection by Hitchens: he is diverting the reader's attention from the basic disjunction between the interests of the rulers and the interests of the masses. This basic divergence has been embedded in the characteristics and structures of every human society since they became organized civilizations. More recently the variously presented proposition that "the people rule" in the "democratic" republics said to characterize Western Civilization during the last 500 years is propaganda intended to habituate the masses to their subordinate condition. It is an illusion to think that the interests of the rulers are the same as the interests of the masses; and it is the role / duty / job of the propagandists of any / every civilized society to maintain this illusion. (The propagandists are the various spokesmen of / for the various institutions of the society: church, school, government, and now also business and "media". This includes, of course, the "public intellectuals": people like Christopher Hitchens.)

The rulers of the world have little regard for the "real happiness" of their subjects.

Towards the end of the book, in Chapters 16 and 17, the Controller and the Savage engage in an extended conversation on this exact topic. The Controller is very explicit about this. The rulers' highest value in the Brave New World is Stability and they have consciously and deliberately sacrificed Art, Science and Religion in order to maintain Stability.

We must ask ourselves: What are the highest values of the rulers of our world?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~