JVewsletter

Vo 1.36:no. l "L et me study so, to know the thing J am fo rbid to know" Spting2000

"Vere-y Paradigm earthquake Interesting" strikes Amherst, Mass. Shakespeare s treat­ Oxfordian scholar Roger Stritmatter s success­ ment of the earls ful Ph.D. defense raises the authorship stakes of Oxford in the n Friday, April 21st, in Amherst, history plays O Massachusetts one of the more significantevents in the histOlY of the authorship debate took place. Ph.D can­ By Dr. Daniel L. Wright didate Roger Stritmatter defended his dis­ o scholar of any merit disputes that seliation on the verse annotations in Ed­ Shakespeare imaginatively rewrote ward de Vere's 1 570 Geneva Bible and their English history in his chronicle conelation with the use of biblical verses by plays. As Judith Anderson has observed, Shakespeare. The defense took place before "Shakespeare's dramas ...show an explicit a committee offive,including the Compara­ ... self-conscious concel11 with thenatures tive Literature and English Departments of UMass-Amherst, and visiting professor Dr. and varieties of truth in the pOlirayal of Daniel Wright (Concordia University, historical persons in art and in chronicle." Portland, Oregon). Moreover, most readers ofShakespeare agree At the conclusion of the two-hour de­ with such scholars as Peter Saccio, E. M. W. fense, the committee brieflyad joul11ed,and Tillyard and Lily B. Campbell that then retul11ed with its 5-0 recommendation Shakespeare's purposein manipulating and Roger Stritmatter M poses with Society to accept the dissertation. This positive reconfiguringhistorical accounts was broadly Board member Robert Barrett (I) afterhi s recommendation capped an eventful nine­ i political. For example, in composing Th e successfiildi ssertation defense. Barrett 's year odyssey during which Stritmatter had Famous HistOlY of the Life of Henry the students had taken up a collection to fly gone from being just another graduate stu­ Eighth, Shakespeare dramatically shortens him fr om Bremerton (Wash.) to Amherst dent on a U.S. college campus to his even­ the life ofQueen Katherine and sends her off (Mass.) fo r the historic authorship event. tual emergence as something of a "notori­ to her etel11al reward (P hoto Lisa Wi lson) ous" scholar, well-known in many years before her death Stratfordian academic circles around the actually occuned. This Inside: U.S., even before this year's historic de­ was no careless com­ fense proceedings. Special Report: New Oxford Letter Found positional enor. By so All this is, of course, no surprise to Page 4 Oxfordians involved in the Shakespeare sequencing these authorship debate, and especially to those events, Shakespeare who have been around during recent years aimed at quietly confer­ 4th Annual Edward de Vere Studies Conference waiting to see how the "Stritmatter-Geneva ring added legitimacy2 Page 10 Bible" story would finallyplay out. And, in to Elizabeth's otherwise truth, it really can't be said even yet to have The End ofStratfordianism contestable claim to the "played out," but these early returns fr om 12 throne by introducing Page UMass are most encouraging. the suggestion that About 75 people were on hand to wit­ Katherine of Aragon Virginia Woolf'sShakespeare ness the proceedings (at UMass-Amherst, was dead at the time the Page 26 unlike some universities, these defenses are (Continued 011 page 14) (Col1tinued 011 page 8) page 2 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Review of Journals Obituary Last print issue of The Elizabethan Sir John Gielgud 1904-2000 Review published; new editor Pearson's Sir 10hn Gielgud, who found great merit in the case for the 17th Earl of Oxford as the firstDe Vere SocietyNewsletter tme author of Shakespeare's works, died at the age of96 in May. ByRichard F. Whalen Gielgud, who acted until the very end of his life, was described as "a quintessential by-northwest" passage, the gravedigger's The Elizabethan Review man ofthe theater" by The New York Times remarks, Fortinbras's trip to Poland (where in its page-one obitumy. Also known as a Multiple allusions to astronomy in Halll­ Copernicus was buried), and a half dozen director, producer and author, he was con­ let, more than anyone has heretofore iden­ others, some of them familiar. The cumula­ sidered by many to be the greatest classical tified, are described in an miicle by a profes­ tive impact is impressive. actor of his time. sor of astronomy in the finalprinted issue of Th e Elizabethan Review also canies a He played all the leading roles in Th e Elizabethan Review (Spring 1 999). The long miicle by Daphne Pearson, who re­ Shakespeare's most popular plays, reinter­ journal, launched in 1993, is now found searched county records on Oxford's law­ pretingHamlet and Romeo many times inhis solely on the Internet. suit against Roger Harlackenden over the long career. In fa ct, in the 1930shisHamlet Peter Usher, professor of astronomy 1,200 acres and buildings of Colne PriOly. ran in New York City at the same time as and astrophysics at Pennsylvania State Pearson is a doctoral student at the Univer­ Leslie Howard's�an interesting circum­ University, does not write as an Oxfordian, sity of Sheffield,England. In another article stance since both actors eventually came but his insights and discoveries suggest Richard Lester suggests that instead of a around to seeing Oxford as Shakespeare. that Shakespeare was immensely learnedin conspiracy to cover up Oxford's authorship In the 1940s he created and performed astronomy and well-informed about the lat­ of Shakespeare after his death the silence Th e Ages of Man, his one-man collage of est developments, especially the Coperni­ about his identity may have been simply the excerpts from Shakespeare'sworks. His last can view of the universe. Usher's play­ result ofhis having "lived a life ofineconcil­ maj or movie role was the leadinProspero 's wright sounds more like Oxford than the able differences." Books. Stratford man. Gmy Goldstein ofMiddle Village, NY, a In 1994 a London newspaper reported "Shakespeare defines poetically the new former tmstee of the Shakespeare Oxford that Gielgud had signed Charles Boyle's universal order," says Usher. "Ifthe present Society, launched the review seven years petition calling for an academic inquiry into interpretation has merit, Ha lllI etwou ld mani­ ago as an independent journal on Elizabe­ the question of Shakespeare's identity. In fe st an astronomical cosmology that is no than and Shakespearean studies. Many of the same year Gielgud replied to Richard less magnificent than its litermy and philo­ the articles have been by Oxfordians. The Whalen's request for an introduction to his sophical counterpmis." journal will continue to be published on the book, Shakespeare: Wh o Was He? He said Usher notes that Shakespeare picks Internet(www. elizreview.com); the online that he admired the book, adding, "I confess Wittenberg as Hamlet's alma mater, and ER will include both selections from the to being very inclined to side with you and Wittenberg was the firstcenter of Cop erni­ 1993-1 999 print issues and some new articles the Oxfordians, but I do not relish the idea can studies. Hamlet says, "0 God, I could be first published in the online version. of being involved personally in the inevi­ bounded in a nutshell and count myselfking In one selected article presently avail­ table discussions and contradictions which of infinite space, were it not that I have bad able on the ER site, Goldstein examines will ensue ....A mere actor like myselfcannot dreams" (II.ii.243). "Nutshell" reflectsthe evidence for Oxford's authorship in light of bring myself to muddle in such controver­ old Ptolemaic view ofthe earth at the center U.S. lusticelohnPaul Stevens's 1992miicle sial matters." of a shell of stars. Infinite space, a new and "The Shakespeare Canon of Statutory Con­ Other leading actors who have voted radical idea that resulted from the Coperni­ stmction" in the Un iversity of Pennsylvania for Oxford as the author are Sir Derek 1 acobi, can revolution, was firstpropounded, says Law Review. who has made a documentary film�The Usher, by the father ofLeonard Digges, the Shakespeare COl1spiracy--onthe case for poet of the First Folio's preface. The De Vere SocietyNewsletter Oxford; Michael York, who has spoken at Shakespeare puns on three ofthe earli­ Oxfordian events; and Keanu Reeves, who est astronomical terms-retrograde, opposi­ The new editor of the De Vere Society told a magazine interviewer that he would tion and conjunctive. He picks a new name Newsletter is Daphne Pearson, a doctoral like to make a movie of Edward de V ere's fo r the king of the Amleth legend­ candidate in histOlY at the University of stOly. Mark Rylance, the artistic director of "Claudius," and Claudius was Ptolemy's Sheffield.She succeeds Christopher Dams, the new Globe theatre in London, is on first name. As Copernicus's theory "kills" who is concentrating on the society's play­ record as not believing the Stratford man Claudius Ptolemy's, Hamlet, the new Coper­ dating project. Pearson has been studying was the playwright. Tyrone Guthrie and nican, kills the king Claudius. Usher also the effect of wardship on Oxford and his Orson Welles have also rej ected the Strat­ suggests new explanations for the "nolih- often complex and fa iling financialsituation. ford man. (Continued on page 21) Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 3

Whose handwriting? The annotations in Oxford's Geneva Bible

With Roger S trimatter' s Ph.D. disserta­ October 16, 1995 I take the liberty of providing you with prior tion on Edward de Vere' s Geneva Bible soon written signatures, one a posting to the Evermore to be published, the debate has returnedto Professor Alan Nelson online authorship [discussion group] dated May a part of the story that, in fact, has never Department of English 3"1, 1995, the other your May 27th letter to the really gone away-namely, has it been sat­ University of Califomia at Berkeley Sm ithsonian magazine which you kindly cc'd to isfactorily established that the annotations me, in which you expressed the opposite opinion Dear Professor Nelson: in no uncertain terms. I draw your attention to the in Oxford's Geneva Bible are from the pen of highlighted words in the fonner document: Edward de Vere? Atthe 1 91h Annual Convention of the Shake­ Last June (1999), in the story on the speare Oxford Society in Greensboro, SC, Sep­ I am 99 and 4411 OOth percent certain that Shakespeare authorship debate published tember 30th to October 2nd I was informed by the annotating hand is Oxford's. I am 100 in Th e Chronicle of Higher Education, Prof. two reliable informants that in your recent percent sure (if it is possible to be that) that Alan Nelson ofUC-Berkeley (a prominent presentation at the Shakespeare Authorship the Bible is Oxford's. anti-Oxfordian who is writing a biography of Roundtable you had publicly stated that you no longer believe that the annotations of the Folger I would be most gratifiedif you would clarify Oxford), was quoted as saying that the de Vere Bible are in de Vere's handwriting. In your reasons for discovering that the odds ofthis handwriting in Oxford's Geneva Bible was view of the numerous malicious and misin­ unfortunate coincidence have shifted so pro­ not Edward de Vere' s. This is a position that fonned statements which have already been foundly in the twinkling of an eye. Prof. Nelson has held for the last fiveyears made on this and other subjects related to the now, but-apparently-it has not always evidentiary value of this artifact, you may very Most sincerely, been his position. well understand why these reports caused me no Recently Stritmatter brought to our at­ small concem. Roger Stritmatter tention the fa ct that Prof. Nelson had once taken a very different position on this mat­ mind, since no paleographical evidence on last email, his exact words to us were, ter, and then sometime in 1995 changed his the matter had ever been published by "I refuse to be drawn in any way in respect to mind. Since Stritmatter's work-work pre­ him-or anyone--questioningthe authen­ Roger Stritmatter, and will not be blackmailed mised on the acceptance of the annotations ticity of the annotations in the Bible. into participation in a public debate with him as de Vere's-will soon be published, we Recently, the Newsletter contacted Prof. by your threat to put in print that I had "no thought this would be an appropriate time to Nelson about this, providing a copy of comment" [ sic]. revisit this issue. Stritmatter's 1995 letter, and asking him He further added to this a P.S. that we When this matter about Prof.Nelson's to update us about the handwriting issue should quote him "verbatim" should we changing his mind firstcame up in 1995, and, in particular, about how and why he publish his final answer. And so we have. Stritmatterwrote to him for clarification(see had apparently changed his mind about the We regret that we can report no more his letter in the box this page). However, he handwriting. than this response from Prof. Nelson. We never received an answer. To date (i.e. spring! In an exchange of several emails, Prof. will, however, provide much more discus­ summer2000) Prof.Nelson has still not gone Nelson responded that he did not wish to sion about the handwriting debate in an on the record about the handwriting, par­ engage in any dialogue-public or pri­ upcoming Newsletter, drawing upon ticularly how and why has he changed his vate-with Stritmatter on this topic. In his Stritmatter's completed dissertation.

Conference Update Large turnout expected fo r 24th Annual Conference in Stratford If early registrations are any indication, ship question-from an Oxfordian point of Society 's dating project, Charles Boyle on this fall's conference in Stratford, Ontario view-as young protagonist Perin the young Elizabeth's translation of Mirror (October 26th to October 29th) could prove Willoughby travels back in time to the of the Sinfu l Soul, Paul Streitz on the myth of to be one of the better attended in recent Elizabethan era and encounters the author­ the Virgin Queen, Ron Hess on "The Dark years, certainly well over 100. Members are ship mystery first hand; the book ends with Side of Shakespeare," and Robert Prechter encouraged to register sooner rather than Perin describing his acting experiences in on the 1609 dedication to the Sonnets (sup­ later to be assured of Hamlet tickets. Elizabethan England as "doing de Vere." porting and expanding on John Rollett's The conference will begin Thursday Among the papers presently sched­ work). There will also be a panel on staging evening (October 26th) with Canadian au­ uled are Richard Whalen on Leonard Digges Ha mlet, moderated by Dr. Ren Draya. thor Lynne Kositsky reading from her new (reprising his Portland presentation), Eddi Registration for the full conference is children's book A Question of Will, after Jolly on Burghley's library (based on her $130. Contact Sue Sybersma for fUliherinfor­ which there will be a question and answer May 2000 DVS newsletter article), Frank mation: (5 19)393-6409. The conference hotel session. Davis on Shakespeare's medical knowl­ is the Victorian Inn on the Park: (800)741- Kositsky's book features the author- edge, Den'an Charlton on the De Vere 2135. Room rates are $85/night (Canadian). page 4 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

The last known letter of Edward de Vere brought to light

By Susan Campbell

his past April, research efforts at the Essex Records Office were rewarded with an important find: three letters fr om T The text of the last letter we now have in de Vere's Edward de Vere. The first,a letter ofcommission dated 13 own hand, found in the Essex Records Office by Sue March 1 592, granting Roger Harlakendenand William Lewyn the right to increase the revenue on celiain lands and properties in Campbell-of London and San Diego-in April 2000: order to raise the standard of the teaching at the "Free Schole at Earles Colne" and provide "a sufficienteand able scholemaster Seeing it hath pleased your Majesty of your most ... " was in the hand of a scrivener, but was signed by de Vere. The gracious inclination to justice and right to restore me to second, dated 13 December 1593, also dictated but signed by de Vere, revoked the previous licence, stating that Harlakenden and be keeper of your game as well in your forest of Lewyn had fa iled to keep their promise to "place a sufficient Waltham, as also in Havering Park, I can do no less in scholemaster there fo r the teaching and instructing of youth in duty and love teo) Your Majesty, but employ myself in good literature." the execution thereof. And to the end you might the I was cham1ed by the opening line: "To all people, to whom better know in what sort both the forest and the park this present writing shall come, I, Edward de Vere Earl ofOxenford have beeen)abused, and yet continued, as well in de­ Lord Great Chamberlain of England Viscount Bulbeck and Lord stroying of the deer, as in spoiling of your demesne of Badlesmere and Scales, send greeting." As one of those to whom "this writing" had come, I fe lt myself included in the warmth wood, by such as have patents, and had licences here­ of his "greeting." tofore for felling of timb(er) in the Queens time lately Excited by the discovelY, I felt a strong reluctance to retum deceased, presuming thereby that they may do what to San Diego, so I changed the ticket and immediately retumed to they liste. I was bold to send unto your majesty a man Essex to see what else I could find. Eventually I was presented skilfull, learned and experienced in forest causes, who with an unpromising old fo lder, which, however, tumed out to being a dweller and eyewitness thereof might inform hold a treasure, a letter written by Edward de Vere himself, in his you of the truth. And because your Majesty upon a own hand, addressed to "hys most excellente Magestye, King James 1 st" and dated "30 Januarie 1 603." Ihad come across what bare information, could not be so well satisfied of every I now know to be the last known letter of Ox ford 's written by his particular as by lawfull testimony and examination of own hand and, if my modest effOlis at research are correct, the credible witness upon oath, according to your Majesties only known letter to a monarch. Modem dating puts it at January appointment by commission a course has been taken, in 1604, a mere five months before his death on the 24th of June. which your Majesty shall be fully satisfied of (the) I held it to the light to check the unusual watermark, and truth. This commission together with the depositions of generally stared at and admired it, amazed by its remarkable clarity the witness I do send to your Majesty by your bearer, and immediacy, and the fact that I could read it as effortlessly as a letter from a friend. Marks on the paper show it to have been who briefly can inform you of the whole contents. Say fo lded into an envelope shape, leaving the "address" to be seen now, having lawfully proved unto your Majesty that Sir on the outer side, yet it has suffered very little damage, the right John Graye hath killed and destroyed your deer in hand edge ofthe paper having deteriorated slightly, causing the Havering park without any warrant for the same his loss of perhaps a half dozen letters. patent is void in law, and therefore I most humbly be­ Unlike many other letters ofthe period, it is as clear and as easy seech your Majesty to make him an example for all to read today as it was on the day of writing, even revealing those moments when the pen was fr eshly dipped in ink, or a new one others that shall in like sort abuse their places and to taken up when the lettering was fading. The gracefulItalic script restore me to the possession thereof, in both which flows easily across the page, the hand of one well used to writing. your Majesty shall do but Justice and right to the one Itrises, almost curves slightly up towards the top right, as do most and other this 30 January 1603. of his letters. Itbetrays little weakness or unevenness ofpressure, and has no blots. It has the fe eling of a letter written once, not Your Majesties composed and then copied. most Only in the flourishes above the signature is betrayed a carefulness not like his usual confident swash. While the letters humble to his in-laws are written rapidly and are generally barren of subject and flourishes, this fOlmal letter ofthanks and more requests to a new servant monarch obviously required he demonstrate his best penman­ E Oxenforde ship. Though there is no hesitation, he was clearly writing with (Continued on page 6) Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 5 page 6 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

de Vere letter (COil til1 uedji-olllpage 4) is tmth though never so old, and time cannot ters provided to us by Prof. Alan Nelson is more concernsfor the look ofthe letter, than make that fa lse which was once true, and a proposal for the management of the tin in most ofthe letters we have to date (all to though this threescore years both my father monopoly wherein he addresses the Queen his in-laws). Despite these slight differences, and myself have been dispossessed therof, directly; however, the lack of a salutation or there can be no doubt that this is de Vere's yet hath there been claims make thereto signature suggests that this was a proposal own idiosyncratic handwriting. No one who many times within those threescore years, that was given to someone else to pass on has seen photocopies of his letters could which I take sufficient by law to avoid pre­ to her-most likely Robert Cecil, his go­ mistake it for that of anyone else. scription in this case." between throughout in this matter.) The text of the letter reveals it to be the With the accession of James, the tide In his argument that, along with the fourth and probably the final letter in a series began to tum in Oxford's favour. On June rights to the fo rest, the patents also be concerningthe Keepership of the Forest of 19th, 1603, he wrote what was previously returned to him and malefactors punished, Essex and Havering Park. It witnesses the believed to be his last letter, again to Robert we see his legal education reflected in the conclusion of a long and sometimes bitter easy and correct use of such legal terms as: stmggle to reestablish what had been a "lawfultestimony," "examination of cred­ hereditary title in the familyuntil the twelfth ible witness," "appointments by commis­ year of the reign of Henry VIII, when the "His sense of sion," "depositions of the witness," "eye King took it for the tenn of the life of his witness," and "patent void in law"; wrap­ grandfather. Attempts to recover it began ping the whole in a graceful and poetic with the sixteenth Earl more than sixty years flamboyance does phrasing while hammering home his point. before. Edward took up the case at some This final letter, begun with the courtly point (the first extant letteron the subject is not seem to have elegance found so often in his writing, bears dated October 25, 1593) with his appeal out the growing optimism found in the two twice going to law before the Queen per­ previous ones on the subject, but it must suaded him to drop it-and in what can only deserted him ... have been a bittersweet victory, coming as have been a beliefthat his compliance would it did after so many years and so late in life. eventually be rewarded, he did. When this [with the signature] It would be fo r a handwriting expert to say was still not forthcoming, it went to arbitre­ what weakness, if any, is betrayed in the ment before Sir Christopher Hatton, but still uncharacteristically careful penmanshipand Elizabeth refused to allow it. giving the impression slightly shaky flourishes. Despite the un­ Letters to his in-laws reveal a great deal usual caution, his sense of flamboyance about the suit and about his fe elings at does not appear to have deserted him, ifthe Elizabeth's intransigence. The first, written of a courtly bow. " signature is anything to go by, as it takes up to Lord Treasurer Burghley on October 25th the whole of the remaining space on the 1593 (and reported in William Plumer page, giving the impression of a courtly Flowler's book of 1986, Shakespeare Re­ bow, as, feathered hat in hand, this great vealed in Oxfo rd 's Letters) tells ofhis hopes Cecil, referring to his suit for the Keepership Peer bends his knee, and lowers his head in that the Queen would give him leave to try and his title to Havering House and Park. In respect for his King. Gone-as with the May his title at law, " ... But I found that so it he expresses a growing optimism and a 7th and June 19th letters to Cecil-are the displeasing unto her, that in place ofreceiv­ heartfelt gratitude to Cecil, his "simple hearty "crown" above and the underscoring and ing that ordinary favour which is of course thanks" for his help in the matter, the suit "in crossmarks of earlier signatures as he re­ granted to the meanest subject, I was brow seeking whereof, I have spent the chiefest turns to a fr eer, less encumbered style. beaten and had many bitter speeches given time ofmine age." We can imagine his feel­ Sadly, Oxford had little time to enjoy his me." After all, the keepership was a major ings when his suit was granted a month later. victory, though it must have pleased him to gift in hand with which to spread the "net of In this newly discovered and (to date) be able to pass along something to his heirs. her favour," as one scholar puts it, and finalletter ofJanualY 1 604, he writes directly Five months later, on the 1 8th ofJune, 1604, Elizabeth may have felt that his £ 1 000 annu­ to the King, in itself something of a depar­ he granted the custody ofthe forest ofEssex ity, established in 1586, was sufficient. ture. According to David Starkey in his tohis son-in-law, LordNonis, and his cousin Oxford, however, persisted. In a sec­ recent book Elizabeth, Court etiquette dic­ Sir Francis Vere. Six days later hewas dead. ond extant letter to Robert Cecil (now Vis­ tated that no one must write directly to the count Cranboume) dated May 7th, 1603, monarch, unless instructed to do so, except Th e letter is reproduced courtesy of Oxford describes how the suit had twice it be their husband, wife, or another king or Th e Essex Records Office. gone to law with judgement likely to fa ll in queen; messages were to be sent through My thanks to Va lerie Nicholson and his favour, only to let himselfbe persuaded Lord Burghley or another member of the Derran Charlton oftheDe Vere Societyand by the Queen to "let it fall" on her "assured Privy Council. According to Starkey, James to Stephanie Hughes, Editor of The Oxfor­ promises and words of a prince to restore it introduced a whole new political style, velY dian,for their support and encouragement. herselfunto me." To Cecil he writes: "I have different from the Tudors, making it possible Th anks also to Jennife r Butler, Principal been thus long dispossessed, but I hope for Oxford to put his case in writing directly Archivist of the Essex Records Office. tmth is subject to no prescription, fo r truth to the King. (Among Oxford's tin mine let- Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 7

Research Notes " The "upstart Crow supposes By Jonathan Dixon Yes trust them not: for there is an upstart tion, can just as easily be read as refuting it. tion of "suppose" may also be of relevance Crow, beautified with our feathers, that with I would like to share something I discovered here: "to substitute by artifice or fr aud," his Ty gers hart wrapt ill a Players hyde, which I have never seen addressed in Oxfor­ e.g., "The thief supposed a cheap glass supposes he is as well able to bombast out dian--or any other-literature, but which, I copy for the real diamond." Although it a blank verse as the best ofyou: and being an believe, deals a serious blow to this most doesn't fitgram matically into Greene's pas­ absolute Johannes fa ctotulIl, is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene in a countrey. sacred of Stratford ian documents, a seman­ sage, this definition provides furtherindica­ tic matter which should be brought up in any tion that in Shakespeare's time the word his turgid little passage from Greene 's fu ture debate in which Stratfordians drag "suppose" had a definite connotation of TGroatsworth of Wit is, as Charlton out this old chestnut of "proof." fr aud and deception that it since has lost. In Ogburn points out in Th e My steri­ Reading the above passage from Greene fa ct, these old definitions are the very basis ous William Shakespeare, the corner­ for the millionth-and-first time, it simply of George Gascoigne's play of mistaken stone-nay, the very foundation--on which occurred to me to wonder: Why does the identity, Supposes (perfonned at Gray's Inn the whole Stratford myth is erected. With­ crow "suppose" he is well able to bombast in 1566, and first published around 1572). out it, orthodox scholars would have not a out a blank verse? Why "suppose"? It seems As the Prologue in that play states, in an whit of evidence dating from William rather an odd choice of words, considering "argument" filled with wordplay on the word Shakspere's lifetime with which to link that "to suppose" usually means "to make an "suppose": Stratford businessman to a writing career of assumption or inference." Why did the au­ anysort(59). It's theirace-in-the-hole. Strat­ thor of the Groatsworth-whether Greene But, understand, this our Suppose is fo rdians have traditionally paraded this himself, the printer Henry Chettle, or some­ nothing else but a mistaking or imagination of passage as irrefutable proof that by 1592 one else-not say simply, "believes" or one thing for another. For you shall see the William Shakspere of Stratford-on-Avon, "thinks" or "is ofthe opinion" or some other master supposed for the servant, servant for the master; the freeman for a slave, and the after his mysterious lost years, was not only such clearer phrase? I began to wonder if bondslave for a freeman; the stranger fo r a alive and well and living in London, and was there wasn't perhaps some other a rchaic well-known friend, and the familiar for a not only a successfulactor in that teeming use of the verb "to suppose" that the author stranger. (qtd. in Baskervill et al. 113) metropolis, but was already an established might actually have intended. playwright, popular enough to be consid­ And, sure enough, according to the The relevance of all this to the author­ ered a threat by the leading writers of his Oxford Un iversal DictionalY, in 16th cen­ ship question needs hardly be elaborated day. How could it be read any other way? tury England the word "suppose" also had upon. In light ofthe above, it seems likely they demand. the now-obsolete meaning "to feign or pre­ -or at the velY least, undeniably plausible For example, Marchette Chute asserted, tend." (A modernillu stration might be, "Su­ -that even if Greene was referring to "The most important thing about Greene's perman supposes he is a mild-mannered Shakspere of Stratford in his famous pas­ attack is that it established the fa ct that reporter named Clark Kent.") sage, what he was really saying was: "There Shakespeare was a successfulactor before If you now read Greene's famous pas­ is an uppity player who passes himself offas he became a playwright. This, in turn, ex­ sage once again, substituting "pretends" a playwright andpretends he can write plays plains what he had been doing in the inter­ fo r "supposes," you get a very different with the best of you" (This said, perhaps, vening years, since the birth of his twins in interpretation fromthe orthodox, which sim­ with the implication that the player was a Stratford in 1585" (56). E.K. Chambers said, ply takes itthat the player had a high opinion substitute for someone else?). "Greene's letter in itselfis sufficientto show of his own writing ability. The new interpre­ All in all, it is proof once again that, when that by September 1592 Shakespeare was tation leaves it an open question whether looked at critically, the documentary evi­ both a player and a maker ofplays" (57). And the player wrote--orwas capable of writing dence linking William Shakspere to the Gerald E. Bentley, "The first Londonrefer­ -anything at all. This new reading also plays of William Shakespeare can often be ence to Shakespeare appropriately com­ makes more sense than the traditional when read as questioning the relationship rather bines his acting and his writing functions, looked at in the light of Greene's than affirmingit. and the context of Greene's allusion makes crow-and-feathers metaphor, an allusion to it plain that Shakespeare's success as a the Aesop fable in which a crass crow dis­ Works Cited: playwright was already sufficientto make guises himself with peacock feathers and Baskervill, Charles Read; Virgil B. Heltzel and him a serious rival to the University Wits" pretends to be what he is not-what he is in Arthur H. Nethercot (eds). Elizabethal1 al1d Stuart (57). And so on ... no way equipped to be. The crow does not Plays. (New York: Henry Holt and Company, And yet, as with so many other docu­ really become a peacock. He pretends to be 1934). Ogburn, Charlton. The Mysteriolls William ments purporting to supportthe Stratfordian one. Shakespeare: The Myth and the Reality. (New attribution, this passage, on closer examina- A second obsolete Elizabethan defini- York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1984). page 8 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Stritll1atter (Colltilllledji'oll1 page 1) presentation of not just the annotations in is a strong offense. "Why avoid the intent open to the public). The fo rmat, under the the Bible, but also the underlying hypoth­ of this entire endeavour?" he asked. guidance of Defense Committee Chairman esis that made this Ph.D. defense unlike any "Namely, to bring to bear a new body of William Moebius, was a "European-style" other. Rather than shy away from the iden­ evidence supporting the conclusion, defense, with questions allowed and en­ tification of Edward de Vere as Shakespeare, reached eighty years ago on entirely diffe r­ couraged from the audience. Stritmatter chose to meet the challenge head entpremises, by John Thomas Looney and Despite personal invitation, prominent on. The analysis of the Geneva Bible anno­ subsequently by many other informed and Stratfordian scholars from the University of tations was, therefore, not presented as a rational readers of' Shakespeare '?" Massachusetts and other institutions boy­ "smoking gun" to de V ere's authorship, but When he had firstlooked at the Geneva cotted the event. "I was very disappointed instead became (as Dr. Daniel Wright would Bible atthe Folger Shakespeare Library nine that there were no challenges from the audi­ later note in his opening statement) "a map years ago, Stritmatter hypothesized that he ence regarding the red-hen-ing issue of the ofthe author's mind as his creative art was was looking at "Shakespeare 's" Bible-just handwriting in the Bible," Stritmatter later informed by Scripture." as William Plumer Fowler before him had commented. Stritmatter's opening statement outlined analyzed Oxford's letters as the letters of "Bruce Smith, David Kathman, and other the 20th centulY history of the authorship "Shakespeare:" His analysis of the annota­ leading Stratfordians have insisted, on the debate, and the extremely strong case for tions in comparison with existing scholar­ flimsiest imaginable grounds, that the anno­ identifying Edward de Vere as the most ship on Shakespeare's use of the Bible tations were made not by Oxford but by an likely pseudonymous author of the Shake­ supports this proposition (the dissent of anonymous third party. I was really looking speare canon. Amongthose Oxfordians who such critics as DavidKathman on the Intemet fo rward to rebutting that silly notion, but had come to attend the defense, there had in notwithstanding), Stritmatter stated. Fur­ none of these Clitics seem to have had the fa ct been some discussion about such a thermore, the annotations themselves have courage of their convictions. They are com­ tactic-almost like sports fans talking strat­ led to new insights on Shakespeare's use of pletely unwilling to go head to head in a egies and players before the big game­ the Bible-insights previously not known public debate and prefer to operate by innu­ with some suggesting that making the au­ to Shakespeare scholars. endo, bad logic and character assassina­ thorship debate itself an integral pati of the Several ofthese insights have been docu­ tion. They couldn't be more mistaken about overall disseliation defense might not be mented by Stritmatter in a series of articles this subject, and-in their heart ofheat is­ such a good idea-in fa ct that it might well published in the prestigious scholarly jour­ they must know it" (see also a briefnote on backfireand force some committee members nalNotes and Queries, published by Oxford page 3 about the handwriting issue). to vote against the dissertation on author­ University Press during the 1997-2000 However, in this case Moebius had al­ ship grounds alone. Others, of course, fe lt period. More await publication fo r the first ready decided in advance that only written just the opposite, wondering how one could time in the dissertation. questions would be allowed, since there discuss the Bible as Shakespeare's without Stritmatter's presentation demonstrated was actually some concem about events grappling with the claim ofEdward de Vere' s its strength as he moved from the author­ running out of control. As is the procedure being Shakespeare. ship debate itself into his analysis of the with such defenses, the candidate made an Stritmatter's decision to lay his cards on Bible-an analysis that made comparisons opening presentation before the committee. the table, he later told us, was finallybased with both Shakespeare's known Bible use, Stritmatter began with an exciting, eloquent on the simple premise that the best defense and with other English and Continental

Professor Daniel Wright's Preface to his Examination of Roger Stritmatter (Doctoral Dissertation Committee, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, April 21, 2000)

First of all, I want to commend Roger ers to continue the investigation--tobuild on its world. Roger Stritmatter has given us much more Stritmatter on his substantive work in thisdisser­ exciting and revelatOlY insights-to test them than an index to Shakespeare's Bible; he has tation, an achievement of great intellecmallabor over and again,to reflect on them,to expound on provided for us a map ofthe author's mind as his that commands the continued attention ofschol­ them. This dissertation is an invitation not to creative art was infonned by Scriphlre. ars. Many of us in the academic world are close the book on what some might regard as an No small achievement, that. We've waited sometimes inclined to look at dissertations as arcane smdy of dubious relevance and pat the forover four hundred years forsomeone to push vehicles ofnarrow ,high lyparticnlarizedinquiry author on the head with a commendatOlY,"Well open-even ifbut an inch-that door of under­ that, once completed, are to be relegated to done, fellow. Now join us in the community of standing into the heretofore closed-to-us room in oversmffedand dusty shelves or shipped offto scribblers dedicated to the publication of even which the sources of Shakespeare's art were academic publishing houses so that similarly more jejunescholarship!" kept, and here we have it, via an impressive, specialized-ifsomewhatshorter-professional It is a summons to us to persevere in our scholarly investigation of the most influential publication mightensue. investigation ofthe conclusionsand implications text the writeI' who was Shakespeare utilized in Not so here. of this thesis-to strive for a more perfect the fonnation of his dramatic art. This dissertation answers important ques­ understanding ofthereligious sensibilities ofthe This leads me to my first question of the tions for us. But it does not close the field of writer who was Shakespeare and explore the candidate ... inquiry into the subjectit explores. Unlike many character ofhis theological imagination at a time doctoral dissertations,this work invites its read- ofreligious and culmral revolution in the Western Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 9 writers. There had been and constitutes a worthy one recent, significant addition to the world of change made in his ap­ scholarship. proach to this project, a In the months since change that had evolved April 21st, of course, not from working on this thesis all other scholars have over the years and con­ agreed with this decision, sulting with his advisors. particularly those with a Whereas his earlier analy­ stake in the authorship sis ofthe Bible annotations debate. Most prominent had compiled side by side among these is Dr. David lists ofpat iicularverses an­ Kathman (University of notated and whether they Chicago), co-founder of also appeared in Shake­ The Shakespeare Author­ speare, the thesis in its fi­ ship Page on the Internet, nal form took the analysis an anti-Oxfordian website to a new and more enlight­ devoted to the proposition ening level, namely to a that "Shakespeare Wrote closer look at the subset of Roger Stritmatter (third ji'0l1/ left) poses with members of the Dissertation Shakespeare." The site's about eighty Biblical pas­ Defense Committee (!i'omleft to right): Dr. Edwin Gentzlel� Dr. Elizabeth Petroff, existence is, in fact, a com­ sages to which Shake­ Dr. Daniel L. Wright, Committee Ch air Dr. William Moebius, and Dr. James pliment on the strength of speare makes frequent and Freeman. (Photo Lisa Wilson) the Oxfordian movement. repeated reference. Dr. Kathman had been This analysis ofthe annotations broken about the authorship issue itself sabotag­ in touch with the committee even before down into thematic groups-identified as ing the chances for a successful defense April 21st, trying to get an advance copy of "image clusters"-are the centerpiece of were ill-founded. WhileDI'. Daniel Wright's the dissertation. Some wondered whether Stritmatter's final version of his disserta­ opening statement and fo llowup questions he might show up in Amherst to question tion. In brief, this analysis has found that did come from someone clearly sympathetic the candidate, but-although cordially in­ annotator's notes were not random, but in on the authorship issue,the next round of vited by Professor Moebius-he did not. fa ct kept returning to a handful of themes questions fr om UMass English Professor Afterwards he did post several times on scattered throughoutthe Bible, themes that, James Freeman quickly revealed that the the Usenet bulletin board humanities. it turnsout, clearly resonate with the Shake­ committee was not going to even question Iit.authors.shakespere about Stritmatter. speare canon itself, and even more impor­ the viability ofthe hypothesis ofEdward de In this forum Dr. Kathman commented that tantly, with the dynamics of the authorship Vere as Shakespeare, but instead fo cused Stritmatter's Ph.D. was in the Comparative debate itself. For these clusters reveal an its concernson the pedagogic implications Literature Department [since] "the English individual concerned not only with such of the authorship question, and, more gen­ Department wants nothing to do with him. I fa miliar matters as usury, almgiving, or the erally, the implications of the authorship could tell some stories, but I probably anointment ofthe monarch by God, but also question for academe. shouldn't go public." (hlas, 23 May 2000) with other, more esoteric matters such as Committee Chair Bill Moebius was the Kathman's Internet colleague Terry "good works," and, in particular, "good last to speak, and he commented on how Ross was a bit more generous in the same works" perfoTIned in secret, known only much better this final version of the thesis fo rum, writing that, to God. was than the one that had existed just a year It is this last such insight about the earlier, a tribute to the impact ofthe analysis I'm not one of Roger's biggest fans, but annotator's concerns that clearly lends of the annotator's notes through the prism I offered him my sincere congratulations on strength to the proposition that this Bible­ of "image clusters." It took the committee his successful defense. It is no mean fe at to ifit is indeed Shakespeare' s-is the Bible of only 15 minutes to reach its unanimous 5-0 earn a doctorate, and Roger can feel justly a Shakespeare concernedwith doing good vote to accept the dissertation, and history proud that his determination and persever­ works in secret, which is, ofcourse, exactly was made. ance have been rewarded. The University of the underlying premise of the entire author­ It should be noted that this vote does Massachusetts Amherst is now on record ship debate itself-i.e, that the identity of not mean that any committee members have saying that Roger has made a substantial the true author is secret, and, further, that now switched sides in the authorship de­ original contribution to research in compara­ the true author-like the annotator-was bate; the vote was taken on the dissertation tive literature, and I, for one, can hardly wait acutely aware of it (as expressed over and itself.And the committee, through its vote, to read his disseliation (hlas, 24 May 2000). over in the Sonnets: "And I, once gone, to went on record as supporting the reason­ all the world must die" (81) and "My name ableness of the proposition that Edward de In the Oxfordian community, of course, be buried where my body is" (72)). Vere is Shakespeare, and that therefore the it's been congratulations all around, and we When the committee proceeded with its scholarship of Roger Stritmatterin examin­ too--likeMr. Ross-anxiously await pub li­ examination ofStritmatter, it was immedi­ ing Edward de Vere's Bible as if it were cation of the dissertation this fa ll. ately clear that any pre-defense concerns Shakespeare's Bible is also reasonable, -W. Boyle page 10 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

4th Annual Edward de Vere Studies Conference Where the papers were illun"linating and the debate revealing he world's largest Oxfordian confer­ standards of scholarship. Professor Daniel standards that will command the respect T ence convened for the fourth con­ Wright, Director of the Conference, then and affirmationof scholars everywhere. secutive year at Concordia Univer­ read letters of greeting to the assembly by Stratfordian Professor Alan Nelson of­ sity in POliland, Oregon from April 6-9. such Oxfordian luminaties as Sir DerekJacobi, fe red a more raw and denunciatory assault Excitement, as always, was high on the Oxfordian thesis by sug­ among the 152 registrants who gesting that the breadth and scope came to hear over twenty presen­ ofEdward de Vere's education is tations, see first-runfilms, enjoy less established in fact than many a debate, and honor two distin­ Oxfordians believe; he also guished Oxfordians in the world pleaded a case for the consider­ of scholarship and the arts. able education ofWilliam ofStrat­ The conference opened on ford, although he acknowledged Thursday evening with the that little more than the texts ofthe AmelicanpremieroftheBBCfihn, plays and poems provide proof of Shakespeare: Man of the Mil­ this education. Nelson's argu­ lenniulIl and papers by Marilynn ment, that presumed what it in­ Loveless (who is working on an tended to prove, was vigorously anti-Stratfordian Ph.D. at Griffith assailed by questioners fr om the University in Australia) and au­ audience, especially Stephanie thor Richard Whalen, who chal­ Hughes, editor of Th e Oxford­ lenged Stratfordian assumptions ian, who recently completed a about Leonard Digges' Stratford 200-page thesis at Concordia connections. The evening con­ University on Oxford's tutors and cluded with a performance in au­ who, on Saturday afternoon, also thentic Elizabethan costume by debated Nelson on the proposi­ Tom and Jean Seehofwho enter­ tion that Oxford was, prima facie, tained the audience with excerpts a better candidate fo r the author­ from the life of Katherine of ship of the Shakespeare canon Suffolk. than the deer poacher from Professor Lew Tate ofSa van­ small-town Stratford. nah, Georgia opened the Friday Conferees were treated to a rousing presentation of the morning session with a paper Among the events during the three-day conference was a debate detailing his approach to teach­ causes for the Oxfordian thesis's between Oxfordian editor Stephanie Hughes (a bove, left) and Prof ing the Oxfordian authorship the­ growing strength among acade­ Alan Nelson of Ue-Berkeley, and (b elow) an entertainingpresen­ sis in the college classroom, a micians by one ofOxf ordian ism' s tation in Elizabethan costumes by To m and Jane Seehof pedagogical theme echoed by most exciting new scholars, Port­ Capt. Kathleen Binns, aninstruc- land high school English teacher tor at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colo­ Michael York and Lewis Lapham, Editor of and Concordia University alum, Andrew rado, who addressed the conference on Hm per 's Magazine. Werth. His paper, "Now is the Winter of "Duplicity and Compromise: Teaching the The firstof two non-Oxfordian presen­ Their Discontent: Why a Threatened Aca­ Authorship Question at the United States tations fo llowed the welcoming ceremonies demic Orthodoxy is Beginning to Take the Air Force Academy." as Professor Frank Gebhard reviewed Oxfordian Thesis Seriously," drew loud Conference attendees then enjoyed the Sigmund Freud's rationale for accepting cheers and applause. Mr. Werth's paper will well-intentioned and captivating (if some­ Edward de Vere as the author of the Shake­ appear in the Fall 2000 Oxfordian. what fa ctually flawed)film, Th e Shakespeare speare canon and critiqued Oxfordian meth­ After lunch, the conference heard Port­ Conspiracy, introduced by librarian Randall odology by suggesting that many Oxford­ land physician, Dr. Merilee Karr, deliver a Bush, before receiving the fo rmal welcome ians, like Sigmund Freud, sometimes rely on brilliant, insightful Keynote Address on the to the university by the Dean of Concordia standards of evidence that are inconsistent topic of "Semiotics and the Shakespeare University's College ofArts and Sciences, with or repudiated by modem scientific Authorship Question: What Difference Dr.Charles Kuneli, who encouraged Oxfor­ methods; a skeptic, but one with an open Does It Make Who the Author Is?" Dr. dians to persevere in their endeavors and mind with respect to Oxfordian claims, he Kan's study, which identifiesthe important never compromise their study and research urged Oxfordians to strive to demonstrate consequences of recognizing Edward de by adopting anything less than the highest their convictions by the maintenance of Vere as the author ofthe Shakespeare canon, Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 11

will also be James Riley, who published in spoke on "The the Fall 2000 Ridiculous Mas­ Oxfordian. ter of the Horse: Stephanie Oxford's Early Hughes led off Reputation." Friday Sunday morning afternoon's also saw British presentation doctoral student with a paper and De Vere So­ that fo llowed ciety Ne wsletter up well on Dr. Editor, Daphne Karr's obser­ Pearson, en­ vations, as she lighten a corner addressed of our historical "The Broader darkness with Implications of her paper on "A the Oxfordian Feudal Survival Thesis." Pro­ and Its Results: fe ssor Ren The Effect of Draya of Car­ Wardship on the linville, Illinois, 17th Earl of fo llowed Ms. Oxford." Hughes by ex­ On Sunday amining afternoon, Shakespeare's Among thosepresentingpa pers this year were England's Daphne Pearson, now editor a/ the De Vere scholar Richard legal rhetoric in Society Newsletter (upp er left), Dr. FrankDavis a/Savannah, Georgia (upper right), RogerParisiolis Paul Roe once Th e Merchant 0/ Hayesville, Ohio (lower left) , and Dr. Merilee Karl' of Portland, Oregon (lower right). again thrilled the 0/ Venice, and conference with Dr. Eric Alt- his exciting rev­ schuler closed the day's presentations with tion between the 17th Earl of Oxford and elations of Shakespeare's extraordinary an update of his study of Shakespeare's the Shakespeare circle of printers and wealth of international experience and intimate familiarity with scientific discover­ publishers. knowledge in "How to Get to Palenno: or, ies, particularly in the fields ofastronomy Saturday evening saw awards bestowed The Exact Knowledge of Mediterranean and medicine. In the evening, Richard at the conference banquet on distinguished Navigation and of Sicily 's Unique Topogra­ Whalen and Dr. Wright spoke on the Oxfor­ Oxfordians fo r their achievements in ad­ phy in Th e Winter 's Tale." Richard was dian thesis to a fu ll house at Powell's City of vancing public recognition of Edward de fo llowed by Professor Daniel Wright, who Books, America's largest bookstore, and Vere as the author ofthe Shakespeare canon. closely examined the curiosity of the uni­ signed copies of their books for interested The conference's annual scholarship award fonnly favorable (and ahistorical!) treatment persons in attendance. was conferred on Richard Whalen, author of of the earls of Oxford in Shakespeare's his­ Saturday morning early risers were the well-known and regarded Shakespeare: tOlY plays. treated to a presentation by Dr. Frank Davis WhoWas He? The conference's Arts Award In his paper, Dr. Wright asked, "What on Shakespeare's medical knowledge, and was extended to London theatre director, interest-political or dramatic-would Will Dr. Davis was fo llowed by Brigadier General Martin Gilmore, who produces and adver­ Shakspere, the Stratford man, have in cre­ and retired Professor, Dr. Jack Shuttleworth, tises all ofhis company's Shakespeare plays atively retouching de Vere fa mily histOlY to who reviewed the history of Shakespeare as the work of Edward de Vere, 1 7th Earl of tell his epic StOlY of England?" The answer portraiture inhis presentation, " 'Why, This Oxford. Banquet participants also were en­ would seem to be none, but if Shakespeare is an Arrant Counterfe it Rascal': Perpetuat­ tertained over desseli and coffe e by Elliott were Edward de Vere, this careful retouch­ ing Myth with Shakespeare's Portraits." Stone, who offered his always-witty and ing of de Vere family histOlY would make General Shuttleworth was fo llowed by Con­ hilarious anecdotes for the diners' enjoy­ eminent sense. Professor Wright's paper is ference regular Roger Parisious, who looked ment. Even Alan Nelson was observed laugh­ reprinted in this issue of the newsletter at the Oxfordian authorship thesis against ing during Elliott's presentation--evidence, ("Vere-y Interesting," page one). the late Elizabethan background of con­ of a kind, that even some Stratfordians have Finally, Roger Stritmatter closed the cealed authorship in "Dealings in Anonym­ a sense of humor. conference's proceedings for this year with ity, 1593-95." Robert Brazil, of Rye, New Sunday's session of the conference a presentation that fo cused on his recently York, concluded the day's proceedings with opened with the newest addition to the completed research into Edward de Vere's a stirring two-hour presentation ofhis break­ Edward de Vere Studies Conference's Advi­ Geneva Bible and its importance asthe likely through research on the revealing connec- sory Board and POliland universitystudent, (Cantin lied on page 31) page 12 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Opinion/CommentarY The end of Stratfordian ism Prof Alan Ne lson s review of Alias Shakespeare a palpable miss By Joseph Sobran

y book Alias Shakespeare has in the 1590s was (we are told) a brilliant middle-aged, with all the despair and regret come under attack from young poet-playwright, taking London by common to men who fe el they have wasted MStratfordian scholars and critics, storm and becoming one of the wealthiest the golden promise of youth. It may seem as one might expect. Most recently it has men in his home town. The poet sounds, amazing that the author ofHam let, of all the been the target of a long, captious review by instead, like an aging gentleman whose life men who ever lived, should fe el this way, but Alan H. Nelson of Berkeley in Th e Shake­ is in decline, mined by some unnamed "dis­ there it is. He says so, over and over again: sp eare Quarterly (Fall 1999), that bastion of grace with fortune and men's eyes." "disgrace," "shalne," "guilt," "blots," "vul­ Shakespearean orthodoxy (published, of gar scandal," and on and on. That is one of course, by the Folger Shakespeare Library). the recurrent themes of the Sonnets. No But while enduring all this pummeling, I sensitive reader can take these for the "When Alias Shakespeare have made one important and rather aston­ poems of a young man. Yet the orthodox ishing discovery about the Stratfordians: scholars have almost entirely missed this namely, that they don't exist! was published in 1997, dominant note of the Sonnets. Tme, they persist in the annoying habit But of course the poet's profile closely of pretending to exist; they tell themselves, I never dreamed that my matches what we know of Edward de Vere, and evelyone else, that they exist; they Earl ofOxfor d, as ofthe 1 590s. Hewas inhis continue to bluster and quibble and quarrel scholarly opponents forties, in ill health. In his letters he once and heap scornon the heretics; but let us not described himself as "lame." He had lived a be fo oled. They agree that the evidence would, without exception, scandalous life (including various charges points to Oxford. of sexual misconduct) and wasted his for­ Appearances perhaps to the contralY, tune. He was a lawyer (Gray's Inn and all Alias Shakespeare has been a tremendous implicitly concede my that) and fr equent litigant. Ifhe was writing success. EvelY Stratfordian scholar who poetry under a pen name, the poet's wish for has addressed it has admitted the tmth of its basic argument. " obscurity becomes intelligible. basic thesis. Simi larly, the handsome young man re­ It was not to be hoped that the partisans sembles Henry Wriothesley, Earl of South­ of William of Stratfo rd would surrender as If the poet can be believed, he is "old," ampton, on several counts. Even many Strat­ gracefully and gallantly as, say, Lee at "lame,""poor," and "despised," among other fordians think the youth was Southampton, Appomattox. After all, they are important things. He knows a lot about the law, using who in the 1590s, by an interesting coinci­ people with reputations to uphold. We hundreds oflegal terms metaphorically. He dence, was being urged to many Oxford's could hardly pray fo r such a miracle of seems to be bisexual, which may have some­ daughter Elizabeth. (The case for Oxford, we humility as an article in Th e Shakespeare thing to do with his damaged reputation. He are assured, rests entirely on "coinci­ Quarterly saying: "The game is up. We so­ hopes that his name will be "buried where dences"----quitean amazing numberofthem, called ' experts' have been confounded, and my body is" and that he will be "forgotten." in fact: fa r more than William can boast.) a cult of rank amateurs has beaten us at our As he fa ces the prospect of death, his only The first salvos against Alias Shake­ own game. It's time we admitted that the consolation is the love of the handsome sp eare came from PaulCan tor ofthe Univer­ Stratford man didn't write these plays, and young man-the "lovely boy"-to whom sityofVirginia, writing in Th e Weekly Stan­ that the Earl of Oxford did." the first 126 Sonnets are addressed. The first dard, and Jonathan Bate ofthe University of But in their own very indirect way the seventeen Sonnets urge this youth to get Liverpool, writing in Th e Wa ll Street Jour­ Olihodox scholars have made their acknowl­ married and beget a son "for love of me." nal. Both Cantor and Bate accused me, in edgments. If you think I exaggerate, dear Nothing of this sounds like the legend­ nearly identical tenns, ofmaking the "naive reader, allow me to explain. We have won! ary William. William ofStra tford was young assumption" that the Sonnets "must be" WhenAlias Shakespeare was published and prosperous in the 1590s. He was never autobiographical. Both pointed out that most in 1997, I never dreamed that my scholarly a public figure, let alone a topic of scandal. Elizabethan sonnets and indeed most po­ opponents would, without exception, im­ We have no evidence that he was lame, ems are not autobiographical. Yet neither plicitly concede my basic argument. But which would have been a handicap fo r an went quite so far as to deny flatly that the they did, one and all. Not that they are fully actor. He had no training in the law. Ifhe was Shakespeare Sonnets reflect their author's conscious of doing so, but we can't have becoming famous as a poet, taking London actual life; they merely hinted that it was evelything, can we? by storm and confident that his verse would "naive" to think so. My central argument concerns the Son­ be immortal, why should he think his name In fa ct, I was not "naive" and I didn't nets. The poet speaking here doesn't sound could be "buried" or "forgotten"? "assume" that the Sonnets are autobio­ like the legendary William of Stratford, who No, this poet is an aging man, at least graphical. Both Cantor and Bate failed- Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 13

unconscionably-to mention that I'd de­ ofSha kespeare 's Sonnets is really the riddle of evidence relating to Shakespeare's [that voted several pages to the old question of of Shakespeare's authorship, and the solu­ is, William's] life in London means that whether the Sonnets tell us anything about tion to both is the same. something like the experiences described in the man who wrote them. This omission Neither Cantor nor Bate nor any of my the sonnets did not happen to him." Not a served, of course, to mislead their readers other antagonists (FrankBrownlow, writing word about my actual argument; just the about what the book really said. Neither in Chronicles, Jeffr ey Hart of Dartmouth, assertion of my "assumption" that the Son­ review would have heldup with a reader who writing in Na tiollal Review, James Bowman nets "must be" autobiographical. had already read the book itself. ofthe Times Literwy Supplement, writing in Buthere Bowman introduced a new note On the question of the Sonnets, I'd Th e Washington Tim es, and a few others) to the familiar Stratfordian defense. If it actually quoted the unanswerable argument bothered explaining why William of Strat­ weren't for our "lack of evidence," the poet of A. C. Bradley: ford should write "fictional" poems whose of the Sonnets might be seen to match speakerjust happens to resemble Oxford so William! So much for the "intentional fa l­ No capable poet, much less a Shake­ closely, or why the youth should just hap­ lacy"-perhaps the Sonnets are autobio­ speare, intending to produce a merely 'dra­ pen to resemble Southampton just as closely. graphical after all! matic' series of poems, would dream of Here Bowman tacitly concedes the point inventing a stOlY like that of these sonnets, at issue: that the evidence we have, as or, even ifhe did, of treating it as they treat "... the existing evidence- opposed to the evidence we lack, would it. The stOlY is velY odd and unattractive. seem to fa vor Oxford. No more than the Such capacities as it has are but slightly especially the evidence others does Bowman deny that the poet developed. It is leftobscure, and some ofthe does seem to fit the known fa cts about poems are unintelligible to us because they of The Sonnets- Oxford; he merely pleads that if only we contain allusions of which we can make knew more about William, the poet might nothing. Now all this is very natural if the reveals a poet who tum out to fit the facts about William just as stOlY is substantially a real story of Shake­ well! Much virtue in "if." speare himself and of certain other persons; sounds mighty like th e All these critics seem to have missed the ifthe Sonnets were written from time to time whole point of Alias Shakespeare: that the as the relations ofthe persons changed, and Earl of Oxfo rd and existing evidence-especially the evidence sometimes in reference to particular inci­ of the Sonnets-reveals a poet who sounds dents; and if they were written for one or 1I0t at all like mighty like the Earl of Oxford, and not at all more ofthese persons (far the greaternumber like William of Stratford. That, in a nutshell, for only one), and perhaps in a few cases for Wil liam of Stratford. " is what I was hying to get across. other friends, - written, that is to say, for As for evidence that has never turned people who knew the details of which we are up, I take no position, exceptthatl am willing ignorant. But it is all unnatural, well-nigh None denied the resemblance of the poet to agree that if evidence favoring William incredibly unnatural, if, with the most scep­ and the youth to Oxford and Southampton. should ever turn up, it would no doubt tical critics, we regard the Sonnets as a free Some of them made no mention of the strengthen the case fo r William. Which is to product ofmere imagination. Sonnets at all! say that the case for William reduces to a Bowman took a slightly different tack. purely hypothetical tautology. Granted, if I'd also quoted others. C.S. Lewis adds "Mr. Sobran," he wrote, "attempts to draw we had proof of his authorship, it would that the Sonnets tell "so odd a story that we autobiographical inferences from literary prove he was the author. Butunfortunately, find a difficulty in regarding it as fiction." works in a way that virtually the entire we don't and he wasn't. Paul Ramsey agrees: "The Sonnets have spectlum ofprof essional critics has regarded Having given away the game without too much jagged specificity to ignore, too as impennissible, at least since W.K. Wimsatt realizing it, my critics, needless to say, reso­ little development and completing of the and Monroe Beardsley's Th e In tentional lutely maintained the usual authoritative events to be an invention." Likewise Philip Fallacy (1 946)." tone of utter scorn that anyone should Edwards: "[T]hat there is a solid core of But the "intentional fa llacy" is the fa l­ question William's authorship. autobiography in the Sonnets, in the events lacy of inferring an intention ofthe poetthat Now comes Alan Nelson, who has actu­ refelTed to, the relationships described, the is irrelevant to the poem as a work of art. It ally done research on Oxford's life. He emotions expressed, seems to me beyond doesn't mean that poets never write auto­ charges me with about a dozen minor factual dispute. It may not be their most important biographically, as witness, for example, the errors, fe w ofwhich have even the slightest or interesting fe ature, but it can hardly be sonnets of Milton and Wordsworth. No relevance to my argument (Elizabeth Vere' s argued away." literaty biographer would dream ofignoring age in 1 590, for example ). Unfortunately, he The only reason some scholars dismiss such poems as Milton's sonnet on his cites no sources so that we may judge the disclosures ofthe Sonnets as "fictional" blindness. whether my alleged errors are in fa ct errors; is that the poet's self-pOliraitcan't berecon­ Following the lead of Cantor and Bate, and Nelson's inabi lity to comprehend what ciled with what he know of William ofStrat­ Bowman, abruptly changing course, fu rther he reads-he repeatedly misstates my argu­ ford. Ifthe poet is Oxford, there is no diffi­ charged me with "two highly dubious as­ ment, fo r example---doesn't inspire confi­ culty--especially if the youth is also his sumptions-first that the Sonnets must be dence in his scholarship. prospective son-in-law. The famous "riddle" autobiographical and second that our lack (Continued 011 page 25) page 14 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Vere-y In teresting (Cont'dji-oll1 page 1) This is the public business of Shake­ play of the Lancaster cycle oftenhave ex­ Princess Elizabeth was born. Of course, we speare in the histories: rewriting already pressed wonder at Shakespeare's choice of know that Elizabeth was born of Henry revised history in order to reinforce and moment to begin this play. Why should Th e VIII's mistress and second wife while consolidate the political claims ofthe Tudor Tragedy of King Richard the Second open Katherine yet lived-but many in dynasty and its Reformation heritage-an with the Dukes of Norfolk and Hereford Shakespeare's audiences in his own day assertion, however, that must be foregone hurling accusations of treason at one an­ would not know this-and Shakespeare or somehow explained away ifone embraces other? Wouldn't it seem more likely that was not about to tell them. the now-fashionable but baseless claims of Shakespeare the playwright might have In Th e Tragedy of Richard the Th ird, some scholars who assert that Shakespeare elected to dramatize the colorful events that Shakespeare tells us that King Richard, at was a Catholic emigre to Lancashire where led to these embittered accusations? Per­ the fa tal battle ofBos worth, encountered no he also was known as "Shakeshafte." haps-and ifhe was the author ofthe anony­ fewer than six doubles of Hemy, Earl of mous and unfinished play, Thomas of Richmond, in the field-of which Wo odstock (sometimes known as "Richard Shakespeare's Richard fantastically claims "This is the public the Second, Part One"), he may have done­ that he has killed five. The claim, of course, and that possibility, in itself, is the subject is absurd, without any historical support, business of Shakespeare ofa fo rthcoming paper from me. Butwhether and contradicts all contemporary reports of Shakespeare wrote or contributed to Tho­ the battle; John Julius Norwich, author of in the histories: rewriting mas of Wo odstock is not our immediate Shakespeare 's Kings, declares that the ac­ concern,important as that is to a continuing count-an example of broad "dramatic li­ already revised histmy investigation of the origins of the Shake­ cense"-is anchored solely in Shake­ speare texts. What interests us for the mo­ in order to reinforce speare's imagination. So why, ifit weren't ment is why the figure of Robert de Vere, the true, and supported by no authority of any and consolidate th e 9th Earl of Oxford, does not figure promi­ kind, would Shakespeare invent such a nently (or, indeed, at all!) in the account of scene? What is the effect of Shakespeare 's political claims of the Richard II's reign in the indisputably singular inclusion of this seemingly inci­ Shakespearean play ofRicha rd the Second, dental fiction in his account? Can anyone Tudor dy nasty and fo rto readFroissart's Chronicles, you would doubt that his purpose in doing so is any­ think that the proper subj ect of Th e Tragedy thing other than subtly to confer royal sta­ its Reformation heritage. " of King Richard the Second would be not tus on Richmond even before Richmond Richard of Bordeaux but Robert de Vere. becomes King by right of conquest-as­ Robert de Vere, the 9th Earl ofOxf ord, I sisting, thereby, on the public stage, in the There are other revisionist features in would submit, does not appear in greater legitimization of yet another claim­ the Shakespeare histories which orthodox Shakespeare's account ofRichard II's reign ant to the English throne whose legitimacy commentators are less able, or altogether because, singular in prominence as de Vere (and progeny) otherwise might be suspect? unable, to exp lain. What, fo r examp Ie, are we was in the Ricardian court, the author had no Why does Shakespeare, in Th e Life and to make ofthe way that the earls ofOxf ord­ desire to exhibit him before the public or to Death ofKing John, have John, a late twelfth! Edward de Vere's predecessors-are pre­ remind anyone of Robert de Vere's legacy. early thirteenth-century Angevin king, de­ sented in the histories? Stratfordians can­ If Shakespeare were to have begun his ac­ clare himself "supreme head" of the not possibly account for the curiously se­ count of Richard 's reign any fa rther back in Church-a claim and a title that no English lective manner in which the histories of the time than he does in Richard the Second, he monarch would dare advance until the six­ earls of Oxford are recounted in the Shake­ almost surely would have been required to teenth centulY? Shakespeare has John de­ speare histories (nor, for that matter, do any offe r at least some glancing look at this fiantly address CardinalPandulph, the pa­ ofthem even try). After all, what interest­ multi-titled earl of Oxford. If Shakespeare pal envoy, with the bold declaration that political or dramatic-would Will Shakspere, was Edward de Vere, however, Robert de "[A]s we, under God, are supreme head, / So the Stratford man, have in creatively re­ Vere may have been the last person in the under Him that great supremacy, /Wherewe touching de Vere fa mily history to tell his author's ancient lineage to whom he would do reign, we will alone uphold, / Without th' epic story of England? None that I can have desired any attention be drawn. assistance of a mortal hand: / So tell the imagine. However, ifthe writer ofthe Shake­ By almost all accounts, Robert de Vere, pope, all reverence set apart / To him and his speare plays were a de Vere himself, the 9th Earl of Oxford, was an infamous figureof usurped authority" (IILi.155-60). Can this revelation ofa peculiarly personal interest in odious notoriety and vice who dredged the passage have been constructed fo r any favorably presenting the histOlY of the earls deepest contempt from the souls of leading other reason than to demonstrate, albeit of Oxford might go fa r toward making some Englishmen in his own day. He came to his anachronistically, the fu ndamentally Prot­ sense of Shakespeare's othelwise inexpli­ title in 1372 at the age often, five years before estant character of true, sovereign English cable determination to illuminate this noble the inauguration of young King Richard's monarchy that knows obedience to no for­ fa mily in a unifonnly complimentary light. reign. At an early age, he became the King's eign power-temporal or spiritual?3 Commentators on Shakespeare's first "bosom friend and favorite"; he was "con- Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 15 stantly at the King's side as his closest individual principally responsible for the the association between the two become friend and confidant." Verily Anderson sug­ wars that erupted between the King and his that in circles hostile to them it gave rise to gests that Chaucer-a contemporary of de uncles, the Lords Appellant-more respon­ allegations of homosexuality," and Thomas Vere who would have known him person­ sible, was he, ultimately, fo r Richard's de­ Walsingham's Historia Anglicana is but ally-might have described him as an ac­ cline and fa ll than Richard himself. He was one among many chronicle accounts ofthe complishedartist, singer, poet, orator, dancer preoccupied, not with matters of state but era that accuse Robert and Richard of"ob­ and writer, but John Julius Norwich dis­ with self-indulgence and displays of "os­ scene familiarity" with one another. misses him as but one of many undistin­ tentatious splendor," and as Verily Ander­ Neither was this earl of Oxford highly guished Ricardian courtiers, "frivolous, ra­ son attests, he, like the King, "thought the regarded fo r any maliial skill, noble achieve­ pacious and empty-headed." creation and contemplation of beautiful ments or intellectual prowess. John Julius palaces, fu rnishings, clothes and fo od more Norwich chastises de Vere as an effete, The 9th Earl of Oxford and RichardII corrupt Ricardian courtier who "taught the king effeminate habits, discouraging According to Froissart, the French him fr om hunting, hawking and other chronicler, Robert de Vere was an ambi­ manly spOlis ...." John Gardner, in his tious, self-serving manipulator, even more acclaimed study of the times and person­ derelict and disliked than his detested ages of Chaucerian England, also dero­ father, the 8th Earl4 and easily the most gates Robert de Vere and indicts him as hated of all Richard's companions. Yet "fatuous"-"a stupid fo p whom Richard young King Richard, out ofhis great love advanced and coddled as Edward II had for de Vere, raised him high: he awarded advanced and coddled Gaveston." Even­ him many estates and commissions; he tually, as we know, de Vere was driven gave him military cOlmnand; he awarded into exile on the Continent, attainted, and him the chamberlainship ofEngland;5 he died ignominiously (he was gored to death granted him the castle and town of by a wild pig), although his body later was Colchester, the castle and wardship of brought back from France for re-burial Queensborough, as well as the castle and with regal honors at Earl's Colne. At the lordship of Okeham and the hereditary funeral, we are told that King Richard, shrievalty of Rutland; among the several hysterical with grief, forced open the cof­ officesthat Richard conferred upon Rob­ fin,wept over the body and played with de eli de Vere were those ofJustice ofChester Vere' s jeweled fingers. and Justice of North Wales, Constable of In sum, the jUdgement of history on England, Marquis ofDublin6 and Duke of the 9th Earl of Ox fo rd is not especially one Ireland; he elevated him to the Privy Coun­ of unqualified admiration, although al­ cil and made him a Knight ofthe Garter. most evelY historian or commentator on Richard also gave him the right to bear the Th e notoriolls 9th Earl Robert (depicted dy ing the period acknowledges that he was a arms ofSt. Edmund, King and Martyr. It fi'om a boar attack in 1392) is even described in the depraved and wicked man of unparalleled even was rumored that, so passionate popular 20th centlll)1 Plantagenet Encyclopedia import in England, Richard's "evil ge­ was Richard's affection for de Vere that as Richard II 's boyhoodfi'iend and close compan­ nius," of all Richard'scounsellors "easily he intended to have Oxford crowned King ion, with their close relationship a source of the worst of the lot," nothing less than the ofIreland. trouble fo r both of them. Yet he is completely real power behind the throne.7 And yet Few persons, however-especially absentji'om Shakes peare 's Richard II. Shakespeare makes no mention of him at the King's powerfuluncle s-thought de all. Vere worthy of any of the dignities show­ exciting than war with France." Even in Th omas of Woodstock, a play ered upon him by the King. Froissalireports Robert de Vere, moreover, according to that incorporates the lifetime ofthe 9th Earl that among enemies ofRobe Ii de Vere it was Froissart, was hated as a wanton who will­ ofOxford, Robeli de Vere makes no appear­ said, "This Duke ofIreland twists the King fullydegraded his wife, Philippa-a grand­ ance at all, and in the only utterance of his round his fingerand does what he likes in daughter of King Edward III-by his pro­ name, we learn fromthe lips ofhis widow that England"; and he reports it claimed among miscuous adulteries. In addition to the he is dead (II.iii.l0- 13). The author of this men that "King Richard ...was so blinkered intense resentment of his person that was play, moreover-in what I would suggest is by the Duke ofIreland that even ifhe said enkindled by his sexual improprieties among an otherwise unaccountable move unless black was white the King did not contradict women, Robert de Vere also provoked he were the 1 7th Earl ofOxf ord (or someone him." The 9th Earl was derided, reports particular anger and disgust amongst the else inexplicably determined that Robert de Froissart, as an instigator of civil disorder, nobility by what they perceived to be his Vere neither be seen, heard nor indicted in rumored to be an embezzler of funds, and suspiciously singular "intimacy" with the this play!)-h'ansports Sir Robert Tresilian was charged by the King's enemies as the King. Nigel Saul records that "[ s]o close did (Colltillued all page 16) page 16 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Vere-y In teresting (Call tin lIedji-olllpage 15) two-year-old uncle, Aubrey de Vere, for prise Shakespeare's two tetralogies of forward in time to become, along with a whom Richard was able to lift some of the English history not to be referenced with coterie of other useless fops, the principal consequences ofthe attainder that had been even modest entries in the Dictiol1my of agents of the King's corruption during the attached to Aubrey's nephew and heirs by National Biography. era when not they, but de Vere, was the the Merciless Parliament. Shortly thereaf­ A French chronicler tells us that the 11th King's undisputed favorite. In fact, in Tho­ ter, however, Richard was overthrown and Earl of Oxford became a reat'guard com­ mas of Woodstock, Tresilian is made the imprisoned as a consequence of his cousin's mander under Henry V during the march plotter against Woodstock's life (a good cunning coup d'etat, and the 10th Earl of fr om Harfleur, but he is contradicted by the trick, that, since Tresilian died nine years Oxford was punished by the Crown fo r English chronicler, William Hall, who con­ before Woodstock was killed)-and in offering refuge to the deposed King's half tends that Oxford actually was in the Shakespeare's Richard the Second, it is brother, the Earl of Huntington, when Hun- middleguard. The French chronicler also implied that Woodstock's murderer is the reports that Oxford, during the Battle of 8 Duke of Norfolk -although according to Agincourt, was a commander in the center the fourteenth-century Chronicon Anglie, "In [the third part of f and took a French soldier prisoner (We Woodstock professed antipathy to no one cannot place much confidencein this anony­ in the realm except Robert de Vere, and Henry the Sixth, mous account, however, as this same chroni­ Norfolk, though demonized in Richard the cler also reports that, shortly thereafter, Second, is not accorded by the chroniclers Shakespeare, in [h is] Oxford was killed in the battle-an error of with anything like the perfidylaid on him by enOlmous magnitude and an assertion that, Shakespeare. 9 very firstwo rds about had it been tme, certainly would have made Moreover, for our consideration of the its way into the other chronicles, as well as an earl of Oxfo rd, origins of the text of Thomas of Wo odstock Shakespeare's play of Hem)! the Fifth if as an adjunct or predecessor work to Rich­ attributes to the 13th only because the loss of English nobility at ard the Second, we are well reminded that Sir the siege at Agincourt was so astonishingly 10hnBushy, Sir EdwardBagotand Sir Henry Earl a passionate light). Oxford, therefore, given his lack of Greene, the light-footed minions ofthe King achievement, may not especially have dis­ and the "caterpillars ofthe commonwealth" sp eech of pure tinguished himself with Henry in France, in Shakespeare 's Richard the Second but, contrary to the French chronicler's (ILiii. 1 66), were not leading courtiers ofthe Lancastrian patriotism. " account,10 he certainly did not die there! 1380s; the leading courtier of the 1380s, Instead, Oxford sailed back to England after undisputed by all historical accounts, was Agincourt, briefly returned to France to Robert de Vere. As both Nigel Saul and A. tington unsuccessfullyattempted to restore participate in a renewed siege of Hal'fleur, P. Rossiter point out, Bushy, Bagot and his sibling to the throne. Richard was mur­ and thereafter sailed once more home to

Greene came into the King's service much dered in prison the fo llowing year, perhaps c England where he lived an unremarkable life later-after the Duke ofGloucester 's death. as a direct result of the fe ars of his possible of apparent quiet for some few weeks or Yet the author of Thomas of Wo odstock restoration that had been incited by the months; he died of what we know not of in reverses history and features "Bagot, Bushy, actions against Hemy IV which the 1 0th Earl 1417, although Verily Anderson plausibly [and] wanton Greene" (IILii.41)atthe core of of Oxford had supported. Aubrey de Vere speculates that he may have perished of tumultuous events in the early years in also died soon thereafter, a man in royal wounds and exhaustion fr om the French Richard's reign! In Act One of Wo odstock, disfavor, attainted and in officialdisgrace, wars. Of his end, therefore, we know little the author even identifies Greene as Chan­ marked as a collaborator with rebels against less than of his life; others, who may have cellor ofEngland and Bagot as Privy Seal­ the Crown. Shakespeare makes no mention known more-if there was more of note to titles that, atthis time, belonged to Robert de ofhim either. know-have not told us much, and, if they Vere and Michael de la Pole! Even de la Pole Upon the death of Aubrey de Vere, the did, those records have not survived. "The makes it into Th omas of Wo odstock (albeit earldom of Oxford passed to Richard, rest is silence." Shakespeare, like so many under the name ofLa poole, Captain ofCalais, Aubrey's teenage son, who, during much of other chroniclers, also tells us nothing of which de la Pole was, in fact, for some time, his youth, had been playmate and compan­ this short-lived and unremarkable Earl. but not at the time of Gloucester's murder). ion to the new Lancastrian King's son and Only Robert de Vere, among all the vil­ heir, Prince Hal. The two boys were almost Supporting the Lancastrian cause lains-the most prominent and powerfi d the same age: Richard hadbeenbom in 1385, man in England-is nowhere to be seen. Hal, the future Henry V, in 1387. This 11th Young Richard de Vere left a child, John, Earl didn't live long after he assumed the as his heir, much as Richard de Vere's boy­ The next generations ofOxfords title, however; he died at the age of thirty­ hood friend,Henry V, some fiveyears there­ two. Not much is known about him, and he after, would leave an infant son to succeed Robert de Vere, 9th Earl ofOxf ord, died and the twelfth earl are the only earls of him on the occasion of his death at the age childless and so was succeeded by his fifty- Oxford who lived during the years that com- of thirty-five-a death that would bring to Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 17 an end one of the more triumphant, if brief, doubtless ofYorkist invention--despiteour John was beheaded, and therefore more reigns of any English monarch (Indeed, the awareness of the King's sensitivity to dis­ quickly dispatched, a point with which Ver­ reign of Henry V was the shortest reign any tress. Of course, Shakespeare imputes to ily Anderson also agrees. King of England had enjoyed since the Richard, Duke of Gloucester, the murders of arrival ofWilliam of Conqueror). both the Henry VI and his son, the Prince of The valiant 13th Earl Richard's son, John de Vere, the 12th Wales (Richard III, I.i.1 54; Lii.l 0 1), butthere Earl ofOxford, became, likeso many de Veres is abundant reason to doubt the veracity of In tribute to this terrible sacrificeoftheir before and afterhim, a dedicated Lancastrian. that account too. In many respects, the lives, Shakespeare confers on this saintly The King entrusted him with many commis­ particulars of Henry's end are not all that Earl ofOxford and his son the immortality of sions, and he served Henry VI honorably crucial; however HelllY VI perished, the his verse. Therefore, just as Shakespeare and well, especially as an emissary for peace consequences of his death and that of his erased from history all mention of one ofthe in France. In the many years of Henry's most notorious earls of Oxford, Robert de reign (Henry reigned for over thirty years Vere, so in John de Vere, 12thEarl ofOxf ord, with no serious threat to his monarchy being he elevates a little-known but kindly man of launched by the Yorkists, although abun­ "This suggestion by high public spirit to an honored place in the dant challenges to his rule came fr om other pantheon of Lancastrian heroes. John de directions),11 kind and well-liked John de Shakespeare that the Vere, 12th Earl of Oxford, may not have Verel2 proved himself a friend to the King. contributed the tiniest fraction of notoriety Henry VI, though agoodman, was nai've 13th Earl was attempting to English history compared with the legacy as a king, a man better fitted by nature for a of his loathsome ancestor, but for his tra­ prie-dieu than a throne; indeed, not entirely to link up with the vails in service to King Henry VI, Shake­ out ofpolitical motive, Henry VII repeatedly speare remembers him in the words of his appealed to Rome for his canonization in the Queen 's fo rces to renew son, the valiant 1 3th Earl of Oxford (3 HenlY sixteenth century. Representative of this VI,III.iii. l 0 1 -07). conviction that Henry VI was shrewd and an assault on the In the third scene of the third act of the politically astute in inverted proportion to third part of HenlY the Sixth, Shakespeare, his sanctity, Geoffrey Bullough points out Yo rkists is a in the velY firstwords he ever wrote about that it was "the pious King's beliefthat his an earl of Oxford, attributes to the 13th Earl virtues must inspire loyalty." In good men total fa brication. " a passionate speech of pure Lancastrian like John de Vere, they did indeed do so, but patriotism in which Oxford catalogues the naked ambition governedmore men's hearts. worthiness of the Lancastrian line before Spurred by the sense of advantage encour­ son plunged England into renewed turmoil him and denounces Warwick'swicked sug­ aged by the King's weakness as a leader, the and drove the Lancastrian cause almost to gestion that Prince Edward, King Henry's Lancastrian cause was put to its severest despair. son, has no claim to the throne "[b ]ecause test in the mid-1550s by a series ofYorkist The defeat of Henry VI in 1461 had [his] father Henry did usurp," (3 HenlY VI assaults on the King's authority, and Henry particularly terrible implications for the 12th III.iii.79). When the Earl ofOxford speaks for VI's forces, despite heroic resistance, fi­ Earl ofOxf ord who "never at any point failed the firsttime in Shakespeare, he thunders a nally were vanquished at the bloody battle to support the Lancastrian King." The old Lancastrian rebuke that attests to the earls ofTowton in 1461. man did not possess the hardy youth that of Oxfords' ferocious loyalty to the Following the defeat ofhis army, Henry would have made his loyalty to the King Lancastrian holders-and predecessors of VI and several of his retinue escaped to the demonstrable on the field of battle, and the Tudors--ofthe Crown: "Then Warwick north, but this gentle and unassuming King when he and his eldest son, Aubrey, were disannuls great John of Gaunt" [and we all eventually was captured by men loyal to arrested shortly after Edward IV seized recall from Richard the Second how gra­ England's harsh new Yorkist sovereign, power, he was subjected to the most horrible ciously Shakespeare depicts John of Gaunt, Edward IV. Knowledge ofthe suffering that indignities by the new King. According to who, in historical fact, was chiefly great as his kingdom was enduring in the contest for the French chronicler, Jean de Waurin, the a graceless rogue!] ..."And after John of the throne may even have driven Henry old earl was transported to Tower Hill, where, Gaunt, Henry the Fourth, ! Whose wisdom mad; when the deposed king was seized, he before a large crowd, he was stripped naked, was a mirror to the wisest; ! And after that was discovered wandering, dazed and alone tied to a great chair in frontof a roaring fire wise prince, Henry the Fift, ! Who by his in a fo rest. Philipa Haigh reports that one and had his intestines wound out of his prowess conquered all France: ! From these chronicle of the day reported that HelllY, body and burnt; he then was castrated and our Henry lineally descends" (III .iii. 8 1-87). after enj oying a brief return to the throne in thrown into the fire himself. Historian Warwick then praises Oxford's "smooth 1471 (fromwhich hewas soon again toppled), Desmond Seward suggests, however, that discourse" and urges Oxford to renounce died disconsolate, from "pure displeasure this grisly death was closer to the fate actu­ his fe alty to HelllY and support Edward for, and melancholy," but there is little reason to ally suffered by the earl's young son, Aubrey in Warwick's [or, more correctly, the believe this sentimental account-one de Vere, and argues that, unlike his son, Earl (Con tinued on page 18) page 18 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Vere-y In teresting (Contil1uedji-ompage 17) of Clarence, earles of Warwick and of Th e Th ird Part of Henry the Sixth­ , author 's] words noble "Oxford ...did ever Oxenford. "14 almost all ofthe attention is, however, given [E.ver?] fence the right" (III.iii.98). Recalling over to Warwick's death rather than details the ignominious deaths of his father and See where Oxford comes! ofthe battle. IS Small wonder, perhaps, fo r brother, however, Oxford/Shakespearehurls despite their advantage in numbers, the his defiance ofEdward IV at Warwick: "Call The Lancastrian Readeption was the Lancastrian assault on the Y orkist fo rces him my king by whose injurious doom I My work ofa trinity ofLancastrian loyalists, and fa iled for one reason, and one reason alone: elder brother, the Lord Aubrey Vere, I Was Shakespeare does not let us at any time Lord Oxford, confused by the fog and shift­ done to death? and more than so, my father, forget who any of the persons of that sacred ing battle lines that made it difficult to sur­ I Even in the downfall ofhis mellow' d years, triune alliance were. When Warwick is about vey the field,acc identally attacked and com­ I When nature brought him to the door of to die in Coventry at the hands of King pletely routed his own allied fo rces. "[T]he death? INo, Warwick, no; while battle soon swung round like a life upholds this ann, I This arm rugby scrum, pivoting at right upholds the house of Lancaster" angles," Seward reports, and (III.iii.l 0 1-07). Oxford's succcess in the field Upon the deaths of his noble came against his own father and brother the 1 2th Earl's Lancastrian allies, the Earl of second son, John de Vere, suc­ Warwick's men. Oxford, upon ceeded to the earldom of Oxford learning the day was lost, fled after persuading the King and the field-first to Scotland and Parliament to reverse the attain­ fr om there to France, "aban­ der against his family's title. 13 don[ing] his own men." But is He was thirty-three years old. this what Shakespeare reports? He was for a shOtt time impris­ Not at all. Upon Warwick's oned in the Tower on suspicion death, Shakespeare instead has of treason in 1468, but was re­ Oxford cry out to his troops, leased in the spring of1 469; how­ "Away, away, to meet the ever, he seems to have given Queen's great power!" (3 Hemy evidence during his incarcera­ VI,V.ii.50). tion that led to the execution of Richard of Gloucester (the at least two fe llow Lancastrians, fuhlre Richard III) affirms that and perhaps itwas the 1 3th Earl's the Queen and her forces are Th e Battle of Bosworth provision of this testimony that Oxford's destination: "The In this detail ji-om a modern painting the banner of the 13th Earl, saved his life. Needless to say aligned with Hel1lY Tudor's fo rces, can be seen on the fa r left. Queen is valued thirty thousand perhaps, this lapse of virtue does strong, I And Somerset, with not appear in Shakespeare's account of the Edward and the Duke ofGloucester in scene Oxford, fled to her," Shakespeare has him 13th Earl, but his subsequent activity on one ofthe fifth act, who alTives in the nick of say (V.iii.14-15). However, the Queen and behalfof Henry VI's restoration to the Crown time to save him? "0 cheerful colors!" her retinue achlally were launching their does. Upon the occasion of the readeption Warwick cries, "see where Oxford comes!" own assault by sea off the coast of Dorset! ofHe my VI, Warwick in Shakesperepraises (I. 58). Oxford thunders into the city-with IfOxford was planning to reach Margaret in John de Vere as "brave Oxford, wondrous drum and colors, Shakespeare tells us­ Dorset by way of Scotland, he was bent on well belov'd" (3 Henry VI, IV.viii.17), and clying out, "Oxford, Oxford, fo r Lancaster!" traversing the world over the poles to get calls him "valiant Oxford" (V .i. 1 ). Oxford's (I. 59). "0, welcome, Oxford, fo r we wantthy there! first words, in line 29 ofthe same scene, as help," rescued Walwick sighs (1. 66). With This suggestion by Shakespeare that he kisses King Henry's hand are (in an this change of circumstances, Edward flees the 13th Earl was attempting to link up with obvious pun on the family motto, Vero Nihil to London where he takes King Henry pris­ the Queen's forces to renew an assault on Verius ["No truth but truth itself"]): " ... thus oner and prepares for battle with the the Y orkists is a total fabrication. But it is I seal my truth, and bid adieu." Historian Lancastrian resurgents at Barnet,just north essential for Shakespeare to propose it ifhe Desmond Seward expresses the fullimport of London. is to expunge Oxford of his guilt at Towton of the scene: "Henry VI was in no doubt as Shakespeare's narration of the Battle of and then have his way in describing to whom he owed his restoration. He was Barnetmerits particular attention. The fate­ Oxford's heroism at the next, and for a time, grateful not only to Warwick and Clarence ful Battle of Barnet ended in Lancastrian decisive battle in the great English civil but also to Lord Oxford. A royal warrant defeat and paved the way fo r Edward IV's wars-the Battle of Tewkesbury. stated that his return to the throne was 'by return to the throne. In Shakespeare's de­ Scene four of the fifth act of Th e Th ird the favor and true acquittal of our right piction of this event-which comprises the Part of Henry the Sixth opens on the plains entirely and well beloved cousins, duke whole of scenes two and three ofthe fifth act near Tewkesbmy in Gloucestershire some Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 19

three weeks fo llowing the Battle of Barnet. thought, begins. In contrast to Richard the Third's There Queen Margaret rallies her troops, And yet his punishment was bitter death. battle CIY to his forces, "Conscience is but commanded by Prince Edward, the young Who sued to me for him? Who (in my wrath) a word that cowards use / Devis' d at first to Kneel'd [at] my fe et and bid me be advis'd? Prince of Wales, and leading Lancastrian keep the strong in awe: / Our strong anns be Who spoke of brotherhood? Who spoke of noblemen ofthe realm. In words anticipa­ love? our conscience, swords our law! / March on, tory of the enlivening succor that will be Who told me how the poor soul did forsake join bravely, let us to it pell-mell; if not to offered to the defeated King by the Bishop The mighty Watwick and did fightfor me? heaven, then hand in hand to hell" (Richard ofCarlisle inRichard the Second, the Queen Who told me, on the field at TewkesbUlY, III, V.iii.309-13), Oxford calls upon his sol­ addresses her commanders: "Great lords, When Oxford had me down, he rescued me, diers with the words, "Every man's con­ wise men ne'er sit and wail their loss / But And said, "Dear brother, live, and be a king"? science is a thousand men, / To fightagainst cheerily seek how to redress their halms" (3 (Richard III, II.i.103-ll4) this guilty homicide" (V.ii.17-18). Hel1lY VI, V.iv.1-2). She invites her army to In saying so, he also echoes the sum­ take heart, despite the recent loss of their mons to holy war in Henry Tudor's procla­ dread commander, the Earl of Warwick, at mation that he opens by inviting his men to Barnet. "Say Warwick was our anchor; what "Is all this coincidence, compare the cause fo r which they fightwith ofthat?" she cries. "Why, is not Oxford here the character of the beast upon whom they another anchor?" (11. 13,16) Shakespeare's I ask yOU? Did soon are to do battle: Oxford then cheers the courage ofthe Queen and praises the bravelY ofthe prince (11. 50- Shakespeare, in his For what is he they follow? Ttuly, gentle 54); Margaretthanks "sweet Oxford" (1. 58), men, A bloody tyrant and a homicide; and Oxford determines the spot at reconstruction of English Tewkesbury where Edward and his Yorkist One rais' d in blood, and one in blood estab­ lished; annies will be engaged (1. 66). civil conflict in his One that made means to come by what he All ofthis commands a hopeful view of hath, the resurgent Lancastrian chances against history plays, grind And slaughtered those that were his means Edward IV's renewed efforts to thrust King to help him; Henryfr om the throne. The only maj or prob­ A base foul stone, made precious by the foil lem with its depiction of the Queen, the 110 political agenda?" OfEngland's chair, on which he is fa lsely set; Prince ofWales, and the whole Lancastrian One that hath ever been God's enemy. company taking high courage fr om the pres­ (V.iii.245-52) ence and resolve ofthe Earl of Oxford is that it 's not in anypoint true, because-right­ Many years afterwards, as we know, the The fu ry of war erupts shortly thereaf­ Oxford wasn't even there! 16 Lancastrian forces-their hopes vested in ter; Richard is slain, fighting onhis fe et, and Shakespeare, however, is not content young Henry Tudor, the Earl of Richmond­ Hemy Tudor is exalted, for, with his triumph merely to have the 13th Earl of Oxford present will make another assault on a Yorkist king and the promise of his posterity, peace in at TewkesbUlY rather than fleeing toward (Richard III)-a definitiveone this time­ England, with God's will, is assured safety in Scotland; naturally, he must excel and end forever the Wars of the Roses. (V.v.l9-41). in his performance as a warrior. And, of When they do so, at Bosworth Field in Is all ofthis coincidence, I ask you? Did course, Shakespeare's fictionalOxford does Leicestershire, they will be led, as the chroni­ Shakespeare, in his reconstruction of En­ 18 so. We are told by Shakespeare in Th e clers tells us, by the 13th Earl of Oxford. glish civil conflict in his history plays, grind Tragedy of Richard the Th ird, fo r example, And of course, Shakespeare affords us the no political agenda? Did he "j ust happen" that not only did Oxford fight against the glOlY ofOxf ord ' s presence and his words as to confer an unblemished history on every Yorkist powers at TewkesbUlY but that he the Battle of Bosworth unfolds (afterall, if generation of earls of Oxford encompassed persorially subdued King Edward IV at Shakespeare is going to have an earl of by the history plays? Did the shame that he TewkesbUlY, and, had it not been for the Oxford a hero in fiction, why not also a hero fa iled to spare others "just happen" to es­ intervention of the King's brother, single­ in fact?). In early lines in the fifth scene of cape settling on generation after generation handedly would have rescued England from Act Four in Th e Tragedy of Richard the of earls of Oxford? I don't think so, and I the tyranny of Richard of Gloucester-the Th ird, Sir Christopher Urswick introduces doubt that anyone who examines the evi­ future Richard III. I? us to the "men of name" who are allied in dence can doubt it either. Shakespeare later has King Edward peni­ Richmond's cause, and they include, of Wayne Booth, in The Rhetoric of Fic­ tentially declare, upon leaming ofhis brother course, Jolm de Vere, the 1 3th Earl ofOxf ord. tion, writes, Clarence's death: On the eve of the battle, Henry Tudor bids Oxford stay with him for conference Unless [an] author contents himselfwith (V.iii.27-28). simply retelling Th e Three Bears orthe story Have I a tongue to doom my brother's death, of Oedipus in the precise fonn in which they On the fo llowing mom, preparations for And shall that tongue give pardon to a slave? exist in popular accounts ...his vety choice My brother kill' d no man, his fault was the final struggleto secure England's Crown (Continued on page 20) page 20 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Vere-y In teresting (Contilluedji-om page 19) he "never hadmuchofa reputation ...fo r honour, Gloucester was imprisoned? ofwhat he tells will betray him to the reader. wisdom, sound judgement or chivalry." 10) The French chronicler cited by Verily He chooses to tell the tale ofOdysseus rather 5) The hereditary title ofLord Great Cham­ Anderson is unknown. According to Verily than that of Circe and Polyphemus. He berlain was not yet in use at the end of the Anderson, in a letter of 3 April 2000, "[t]he chooses to tell the cheerful taleofMonna and fourteenth century, although until that title was chroniclerrefetTed to was an un-named contribu­ Federigo rather than the pathetic account of fo nnally devised and conferred successively upon tor to a 1 9th century Dictionaire Encyclopedoqlle, Monna's husband and son .... In short, the several earls of Oxford, the chamberlainship of undated, probably published by Larousse, which author's judgement is always present, al­ England was urged by all the earls of Oxford as I came across in a small libraty [in the Fondation ways evident to anyone who knows how to their hereditary right dating from the reign of Camargo] in Cassis, France ... I included it ... as look for it ....We must never fo rget that Henry I. This they felt obligated to insist, inas­ an example ofthe all-too-frequentinaccuracies in though the author can to some extent choose much as the office occasionally was awarded to popular French encyclopaedias." his diguises, he can never choose to disap­ someone else; Richard II, for example, following II) Norwich, in fact, refers to Hemy's forty­ pear. the exile of Robert de Vere, conferred the office nine year reign as "perhaps the saddest half­ on his own half-brother (who eventually was century in English histoty." Well said! I wonder, therefore, in whom created Earl of Huntington and, later, Duke of 12) The letters of a respected Norfolk fam­ W ill, the Stratford man, ifhe were the writer Exeter). ily, the Pastons, attest to the worthy reputation of these works, disguised himself in these 6) Richard II's creation of Robert de Vere as ofJolm de Vere among the people of East Anglia plays, and where it may be that, since "he Marquis of Dublin was the first conferral of a who regarded the earl as a benefactor and sup­ can never choose to disappear," we are marquessate in England. porter of their interests. Moreover, as Verily 7) How effective Oxford was as this power Anderson reports, "Shakespeare dramatized supposed to findhim. Why did he choose behind Richard's throne is a matter of some many of the high spots of history which also to tell the stories he did in these plays in the debate. John Gardner contends that Oxford "was appear in detail in the Paston letters, written a way that he did? Why did he represent all too inept to be really dangerous, even though he centUlY before his plays." ofthe earls of Oxford as he did? No wonder was undeniably difficult, forever plotting the 13) Seward, however, proposes that such an scholars, in frustration, have abandoned murder of one great magnate or another"�in­ effort was never made, as John de Vere's father the search for Stratford Will behind cluding John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster, had only been sentenced to death by the Shakespeare's works. Will, the glover's son although Shakespeare (perhaps not un sur­ Constable's Court�not attainted; as a conse­ from Stratford, is not there. But ifWill isn't prisingly) tells us that the counsellor who laid quence, no plea for restoration of the earldom of there, who is? Anyone want to make an this plot against the life of John of Gaunt was Oxford was needed. intelligent guess? Norfolk!�not Oxford (Li.135-37). That the 14) Source material for Shakespeare, such as Lords Appellant considered de Vere to be a Holinshed's Chronicles and the anonymous traitor of the first order who had attempted to MirrOljorMagistrates, vary in their spellings of Notes usurp the prestige and power of the King, even Oxford. The author of Mirror fo r Magistrates in battle, cannot be denied; the articles of treason identifies Oxford as "Oxford"; Holinshed some­ I) As Lily B. Campbell instructs us, "Shake­ leveled against Oxford by the Merciless Parlia­ times refers to Oxford as "Oxford" but also as speare, like all other writers who used history to ment of 1388 are extraordinarily detailed; they "Oxenford." (Such variations of spelling among teach politics to the present, cut his cloth to fit even included the charge that Oxford appropri­ places and persons are common in these ac­ the pattern, and the approach to the study of his ated the King's personal banner for his own use. counts, as usage and spelling were flexibleat the purposes ...in his altering [of] the historical fact 8) Thomas Mowbray, Earl of Nottingham time.) Hall's history, for example, refers to is best made with current political situations in and later Duke of Norfolk, was second only to Hereford, bisyllabically as "Herfforde" and mind." Oxford in King Richard's affections. Richard, for trisyllabically as "Hereffo rd" and, in the same 2) Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canter­ example, allowed to Oxford and Mowbray, and way, identifies Richmond as both "Richmond" bury, had declared the King's marriage to Queen to no others among his minions, their own cham­ and "Rychemonde" [among other variations]; Katherine null and void in May of 1533, shortly bers, complete with bathhouse, at Langley Pal­ among other irregularities, Holinshed also refers after the King and his mistress, Anne Boleyn, ace. If the writer who was Shakespeare, for to Norfolk both as "Northfolke" and "Norfolke" married in a private ceremony, but absent a papal whateverreason, was interested in attributing the and to Exeter as "Excester"). I suspect that the dispensation, strict Latin Rite Christians refused guilt of Robert de Vere to someone else, he could author of Shakespeare's works prefelTed to use to recognise Cranmer's nullification ofthe bond hardly have chosen a more apt and ready scape­ "Oxford" (as opposed to the Middle English between Henry and Katherine and denied the goat than Thomas Mowbray. "Oxenford") when referencing the town and its legitimacy of the new marriage (and its issue) 9) And yet, it must be noted that when liege lord, principally because it scans better�a while the King's first wife lived. Gloucesterwas murdered, Mowbray could hardly judgment confirmed,I believe, by the editors of 3) This play, along with The Famous HistOlY have been ignorant of the event, as it was one of the Shakespeare's works. of the Life ofHel1lY the Eighth (which Geoffrey Mowbray's former valets (a certain John Hall) 15) As John Julius Norwich recounts Bullough classifies as "a play of Protestant who actually confessed to the killing ofGloucester Shakespeare's curiously precipitate treatment propaganda"), is indisputably one of the two in Calais�on orders from the King, as Hall ofthis all-important engagement, most uncompromising and self-evident apologias claimed. But who can believe that Richard would for the Reformation among the Shakespeare have imparted such an intention as this�the The story of Barnet is quickly told. We heal' nothing of the fighting, nor the fo g that histories, or indeed, the canon as a whole. assassination of his principal adversary�to a shrouded the field and was as much a feature of 4) The 8th Earl�Thomas de Vere�appar­ mere valet, when Mowbray, at the time of the the battle as the cold had been at Towton, ently was roundly disliked as well. Froissart Duke of Gloucester's murder, was Governor of almost exactly ten years before (emphasis declares itwas said ofthe 8th Earl of Oxford that Calais as well as captain of the castle where mine]. . . . A brief scene iii establishes that Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 21

victory [for the Yorkists] has been won, an­ NY: The Richard III Society, 1981); Audrey Thompson. London: Rolls Series, 1874. nounces the landing of Margaret and her son Williamson's Th e My stery of the Princes Froissart, Jean. Chronicles. Trans. and Ed. and prepares us for Tewkesbury (emphasis (Brunswick Road: Sutton, 1978); and To Prove Geoffrey Brereton. London: Penguin, 1968. mine). a Villain: Th e Case of Richard III, a collection of Gardner, John. Th e Life and Times of Ch aucer. New York: Knopf, 1977. 16) Contrary to Shakespeare's assertion pertinent documents (co-edited by former col­ Greg, W. W. Introduction to The First Pati that Oxford, having lost the Battle of Barnet, leagues of mine at Auburn University, Taylor of King Richard the Second or Thomas of sped to the Queen's rescue in Dorset in order to Littleton and Robert R. Rea [New York: Woodstock. Oxford: John Johnson, 1929. v­ join her forces in a renewed assault on Edward, Macmillan, 1964D. xxxv. we know, instead, from Edward Hall and others, 18) The assumption that Oxford commanded Haigh, Philipa. Th e Militm)! Campaigns of that Oxford flednorth to Scotland and escaped a large body ofmen at Bosworth is challenged by the Wars of the Roses. Conschohocken, PA: from there to France. So Hall, for example, S. B. Chrimes who writes that "Hemy an-ayed Combined Books, 1995. records in his Un ion of the T\Vo Noble andIllustre his forces so as to provide a slender vanguard, Hall, Edward. fi:om Th e Un ion of the Tw o Families of Yo rk and Lancaster that "the duke of with a small number ofarchers in front, under the No ble and lllustre Families of York andLan caster. Somerset, with John ErIe ofOxen fo rd, weI' all in command of John de Vere, earl ofOxford, with Ed. Geoffrey Bullough. Volume 3. Narrative a right wing under Gilbeti Talbot and a left wing poste hast, flying towarde Scotland"-although and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare. London: under John Savage." Hall suggests that Oxford, at least fo r awhile, may Routledge, 1960. 8 volumes. 172-208. have tumed with Somerset, Pembroke and Exeter Hibbeti, Christopher. Th e Virgin Queen: Works Cited toward Wales ("feryng the jeoperdies, that might Elizabeth 1, Genius of the Golden Age. New York: chaunce in so long ajorney, [they] altered their Addison-Wesley, 1991. Anderson, Judith H. Biographical Truth: purpose, and turned into Wales ... [later] every Kendall, Paul Mun·ay. The Yorkist Age.' The Representation of Historical Persons in man fled whether his mynde served him"). Ox­ Daily Life During the Wars of the Roses. New Tudor-Stuart Writing. New Haven: Yale, 1984. ford, as he was in Scotland at the time, does not York: Norton, 1962. Anderson, Verily. Th e de Veres of Castle ofcourse appear in Hall's subsequent account of Mathew, Gervase. Th e Court of Richard II. Hedingham. Lavenham, Suffolk: Terence Dalton, the Battle ofTewkesbuty, at which the defeat of New York: Norton, 1968. 1993. the Lancastrians placed the Yorkists finnly on Norwich, John Julius. Shakespeare 's Kings. -. Letter to the author. 3 April 2000. the throne for more than another decade. London: Viking, 1999. Bennett, Michael. Richard IIand the Revo­ 17) Shakespeare's view of Richard III is Rossiter, A. P. Preface to Th omas of lution of 1399. Frome, Somerset: Sutton, 1999. highly suspect, for reasons fa r too extensive to Wo odstock. London: Chatto and Windus, 1946. Booth, Wayne. The Rhetoric of Fiction. survey here. Suffice it to say that Richard the 1-76. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961. Third, in Shakespeare-with consummate art­ Saccio, Peter. Shakespeare 's English Kings.' Bullough, Geoffrey, ed. "Introduction [to 3 istry but against all reason and evidence, is made His tOI)!, Chronicle, and Drama. Oxford: Oxford Helll)' VI] ." Volume 3. Narrative and Dramatic UP, 1977. into one of the most memorable fiends and Sources of Shakespeare. London: Routledge, Saul, Nigel. Richard II. New Haven: Yale, villains of all time. For more on the controversy 1960. 8 volumes. 157-71. 1997. regarding the character and reign ofRichard III, -. "Introduction [to Hem)' VIII] ," Volume Seward, Desmond. The Wars of the Roses begin by reading Josephine Tey's The Daughter 4. Narrative and Dramatic SOllrces of Shake­ Th rough the Lives of Five Men and Women of the of Time. (New York: Scribner, 1995); RoxaneC. sp eare. London: Routledge, 1962. 8 volumes. Fifteenth Centlily. New York: Penguin, 1995. Murphy's Richard III: Th e Making of a Legend 435-51. Tillyard, E. M. W. Shakespeare 's History (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1977); V. B. Lamb's Campbell, Lily B. Shakespeare 's Histories: Plays. London: Chatto and Windus, 1944. The Betrayal of Richard III (Phoenix Mill: Sutton, A1irrors of Elizabethan Policy. San Marino: The Walsingham, Thomas. Historica Anglicana. 1959); William Snyder's edition of Caroline Huntington Libraty, 1947. Volume 2. Ed. Henry Thomas Riley. London: Halsted's 1844 biography of Richard III [Rich­ Chrimes, S. B. Hem)! VII. New Haven: Yale, Rolls Series, 1863-64. 2 volumes. ard III as Duke of Glollcester and King of 1972. England]: Th e Crown and the T0 1Ver (Seacliff, Chronicon Anglie 1328-1388. Ed. E. M.

Wh alen (Continuedji'om page 2) erably more than most other noblemen and evidence that the Stratford man ever had In her editor's note, she says that while men ofletters, although it was notthe largest anything to read. she is "not a totally committed Oxfordian" collection. All the books would have been Also reported in the May 2000 issue was she believes the Stratford man did not write available to the 1 7th Earl of Oxford, who was the continuing growth of the DVS's mem­ the works ofShakespeare. As an "outsider," Burghley' s ward and lived at Cecil House fo r bership rolls. In his reportto members, Brian Pearson says, she hopes to take an impartial most of his teenage years. Hicks of Cambridge, DVS chair, reported a view of articles submitted and ensure that Being a ward in Burghley's house was year-to-year increase of 17 percent to 177 they are as accurate as possible and prop­ like attending a university, for he hired the members, including 56 in the United States. erly documented. leading scholars. Jolly quotes Joel Hurstfield Hicks also noted that the Stratfordians now Her firstissue (May 2000) included an that "at Cecil House in the Strand, there see Oxfordians "as a threat to their su­ excellent atiicle from Eddi Jolly(a lecturer at existed the best school fo r statesmen in premacy." He urged members to cany the Barton-Peveril College in Southampton) on Elizabethan England, perhaps in all Europe." Oxfordian message to others, invite non­ the extraordinary extent and quality of She describes the range oftides listed in members to society meetings, respond to William Cecil, Lord Burghley's library. a sales catalog dated November 21, 1687, Stratfordian errors in the media, and "present Jolly estimates that Burghley had more and contrasts the enormous opportunity for a united view" to the public while debating than 2,000 books and manuscripts, consid- Oxford to educate himself with the lack of differing views "within the fa mily." page 22 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Oxfordian News Sir Derek Jacobi the fe atured guest at NY dinner celebrating Oxford; 13th Annual Oxford Day Banquet held in Cambridge

Massachusetts standard of scholarship within the skeptical community of Shake­ The 13th Annual Oxford Day speare lovers. Banquet was held in the Harvard The special hotel conference Faculty Club in Cambridge on April rate is $69 per night (single) or $79 21st. Forty-nine Oxfordians and (double), plus applicable taxes. To their guests attended. book at this rate, please make your This year's event was special, reservation directly with the hotel since about half of the Banquet at­ before Sept. 25th, being sure to tendees had also been present at specify the Shakespearean Re­ Roger Stritmatter's dissertation de­ search Symposium. Phone: (800)228- fense, held earlier the same day in 92900r(734)729-7555. Amherst, Mass. This circumstance Among this years's scheduled thus resulted in a virtual caravan of speakers are: Patrick Buckridge, Oxfordians traveling the 100 miles At the Oxford Birthday Dinner in New Yo rk on May 22nd Associate Professor of Literature at back to Boston through a driving Society members Keith Jewell of New York City (left) and GriffithUniversity in Brisbane, Aus­ Nor' easter rainstorm that continued Leonard Hansen of Englewood, New Jersey (right), pose with throughout the afternoon. tralia; Gerald Downs of Los Ange­ Sir Derek Ja cobi at the Williams Club. At the Banquet itself, guests les; Warren Hope (co-author with were treated to a rousing talk by Dr. Kim Holston of Th e Shakespeare Daniel Wright (who had been on the Controvers)); C. Wayne Shore of dissertation defense committee), San Antonio, Texas; Roger Nyle who spoke on Shakespeare's treat­ Parisious of Hayesville, Ohio; Diana ment of the earls of Oxford in the Price (whose book on the author­ history plays (the paper appears in ship problem, Shakespeare 's Un ­ this newsletter issue, page one). orthodox Biography, will be pub­ There was also a special gift pre­ lished by the Greenwood Press this sented to Roger Stritmatter from his fa ll); and Prof. DavidA. Richardson, friends in Northampton, where the Professor of English at Cleveland Eldredges (Joe, Joan and Stephen) State University. had fo und-and purchased- a rare Also on hand as luncheon speak­ pencil sketch of Leslie Howard (the ers will be Dianne Batch ofthe Rich­ English actor who had fe atured ard III Society, and BlUce Mann, Looney's Shakespeare Identifiedin At the 13th Annual Oxford Day Banquet in Cambridge, Mass., Associate Professor of English at his 1941 fi lm Pimpernel Smith) on April 21st Tim Holcomb talks shop �with Lisa Risley (c) and Oakland University. dressed as Hamlet; Charles Boyle Anne Pluto (i). Last summer Ho lcomb had directed the ap oc­ For information call: Janet (who has written about Howard's l)'phal-and "p ossibly " Shakespearean-play Thomas of Trimbath: (248)650-0832, or send early Oxfordian leanings) made the Woodstock in Northampton, Mass., while earlier this year the e-mail to: [email protected] presentation. Oxford Street Players (co-founded by Risley and Pluto) also The gift thus commemorated produced Woodstock at Lesley College (in Cambridge, Mass.) New York both Roger's accomplishment ear­ lier in the day, and-in effect-all A gala dinner at the Williams Oxfordian activists throughout the centmy. by The Shakespeare Authorship Club inNewYorkCityonMay22,2000was Roundtable in Los Angeles in 1998, had sponsored by The Friends of The Oxford Michigan provided a fO lUm fo r current research Libratyto celebrate the 450th anniversaty of On October 7th and 8th, 2000, the 2nd relevant to the Shakespeare authorship the birth of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Shakespearean Research Symposium will controversy. Oxford. The event was organized by former be held in Detroit, at the Romulus Marriott The second symposium-indepen­ Society trustee Betty Sears and Paul Streitz located at the Detroit Airport (30559 Flynn dently produced-again presents speakers (of Darien, Connecticut). It afforded not Rd.,Romulus, MI48174.) who have published in peer-reviewed jour­ only the opportunity to remember Oxford The first research symposium, hosted nals, with the intention of strengthening the but also to acknowledge all Oxfordians' Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 23

appreciation of Sir Derek's courage in carry­ be silent on the subject. He ended his re­ Research Notes ing the banner of Oxford ' s authorship to the marks with the acknowledgment ofhis pride world of the theater and beyond. in counting himself an Oxfordian. The invitation to the black-tie affair at­ Press releases and invitations were sent A French/English tracted celebrants from the worlds of bus i­ to over five hundred media and theatrical ness, academia, theater and other entertain­ personalities. Publicity efforts by Paul Streitz pun in Othello ment media. Sir Derek, and his guest, actor and The Friends of The Oxford Library on A French-English pun on "fitchew," Richard Clifford, were seated at a table with Oxford's behalfwill continue with the dish'i­ apparently unnoticed until now, infol111sthe Sears, former Society trustee Pidge Sexton bution of Th e Shakespeare Conspiracy crucial handkerchief scene in Othello. ofSt. Louis, Tina Hamilton of Brielle, New video. The multilingual pun is described in the Jersey, and Friends' Secretaty Lynn Gargil Th e Shakespeare Newsletter (Spring 1 999) of Lincoln, Massachusetts. During dinner Ohio by Professor Dominick 1. Bongiol110 of and into the wee hours ofthe moming there On May 24th dedication ceremonies took Kingsborough Community College. was much animated discussion and crack­ place at the Mercantile Library in Cincinnati During the scene Bianca enters with the ling exchanges of ideas about Oxford and as Morse Johnson's collection of Shake­ handkerchiefthat Othello gave Desdemona those who surrounded him at court. speare authorship books were added to the (IV. 1.146). Othello has been overhearing As so often happens at Oxfordian gath­ collection. Jolmson, a fo nner Society trustee, Iago lead Cassio to discuss Bianca the pros­ erings, authorship topics soon ranged far­ was also the Society's newsletter editor titute in a way that leads Othello to think ther afield to include explorations into the fiom 1986-l995. they are talking about Desdemona. actual references in the works to those indi­ In presenting the collection, Johnson's Seeing Bianca, Cassio says, "'Tis such viduals and events which played such an widow, Betty Johnson-herself a well­ another fitchew! Many a perfumedone." A important role in this monumental period of knowncitizen of Cincinnati-emphasized fitchewis a polecat, an animal in the weasel British history, reaching even beyond her belief that the Oxford cause would be family and also a name of contempt fo r a well served by an authorship collection Oxford's death when his works appear to courtesan or prostitute (OED). available in the midwest. Her remarks were have been used to rally political activities In French its homophone is "fichu," echoed by Albert Pyle, the librarian of the just as they had in his lifetime. which has two meanings. As an adjective it distinguished libraty. Those who had an opportunity to speak means bad or hateful, which fits nicely with The collection will be shelved in special with Sir Derek during the evening were the pejorative fitchew.As a noun, however, mahogany bookcases designed and built its meaning is more significant.A fichu is a impressed by his eagemess to leam more by Johnson's long-time friend James about Oxford, not only in the role of a kerchief(HalTap 's). Willinghoff, and engraved with "Who Wrote So when Bianca, the fitchew, enters with scholar-which excellence in his craft de­ Shakespeare" and the initials of both the damning handkerchief, "Ie fichu," mands-but also, uniquely, as a Shake­ Johnson and Edward de Vere on the sides. Othello's suspicions are confirmed. He has, spearean actor who has had the opporhmity Canada as Bongiol110 says, "the single combined to bring Oxford's words, thoughts and feel­ entity of Bianca and the ocular proof." Pow­ ings to life on the stage. Last June actor Michael York made an erful drama for those in the audience who Host Paul Streitz graciously acknowl­ appearance in Stratford, Ontario, to sign knew French. edged the contributions of Betty Sears, copies of his new book A Shakespearean Professor Bongiorno explains Pidge Sexton, Roger Stritmatter and Hank Actor Prepares. The book is co-authored Shakespeare's choice of "fitchew"with its Whittemore, with the latter making an excep­ with actor/director Adrian Brine (of Hol­ land). York has been a Society member French sound-alike as the result of "the tionally moving presentation about Oxford cultural and commercial intercourse between on this, his anniversaty. It was particularly since 1996, and-when asked-doesn't hide his Oxfordian persuasions. France and England ... [that] created a lan­ gratifYing to be able to recognize Michael He was interviewed for the Stratford guage feast for our author." Peer with an award for his recent documen­ Beacon Herald by staff writer Audrey Much more likely, of course, is that our tary, Th e Shakespeare Conspiracy, and Ashley, and on the subject of the author­ author was fluentin French, as was Edward hear his personal remarks regarding the ship question was quoted as fo llows: de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford. (RFW) project. The fo cus of the evening was the pre­ "That's where Adrian and I part com­ discussed briefly in the Foreword (written sentation to Sir Derek Jacobi by Sears. Sir pany," he said with a smile. "The crabbed, by York), in whichhe acknowledges his own Derek was gracious enough to lead the toast litigious old man who ended up in Stratford "instinctive fe eling" against Stratford and to Sir John Gielgud, who had passed away (upon Avon) doesn't blend with the glorious for Oxford, notes (quoting Sobran) that "a the night before. Sir Derek then made some Renaissance mind that we find in the plays. thousand pieces fa ll into place" with Oxford special, personal remarks about his joumey The Stratfordians say, 'Buthewas a genius! ' as the author, and concludes with the com­ into the authorship. Especially interesting and, of course, he was. But that doesn't ment that they had " ...agreed to disagree, was his comment that he fe lt Sir John was a account for everything." and, for the purposes of this book I have much stronger Oxfordian than most realized acquiesced in the accepted Stratfordian bi­ but fe lt constrained by the establishment to Inthe book his differences with Brine are ography, or rather, mythology" (36). page 24 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Book Reviews:

William Shakespeare: A Popular Therefore, he says, he has "dropped the O'Connor is also apparently unaware Life by Garry O'Connor (New York: usual tentative approach of scholars," who that Derek Jacobi is now an outspoken Applause, 2000) say he might have, he could have, etc. Oxfordian, who narrated a document31Y film On no basis whatsoever, 0' Connor re­ (The Shakespeare Conspiracy) about Ox­ By RichardF. Whalen ports what people fe lt. The Stratford man' s fo rd that was released last year. He quotes father, he knowingly writes, "was vigilant Jacobi briefly but admiringly five times on any O'Connor sabotages biogra­ fo r signs of effeminacy in his son ....who various matters, probably from the time he hy in this life of the man he be identifiedwith his fa ther through his "sym­ worked with him on Ha mlet years ago, before lieves to be Shakespeare. He's not pathetic, feminized nature." The 18-year­ Jacobi became an Oxfordian. (One quote the first,of course. Russell Fraser, Marchette old "felt resentment" at being hooked by an does sound Stratfordian.) O'Connor should Chute and others undennined their ostensi­ older woman, and "with her second preg­ have had time to verifyJaco bi's allegiance. b ly fa ctual biographies ofthe Stratford man nancy the strong emotions he had felt were He also mentions the recent movie Shake­ with fi ctional conj ectures. Stephen doubled;" he had "also fe lt terror." Later sp eare in Love, and the 2000 book carries the Greenblatt even says "let's imagine" as he "Anne fe lt" that her husband had forsaken publisher's one-line note that it was "ex­ dreams away in his introduction to the N Olton her and her fa mily when he left fo r London. panded, revised and updated," presumably Shakespeare. In retirement he "felt comfortable" in a from some unspecified earlier edition. All Unwittingly, moreover, O'Connor female household. 0' Connor is, of course, that can be said here is that either 0' Connor stumbles across testimony for the 1 7th Earl of just making all this up. did not find out about Jacobi's latest views Oxford as the true author of Shakespeare's Turningto factual matters, conjecture on the authorship question, or he did know, plays when he cites Oxford's Geneva Bible "from the heart" turns into flat assertion. and chose to ignore them and plunge ahead. as a source for Shakespeare. He also quotes For example he asserts--on no evidence at On the authorship question 0' Connor­ the actor Derek Jacobi, an avowed Oxford­ all-that his Shakespeare of Stratford was as might be expected-is dismissive. Francis ian, several times with admiration for his a schoolmaster fo r a rich family,joined the Bacon and Christopher Marlowe are quickly insights into Shakespeare's character. military and went to war, visited the Earl of dispatched in his quirky notes. He brushes O'Connor is a practiced biographer, Southampton at Titchfield,discussed plots off Oxford in a parenthetical phrase, noting having done books on Ralph Richardson, and treason with Southampton in the support by Sigmund Freud "in this context...a Peggy Ashcroft, Alec Guinness and Sean Tower, got his Italian lore from his alleged crank," and then dismisses Oxford for his O'Casey. This is his firstbi ography of a friend John Florio, blamed himselffor his flatulence and buggery. O'Connor's scorn long-dead literary figure, but he knows son Hamnet's death, smoked tobacco, and for Freud is strange given his eagerness to Shakespeare's works from having acted in finally leaveshis wife his second-best bed make psychological surmises about the plays and having once directed Hamlet because "Anne had asked for this." everyone's fe elings and the Stratford man's at the Royal Shakespeare Company, playing Curiously, 0 'Connorcompletelymisses dismay over his father's disgrace and his Fortinbras with Jacobi in the title role. the significanceofthe 1 7th Earl of Oxford ' s sorrow at his son Hamnet's death suppos­ If O'Connor had written a fictionalized Geneva Bible at the Folger Shakespeare edly leading him to write Hamlet. biography, such as Robert Nye's Th e Late Library. In the text he says that his Shake­ Researchers might find handy three tables Mr. Shakespeare: A Novel, it would have speare-the man from Stratford-had a at the end of 0' Connor's book. He says they posed no problems for the general reader. "profound fa miliarity" with "his Geneva are "based closely on WiIIiam Poe!' s Prom i­ However, he puts the trappings of scholar­ Bible." Then in his endnotes he says: "The nentPoints in the Life and Wr itings a/Shake­ ship into his "life of Shakespeare" and cor­ Folger Libr31Y has a Geneva Bible originally sp eare (Manchester, 1919). There is a chro­ rupts biography. The reader, tricked into purchased in 1570. It contains hundred nological table of "facts and traditions" of believing the made-up stories that are em­ [sic] of marked verses and underlined pas­ the Stratford man's life, including things bedded in pseudo-scholarship, cannot de­ sages apparently in the original owner's "unproven" and "unknown." Another table tennine what's fact and what's fiction.It is hand, which correspond with Shake­ gives "the approximate order of Shake­ truly subversive scholarship. speare's use of the Bible." speare's plays, indicating where they were O'Connormakesnoapologies. He aims He apparently thinks the Folger's Bible actedinLondon(l591-1642)." The third is a for a "popular, imaginatively told life of belonged to the Stratford man, whereas in table of the plays with a line-count by act, Shakespeare." All of us, he says, "hold in fa ct it was owned by the Earl of Oxford. ranked by length and with an analysis of act our hearts as many clues as to what the Roger Stritmatter' s doctoral dissertation at and scene divisions. playwright was like, ifnot more, as can be UMass-Amherst (see story, page one) dem­ But O'Connor pays scant attention to found in histOlY, or in the works them­ onstrates how the marked passages are Poe!'s "unknowns" and "unprovens." His­ selves." In other words, we can make it all up actually powerful evidence that Oxford was torical facts be damned, he knows in his heart if we do so in all sincerity, from the heart. the true author of Shakespeare's works. who Shakespeare was and what he was like. Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 25

Sobran (Can tin liedji-Olll page 13) [about William]" (my emphasis). profile better than William! If we enter But letme pass over the factual quibbles Nelson fa ils to realize that he is conced­ another claimant, the scandalous homo­ and proceed to the crucial points in Nelson's ingmywholecase. We can only argue from sexual Christopher Marlowe, William drops review. It's amusing, by the way, that a "what we know," not from "what we do not to a distant fourth place in the Authorship review yielding the essential case fo r Oxford know." Nelson is indirectly (and no doubt Sweepstakes. To such implications do should have slipped under the radar of the unconsciously) agreeing that "what we Nelson's concessions lead. august Shakespeare Quarterly. know" points to Oxford's authorship, while Most orthodox scholars insist that we Countering my argument that the Italian speculating, with naive confidence, that know so much about William that the case plays reflect Oxford's youthfuljourney to "what we do not know" "may" favor fo r his authorship is conclusive. Nelson (as Italy, Nelson replies that it is "not impos­ William's. Thus the case for William rests usual without realizing it) adopts the same sible that [William of Stratford] traveled to on non-existent evidence, while the case for new line as Bowman: that so "little" is Italy-perhaps in a company of players" known about William that his authorship is (my emphasis). But with "perhaps" and "not "not impossible." The only thing Nelson impossible," just about any unsupported does assume is impossible is that William is "Nelson fa ils to realize statement can be made trivially true. Ofsuch not the author, and, as a good fundamental­ qualifiers are Stratfordian biographies ist of the orthodox persuasion, he is willing composed. that he is conceding my to accept any number of coincidences to Here, Nelson, without realizing what he sustain that assumption. is saying, tacitly admits that the positive whole case. We can It may seem safer to stick with the stan­ evidence favors Oxford, of whose Italian dard line that the Sonnets are mere "fic­ voyage there is no "perhaps" or "not impos­ only argue fr om tions." Like defense attorneysfor a guilty sible." Besides travelling to the same cities client, most orthodox scholars want to de­ Oxfo rd visited in Italy, did William also meet 'what we know, ' clare this powerful evidence about the au­ the same two Italians Oxford mentions in his thor inadmissible. Buttheyfail to realize that letters-Baptisto Nigrone and Benedic to call the Sonnets fictions is to abandon Spinola-whose names are fu sed in not fr om 'what them as evidence for William and to surren­ "Baptista Minola" in Th e Ta ming of the der them to the candidate who most closely Shre,v? And since Oxford met Spinola in we do not know. '" matches the poet's self-portrait: Oxford. Paris, not Italy, did William also visit France? It bears repeating that if we regard the Though it is "not impossible," such reason­ Sonnets as "fictions," we must posit yet ing forces us to posit too many coinci­ Oxford rests on substantiated fact. Q.E.D. another coincidence to save William's claim: dences, ifnot outright miracles. That last sentence demands explana­ that he would create an imaginary speaker Nelson avoids the specificsof the Son­ tion: "[N]or are [the Sonnets] by any means with so many points of resemblance to the nets showing that, as we have seen, the poet impossible to reconcile with the little that is actual Earl ofOxf ord. We must furthersup­ is, among other things, "lame." This is really known [about William]."R eally? How? Was pose that this imaginary being would lament egregious dishonesty, since Nelson himself William an aging nobleman and public fig­ his imaginary disgrace and urge an imagi­ has published the very letter in which Ox­ ure, in disgrace, lame, bisexual, trained in the nary youth, coincidentally similar to the Earl fo rd, writing to Burghley in March 1595, law, eager to see Southampton marry Eliza­ of Southampton, to beget issue-themes jokes about being "a lame man." Inthe same beth Vere? What conceivable evidence could without parallel in Elizabethan sonneteering. way, Nelson fa ils to mention the charge of turn up to support such an assertion? (Has As for the chapter in Alias Shakespeare "buggering boys" made by Oxford's en­ Nelson ever read the Sonnets?) which enumerates the many links between emies-an episode he is quite familiar with. Instead of showing how the poet of the Oxford and Hamlet (along with otherplays), The ovelwhelming fact about the poet, Sonnets could possibly match William in so Nelson merely says snidely that it is "merci­ missed by orthodox critics, is that he faces many respects, Nelson offers only the ec­ fully short." Dealing with the fa cts it pre­ age and death with shame and guilt at the centric explanation that William might "feel sents (the many echoes of Oxford's life and ruin he has made of his life; his only conso­ old" by the age of thirty because he may letters in Hamlet, for example) would no lation being, as I say, his "lovely boy." have been "prematurely balding." doubt have fo rced him to employ those Again, this is not the outlook of a young, "Prematurely balding"! As "scholar­ giveaway qualifiers "perhaps" and "not successful, prosperous writer from the ship," which Nelson professes to uphold impossible" with unseemly frequency. provinces, taking the big city by storm. against "j unk scholarship," this is laugh­ He is likewise deaf to the dozens of How does Nelson handle the problem able. The poet describes himself as "old" echoes ofthe Sonnets in Oxford's 1573 letter the Sonnets pose for William's authorship? (with "lines and wrinkles"), "lame," "poor," to Thomas Bedingfield. So many coinci­ By resorting once again to the "not impos­ "despised," "guilty," "sinfu l," "a motley to dences, one supposes-but why do they all sible" argument. the view," and many other unflattering point toward Oxford? Nelson scornfully "The Sonnets," he writes, "may bear a things, but "bald" is not one of them. quotes my suggestion that the Bedingfield distinct relationship to what we do not know This is where it gets good. Afterall, even letter constitutes one of the strongest pieces (which must be vastly more than what we Francis Bacon-a lawyer, a homosexual, a of evidence fo r Oxford, but he doesn't ex­ kn ow); nor are they by any means impos­ writer (and occasional poet), a nobleman plain to his readers why I think so. sible to reconcile with the little that is known who fell into disgrace-matches the poet's (Continued all page 31) page 26 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Opinion/CommentarY Virginia Woolf's Shakespeare: Why Wo olfmad e room for the Stratford lad in A ROOin of One's Own

By Andrew Werth

hen Virginia Woolfdelivered the that Virginia WoolfwroteA Room of One 's for the Stratford man. speeches in 1928 which later be­ Own. Virtually every paragraph challenges But as she explains the dust and breath Wcame A Room of One 's Own, she tradition and encourages heterodoxy. Re­ out of which greatness emerges, the reader spoke to a population embracing change. markably, though, it reinforces one unten­ is bewildered. We are told that "genius like Audiences in the United States and England able orthodox myth. This contradiction, Shakespeare's is not born among laboring, were turning to the radio for news and from the pen of such a brilliant and revolu­ uneducated, servile people." Indeed, it is entertainment. The creations ofHenry Ford tionarywriter, is worth examining. only through "early training that men are and Alexander Bell were altering not only able to produce poetty." She expands on the way people traveled and communicated, this, insisting "the mind ofan artist, in order but the order of their lives. to achieve the prodigious effort of freeing Poised to deliver a bombshell that would whole and entire the work that is inhim, must become the cornerstone of feminist criti­ be incandescent, like Shakespeare's mind ... cism, W oolfknew that the literaty world was There must be no obstacle in it, no fo reign eager for dramatic alterations. Coteries of matter unconsumed." An educated family? revolutionalywriters were developing mani­ Early training? No foreign matter festoes denouncing ossified literary para­ unconsumed? Why, this is not the biogra­ digms, reinventing poetty, and encourag­ phy we had read just a few paragraphs ing the poet to trust "the inexhaustible na­ earlier. One wonders why, of all figures, she ture ofthe munnur." Woolf's "Boolmsbury paradigmatically posits the Stratford man's Group" included such innovators and intel­ biography when it defies her conditions fo r lects as E. M. Forster and Lytton Strachey. literary greatness. One hopes this will de­ Her own novels, most famously Mrs. velop into clever paradox, but it hardens into Dalloway, were to employ a technique she contradiction. called "tunneling," a technique intended to Following this puzzling analysis of the "excavate the dreams and desires" of her creative mind's genesis, Woolf turns to the characters. The old ways were fa ding into Virginia Wo olf question, Why did no women write great the dusk as quickly and surely as was the literature during this time? In explanation, horse-drawn calTiage. A Room of One 's Own deftly explores she executes a dazzling feat of imaginative Literary women asserted themselves in reasons for the previous absence of great writing (especially fo r that time, when schol­ a society that now questioned the legiti­ writing by women, and thoughtfully ana­ ars were only newly in the habit of creating macy of the patriarchy and its statutes (a lyzes the circumstances which produce fictional Shakespeares). She wonders, What woman may be creative with a needle, not a great writers. The particular interest in this if Shakespeare had had an equally talented pen; a woman must be chaste, should be essay to Oxfordians is its famous third chap­ sister? She christens the fictionalcharacter beautiful, may notbe curious). Noting in her ter. In it, Woolfhighlights the Elizabethan Judith, and in a few brief sentences, Woolf essay Mr. Bennett and Mrs. Brown that "all era because "It is a perennial puzzle why no proves why she was (and is) considered one human relations have shifted,"Woo Ifadded woman wrote a word ofthat extraordinary of the most talented English writers of her that while Victorian readers of Aeschylus' literature when evelY other man, it seemed, day: when she finishes, one must indeed drama Agamemnon sympathized with the was capable of song or sonnet." Her discus­ remind oneself that Shakespeare's sister is murdered husband, modem readers would sion moves naturally to Shakespeare, whom mere fiction. Judith Shakespeare, Woolfex­ champion Clytemnestra. Activists like Eliza­ she regards as the model ofcreative Genius plains, beth Cady Stanton, writers like Gertrude for all ages. She recounts the traditional Stein, and others-for instance, the nurse story ofhis life, from rabbit poaching to the ...was adventurous, as imaginative, as Margaret Sanger who wrote the advice jour­ inevitable unblotted lines. It is the StOlY of agog to see the world as [her brother] was. But she was not sent to school. She had no nal Th e Wo man Rebel-encouraged stulti­ a poor, rustic waifwho struggles from bump­ chance oflearninggrammar and logic ...She fied women to question the professed wis­ kin to bard, in his greatest hour "gaining picked up a book now and then ...But then dom of their fathers and overturn senseless access to the queen." Woolf is obviously her parents came in and told her to mend the tradition. well-versed in her contemporaty Sidney stockings or mind the stew and not moon It was for this audience, in this climate, Lee, and unquestioningly echoes his claims about with books and papers. Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 27

Judith runs away to London to seek you let an honest man sleep?" But the play­ the greatest subjects would for long remain fa me and adventure as an actor and play­ wright, his eyes shining and words tumbling so distant, so unknown. A mass of inform a­ wright, is scorned and shown her place, out ofhis mouth, says, "Shut up and Iisten­ tion was generated-augmented by the tell me what you thinkof this! " He begins to becomes pregnant, and-"who shall mea­ dubious gossip Woolf would have grate­ read to the still half-asleep Burbage ... Burbage sure the heat and violence of the poet's intermpts, suddenly wide awake, "That's fu lly uncovered fo r Elizabethan women­ heart when caught and tangled in a woman's excellent, very good, 'the slings and a11'0WS and this farrago was assembled for the great­ body?"-commits suicide as release from a of outrageous fOliune,' yes, I think it will est Elizabethan man. life of anguished futility. Woolfs point, of work quite well ..." It must have been an The persisting question is why, at a time course, is that women did not create fiction exhilarating moment. when literalY traditions and icons were ac­ because an intransigent patriarchy-rein­ tively challenged, when intelligent society The two Shakespeares-Judith and fo rced by its subdued women-would not was learning to examine and discardsuper­ Will-are both desiderata called into being permit it. Any talented Elizabethan girl who stition, when women like Woolf could in­ asserted herself, Woolf writes, "would cer­ quire and speak freely, was she willing to tainly have gone crazed, shot herself, or acceptthe Stratfordian myth without pause? ended her days in some lonely cottage out­ "One wonders why, Why was she willing to allow such striking side the village, halfwitch, halfwizard, fe ared contradictions to cloud her brilliant essay? and mocked at." Woolf expects her audi­ of all figures, Indeed, the question becomes more ence to realize that until recently, such atti­ pressing when we consider Woolf s estima­ tudes prevailed in England. This explained she paradigm atically tion of Shakespeare's powers. She asserts the paucity of female writers, and conse­ that the unresolved inner strife that results posits the Stratford man 's quently of female litermy role models, not from externalimpediments will always mar a merely during the sixteenth century, but biography, as it seemingly writer's work. Thus, those few women who throughout history. did try to write books that could be distin­ Note the correspondence between refu tes her conditions guished from saccharine pulp or belles Woolfs methods and those of Stratford­ lettres poured their literary frustrations into ians: in the absence of great works, she fo r literary greatness. " their work, often clumsily, and sabotaged seeks to discover more about the lives of their efforts. Woolf uses the writing of women who didn 'tproduce them ("Here I am CurrerBell, George Eliot, and George Sand­ asking why women did not write poetry in women for whom pseudonyms were less to answer particular exigencies. Though we the Elizabethan Age, and I am not sure liberating than de-feminizing and humiliat­ can trace the manufacture of both, Judith ... what, in short, they did from eight in the ing-as examples of this. But the works of and her dashed hopes are confined to the morninguntil eight at night"), and creates a great male writers, adds Woolf, have like­ pages of fiction,while young Will and his fictional life to plug the vacuum. Stratford­ wise suffered from this. She chooses writers supposed dramaturgy we accept as histori­ ians, in the bafflingpresence of great works, who lived in propinquity to Shakespeare to cal fact. Perhaps this reveals less about seek to know more about him who created demonstrate this, and contrasts them with Will's creators than about his duped inheri­ them; staring into a void, they too have Shakespeare: tors. developed a fictional character to fill it. Woolf also discusses her desperate Woolf at least admits that her phantasm For though we say we know nothing search for any informationregarding women "may be true or it may be fa lse-who can about Shakespeare's state of mind, even as writers. Vexed by its absence, consider her say?" This is more than traditional Shake­ we say that, we are saying something about confessions: she would welcome "dubious Shakespeare's state of mind. The reason speare scholars will admit, allowing their gossip" if she could find any; she craves a perhaps why we know so little of Shake­ invention to become an institution, admir­ "mass of information" ofany kind that would speare-compared with Donne or Ben ing the creature while dismissing their hand Jonson or Milton-is that his gmdges ... are fill the lacunae and satisfy her throbbing in its creation. Note the similarities between hidden from us. We are not held up by some curiosity. Does this differ from Stratfordian Woolfs figment Judith and this pOlirait of 'revelation' that reminds us ofthewriter. All reaction to the hollowness ofWill Shaksper? Shakespeare by Stratfordian Joseph Papp in desire to protest ... to make the world a We in the western world do not like blank his foreword to the Signet Othello. Here, witness of some hardship or grievance was spaces in our histories, and we certainly do fired out ofhim and consumed. Therefore his young Will has just written Hamlet by not commonly possess what Keats called poetry flows from him free and unimpeded. candlelight, and is forcing his lucubrations "negative capability": power to resist the If ever a human got his work expressed into the sleepy hands of actor Richard completely, it was Shakespeare. urge to demystify the elusive and the super­ Burbage: nal. Thus, it was with exasperated despair Jonson, Donne and Milton were each that Coleridge exclaimed, "How absolutely Shakespeare shakes his friend awake, under great political and financial pressure nothing do we know of Shakespeare!" and until, bleary-eyed, Burbage sits up in his to produce works that would conform to bed. in the great age of invasive biography that external guidelines. Donne faced persecu- "Dammit, Will," he gmmbles, "can't fo llowed him, it was impossible that one of (Continued on page 32) page 28 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter From the Editor: Published quarterly by the Shakespeare Oxford Society Paradigms Shifting and Shaking P.O. Box 263 For those Oxfordians who have been de Vere's having been "Shake-speare." Somerville, MA. 02 143 involved with the Shakespeare authorship When one considers this landmark event debate for any length of time, the events in �plus other recent academic events touch­ ISSN 1525-6863 Amherst, Massachusetts last April were ing on the authorship question, such as Dr. Editor: William Boyle especially sweet (StOlY, page one). Daniel Wright's Oxfordian conference on a Editorial Board: It is a pity that the stalwarts of the university campus and teacher Robert Mark Anderson, Charles Boyle, Stephanie Hughes, Elisabeth Sears Oxfordian movement---such as founding Barrett's authorship battles with his local Roger Stritmatter, Richard Whalen Society members Charlton Ogburn,Francis secondary school boards-one must realize Dr. Daniel L. Wright T. Carmody, William Mason Smith, that the authorship debate has shifted irre­ Phone: (617) 628-3411 Archibald H. Cashion and James B. Johnson, versibly into a new era that befits our concur­ Phone/Fax: (617) 628-4258 Ogburn's parents (Charlton, Sr. and Dor­ rent movement into a new centUlY and a new email: [email protected] othy), Morse Johnson and all those other millennium. All contents copyright ©2000 earlier SOS members (now departed), plus Dare we think that we who are carrying on Shakespeare Oxford Society all the earlier generations of Oxfordians the battle today may live to see the day when fr om the days before the SOS-could not the emptiness ofthe Stratford stOlY is finally The newsletter welcomes articles, essays, commentary, book reviews, leiters and news items. Contributions have lived to see this day: a successful acknowledged, and the overwhelming cir­ should be reasonably concise and, when appropriate, Ph.D. dissertation defense voted for a cumstantial case for Edward de Vere as the validated by peer review. The views expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of scholar whose thesis was based on Edward hue Shakespeare is finally accepted? the Society as a literary and educational organization. Edward deVere's Last Known Letter Board of Trustees Just as this issue of the newsletter was esting and too important a findto just sit on, Shakespeare Oxford Society close to going to the printer we were ad­ and so we are pleased to provide it to our vised of some interesting news fr om En­ members�and to the world at large�in this Lifetime Honorary Trustees: gland, by way of Oxfordian researcher Su­ issue. san Campbell of San Diego, California. As it turns out, the James letter had Dr. Gordon Cyr Campbell had been visiting various apparently been located by another re­ records offices in England, hoping to find searcher sometime in the 1990s, but that 1999-2000 Oxford letters. And in April her efforts were person never saw fitto publish it�or even Board of Trustees rewarded, with three letters located in the to tell more than one or two other Oxfordians Essex Records Office�two simply signed of its existence.

President by Oxford, but one completely in his own So while this new Oxford letter cannot be Aaron Tatum hand, and written directly to King James I. said to have been "discovered" by Campbell, We then had a choice to find roomfor it is celiainly her (and our) privilege to be the First Vice-President it in this issue, or wait until later in the year. firsttomake it available to Oxfordians every­ Joe C. Peel We decided, finally, that this was too inter- where in the first year of this new century.

Second Vice-President Newsletter Editorial Board Dr. Jack Shuttleworth With this issue of the newsletter (Vol. Editorial Board, effective with this issue: Dr. Third Vice-President 36, no. 1)we begin our fifthyear ofpublish­ Daniel L. Wright of Concordia University Charles Boyle ing here in Somerville, Massachusetts. (Portland, Oregon), presently the Chair ofthe Much has happened during this time, fr om SOS Board's Publications Committee, Roger Recording Secretary exciting developments in both the major Stritmatter ofNortha mpton, Massachusetts, Dr. Ren Draya media's and the public's increasing aware­ who has just completed his dissertation on ness of the authorship issue itself, to the Oxford/Shakespeare and the Geneva Bible, Membership Secretary Susan Sybersma continued growth and influence of our and Richard Whalen of Truro, Massachu­ Society in promoting the authorship issue setts, a regular contributor to these pages. Treasurer and thus helping in some part to affect the All three are already fa miliar to our read­ Joe C. Peel changes that are now taking place. ers, and bring a wealth of expertise Oil Shake­ So, we fe el thattime had come to reflect speare, the authorship issue and the Elizabe­ Robert Banett some of these changes in the makeup of the than era to the Board. Theirregularparticipa­ William Boyle newsletter's own editorial board, which tion in producing the newsletter will un­ Michael Forster Pisapia has remained pretty much the same since doubtedly make it that much better, and Gerit Quealy the fa ll of 1995. afford us the opportunity to provide to our Therefore we are pleased to announce readers even more articles, news, debate and that three new members will be joining the commentary, on a more timely schedule. Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 29

pertaining to his wife, Oxford said: 'What the Sonnets. Many of these enigmatic Letters: they are-because some are not to be spoken verses-to my mind at least-now ring hue To the Editor: of or written upon as imperfections-I will with clystal clarity when one considers them notdeal withal. Some that otherwise discon­ to be written by a middle-aged man to his It may interest readers to know that, tented me I will not blaze or publish until it beloved Fair Youth-whatever their rela­ apropos of my article in the Winter 2000 please me.' Perhaps Oxford decided to men­ tionship may have been-while the Youth newsletter ("Ophelia's Difference"), other tion his possible suspicions to someone else, sits in prison awaiting execution, and then critics have found ample reason to suspect for in Montagu's letter, written to Burghley sits in prison serving life. an incestuous relationship between William on Sept. 19, 1590 ... Southampton's grand­ Cecil and his daughter Anne that may have father [i.e. Montagu] describes Elizabeth Sandy Hochberg resulted in the birth of the child raised as Vere first as Burghley's 'grandchild' and Berkeley, California Elizabeth Vere. While I personally do not then as his ' child.' There is on the surface 28 April 1999 hold a definite position on this controversial nothing improper about this: Elizabeth was To the Editor: theory-I only keep an open mind toward its Burghley's granddaughter and ward. If possibility-I was nevertheless pleasantly Montagu is, however, tactfully suggesting Hank Whittemore's article, "Abstract & surprised to see a recent Stratfordian work that Southampton's refusal [to marry] is BriefChron icles" (Summer 1 999), presents a discuss such (I thought) inherently Oxford­ motivated by disparagement, the message new and provocative interpretation of the ian musings. would not be lost on the Master of the Sonnets for scholars to analyze and critique. The fo llowing is an excerpt from Patrick Wards. It is an astounding piece of work, but over M. Murphy's 1997 essay "Wriothesley's It's important to stress that Murphy the centuries scholars of all persuasions Resistance, Wardship Practices and Ovidian reaches the above conclusion without ever have offered many interpretations of these Narratives in Shakespeare's Ve nus and considering characters and plot elements in compelling yet enigmatic poems. Adonis," printed in a collection of writings Hamlet. The fact that he independently The challenge fo r Whittemore will be to on the poem published in the same year arrived at such a heretical reading of Vere firm up the historical parallels in a forceful, (Venus and Adonis: Critical Essays, Philip fa mily history-one which I only learned persuasive format and ground the relations C. Kolin, ed.; Garland Publishing, NY & mere hours before penning this letter­ he sees between Elizabeth, Oxford, Essex London). Inhis treatise, the author examines would tend to corroborate the reading put and Southampton in historical fa ct. Or at the firstpublication under the Shake-speare fOlward in "Ophelia's Difference." least show that there are no barriers to the byline vis-a-vis the marriage negotiations relationships to which he finds allusions in circa 1593 between the Earl ofSouthampton Mark K. Anderson the Sonnets. This will be no small undertak­ and Elizabeth Vere: Northampton, Massachusetts ing but what other extended set of poems is ' 20 August 2000 more deserving of such an effort? Although it is beyond proof, it is not beyond speculation that Oxford may have To the Editor: Richard F. Whalen accused, implied or suspected Anne and her Truro, Massachusetts father, William Cecil, ofan incestuous liaison Kudos to Hank Whittemore for his in­ 15 July 2000 that resulted in the birth of Elizabeth. As sightful analysisof Shakespeare 's Sonnets unlikely as this scenario is, the threat of an ("Abstract and Brief Chronicles," Summer To the Editor: accusation of incest could be a powerful 1999 Shakespeare Oxfo rd Newsletter). weapon. On April 27, 1 576, Oxford reserved Whatever one may think ofthe so-called As a fo llowup to the notice of Tal an unnamed, disruptive power for himself. "PT theory," I do hope Oxfordians every­ Wilson's obituary in your last issue (Winter Writing to Burghley about 'some mislikes' where appreciate this new perspective on 2000), Concordia University wishes to ex­ press its gratitude for the generosity of Mr. Subscriptions to the Shakespeare Oxfo rd Newsletter are included iu membership dues in the Wilson and his family for their bequeathal of Shakespeare Oxford Society, which are $35 a year, or $50 a year for a sustaining membership. Dues Mr. Wilson's enormous personal library to are $15 a year for students and teachers. Dues and requests for membership should be sent to: Concordia University. The many hundreds of texts donated to Shakespeare Oxford Society Membership Office Concordia by Mr. Wilson and his heirs P.O. Box 504 represent a vast addition of new and rare Ayer, MA 01432-0504 titles to the library's Oxfordian holdings, Phone: (617)628-3411 PhoneJFax; (61 7)628-4258 and we are pleased that such a valuable gift has been made available to students and The purpose of the Shakespeare Oxford Society is to establish Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of other Oxfordian scholars by this devoted Oxford (1550-1604) as the true author of the Shakespeare works, to encourage a high level of scholar's foresight and generosity. scholarly research and publication, and to fo ster an enhanced appreciation and enjoyment of the poems and plays. Prof.Nolan Bremer, Head Librarian Th e Society was founded and incorporated in 1957 in the State of New York and was chartered Sylvester Library under the membership corporation laws of that state as a non-profit, educational organization. Dues, grants and contributions are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law: Concordia University IRS No. 13-6105314; New York 07182 Portland, Oregon 25 July 2000 page 30 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Advertisements The Blue Boar Th e Dark Side Books and Publications Shakespeare axfo rd Society Newsletters. of Shakespeare (1965-1 995). 2 Volumes, 1270 pages, soft-cover, by Willard R. Hess plastic spiral binding. Photocopy edition of the Alias Sh akespeare: Solving the Greatest Liter­ first thirty years of the Society'S newsletters. Item my lvlysteJY of All Time. By Joseph Sobran. Item This new book e:;.ploresthe author's view SP 23. $105.00 (Price inclndes P&H). SP7. $25.00 of Shakespeare, i.e., Edward de Vere, 17th Shake.llJeare: Who Was He? The a.iford Clwl­ The Anglican Shakespeare: Elizabethan 0.1'­ Earl of Oxfo rd, as more of a conniver and lenge to the Bard of Avon. By Richard Whalen. thodoxy in the Great Histories. By Prof. Daniel L. doer than a dreamer-poet, with particular Item 123. $19.95 Wright. Item SPII. $19.95 emphasis on thepro position that he may have To Catch the Conscience of the King. Leslie A Hawk }i'01ll a Handsaw. A Student '.I' Guide been an ef ectivef andfe ared spy andsp ymaster Howard and the 17th Earl of o.iford. By Charles to the Authorship Debate. By Rollin De Vere. Item throughout the 1570s-80s, especially while Boyle. Item SPI6. $5.00 SPI3. $12.00 on his travels to the Continent. Who Were Shake;peare? The ultimate who­ Hedingham Castle Guide Book. A brief his­ Hess shows that during the 1570s there dun-it. By Ron Allen. Item SPI5. $14.95 tory of the Castle and some of the more fa mous were intriguing linkages between Oxfo rd and members of the Earls of Oxford. Item SP 24. $3.50 Video the infamous Don Juan of A ustria, who while Letters and Poems of Edward, Earl of axford. a suitOljorQueenEli zabeth 's hand was also Edited by Katherine Chiljan. A new edition that Catholic Europe 's chief hope of invading Firing Line interview with Charlton Ogburn, Jr. brings together the poems and the letters with (1211 1184). William F. Buckley, host; Prof. Maurice England and crowning himselfits King by updated notes about original sources, provenance, Chamey (Rutgers) represents the Stratfordian side. fo rce. He examines Don Juan 's relationship etc. Item SP22. $22.00 I hour, VHS. Rarely seen interview with Ogburn with Cervantes and Shakespeare 's fa scina­ The Man Who Was Shake.lpeare. By Charlton upon publication of TM WS in 1984. Item SP 27. tion with Don Ju an, most notably through the Ogburn, lr. (94-pp summary of The Mysterious $35.00 characters of Don John, Armada, Aaron the William Shakespeare) Item SP5. $5.95 Moor, and Othello. The Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth Gift Items Hess also examines the late 1570s to and the Reality. Revised 2nd Edition. By Charlton early 80s and thepossibility that the evolution Ogburn, lr. Item 121. $37.50 Coffee Mug. Imported fr om Hedingham Castle. of English drama during that period was Oxford and Byron. By Stephanie Hopkins Blue on white, with a wrap-around sketch of the heavily determined by an Oxford-Sussex­ Hughes. Item SP20. $8.00 Castle and its environs and "Hedingham Castle" Ef fingham-Strange alliance in opposition to The axfordian: Annual Journal of the Shake­ printed around the bottom. Item SP 25. $12.00 Leicester and Leicester 's brother Wa rwick, speare Oxford Society. Back issues from 1998 and Refrigerator magnet. Imported from Hedingham succeeding in wrecking their enemies ' play 1999 available, $20.00 each. Item SP30. Castle. A 2 112 inches by 2 112 inches color 3- companies in London and at Court. The Relevance of Robert Greene to the axfor­ dimensional rendition of the Castle. Item SP 26. dian Th esis. By Stephanie Hopkins Hughes. Item $6.00 T-Shirts. All cotton, beige, with Oxford shield (in Paperback, 450 pgs, $30.00 p&h SP21. $10.00 "Shakespeare " Identified in Edward de Ve re, color), quill pen, and "Shakespeare Oxford Soci­ ($25.00 before 10/14/00) Seventeenth Earl of o.�ford. By 1. Thomas Looney. ety" imprinted. Sizes L, XL only (remainders from Paperback facsimile reprint of the 1920 edition. 1998 conference). Items SP29-L, SP29-XL. $10.00 OrderJi'om the author, W. Ron Hess Item SP4. $20.00 each 2704 Lime Street Temple Hills MD 20748 email: [email protected] Name: ______Item Price The book will be available at the conference

directly }i'om the author fo r $25.00 each .. _ Address· ______

______City:. State: ___ ZIP:._ ___ Th e Shakespeare Hoax by RandaUBarron Check enclosed: Credit Card: MC Visa Subtotal: The Shakespeare Hoax tells the hows 10% member Card number: ______and whys of the authorship story, discount: what was the trigger fo r the hoax, _ Exp. date: ____ and how Love's Martyr could Subtotal: have changed evelJJthing. _ P&H, books Signature:, ______($1 .00 each): Just published, pelfect-bound Mail to: P&H (per order): $ 2.50 paperback, 211 pages, $20 Shakespeare Oxford Society, Blue Boar, PO Box 263, Somerville MA 02143 Available directly ji-om: Grand Total:

Randall Barron 2535 East Saratoga Street Th e Oxfordian Shakespeare Oxfo rd Society Newsletters Gilbert AZ 85296 Vol. 1 (1998) and Vol. 2 (1999) 1965 to 1995 (2 bound volnmes, 1270 pages) email: [email protected] Both back issues available from Available fromthe BlneBoar (cash, check, or money ordel) the BIne Boar for $20 each fo r $105 (includes P&H) Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Spring 2000 page 31

Sobran (continuedji-om page 25) I should add that I've also debated John de Vere Studies Con/(collt't fi'om page 11) Keeping readers in the dark about the Tobin, editor of Harvard's prestigious Riv­ Biblical source for the writerwho was Shake­ contents of Alias Shakespeare seems to be erside Shakespeare, with the same results. speare. Roger's studies have since led to a basic strategy of the Stratfordian critics. He questioned my scholarship, my charac­ the successful defense of his doctoral dis­ Nelson is the only one who even bothered ter, and evelything but my virginity, but sertation at the University of Massachu­ with a glancing reference to the Bedingfield didn't bother explaining how William could setts at Amherst (see story on page one ). letter. have written those Sonnets. Neither did The 5th AnnualEdward de Vere Studies Nor does Nelson address the-extraor­ several scholars I debated last year in a mock Conference will convene on the Concordia dinaty, one would think-factthat all three trialatthe U.S. Supreme Court. (Thejurywas University campus from April 5th to 8th, ofthe dedicatees ofthe Shakespeare works evenly divided-a moral triumph for the 2001. The featured speaker will be Robert had been Oxford's prospective sons-in­ underdogs.) Detobel, German editor of the Neues law; Southampton was matched with Eliza­ I once asked David Kathman, a bright Shake-speare Journal,who will be making beth Vere; Pembroke with Bridget Vere; and young Shakespeare scholar who claims to his American debut at an Oxfordian Montgomery with Susan Vere (whom in fact be Stratfordian: "Suppose the Shakespeare proceeding. he did many). On the orthodox view, all works had been ascribed to Oxford by the The Conference's opening night will these startling links with Oxford must be First Folio in 1623, and that his authorship also fe ature the Concorida University The­ dismissed as more coincidences. had been accepted for four centuries. What atre Department's premiere of Tim Most important, Nelson makes no at­ in those works would have led you to break Hill's Th e Bubble Reputation, a play about tempt to show that either the plays or the with the herd and challenge Oxford's author­ the William Henry Ireland forgeries. Sonnets bear witness to William's author­ ship? And what in those works would have Registrations are being taken now; reg­ ship. If William were the author, the total led you to believe that the real author was istration is only $11 0 fo r the four-day confer­ absence oflinks to him in his works would William of Stratford?" ence (banquet included). To register or to itself be a freakish coincidence. In the He had no answer. There is no answer. request more information, contact Profes­ authorship debate, it is Oxford's partisans There are only indignant poses and quib­ sor Wright [email protected], or who always appeal to the evidenfe of those bling diversions and blustering non-sequi­ visit the Edward de Vere Studies Conference works; the orthodox rely almost entirely on turs by embarrassed scholars pretending to website at: http://www.DeVereStudies.org the name on the title pages and the Folio be convinced Stratfordians. I don't rule out Or write to Dr. Wright at Concorida testimony, to which Olthodoxy ascribes the possibility that some ofthem are deluded University, Dept. ofHumanities, 2811N.E. literal inerrancy. enough to think they really are Stratfordians. Holman St.,PortlandOR 9721 1-6099. Nelson makes it unanimous. None of But by now I know better. the professed Stratfordians looks fo r sup­ port in either the plays or the SOlmets.

Join the Shakespeare Oxford Society If this newsletter has found its way into your hands, and you're not already a member of our Society, why not consider joining us in this intriguing, exciting adventure in search of the true story behind the Shakespeare mystery? While the Shakespeare Oxford Society is certainly committed to the proposition that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is the true Shakespeare, there is much that remains to be learned about the whole secretive world of Elizabethan politics and about how the Shakespeare authorship ruse came into being, and even more importantly, what it means for us today in the 20th Century as we complete our fo utih century of living in a Western World that was created during the Elizabethan era. Memberships in the US and Canada are: Students, Regular ($1 5/$25 overseas); Students, Sustaining ($30/$40 overseas); Regular ($35/$45 overseas); Family or Sustaining ($50/$60 overseas). Regular members receive the quarterly Shakespeare Oxfo rd Newsletter; Sustaining or Family members receive both the Newsletter and the annual journal, The Oxfordian. All members receive a 10% discount on books and other merchandise sold through The Blue Boar. Our Home Page on the World Wide Web is located at: http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com We can accept payment by MasterCard, Visa or American Express in addition to checks. The Society is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization. Donations and memberships are tax-deductible (IRS no. 13-6 105314; New York no. 071 82). Clip or xerox this fo rnl and mail to: The Shakespeare Oxford Society, Membership Office, P.O. Box 504, Ayer MA 01432-0504. Phone: (617)628-3411 Fax: (6 1 7)628-4258

Membership : New__ Renewal__

Name:______Category:

Address: ______Regular (Newsletter only - $35/$45 overseas)

City: ______State:.___ ZIP: ___ Sustaining (NewsletterIOxfi'd 'n. - $50/$60 overseas) ___ _

Check enclosed or: Credit Card: American Express ___ MasterCard __ Visa __ Family (NelVsletterIOxji·d'n. - $50/$60 overseas)

Student (Regular $151$25 overseas) _ Name exactly as it appears on card: ______

Student (Sust'ning - $30/$40 overseas)

Card No.: ______Exp. date: ____

_ (For students: School,______page 32 Spring 2000 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Werth (Continuedji-oll1 page 27) Woolf no doubt appreciated their ability to again in an era of great change. Computers tion because of his early Catholicism and parent and propagate "masses" of infonna­ and the Internet have made possible the elopement with his aristocratic employer's tionon Shakespeare (the kind of in fo rmation research, storage, and exchange of ideas niece, and it darkened much of his life with she vainly sought fo r female writers), and to and information on a scale unimaginable; uncertainty and discontent. One loses track create a heroic figure fi'omimagination (which the freedom of speech enj oyed by Woolfis of how often Jonson was jailed for his writ­ Woolf attempted with Judith, though one inadequate by today's standards; no icons ings, and Milton was exiled and nearly ex­ less heroic than tragic). In our struggles, we are safe, and their downfall at the hands of ecuted for his beliefs . Woolf asserts this is are often sympathetic to those who share logical inquiry and media attention can oc­ evident in their work, and the residue it our plight, willing to ignore outrageous de­ cur instantly. leaves diminishes even the greatest writing. ficiencies in their arguments. Recall that the The Stratford lad survived Virginia Yet the Stratford man, who had to overcome most learned men in England gratefully Woolf and the 20th century. Will he survive low birth, lack of education, unintelligible embraced William Ireland's ludicrous Shake­ the new millennium? Though the world is accent, and poveliy; who wrote plays that speare forgeries, the great James Boswell his stage at the moment, it is possible that in flirted with religious heresy and caricatured even kneeling to worship tearfully at their the fuhlre he can expect only a room of his members ofElizabeth ' s cOUli; who was sup­ shrine. Woolfagrees with Stratfordian con­ own, in a quaint museum of outdated curios, posedly at the constant mercy of the clusions not because she is an indifferent near the horse-drawn carriages. censor's pen and the jailor's key; who wrote scholar, or because authorship doesn't Andrew Werth is a graduate of Concordia Uni­ under his own name and was liable to suffer matter to her, but because her sympathies lie versity (P ortland, Oregon). He teaches English the same hardships as his fe llows; his work, with people who, like her, seek answers at Park Rose High School in Portland. among all others, says Woolf, is "unim­ where there are none, try to solve a literary peded." Was she not skeptical of a portrait problem that gnaws at their souls and, Surfing th e Ne t? that so defied common sense and contra­ finally, effect creative solutions in the fa ce Sh akespeare Ox ford dicted her own precepts? of disappointment. Society Ho me Page She accepts the traditional myth be­ Remarkable and valuable fo r its other www.shakesp eal.e-ox!o l.d. com cause Stratford ian efforts resonate with her merits, Woolfs essay demonstrates that Th e Ever own. Here was a group of admirers and even in a climate oficonoclasm and intellec­ Reader www.evel.l.eadel..com scholars desperate to make corporeal the tual felment, the needs and desires of indi­ Bard who left no trace of his poetic self­ viduals often allows--even forces-great Th e Oxfo rdian only dubious signatures and furniture. questions to remain unanswered. We are www. ox!ol.dian.com

U.S. Postage Sh akespeare Oxfo rd PAID Newsletter Boston MA PelmitNo. 53235 P. O. Box 263 Bulk Rate Somerville MA 02143 Change Service Requested

Paradigm earthquake strikes Amherst, Mass. : pages 1,8-9 "Vere-y Interesting ": pages 1,14-21 Conference up date: page 3 Edward de Vere 's last 1a1OyVn letter: pages 4-6 Th e "upstart Crow " supposes: page 7 4th Annual Edward de Vere Studies COJ�rerence: pages 10-11,31 Th e end of Stratfordian ism: pages 12-13,25,31 Oxfordian News: pages 22-23 Book Reviews: page 24 Virginia Wo olf's Shakespeare: pages 26-27,32