Hi all,
I've been following this Leslie Howard thread and have been in touch with my brother Charles about it over the past week. I think the latest posts from KC and Lorenzo are on the mark, re: Howard speaking through Horatio Smith on something that was dear to his heart. This film was his baby all the way, and the only way these Oxford inserts could be present is because he wanted them in, and why else would he want them in except that he believed them and wanted to give some wider exposure to the issue.
As to Terry's (and all those posters like Richard Nathan back in 1998) notion that since Smith is in his "fool" persona when he speaks these lines, that therefore the lines themselves must be foolishness ....baloney! I thought back in 1998 and do today that this particular line of argument sure casts a bad light on those who claim to be more expert on Shakespeare than any Oxfordian. Consider ...what is the purpose of the fool persona in history and especially in Shakespeare plays? To speak the truth, right? But having the truth come from a "fool" allows it to be heard and ignored simultaneously. What do Ross, Nathan, et al think Howard was thinking when he has Horatio speak these lines?
One other things folks here might find interesting is that both Charles and I recall that there is at least one reference *outside* the film to Howard believing Oxford was Shakespeare, but Charles has been looking for days through his old material trying to find it and so far can't (there is a reference in Charles' To Catch the Conscience of the King pamphlet (p. 21) about Howard's trying to interest the Earl of Avon in Oxford ...I think this is what we're recalling as the "outside the film" reference to Howard's interest in Oxford). Whenever Charles does find the exact cite, I'll let the Boards know ...or if the material is not as we remembered it, I'll let everyone know. The reference is to the idea that Howard is considering a film on Oxford after the war (he was considering doing an updated Hamlet ---as propaganda--- during the war, but the Film Board wouldn't buy it).
Also interesting about this reference is that it is the *only* one Charles could find in all his reading and research on Howard 10 years ago. Both Howard's children say nothing about the Oxford material in Pimpernel Smith in their biographies of him, and no one else writing about him ever mentions it. This shouldn't surprise us though, 'cause this is really par for the course on the authorship issue, especially in England. It's the third rail of intellectual discourse, and Howard was a hero at the time ...so why sully his reputation with "that thing"?
Another interesting fact from the time is that, after Howard's plane was shot down, the Germans immediately announced that they had gotten Howard, a man they had already announced they were gunning for. Meanwhile, the British announced that the presence on the plane of Howard's Churchill-lookalike friend (Chenhalls) is why the plane was shot down (i.e. the Germans were gunning for Churchill, not Howard). This is because Howard was serving his country as a spy at the time (in addition to his public propaganda role), a fact that his son confirmed in his bio of dad (but, remember, with no mention of you-know-what). And even more intriguing is that years later (in William Stevenson's A Man Called Intrepid), Stevenson relates that the British knew the Germans would be shooting down the plane, but let it happen so as not to tip off that they had broken the German code. Stevenson also says in this same passage in Intrepid that Howard "was on a secret mission." Howard's cover on his final mission (he had several to Spain and Portugual) was a lecture on Hamlet! And those who remember this lecture said he was great (I recall Charles telling me that one such witness described Howard as "transcendent"). My hunch is that, somewhere between his Broadway fiasco in 1936 and his lecture in 1941 he learned something about Hamlet that made everything clear. But that's just a hunch.
Finally, re: the Skeptics List. I was glad to read that Audrey and others realize that ---leaving Terry Ross aside--- the list is just a sampling of those who are ....skeptical! No big deal, really (well, expect for some). This whole battle over labels such as anti-Stratfordian and/or Oxfordian is just a red-herring, IMHO. The list is meant to alert newcomers to the simple fact that a number of major figures in Western Culture have had their doubts about the Stratford story and/or have shown support for the Oxfordian theory. A statement similar to this was used on the SOS Home Page in introducing the version of the Skeptics list maintained there.
Also, the easiest way to remove any doubts about when and where the quotes were made would be to have a cite under each and every quote (there are ones, for example, under Jacobi and Gielgud). The one we used for Howard on the SOS Page was:
"In his 1941 propaganda film Pimpernel Smith, Howard takes several occasions to allow lead character
Professor Horatio Smith to expound on the Shakespeare authorship: ...."
That should make everyone happy, right?
_________________________
Bill
Previous Topic
Index