Vol.1:no.4 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments..." Summer 2002 It was not Swan song for Funeral Elegy “Ye Plague” Prof. Donald Foster concedes it’s not by Shakespeare; Oxfordian Richard Kennedy credited in turnaround Oxfordian mythology about the cause of n a stunning turn of events in the author- ship debate, reported in the June 20th de Vere’s death INew York Times, Prof. Donald Foster of Vassar College has thrown in the towel on By Paul Hemenway Altrocchi his controversial 1995 claim to have found, in the 1612 poem A Funeral Elegy (which or more than 80 years Stratfordians, bore “by W.S.” on its title page), a new poem unhampered by their vacuous pre- by William Shakespeare. Fmises and the impenetrable corneal The reason that this story has author- opacities of their unyielding conventional ship overtones is that— as those involved in wisdom, have enjoyed basting and barbecu- the authorship debate back then well ing those who believe in Edward de Vere. know—the story behind the story in 1995- So convinced are Oxfordians, on the 1996 was clearly the circa 1612 composi- other hand, that they are the main reposito- tion date for Elegy, which then—theoreti- ries of Truth—“Vero Nihil Verius”—that cally—put an end to Oxfordian claims that they sometimes fail to police themselves Edward de Vere was Shakespeare. His 1604 with the self-criticism which is essential to death would mean he couldn’t have written hasten the inevitable paradigm shift. Elegy, therefore he couldn’t be Shakespeare. Examples of Oxfordian myths carried Now, however, both Foster and his col- on for decades include the false idea that The first page from the 1612 A Funeral Elegy, league Richard Abrams concede that the Burghley’s daughter, Anne, was “sweet” be- the once-famous, but now infamous, poem cause Burghley said so1, and that Oxfordians (by the mysterious “W.S.”) that Prof. Foster’s poem is most likely by John Ford, and could debate Stratfordian professors with computer said in 1995 was by Shakespeare. credit the work of fellow scholars Prof. such powerful logic that they would “see the This claim was questioned by most Brian Vickers of the Swiss Federal Institute light” and promptly abandon their anoxic Shakespeareans around the world right from of Technology in Zurich, and Prof. Gilles D. hypotheses. the beginning. Yet in just a few years Elegie Monsarrat of the University of Burgundy in A myth is an ill-founded belief held found its way into several prestigious Shake- France, for their concession. Prof. uncritically. This paper describes careless speare collections, whose editors will now Monsarrat’s article in the May Review of research by Oxfordians regarding the cause have to do a quick about-face and get it English Studies, in which he lauds Prof. of Edward de Vere’s death, and its uncritical right back out. Brian Vickers’s work on Elegy (to appear transmittal for three quarters of a century. in an upcoming book), makes the case for Ashbourne story update Ford as the true author. The “Ye Plague” Myth And, in a further authorship twist to this Barbara Burris’s series on the Ash- story, Prof. Vickers credits Oxfordian Rich- B.M. Ward, in his 1928 biography of de bourne portrait story will continue in our ard Kennedy (of Newport, Oregon) as “the Vere2, appears to have initiated the myth next issue (Fall 2002). Meanwhile, check first to identify John Ford as the author of that Oxford died of the plague. Ward states: our Letters page and From the Editors for the poem.” Kennedy had advanced the issue some thoughts and comments about what by his research on the Elegy in 1996 and In the margin of the page in the Parish we have published so far, particularly Part his forceful insistence in several Internet Register in which the burial occurs has been III and the incredible story of how the Shakespeare discussion forums that the written ‘ye Plague.’ It may be that his death Folger Shakespeare Library apparently real author of Elegy was John Ford, a pro- at the age of fifty-four was due to this disease. “engineered” the Hamersley attribution. lific but undistinguished writer of verse— (Continued on page 14) (Continued on page 4) Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 2 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002

ing is the wrist ruffs worn by the Ashbourne portrait of Sir Edward Cecil wearing wrist Letters: sitter, which had gone out of fashion by ruffs, painted around 1610, makes it im- mid-1580s, so that the date of 1612 origi- possible to claim that the Ashbourne must nally painted on the picture is an impossi- have been painted before 1585, although of To the Editors: bility. Never having taken much notice of course it may have been. There may be wrist ruffs up till now, I thought I would many good reasons for ruling out Hamer- I enjoyed reading your article look through the only book of Tudor and sley as the sitter for the Ashbourne, but wrist “Smithsonian showdown and New York Jacobean portraits I have. Sure enough, all ruffs are not one of them. Times feature article rock the authorship the sitters after about 1590 were wearing debate,” (Shakespeare Matters, Spring wrist cuffs rather than ruffs—apart that is John M. Rollett 2002) but there is one misrepresentation of from one painted by Michiel Jansz van Ipswich, Suffolk, United Kingdom fact in it, which I am sure is a result of a Miereveld circa 1610, wearing what are 30 June 2002 misunderstanding. You wrote: undoubtedly wrist ruffs. The sitter was Sir Niederkorn’s judicious but sympathetic Edward Cecil, later Viscount Wimbledon. To the Editors: treatment of the Oxford case marks a gigan- The existence of just one person portrayed tic shift in attitude from The New York wearing wrist ruffs so long (25 years) after Thank you for the splendid series on the Times of a few years ago. In comments to the this style had supposedly gone out of fash- Ashbourne portrait. However, a couple of newsletter, Niederkorn underscored that attitudes towards the authorship question ion is enough to show that the Ashbourne points in Ms. Burris’s Part III account have shifted throughout the institution. . . could also have been painted around 1610, (Shakespeare Matters, Spring 2002) that and removes one of the cornerstones of my p. 9 statement did not cover deserve I have no knowledge of any shift of Barbara Burris’s argument. Moreover, this clarification. attitudes throughout The Times. What I portrait was painted in Holland; as a suc- On p. 16 Ms. Burris asks, “If this were tried to underscore in reply to questions on cessful London merchant, it is not improb- truly a blind search,” how could Helen Cyr Oxford Day was that the thinking at The able that Hamersley would visit Holland know that the 1687 date listed “was a typo- Times is not monolithic. Articles appear all now and again on business, and therefore graphical error?” The answer is simple. She the time depicting the different sides of possible that he was painted during such a did not know and as Ms. Burris’s narrative various issues. Every writer brings an indi- visit, especially as the best Dutch painters makes clear, Helen continued the search vidual perspective to every piece, and edi- were regarded as superior to any in within the time available. tors bring individual perspectives as well. England. As it happens, Cornelius Ketel My 1979 statement (in the summer 1979 Skepticism is a hallmark of journal- returned to Holland in 1581, and died Shakespeare Oxford Society Newsletter) ism. The old adage to young writers in the in 1616. that 1687 was a “typographical error” is news business is, “If your mother says she It seems to me that the existence of this patently an ex post facto deduction from loves you, check it out.” If anything, skep- ticism was the natural reaction to the sub- ject of my article by my colleagues at The Subscriptions to Shakespeare Matters are Times, not credulity. Come to think of it, Shakespeare Matters Published quarterly by the $30 per year ($15 for online issues only). Oxfordians I’ve met are more prone to The Shakespeare Fellowship Family or institution subscriptions are $45 per skepticism than credulity, too. year. Patrons of the Fellowship are $75 and up. Editorial Offices Send subscription requests to: William S. Niederkorn P.O. Box 263 The Shakespeare Fellowship The New York Times Somerville, MA 02143 P.O. Box 561 New York, NY Belmont MA 02478 29 May 2002 Co-Editors: Dr. Roger Stritmatter, William Boyle The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowship To the Editors: is to promote public awareness and acceptance Contributing Editors: of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by Mark Anderson, Dr. Charles Berney, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550- Barbara Burris’s researches into the Charles Boyle, Dr. Felicia Londre, 1604), and further to encourage a high level of Ashbourne portrait make fascinating read- Alex McNeil, Dr. Anne Pluto, scholarly research and publication into all Elisabeth Sears, Richard Whalen, ing (Shakespeare Matters Vol. 1, nos.1, 2 aspects of Shakespeare studies, and also into the Hank Whittemore, Dr. Daniel Wright history and culture of the Elizabethan era. and 3), revealing evidence of apparent skull- The Society was founded and incorporated duggery committed by the Folger authori- Phone (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-3411 Phone (Northampton, MA): (413) 585-8610 in 2001 in the State of Massachusetts and is ties on several occasions. Her main thesis Fax (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-4258 chartered under the membership corporation is of course that the painting is not after all email: [email protected] laws of that state (nonprofit status pending). of Sir Hugh Hamersley, and painted in All contents copyright ©2002 Dues, grants and contributions are tax- The Shakespeare Fellowship deductible to the extent allowed by law. 1612, as claimed by the Folger, but of Oxford, painted in the late 1570s by Shakespeare Matters welcomes articles, essays, commentary, book reviews, letters and news items. Cornelius Ketel, as proposed by Charles Contributions should be reasonably concise and, when Wisner Barrell in 1940. appropriate, validated by peer review. The views expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the Her main evidence for the earlier dat- Fellowship as a literary and educational organization. Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 3 what the Folger told us during the “fortu- to be a peacock by wearing a disguise. From the Editors: itous” call to Ms. Lievsay the next day— Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit was regis- “miraculous help,” indeed! tered on September 20, 1592. Harvey’s Also, it cannot be overemphasized that pamphlet, Pierces Supererogation, was reg- Why the Ashbourne what Helen and I saw in 1979 were clearly istered on April 27, 1593. Thus, within a indicative of a Hamersley shield: clearly space of only seven months two separate portrait matters rams’ heads, clearly yellow on a red shield, works were registered in which references We had planned to publish Part IV of less clearly the letters “MORE” on the scroll, were made to an actor who had a secret— Barbara Burris’s series on the Ashbourne and the griffin crest. Burris’s statement that who was in a “mask,” who was “beautified” portrait in his issue, but a number of cir- the “wrong date, added to the wrong col- with others’ feathers, who was pretending cumstances have forced us to delay it until our Fall 2002 issue. ors...” (p. 16) made two strikes against to be a playwright. The time span between the two works can be shortened even fur- We will take the opportunity in this Hamersley ought to be amended to “this ther if we consider that some time must space to comment on reactions to date. We wrong date made one strike,” etc., although have passed between the registration of feel this is important since some of the I admit that such an amendment lessens the Groatsworth and its availability on the responses we have received are, (1) that this force of her argument. bookstands, and that some time must have story is too long and complicated to be in But two other factors turned the tide for passed between Harvey’s writing of his the newsletter—it belongs in a journal, or Helen and myself. The purported absence pamphlet and its registration. better yet, a book, and (2) that we shouldn’t of the “CK” monogram and Michaels’s state- Groatsworth is known to have caused be criticizing the Folger Shakespeare Li- ment to us that the neck ruff and signet ring an uproar when it appeared. Was Harvey brary about their handling of the Ashbourne. were original paint—misstatements as it writing—probably only within six months So let us briefly consider both these now turns out. of Groatsworth’s appearance—that, if he concerns. First, true, it is a complicated All this persuaded Charlton Ogburn, had wanted to, he could have revealed the story. But on the other hand it is an impor- Helen and myself that we had no choice truth of the situation alluded to in tant story, one of the most important stories but to give up. The Folger held all the cards, Groatsworth, and thus become a best-sell- in the long, troubled history of the author- and we had the word of an allegedly trust- ing author? Was he saying that he could ship debate. And Part IV will also be lengthy, worthy “expert.” have “dismasked” the upstart actor who discussing in detail some more fine points was “beautified” with others’ feathers? about how the painting changed over time, Gordon C. Cyr If so, it also seems significant that Harvey especially during the period 1979-1989. Baltimore, Maryland should even think to bring up the rather Secondly, of the responses we have re- 11 July 2002 non-sequitur subject of the fraudulent ceived so far, perhaps the most intrigu- Groatsworth actor in the course of writing ing—and unsettling—have been those who his Pierce pamphlet—a pamphlet in which advise us not to alienate the Folger Shake- To the Editors: it seems Edward de Vere was very much on speare Library. Given the long, bitter his- his mind. tory of the authorship debate, this sort of Mark Anderson’s amazing discovery of response is, to us, incredible. The author- Gabriel Harvey’s boast that he could Jonathan Dixon ship debate is really more than a debate— “dismask ... a rich mummer” and become Santa Fe, New Mexico it’s a battle, and a high-stakes battle at that. “one of the famousest authors in England” 7 June 2002 For it to ever be resolved, someone in the (Shakespeare Matters, Spring 2002) set a end must get hurt, because in the end some- bell ringing in my head. I’ve finally iden- one is 100% wrong. And whoever is on the tified the connection that was haunting me. To the Editors: wrong side of this debate has missed more Elsewhere I have argued that in than “Who was Shakespeare.” They’ve Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit the word In your current issue of Shakespeare missed also “Who writes history?” and “supposes” in the following famous pas- Matters (Spring 2002), Hank Whittemore “Who decides what is or is not true?” sage is to be understood in the obsolete has an interesting article and makes In the course of this battle let us also Elizabethan sense of “pretends”: some good points, but I have a bit of a remember how often each side has ques- problem with the lack of rigor in the cita- tioned the other’s integrity. So now, in tions and format. ... for there is an upstart Crow, beautified Burris’s careful review of the Ashbourne In the paragraph that starts “On Tues- with our feathers, that with his Tyger’s story—immeasurably aided by the Folger’s day night,” he concludes with a sentence hart wrapt in a Players hyde, supposes own files—we find that one of the most that is a quote from a historical document, [that is, pretends] he is as well able to prominent “purported” portraits of Shake- using antique spelling—“certain Noble- bombast out a blank verse as the best of you: speare is, after all, almost certainly an men were admitted to the degree of Masters and being an absolute Johannes factotum, overpainting of Edward de Vere—the true of Artes ... in her Grace’s lodging,” and then is in his owne conceit the onely Shake-scene Shakespeare—and further, we find that the gives us a set of indented paragraphs nam- in a countrey. Folger has engaged in some highly ques- ing various individuals in the Latin style tionable activities in order to deny that the If this is the meaning intended, an actor (“Edwardus Vere, Comes Oxoniae”). This original sitter for this “Shakespeare” por- — very likely Shakspere from Stratford— gives the impression that all of the indented trait was the true Shakespeare. is being accused of pretending to be a paragraphs, which use antique spelling, If this isn’t worth a battle, then just what playwright, just as Aesop’s crow pretended (Continued on page 28) are we all doing here? Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 4 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002

Elegy (continued from page 1) including renowned Harvard scholar Dan Wright on page 5). The Shakespeare and later plays—in the 17th century. The Stephen Greenblatt’s own Norton edition, industry endorsed the Funeral Elegy and Times article also provides the incredible and endorsed by Harold Bloom as a poem its 1612 date with such great rapidity be- background story, which of course includes by Shakespeare. cause—with its post-1604 composition the swift endorsement of Elegy by three Greenblatt, who has reportedly received date—it seemed like a convenient way to major publishers, including the prestigious a million dollar advance from the Norton fend off the danger of the Oxford heresy . Yet Riverside Shakespeare. Co. to rescue the Stratford bard from the as most Shakespeare students are aware, How could the distinguished editors of Oxford menace (in an upcoming biogra- the post-1604 composition dates for any that volume mistake the Funeral Elegy for phy tentatively titled Will of the World), Shakespeare plays are pure conjecture, a poem by Shakespeare? As noted above, fired off an irate letter to The New York and the orthodox argument that de Vere the answer is simply this: a 1612 publica- Times (printed on June 22nd) in response died before some of the plays were written tion eulogizing a man who died in the same to their June 20th article. Among other is merely a paper tiger. Now that the Elegy year was proof positive that Edward de astonishing and unsubstantiated claims in gambit has boomeranged, it is of course Vere, who died in 1604, could not have been the letter is that the re-attribution of the necessary to deny that there was ever any the real author: hence the precipitous and Funeral Elegy to John Ford has no connection between the two things. now slightly ridiculous rush to canonize bearing on the question of who wrote We should also note here another as- the awful poem. Shakespeare’s plays. tounding claim in Prof. Greenblatt’s New Stratfordians are denying that author- Well, again, this is not true, and there’s York Times letter: “Nor has evidence in ship played any role in the Elegy fiasco, but no escaping the paper trails left by all favor of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of anyone who followed this story in 1995 parties as the Elegy story unfolded six Oxford, ‘as the author of the works of Shake- and 1996 knows otherwise. Consider that years ago. The Elegy, as Oxfordians have speare’ been growing in recent years. There less than two years after Donald Foster and argued extensively since 1995, was a per- is no evidence at all that de Vere, who died Richard Abrams began promoting the case fect magic bullet—and was endorsed by in 1604, wrote them.” in earnest, the Elegy was canonized in the Dr. Foster as such in oral communications We believe that any open-minded reader Riverside Shakespeare. It was subsequently with interested parties—for slaying the will agree that Professor Greenblatt is quite reprinted in two other major collections, Oxfordian dragon (see the Commentary by wrong on both these points. —WEB/RS

The “Catholic question” returns Shakespeare in Oxfordian researcher Peter Dickson, in by a number of leading scholars in recent recent communications with us, reported years, its chief attraction being that turning the new DNB about the most recent issue of The Shake- Shakespeare into a secret Catholic seems A recent posting on SHAKSPER (the speare Quarterly (Spring 2002) in which like a quick and easy way to solve the Electronic Shakespeare Conference) an article by Richard Bearman, archivist at problems of conventional biography. brought us up-to-date on the new edition Stratford-on-Avon, apparently is aimed— However, as close students of Shake- of the Dictionary of National Biography, as Dickson puts it—“to destroy totally the speare’s writings know, the author’s being (due out in 2004) as documented in the intriguing and promising claim that the a devout Catholic cannot be so. Although project’s e-newsletter. Editor Brian Stratford man migrated or rather fled Prot- the works betray a definite sympathy for Harrison writes estant authorities in 1579-1581 to the north Catholicism, the author’s theology—as Dr. country to became a tutor in the house- Daniel Wright and many others have ar- “...[there will be] a huge article on Shake- holds of aristocratic Catholic families in gued—is definitely Anglican in character, speare, which carries to the ultimate its Lancashire....” and he used the Protestant Geneva Bible. discussion on the ramifications of influ- Dickson finds Bearman’s arguments On the other hand, the documentary ence. Half the memoir is devoted to the substantive but not conclusive: “Bearman life of the Stratford man actually supports after-life, which has as its denouement the clearly succeeds in his SQ article in show- substantially the theory that he was a secret worldwide advertising for cigars which have brand-names such as Hamlet, Romeo y ing that the evidence being pushed by Catho- Catholic. Dickson’s own research (currently Juliet, Falstaff, and Antonio y Cleopatra. lic enthusiasts within the Stratford camp unpublished) shows that there is ample Shakespeare’s biography, the history of his that the Stratford man was the young ‘Wil- evidence supporting the view that the life and his cultural after-lives, the [DNB] liam Shakeshafte’ in these Lancashire house- Stratford man, as Davies remarked in the author concludes. “is not only national but holds is highly dubious.” late 17th century, “died a papist.” triumphantly international.” This article clearly seems to anticipate If this view is correct, argues Dickson, a major documentary film on Shakespeare’s it seals the case against the Stratford man as Harrison reports that the Shakespeare religion, produced by Michael Wood for the Bard, who—based on the internal evi- article will be about 15,000 words. No the BBC and PBS, due to be broadcast dence of his writings—was demonstrably word on how authorship is being handled, sometime in 2002-2003. The film will as- not a Catholic. but one can only suspect that if room must sert that the Stratford man was a secret How will orthodoxy reconcile this con- be found for “Hamlet the Cigar,” there’ll be Catholic, a notion which has been endorsed tradiction? Stay tuned for more fun. scant room for “Oxford as Shakespeare.”

Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 5

Commentary Funeral Elegy buried By Prof. Daniel Wright It was with much satisfaction that I John Ford was its author), by sneering that by Prof. Monserrat (the persuasiveness and recently read, on SHAKSPER (the Elec- “Kennedy’s attribution has nothing to sus- likely finality of which even Foster con- tronic Shakespeare Conference), Don tain it,” and he impudently boasted that cedes), we can be pretty sure that Shakspere Foster’s capitulation to an analysis pub- Kennedy “cannot in the long run do any of Stratford—even assuming he could lished in the most recent edition of the harm to me or to Shakespearean studies . . write such verse (a proposition that Strat- Review of English Studies—an analysis . .” David Kathman, a champion of Foster’s fordians never have been able to demon- supplied by Prof. Gilles Monsarrat of the strate)—could not have authored this poem. University of Burgundy—conclusively William Peter was a commoner, “a pri- demonstrating the insubstantiability of “In promoting this notion vate man in rank,” hardly the kind of can- Foster’s claim— first advanced in his 1989 didate for the conventional Elizabethan or book Elegy by W.S.— that the poem com- Jacobean eulogy; he was no neighbor or monly known as A Funeral Elegy (and [that Shakespeare wrote colleague of Shakspere’s, yet the poet tells theretofore regarded as of uncertain au- us that Peter is a man of his long and thorship by more discerning scholars) was intimate acquaintance. Apart from this a work composed by Shakespeare. The Elegy in 1612], Foster poem, there isn’t a word from Shakspere, implication of Foster’s long-overdue William Peter, or anyone else, to suggest surrender to reason is, for Oxfordians, that these men even knew each other, let significant. realized that his asser- alone—in the words of the elegy—experi- Prior to Foster’s promotion of his dis- enced life together in such a way as to be credited thesis, mainstream Stratfordian “belov’d” of one another and “fast friend[s].” legend told us that Stratford Will, at the tion, if vindicated, would Why Shakspere of Stratford would confer zenith of his art, forewent his profitable tion, if vindicated, would on him, above all others, a tribute in death London playwriting career, abandoned his he never had bestowed on another, is puz- friends and colleagues, and retired to zling—especially given that composing an Warwickshire, where he never again put overturn the Oxfordian elegy was a commemorative act he didn’t pen to paper except to scrawl some all-but- provide even for his own brother, Gilbert, illegible signatures on his will in 1616. who died on or near the same day as the Foster, however, in his Elegy by W.S., authorship thesis.” obscure William Peter! attempted to flesh out Shakspere’s less than Shakspere’s composition of this poem, skeletal biography by suggesting that and the expression of its intimate knowl- Shakspere interrupted this resignation of work, cheered on SHAKSPER that “the evi- edge of the fellow eulogized, seems bizarre his supposed literary life to write and hur- dence that Shakespeare did in fact write under such circumstances. After all, within riedly publish, in 1612, a poem eulogizing this poem is surprisingly broad and sur- the period of time when Shakspere would a young Devonshire friend after learning prisingly persuasive.” Kathman’s col- have needed to write this poem, he presum- that the young man had been murdered. In league, Terry Ross, announced that Foster’s ably would have been preoccupied with promoting this notion, Foster realized that “book on the Funeral Elegy could be a details attending his brother’s death, fu- his assertion, if vindicated, would overturn model for attribution studies.” He even neral and burial. One wonders therefore the Oxfordian authorship thesis. Simply followed that declaration with the cheeky not only why but how, within a period of 19 put—given its late January/early February proclamation that, according to his own days of the murder of William Peter on 25 1612 composition date—if A Funeral El- calculations, there was no more than a January, he would have learned of this fatal egy was by Shakespeare, then, sine dubio, “3 in 1000 chance that it [the Elegy] was not attack (the murder was committed in a Oxford wasn’t Shakespeare. written by William Shakespeare of remote West Country village almost two Many Stratfordians, anxious to find some Stratford.” hundred miles from Stratford), been com- post-1604 argument for Shakespeare’s lit- So much for Foster, Kathman and missioned by (or sought the commission erary life, rushed to board Foster’s new, but Ross, their authority and their statistical from) the family of the deceased to write the doomed, ship. Foster himself acknowl- certainties. elegy, composed it, sent it to Bowhay in edged, with the promotion of his thesis, Most Oxfordians—and, indeed, many Devon for the family’s approval, received it that “anti-Stratfordians have a huge stake Stratfordians—long have recognized that again in Stratford (presumably with the in dismissing the Elegy,” and he mocked A Funeral Elegy could not possibly have approval of at least John Peter, to whom he Oxfordian opponent Richard Kennedy proceeded from the hand of the writer who dedicated it), and then conveyed it to Lon- (whose pioneering work on the Elegy con- called himself Shakespeare. However, even don in order to present it to—of all people— tributed to Monsarrat’s determination that apart from the stylometric analysis offered (Continued on page 20)

Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 6 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002 Fellowship sponsors Shakespeare essay contest The Board of Trustees of the Shake- internet to educational websites, is already 2) Are Shakespeare’s plays relevant to the speare Fellowship is pleased to announce generating considerable interest: currently 21st century? Why or why not? an exciting new educational initiative: an the Fellowship contest is featured on the 3) Traditionally, the central problem of annual high school essay contest on Shake- website of the New England Association of Hamlet has been identified as his delay in speare and the authorship question. The Teachers of English (NEATE.com), and taking revenge against Claudius. Write an 2003 contest cycle will award a total of other sites will soon follow suit as news of essay exploring the relevance of the play $1250 in cash prizes for the best essays the contest filters through the Internet. within the play to this problem. (3000 words or less) written on selected Please join us in making the 2003 4) Consider Juliet’s statement that “a rose questions. The contest is open to 9-12 grade essay contest a success. You can support the by any other name would smell as sweet.” students in the United States and Canada, contest, and make valuable contacts for Explore the implications of this statement and entries must be postmarked on or local organizing for the Shakespeare Fel- within the play Romeo and Juliet or within before January 15, 2003. Official contest lowship, by communicating directly with the context of the Shakespeare authorship rules are on the Fellowship’s site: (http:// your local high school and teachers mystery. www.shakespearefellowship.org/ organization. To facilitate your outreach 5) How does the life of an author enter into essaycontestmain.htm). efforts, a copy of the contest press release the construction of his literary work? Illus- “I am particularly enthusiastic about is enclosed with this mailer. For further trate with specific examples from Shake- the Fellowship’s sponsoring this essay con- information on advertising the contest, speare and/or others. test,” said Fellowship President Chuck Ber- please contact contest coordinator Lynne 6) Explain how the characters and situa- ney. “I believe it will not only encourage Kositsky ([email protected]). tions in Shakespeare’s drama (e.g. in Ham- participants to think independently about After deliberation, the Essay Commit- let) are influenced by the personalities and the authorship question (before their minds tee chose the following six questions for the circumstances of Elizabethan England. are clouded by the diehard Stratfordians of 2003 contest: Academe), but it may well stimulate a The questions were tailored to elicit greater appreciation of the marvelous plays 1) At least since the 18th century, “Shake- student interest in the authorship question and poems which, after all, are the prime speare” has been regarded as a mystery in and, more generally, to involve students in one way or another (in 1989 PBS Frontline reason for the existence of this organiza- produced a documentary, The Shakespeare the task of critical reading and apprecia- tion.” Mystery). Write an essay which explores tion of Shakespearean texts and their A press release, distributed over the some aspect of this mystery. Elizabethan cultural context.

Stritmatter, Kositsky present the Oxfordian Conference Update case to students in Washington state Complete details for the Fellowship’s first annual conference in Cambridge, Massachu- Fellowship Board members Lynne taken with the whole notion of Edward de setts (October 18th to 20th) can be found on the Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter wowed a Vere as Shakespeare, and especially with flyer mailed to all members with this issue of the district assembly of 500 Central Kitsap Kositsky’s manner of having someone their newsletter, or on the Shakespeare Fellowship School District 9th-12th graders held at own age asking him questions. website: www.shakespearefellowship.org. Central Kitsap Jr. High in the state of One of the chapters she read from was Several events that attendees may wish to Washington on April 15th. towards the end of Will, where the young note include: 1) the Sritmatter-Ross debate on The event was arranged by Bob Barrett, protagonist Willow confronts de Vere about Oxford’s Geneva Bible will take place on Sunday a teacher at Kitsap who has brought the why he hides his identity. Speaking as some- afternoon (2:30 to 4:30); 2) Saturday morning authorship debate into the classroom for one who knows that “Shakespeare” will be will begin with a teachers/newbie workshop several years now. the most revered writer of modern times— (8:30 to 10:00) featuring Mark Alexander’s “25 Stritmatter led the assembly through a while de Vere is no more than a historical Connections” Power Point slide show, and 3) brief discussion of the nature of evidence in footnote—Willow tries to talk him into the “Shakespeare and the Rule of Law” panel and the authorship question (examining the revealing his identity now, in the 16th reception will run from 5:00 to 8:00 Friday name “Shakespeare” on title pages, the century, and change history. afternoon at the Social Law Library in Boston. front material of the First Folio, and the “I am that I am,” de Vere fires back at Prof. David Lowenthal of Boston College will Stratford bust), and spoke about the life of her (using a line from sonnet 121). “Edward moderate, with Measure for Measure being the the young Edward de Vere. de Vere has his reputation to consider. He’s focal point of the discussion. Kositsky read from her book, A Ques- not about to be pilloried for a play.” Send email to Conference chair Lynne tion of Will, in particular the sections “You’ll be stunningly sorry,” Willow Kositsky at: [email protected], or phone 617- where the protagonist Willow (who time tells him, “after you’re dead.” 628-3411 (in Somerville, MA) for the most travels to the 16th century) talks with The students loved this give and take current information about schedule, speakers, Edward de Vere. about the authorship story, and asked many accommodations, etc. The students were, we understand, quite questions of both presenters. Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 7 Oxford Weekend in Cambridge: 15th Annual Banquet celebrated, panels explore Shakespeare and authorship Fifty Oxfordians and their guests turned the 1999 production was performed out- out for the 15th Annual Oxford Day Ban- doors and used a real horse, while the other quet on April 26th, 2002. The event was, as productions took place in small indoor usual, held in the venerable Harvard Fac- theatres and used human actors portraying ulty Club in Cambridge. a horse. Professor Egan speculated that the There were two featured speakers: au- play was written specifically for the provin- thor Hank Whittemore—who is also an cial tour of 1592-93, which would involve Oxfordian researcher and Shakespeare outdoor performances with horses easily Matters columnist—speaking on the his- available. torical significance of Oxford’s being Much of the discussion focused on the Shakespeare, and William Niederkorn of Sarah Smith announces that her authorship-based relationship between Woodstock and The New York Times, who spoke on his novel has been accepted for publication next year, while Shakespeare’s history play Richard II. Both personal journey in studying the author- Shakespeare Matters co-editor William Boyle reports depict contentions between Richard II and ship question and on bringing it to the on the latest news in authorshipland. his nobles, with the events in Woodstock attention of colleagues at the Times. His occurring earlier (Professor Egan, in fact, recent article (February 10th) on the au- co-founder of Lesley College’s Oxford Street argued that Woodstock should be titled thorship was a milestone in the debate. Players, who produced Woodstock in 2000; Richard II, Part One). Moderator Berney An innovation in this year’s festivities and Professor Michael Egan of the English pointed out a mismatch between the two was the addition of two panel discussions department of University of Massachusetts plays, namely that the official responsible held the morning after the banquet, on the at Amherst, who was dramaturg for the for Woodstock’s murder in Calais is named nearby campus of Lesley University. Emerson College production in February William Lapoole in the earlier play, and The first panel, organized by modera- 2002. Professor Egan is the editor of a new Thomas Mowbray in the later. Another tor Chuck Berney, included representa- edition of Woodstock to be published soon. anomaly is that Richard’s wife Anne and the tives from several recent productions of All the panelists agreed that Woodstock sycophant Henry Green die in Woodstock the quasi-Shakespearean play Thomas of was an early play by Shakespeare, though but are alive in Richard II. Woodstock. These were Tim Holcomb the question of “Who was Shakespeare?” The second panel, organized and mod- and Roger Stritmatter, director and was not discussed. Participants described erated by Dr. Roger Stritmatter, focused on dramaturg of the Hampshire Shakespeare their respective approaches to the scene in “The State of the Debate.” Other panelists Company’s 1999 production; Lisa Risley, which Woodstock converses with a horse— were: William Boyle, co-editor with Stritmatter of Shakespeare Matters; Hank Upcoming events: Renaissance Festival in Whittemore and Mark Anderson, colum- nists for SM; and William Niederkorn of Vermont in August; SOS Conference in October The New York Times. The consensus of all was, of course, that The 6th Renaissance Festival in further details. much progress has been made on all fronts Killington, Vermont, will take place from The Shakespeare Oxford Society—now in the debate—especially in academe and August 15th to 18th. The Festival features headquartered in Washington, DC—will in the major print media—and that the the Renaissonics, performing Renaissance hold its 26th Annual Conference there from publicity and credibility provided by music and Oxford’s own songs (music and October 10th through 13th at the Crystal Niederkorn’s February 10th article in the words) from As You Like It—announced as Gateway Marriott in Arlington, Virginia. Times is great news for all. All agreed that such in the program and in performance by Conference planning was still in progress publicity, not more evidence, is key. group director John Tyson. The Renais- as we went to press, but points of interest The two areas that received the most sonics will also perform in Woodstock on will include the Folger Shakespeare Li- attention were the problems of how to Thursday evening (August 15th). The brary and Theater, the Library of Congress, present the authorship issue to newcomers, Renaissonics tour in Europe every year and the Kreeger Museum. Call the Society which of course touches on how to handle and the group now presents Oxford as a at 202-207-0281 for further details. theories about royal heirs and conspiracy, playwright/musician to their audiences Fellowship members who attend the and the longer term problem of how when performing his music. conference may wish to take the opportu- Oxfordians can begin the work of creating Other activities include “Discovering nity to visit the Folger Shakespeare Library annotated collections of Shakespeare’s Shakespeare,” papers by Oxfordian speak- and view the “restored” Ashbourne portrait. works, a project which would entail much ers given at the nearby Sherbourne Public The portrait—hung in the Founders Room— effort, and need years of work and substan- Library on Friday and Saturday morning. can only be seen by taking the public tour tial funding to accomplish. Call Jean Karlhuber at 802-422-4307 for of the Library.

Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 8 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002 Edward de Vere Studies Conference 6th annual gathering in Portland draws a record 200 attendees By Nathan Baca ecord-breaking attendance at the compositions by Thomas Weelkes but lyri- Duvall, one of the many Oxfordian English 2002 Edward De Vere Studies Con- cal works by acclaimed musician, poet and majors (and English honor society mem- Rference prompted Oregonian re- playwright Edward de Vere. bers) at Concordia University who recently porter John Foyston to lead off his two- When conference-goers returned to the traveled with Professor Daniel Wright to page article on the conference with the university auditorium on Friday morning conduct research at the British Library. suggestion that a visitor might think that they were treated to Canadian author Lynne Duvall introduced a classic moment in he’d “stumbled into a sports bar for English Kositsky’s insight and humour in an ad- Oxfordian film history—a screening of the majors or an alternate universe. Either dress that built on last year’s presentation late Charlton Ogburn, Jr.’s 1984 televised would explain the sight of 200 people debate with Professor Maurice hooting and hollering over . . . a Charney on Firing Line, moderated debate about who really wrote the by host William F. Buckley. Ogburn’s Shakespeare canon.” Foyston’s ob- stinging rebuffs of the Stratfordian servation of the excitement in a spokesman from Princeton led the Concordia University auditorium stymied professor to spurt out so overflowing with attendees was many frustrated declarations of shared by media representatives “Preposterous!” that their absurd from both coasts of the United overuse prompted sardonic com- States—including representatives ment from the officially neutral Mr from publications as widely variant Buckley. The recurrence of Char- as The Harvard Business Review and ney’s sputtering exclamations also The New York Times. invited some members of the audi- Leading the charge into the ence, in Rocky Horror Picture Show breach of Stratfordian orthodoxy on fashion, to chime in unison, “Pre- the opening night of the conference posterous!” whenever he uttered it, was Shakespeare Fellowship Presi- incapable as he seemed of a more dent Dr. Charles Berney, who re- reasoned response to Ogburn. galed the attendees with his rollick- Professor Charles Kunert, Dean ing Sherlock Holmes-like render- of Concordia University’s College ing of “The Adventure of the Strat- of Arts and Sciences, formally opened ford Bust.” Rev. John Baker, a former the conference late on Friday morn- instructor at Florida State Univer- ing with a warm welcome to attend- sity, followed Dr. Berney with a stun- ees and the press, saluting those who ning visual presentation that sug- had assembled to undertake the gested the Stratford man’s celebrated unpopular challenge of unseating home, New Place, was not a single- Tradition’s Bard from his usurped family dwelling but rather a hos- pedestal. Professor Daniel Wright, tel—yet another indication that Director of the Edward De Vere Stud- Tradition’s candidate for Shake- ies Conference and the university’s speare was, first and last, not a poet Among this year’s presenters were Prof. Stephen May (top) , an expert Institute for Oxfordian Studies, read or a playwright but a conventional on Oxford’s extant poetry (under his own name), and Barbara Burris letters of greeting to the conference tradesman. speaking on the Ashbourne portrait. from his De Vere Society Co-patron, The conference recessed for its Sir Derek Jacobi; Globe Theatre Di- extended evening presentation / entertain- of the risks that attend defense of the rector Mark Rylance; actor Michael York; ment to the university’s Lutheran Church of Oxfordian thesis in a Stratfordian world. Harper’s Editor Lewis Lapham, and many Saint Michael, where Dr. Eric Altschuler of Among her anecdotes that brought laugh- others. the University of California-San Diego (and ter of recognition from the largely Dr. Wright was followed by keynote author of Bachanalia: The Essential Oxfordian audience was an account of a speaker Hank Whittemore, who invited Listener’s Guide to Bach’s Well-Tempered run-in with her sister, a Stratfordian En- readers of Shakespeare to look anew at the Clavier) offered a presentation on the mad- glish professor, over the authorship issue: documented histories of Ben Jonson and rigals of Thomas Weelkes, accompanied by “My sister told me that I and my fellow Will Shakspere with an eye toward contem- vocalists from the Portland State Univer- Oxfordians were all ‘mad—barking, bark- plating what they suggested about the like- sity Madrigal Ensemble. Weelkes’s madri- ing mad.’ To that,” she reported, “all I could lihood of Will Shakspere’s authorship of gals, according to Altschuler and fellow say was ‘Woof!’” the Shakespeare canon. Whittemore spoke researcher William Jansen, likely were not Kositsky was followed by Andrew again in the afternoon on “A Real Life

Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 9

Inspiration for Hamlet’s Mousetrap,” presentation, “‘Madness in Great wherein he discussed a remarkable Ones Must Not Unwatched Go’: Ed- event of Oxford’s boyhood during ward de Vere and the Creativity- his attendance at a play, an incident Madness Debate in Psychology.” that informs the famous scene in Simpson indicated that he thought Hamlet where the prince attempts most psychologists would see in to “catch the conscience of the King.” Edward de Vere a person whose Friday afternoon’s audience had experience and psychological tem- its attention riveted to independent perament would make him a far scholar Barbara Burris’s “The Coun- more plausible candidate for the terfeit Presentment,” a detailed ac- authorship of Shakespeare’s works count of the Folger Shakespeare Li- than the Stratford man. Simpson brary’s questionable treatment of also pointed out that the indicia of the Ashbourne portrait. Many of the certain types of mental and emo- particulars of her jaw-dropping nar- tional disorder in Oxford would rative are already familiar to read- actually contribute to this argu- ers of Shakespeare Matters. In an ment, as highly creative people of- extensive visual presentation, Burris ten suffer from the kind of traumas revealed numerous alterations made and psychological irregularities to the portrait which provide clear that are consistent with what we evidence of manipulation and dis- know of Oxford’s life. tortion of the original work. The Stephanie Hopkins Hughes, alterations, confirmed by internal Concordia graduate and editor of correspondence in the Folger’s own The Oxfordian, presented a paper files, demonstrate a concerted ef- titled “Who Was the Duchess fort by Folger officials to resist ac- of Malfi?” in which she advanced knowledging that the portrait—at- her suspicions that John Webster, tributed by it first as Shakespeare a coachman’s son whose biography and then as London Lord Mayor is similar to Shakspere’s, was a Hugh Hamersley—is, instead, al- stand-in for the writer-poet Mary most certainly a 16th century por- Sidney, Countess of Pembroke, and trait of Edward de Vere by the Dutch mother of the “incomparable paire painter Cornelis Ketel. of brethren” to whom Shakespeare’s Jonni Lea Dunn, English Depart- First Folio was dedicated. The ment Chair at Alvarado High School argument is one that Hughes plans in Alvarado, Texas, and author of the to explore more fully in a book on M.A. thesis, “The Literary Patronage the subject when she completes her of Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth nearly-finished book on Oxford’s Earl of Oxford,” spoke on her re- tutors. search pointing to Oxford’s patron- Following a lunch of baked age of writers whose works were salmon, Richard Roe, a conference hardly typical of the age but, rather, favourite, embellished his earlier were of a “highly specific type or presentations on the subject of his complexion.” Professor Steven May own book that is nearing comple- of Georgetown continued this ex- tion—Oxford in Italy. Roe’s two- amination of Oxford’s literary his- hour presentation concentrated on tory, but from a perspective that Pictured top to bottom are Concordia Prof. Stephen Simpson speaking Shakespeare and Venice, delighting focused on his evaluation of Oxford’s on Oxford’s psychology, Jonni Lea Dunn speaking on Oxford’s spectators with slides of those loca- known verse that has led him, over patronage of writers, and Concordia alumnus Jason Moore speaking tions in Venice mentioned by Shake- on teaching the authorship question in the high school classroom. the years, to adopt a more skeptical speare and visited by Edward de view regarding Oxfordian claims about de Thurman. Vere (a study all the more interesting be- Vere’s authorship of the poetry and plays Saturday morning commenced with a cause, as we know, the Stratford man never traditionally attributed to Shakespeare. compelling presentation by Paul Altrocchi, traveled to Italy). An interview with Roe by On Friday evening, conference-goers M.D., on the cause of Oxford’s death, in Mark Anderson appears on pages 24-25 of were treated to a lively production by the which he authoritatively dismissed the com- this issue. Concordia University Student Players of mon misconception among many Ox- Concordia alumnus Andrew Werth fol- Pierre Corneille’s seventeenth-century play fordians that de Vere died of the plague (his lowed Roe and rocked the assembly with The Illusion, a work of rare ingenuity paper is published in this issue, beginning his second in a series of devastating analy- adapted for the modern stage by award- on page 1). Dr. Kevin Simpson, Professor ses of the Shakespeare works that unques- winning playwright Tony Kushner and di- of Psychology at Concordia University, con- tionably verify the writer’s competence in rected by CU Professor of Theatre Scott tinued the clinical analysis of de Vere in his (Continued on page 10) Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 10 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002

De Vere Studies (continued from page 9) sonous (Self-) Examinations,” followed by preparing to head out to colleges and uni- Attic Greek. Traditional scholars have Mark Alexander’s presentation of “Twenty- versities. Their remarkably impressive skulked away from this claim for fluency, five Remarkable Connections” that estab- grounding in Oxfordianism by Jason Moore as they can make no credible case for an- lish an intimate association between Ox- promises that they will vigously challenge cient Greek being part of the curriculum of ford and “Shakespeare”—twenty-five foun- their Stratfordian professors in the class- the Stratford grammar school—a school dational elements which, in effect, form the room! for which there is no evidence of Will basis for a strong circumstantial case that Next year’s conference will convene at Shakspere’s enrollment. Edward de Vere was Shakespeare. Round- the university from 10-13 April and will Closing out the day’s presentations was ing out the morning’s presentations was feature presentations from Professor Professor Alan Nelson of the University of Dr. Roger Stritmatter, who spoke on a new Joseph Pequigney of the State University of California at Berkeley, who spoke on reading of Venus and Adonis, pointing out New York at Stony Brook (author of Such Is Oxford’s stewardship of the Earls Colne clues in the text that support the notion that My Love: A Study of Shakespeare’s Son- Grammar School. Nelson, a vocal critic of Venus is Elizabeth and Adonis is Oxford. nets) and William Rubinstein, Professor of the Oxfordian thesis, maintained that part Following Sunday brunch, author History and Fellow of the Royal Historical of the reason for dismissing Oxford as Richard Whalen electrified listeners with Society from the University of Wales and Shakespeare must be based on Oxford’s his presentation of new evidence that Shake- author of the celebrated article on the au- apparently inattentive supervision of one speare traveled to Scotland (which, like thorship question that appeared last au- of the grammar schools within his jurisdic- Italy, Edward de Vere visited but Stratford tumn in Britain’s most popular history tion, a thesis that many participants in the Will did not). Whalen was followed by journal, History Today. The Concordia conference did not find persuasive. historian Ramon Jimenez who, for the sec- University Student Players, under the di- On Saturday evening, the conference ond year in a row, presented a fine paper rection of Professor Scott Thurman, will recessed to the comfort and luxury of the (“‘In brawl ridiculous’: Philip Sidney, Ox- also perform the hit comedy The Complete Columbia Edgewater Country Club over- ford and the Battle of Agincourt”) on Works of William Shakespeare: Abridged looking the mighty Columbia River that Shakespeare’s sources relevant to a better at the CU Theatre on the opening night of forms the boundary between the states of understanding of Henry the Fifth. the conference. This is not a conference you Oregon and Washington. There, over The next presenter was Professor Ren want to miss! marion-berry cheesecake and coffee, fol- Draya of Blackburn College, who also ad- To enroll, download a registration form lowing entrees of filet mignon and prime dressed Henry the Fifth in her paper, “‘The from the conference website at rib, Oxfordian humorist Dee Hartmann of Gentler Gamester’: Sports and Gambling www.deverestudies.org/register.html! Indiana entertained conference members in King Henry the Fifth.” Concordia alum- (Registrations close, as always with the with anecdotes from her days as a doctoral nus and Hudson’s Bay High School honors receipt of the 200th paid reservation.) Where student and Shakespeare instructor. Dr. English teacher Jason Moore closed out the else can you have so much fun, dine so well, Charles Schlimpert, President of Concordia day’s activities with a presentation of his and learn so much—all while enjoying the University, conferred the annual Scholar- approach to teaching the authorship ques- company of old friends and making many ship Award on Professor Nelson. Both tion in the high school classroom. He was new ones? Even though I am graduating as President Schlimpert and Professor Wright followed by a group of his students who, an English major from Concordia this year, praised Nelson’s commitment to explor- through skits and monologues, illustrated I’m going to be back—and I want to see you ing archives all over the world for more the level of their development as Oxfordians there too! information on Edward de Vere and for making his discoveries available to Oxfordians. Professor Nelson, upon re- ceiving the award, indicated his intent to The Institute for Oxfordian Studies bestow all of his research and transcripts on de Vere to the Sylvester Library at Concordia at Concordia University University. announces Professor Wright then read a letter of st acceptance from Sir Derek Jacobi, this The 1 Annual Oxfordian Studies Seminar year’s recipient of the conference’s Achieve- ment in the Arts Award. Sir Derek could not be present due to his commitment to per- August 11 – 17 form in The Hollow Crown in Wellington, New Zealand, on the weekend of the confer- ence, but he was able to receive his award Tuition is $995 and includes instructional costs, all books, classroom supplies, a directly from Dr. Wright during one of week’s lodging on campus, all breakfasts and lunches, a luncheon cruise on the Wright’s recent research trips to London. Willamette River aboard the Portland Spirit, a guided tour of the world-famous (Sir Derek’s acceptance speech is reprinted Japanese Gardens, an evening at Powell’s City of Books, and other treats! in full on page 11). Oxfordian Dr. Michael Delahoyd of the For more details, contact Professor Daniel Wright English Department at Washington State University opened Sunday’s busy agenda email: [email protected] with his paper on “Edward de Vere’s Trea- Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 11

Sir Derek Jacobi’s acceptance speech

Let me first thank you very much in- But at least the battle lines have been drawn, whoever wrote them; it doesn’t therefore deed for the honour you do me by confer- and it is heartening to see how many re- matter.” ring upon me the conference’s Vero Nihil cruits are enlisting in the Doubters Army: Yes, it does! The disclosure of the real Verius Award for Artistic Excellence. My people, like myself, who cannot reconcile author would enhance not only the histori- deep regret is that I cannot be with you to the illiteracy of Shakspere’s offspring cal significance but also the contemporary receive it in person. I must plead the peri- alongside his own deep and adept knowl- excitement of these treasures for both ac- patetic life of the strolling player, the vaga- edge of medicine, art, music, geography, tors and spectators; and it shouldn’t be bond, a life that keeps me traveling as a law and his almost nonchalant use of meta- regarded as potential professional suicide, chronicler of the times, often to bournes phor from, for example, sporting activities heresy or an actor’s silliness to come out from which I am only too eager to return. and say so. As a performer in the public eye I wish I could be with you, but fate and the and therefore subject to public criticism need to earn a living decree otherwise and attack, I am acutely conscious of the [Editors’ Note: Sir Derek, on the night of the significance of accepting this token of com- conference’s Awards Banquet, was perform- mitted involvement in the authorship de- ing with Diana Rigg, Ian Richardson and bate. My wish is that more actors, with the Royal Shakespeare Company in The similar suspicions, would nail their colours Hollow Crown at the Michael Fowler Cen- to the mast and accept whatever brickbats tre in Wellington, New Zealand]. the eminent and learned critics have to Like a growing number of interested throw. The restrictive orthodox analysis parties, I have had grave doubts for some must be open to seriously considered de- time now of the validity of the Stratford bate. There must be a challenge to the man’s claim to have written some of the selective evidence of the scholars, based on greatest literature the world has produced. their desire to justify their man rather than Indeed, I must admit that it still seems assess objective criteria. Too much is con- incredible to me that one mind could pos- jecture, guesswork, allegory and assump- sibly have encompassed such a monumen- tion—what one writer has called “a well tal feat—but if so, that man is most likely to documented blank.” have been Edward de Vere—possibly with However, I would also urge the anti- a little collaboration. Like you, I live in Stratfordian to avoid over-egging the de hope that an acceptable solution is possible Courtesy, Essex County Newspapers Vere pudding. “The lady doth protest too and that this most fascinating riddle will Sir Derek Jacobi, in front of Castle much” is not a healthy slogan for the cause. finally be solved. Hedingham, 1999. Take a lesson from us actors who constantly My reactions are, of course, hardly aca- that were exclusively the pursuit of the are told that “less is more.” Our lifeblood as demic, and I haven’t the minutiae of knowl- aristocracy—not to mention his mastery of performers is constant questioning, re- edge or arguments at my fingertips like history, languages and the intricacies of search, analysis, intellectual and emotional your good selves—I’m still studying and survival at court. The only evidence of honesty: the play’s the thing, not the player. discovering—but, as an actor, my instincts Shakspere’s literary life was produced after Without the dramatist, we have no oppor- and antennae tell me that only someone he died and is open to dispute. Nothing, tunity to strut whatever stuff we possess, connected with the vicissitudes of stage while alive, apart from some shaky signa- and in this particular case above all, if we production could have created these com- tures, puts a pen in his hand. Legend, hear- could find the true author of these exquisite plex dramas. Is there indeed any incontro- say and myth have created this writer. dramas, the rewards for both actor and vertible, unequivocal evidence that Strat- I have taken part in thirty-one of the audience would be immense. A spotlight ford Will was even an actor? plays so far, and I can imagine—I can feel— would be thrown on hitherto unfathom- But, of course, with doubt comes not someone behind the words whose educa- able passages, and centuries of delight discussion but accusation. We are labeled tion and life experiences, whose knowl- would be highlighted by the knowledge of eccentrics and loonies (oh, if only old Tho- edge of all strata of society, whose relation- the real events, situations and characters mas had himself used a pseudonym!). All ships and temperament simply do not fit that guided and informed the author’s hand. these years of academic dedication lav- the grain hoarder, the money lender and Let there be vigorous and legitimate de- ished on the wrong man must be defended, the entrepreneur, but chime accurately, bate! at all costs it seems. Reputations tremble, and at times indelibly, with what we know Once more, my heartfelt thanks and my an industry turns pale, and the weapons of about de Vere. And it’s not enough to say, sincerest regret that I cannot be with you ridicule and abuse are leveled and fired. “Oh, but the works of Shakespeare survive this evening.

Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 12 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002

Research Notes The Maiden and the Mermaid By Carl S. Caruso he Manor of Rysing land-package ing forward and holding a book while at least fourteen books directly linked to worth £250 in yearly fee-farm in being urged onward by a hand from a cloud the seventeenth Earl of Oxford or to his Tcome may not have been the only holding a multi-lashed scourge. The sur- wife, Anne. East printed Lyly’s Euphues legacy left behind for the seventeenth Earl rounding inscription reads “VIRESCIT and his England (Q1-Q6, 1580-1588); of Oxford by his cousin, the Duke of Nor- VULNERE VERITAS,” meaning “Truth is Greene’s Gwydonius, Carde of Fancie (Q1, folk, who was executed for treason by Queen Renewed by a Wound.” The somewhat 1584); Psalmes Sonets & Songs of sadness Elizabeth’s government in June of 1572. countercultural history of the motto would & piety by William Bird (1588), which In the early days of her captivity, Mary, have been clear to anyone familiar with the contains a poem by Oxford set to music for Queen of Scots, had exchanged affection- story of the embroidered pillow. five voices; and two books by John Farmer, ate and loving letters with the Duke of A similar countercultural influence may one of which is Plainsong (Diverse and Norfolk in a formalized pen-friendship be noted in the name of London’s Mermaid sundry ways) (1571). The earliest book which culminated in a kind of literary Tavern, made famous by the patronage of printed by East appears to be Arthur “betrothal.” The two had naively hoped that Shakespeare and other literary men. “Mer- Golding’s Psalms of David translation of their projected marriage would be pleas- maid” was a euphemism for “siren” or 1571. It was dedicated to Lord Oxford, as ing to Mary’s cousin, Queen Elizabeth. As it “prostitute” in the usage of the day, and few were both of the books by Farmer, Greene’s turned out, of course, it wasn’t acceptable of the tavern’s patrons at the end of the Carde of Fancie, and Lyly’s Euphues and at all. century could have been unaware that Mary, his England. Mary and Norfolk never actually met, Queen of Scots, had once been depicted as Thomas Creede, in turn, used his unique but during their literary courtship, gifts just such a mermaid. “Wounded Truth” emblem on numerous were exchanged including a fine diamond In the days following the Kirk o’ Field quartos from 1594 to 1605, including re- from Norfolk which Mary hung unseen explosion and the murder of her husband, prints of Greene’s Groatsworth and around her neck “until I give it again to the Lord Darnley, a famous placard (Fig. 2, Spenser’s Shepherd’s Calendar, along with owner of it and me both.” From Mary came reproduced from Antonia Fraser’s Mary, the first complete version of Romeo and a miniature portrait of herself set in gold, Queen of Scots, p. 368 ff.) featuring Mary Juliet in 1599. Among other quartos, the and a pillow, probably embroidered by her, as mermaid had appeared on the streets of emblem also appeared on two very good with the motto “VIRESCIT IN VULNERE Edinburgh. As in Creede’s emblem, the editions of Shakespeare’s Richard III in VULTUS,” meaning “The Will is Renewed in placard featured a line drawing of a female 1598 and 1602, and a number of various the Wound,” and the arms of Scotland figure, naked from the waist upwards, but works which may be described as stitched thereon: all symbolizing Mary’s wearing a crown. In the placard, the figure Shakespearean or Oxfordian “apocrypha.” courage and fidelity in her captivity. When has the lower body of a fish and is seated on In these cases, the texts are prototypes—as Norfolk was arrested on September 7, 1571, a bench, holding an oversized lily in one in the case of the early Richard III and in the wake of the Ridolfi revelations, it was hand and some sort of scroll in the other. In Henry V plays, not in keeping with the plays specifically for sending money to Mary’s the Creede emblem the female figure is later printed in the First Folio—or else the supporters in Scotland. striding forward, holding an open book in actual authorship doubtful. Mary’s envoy to England, Leslie, was both hands before her as she walks. It is impossible to say that the Earl of arrested at the same time, and he revealed The somewhat irreverent name of the Oxford had any direct connection with the the details of her correspondence with Nor- Mermaid Tavern—which was hosted by genesis of Creede’s emblem or with its use folk, including the existence of the embroi- Shakespeare’s dear friend William on the dramatic quartos, but the original dered pillow. The northern border revolt of Johnson—along with its possible allusion motto on the embroidered pillow would two years earlier was then unfairly linked to to the Queen of the Scots, would have been clearly have been of interest to him because the romantic communication between the pleasing to a patron such as Robin Catesby, of his friendship with the executed Duke. pair, along with Norfolk’s supposedly trea- the prime mover of the 1605 Gun Powder The substitution of “Veritas” for “Vultus” in sonous correspondence with the northern Plot. As a disaffected Catholic, Catesby the revised motto would have certainly Earls. (Antonia Fraser, Mary, Queen of Scots, would have identified strongly with the pleased the seventeenth Earl since he, p. 417 ff.) executed Catholic queen. He and some of along with his literary friends, identified All this was more than twenty years in his friends did, in fact, make the Mermaid strongly with the Latin root for truth (ver), the past when one of the best Elizabethan Tavern their favorite London haunt, as did which was directly connected with his own printers, Thomas Creede, began publish- some of the leading literary men of the age. family name, “Vere,” and with his family ing under his own name in 1593. For many Thomas Creede had been apprenticed motto, “VERO NIHIL VERIUS,” or “Nothing of his quartos, he used a unique block-print to Thomas East, whose name had begun Truer than Truth.” emblem (Fig. 1) which featured a crowned, appearing on books in 1576. Over a period It is impossible to say exactly how but otherwise naked, female figure walk- of twenty years, Creede’s master had printed Oxford felt about Mary, Queen of Scots, Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 13 who had probably em- beth passed away in March of broidered the original pil- 1603, Oxford in June of 1604. low. She had been executed We may speculate that, in 1587, accused of com- even if Lord Oxford had de- plicity in the Babington signed Thomas Creede’s plot—which in most re- “Wounded Truth” emblem spects resembled the ear- with his own hand and had lier plot named after personally promoted its fre- Ridolfi. Lord Oxford had quent use by the printer dur- been one of the commis- ing the last decade of her sioners at her trial for high reign, the Queen would prob- treason. He had not, how- ably not have held it against ever, been one of the ten him. She herself had many who were persuaded to regrets over the unfortunate sign her death warrant by fate of the Duke of Norfolk, his father-in-law, Lord and even more regrets over Burghley. the execution of the Queen of On the other hand, Fig. 1 Fig. 2 the Scots. As with Norfolk, there is no doubt that Ox- she had failed to countermand Might printer Thomas Creede’s “Wounded Truth” emblem (Fig. 1, left, with its ford had identified strong- Mary’s death order, but she motto,“Truth renewed by a wound”) be connected in some way with both (1) the ly with the executed Duke had subsequently mourned “Mermaid” emblem (Fig. 2, right) associated with Mary Queen of Scots shortly after of Norfolk, who had been her cousin’s execution most the Darnley murder in 1567, and (2) the motto Mary had once stitched on a pillow the recipient of the em- sincerely, to the point where (“The Will is renewed in the wound”) sent to Oxford’s friend the Duke of Norfolk broidered “VIRESCIT IN her refusal to eat endangered in the days leading up to his execution in 1572? (The Mermaid emblem is from the VULNERE VULTUS” pil- her own life. Public Record Office, Controller of H. M. Stationery Office, reproduced from the low. At the time of By the end of the century facsimile in Antonia Fraser’s Mary, Queen of Scots.) Norfolk’s arrest, Oxford not everyone would have re- was twenty-one, his cousin called the detail of the em- and good friend Norfolk, thirty-three. De- to be carried out. broidered pillow with its Latin motto, but spite his youth, Oxford had attempted to Early historians speculated that Ox- Elizabeth certainly would have remem- implement a plan to rescue Norfolk from ford must have been embittered by the loss bered it quite well. If she did have occasion his imprisonment, a crime which could of his friend, and perhaps he was. For the to see the “Wounded Truth” emblem as easily have merited the death penalty for sake of his new marriage and on account of used by Creede, she would probably not himself had it been discovered. When it his public responsibilities as Lord Great only have identified the crowned female failed to materialize, he hoped that his Chamberlain, no sign of this bitterness is to figure with the Queen of Scots, but may marriage to Lord Burghley’s daughter, be seen either in his letters of the period, or have even taken some comfort in it. No Anne, would give him enough influence in his public demeanor. longer was her former rival derided as a with the Queen at least to spare Norfolk’s In 1576, however, some four years after “siren” or a “prostitute.” Indeed, the re- life. Norfolk’s execution, he did secretly be- deemed maiden’s former sufferings are That hope, too, would be disappointed. come a Catholic, remaining so until his depicted as having come from the hand of His new father-in-law, Lord Burghley, was public recantation of Catholicism at Christ- Providence (the hand from the cloud with Secretary of State at the time, but, in the face mas of 1580. According to the testimony of the scourge which is seen behind her). of international power politics, could actu- his cousin and co-religionist, Lord Henry Furthermore, she seems to be proceeding ally do nothing to save Norfolk from the Howard, Oxford privately expressed much to a place of intellectual enlightenment headsman’s ax. Queen Elizabeth’s reluc- bitterness over the fate of the Duke of Nor- and peace (the open book which she holds tance to actually execute Norfolk after his folk in the intervening years. before her). conviction was interpreted as a sign of During the early 1580s, Oxford was out Or, ignoring the similarity of the motto weakness by the French and the Spanish, of favor with the Queen for some thirty with that of Mary’s embroidered pillow, who were closely monitoring the situation. months on account of his secret adherence Elizabeth may have simply identified the There was talk that the King of France was to the Catholic faith during the decade maiden of the woodcut with herself. Eliza- readying a force of twenty ships for the previous. Ultimately, however, his funda- beth was, after all, an enthusiast of fine purpose of unseating her, and the Spanish mental loyalty to Her Majesty, which had in literature and an inspiration to every kind could draw on large ground forces from the fact never wavered, was recognized, and he of literary art, the very embodiment of the Duke of Alva’s reserves in Germany for the was restored to her favour in June of 1583. Elizabethan age. And, like most monarchs same purpose. To discourage the forma- Except for those two-and-a-half years when of the period, she would have considered tion of a French-Spanish alliance against he was barred from coming to Court, the herself as an earnest seeker of “Truth” as her, the Queen, with great reluctance and relationship between Oxford and the Queen she understood it. after many stays of execution, finally al- was a very special one, and continued to be ©2001 Carl S. Caruso lowed the death sentence against Norfolk so to the end of their respective lives. Eliza- Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 14 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002

Ye plague (continued from page 1) occur after an epidemic? Yes. In 1943, Carrington3 uses the word “seems” instead of “it may King James entered London for a quick coronation on July 25, be”: 1603, just at the onset of the 1603 epidemic, then fled to the country for eight months. He returned to London on March 15, 1604, after The immediate cause of his death seems to have been the plague, the epidemic was thought to have ended. Playhouses reopened in since the words “ye plague” are written in the margin of the page of February, 1604, except for The Curtain, which opened after Lent the Parish Register which contains the entry of his burial. ended in April.10 Many of London’s wealthy had homes in the country to which Charlton Ogburn, Jr. in 19844 gets rid of “Ye” and says that in they fled for safety immediately at the onset of an epidemic. They the margin of the burial register of the Church of St. Augustine in didn’t know why, but plague rates were lower in villages like Hackney “is the annotation ‘The Plague’. Perhaps, already weak- Hackney, three miles from London’s center, where de Vere lived ened in health, he was one of its victims.” with his second wife, Elizabeth Trentham. Should they have felt William Plumer Fowler in 19865, 58 years after Ward’s book, completely safe? No. (See the chart below for plague deaths without checking primary sources, gets rid of any uncertainty and recorded by month in Hackney.) states that “The Earl died of the plague ... on June 24, 1604 -- aged 54.” Would a body infected with plague The last “documentation” was in 1993 in The Shakespeare be allowed inside a church? Oxford Society Newsletter. Barron states that he went to the Greater London Records Office and confirmed Ward’s research The records clearly state that Edward de Vere was buried in a finding of 1928: tomb inside the Church of St. Augustine in Hackney.11 Elizabeth Trentham, de Vere’s second wife, wrote in her will that she wished We found the parish records for Hackney and went to the original “to be buried in the Church of Hackney ... as near unto the body of documents and in their ancient pages found the notation of Edward my late dear and noble Lord and husband as may be.” de Vere’s death from the plague.6 Since the 1540s it had been against the laws of England for plague victims to be buried inside of churches.12 This is obviously Since all of the above articles and books are in error, and have a very powerful argument that Edward de Vere did NOT die of perpetuated the plague myth for 74 years, perhaps it is time to ask plague. some basic questions. What are the facts? What is plague? 1. Edward de Vere died on June 24, 1604. Ninth century BC doctors in India were aware that rats were 2. The burial records are now available from the London carriers of plague7 but 16th century England was completely Metropolitan Archives (LMA).13 De Vere’s burial is listed under The baffled. It is now known that the causative bacillus, Pasteurella Church of St. John at Hackney, Mare Street, which was built between pestis, is transmitted by fleas from sick or dying rats to humans. 1792 and 1797 as a replacement for the torn-down Church of St. Plague is a horrific disease not difficult to diagnose, especially Augustine. during an epidemic. After an incubation period of two to eight days, victims develop enlarged pus-filled lymph glands (buboes, hence Plague deaths in Hackney, bubonic plague), black and purple skin lesions, small and large blisters, fever, vomiting, headaches, and often delirium. Seventy Oct. 1603 to Dec. 1604 percent die in one to several days. There is a septicemic form Date “Pla.” = No cause without buboes. Direct human-to-human transmission may occur from the pneumonic form which can kill entire families almost plague of death listed simultaneously. Plague is associated with urban squalor and poor sanitation, Oct. 1603 9 1 which encourage rat infestation. Fleas are lured by rats, domestic Nov. 1603 9 1 animals, and lack of personal hygiene. Sixteenth century London— Dec. 1603 4 9 with its crowded tenements, narrow tortuous alleys, horse manure, Jan. 1604 1 6 human sewage and garbage in the streets—was a perfect host for Feb. 1604 0 4 epidemic plague. It was rightfully regarded as one of the world’s Mar. 1604 2 1 8 filthiest cities. Only its frequent rain made London habitable. Apr. 1604 1 4 May 1604 1 4 Was there a plague epidemic June 1604 1 2 in England in 1604? July 1604 0 7 The first European plague pandemic occurred in 541 AD; the Aug. 1604 0 5 second in 1346 killed 30 million people and was labeled the Black Sept. 1604 0 7 Death. Oct. 1604 0 3 The following epidemics each killed about 20,000 people in Nov. 1604 0 4 London, a fifth of its population: 1563, 1575, 1593, 1603, and Dec. 1604 0 5 1625.9 There was an epidemic in 1603, not 1604. Do sporadic cases Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 15

3. LMA’s reference number P79/JN1/022 is a slim volume containing a summary of burials between March, 1600, and June, 1652, with no cause of death listed. This record states that in May, 1603: “Here began the great plague but I have set down none but men or women of note. I have left out all children and vagabonds.” Alongside the burial date of July 6, 1604, the record simply states: “Edward Veare, earl of oxford.” 4. LMA’s reference number P79/JNI/021 lists date of burial and, if thought to be a victim of plague, “pla.” in the margin on the same line as the name of the deceased. Clinical diagnoses were not accurate — “pla.” could mean any sudden death, but was usually correct during an epidemic. “Pest.” for pestilence referred to almost any infectious disease. 5. Every death caused by presumed plague was precisely labeled “pla.” and numbered immedi- ately adjacent to the entry of the deceased. The diagnosis did not apply to nearby names without a label. Figure 1. Each deceased person with a diagnosis of plague has the term “pla.” and a 6. There were 241 cases labeled as “pla.” in the sequential case number written on the same line as the name and date of burial. first five months of the plague epidemic beginning in May, 1603, an average of 48 cases per month in “men and women of note.” The first case of plague in October, 1603, is numbered “pla. 242.” 7. Causes of death for those buried in Hackney in the months preceding and following Edward de Vere’s death are shown in the box on page 14 (where “date” = month buried and “pla.” = plague). 8. The plague was tapering off by January, 1604 (using our present calendar year, with January the first month of a new year). Using these criteria, there were no burials for plague for one month preceding de Vere’s burial on July 6, nor in the next five months. The last sporadic case of plague from this epidemic was buried in Hackney on June 6, 1604; de Vere was buried July 6. 9. There was no word “Ye” or “the” before “pla.” on any of the five pages of burial register examined. The term “Ye Plague,” quoted by B.M. Ward as being in the margin adjacent to de Vere’s burial, is a fiction. 10. Since the last numbered case diagnosed as Figure 2. Edward de Vere’s burial record does not have “pla.” or a case number, but only plague in Hackney was #269, the assumption of the peculiar asterisk (far left, center) added later. nobles that London’s surrounding villages were safe from plague was erroneous. 11. There is NO diagnosis of “pla.” adjacent to de Vere’s name, nor is there a plague case number. There are only three “pla.” diagnoses on de Vere’s register page containing 29 deaths. The closest “pla.” is 6 deaths above de Vere, one month before de Vere’s burial, and has absolutely NO significance regarding de Vere’s cause of death. 12. To the left of de Vere’s name is an antique asterisk in pencil consisting of a large “X” with a period in each of the four spaces created. This can neither be dated nor interpreted but was clearly made many decades later than the time of burial Figure 3. Detail from Fig. 2, showing the entry: “Edward de Vere Earl of Oxenford was 0 (Continued on page 16) buryed the 6th daye of July A 1604.” Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 16 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002

Ye plague (continued from page 15) plague” myth exemplifies typical processes of myth initiation, since pencils with such a sharp point did not appear until the late evolution, and perpetuation. 1600s.14 13. St. Augustine Church simply recorded de Vere’s burial as Conclusion follows: The village of Hackney was not exempt from plague but Edward Edward de Vere, Erle of Oxenford, was buryed the sixth daye of July A0 de Vere did not die of the plague in 1604 for the following reasons: 1604. (A0 = anno = year) 1. The plague epidemic of 1603 had ended before he died. What was Edward de Vere’s 2. The burial record of St. Augustine Church, Hackney, does not actual cause of death? list him as dying from the plague nor number him as a plague victim. The observation that “Ye plague” was written next to his In early 1604, Edward de Vere designated his cousin Francis name in the burial register as the cause of de Vere’s death is a Vere, recently retired General-in-Chief in The Netherlands,15 as the careless error. legal guardian of his 11-year-old son, Henry.16 O June 18, 1604, six 3. The three other cases of “Pla.” listed on the same page of the days before his death, Edward granted custody and revenues of the burial register have no relevance to de Vere’s cause of death. Forest of Essex, over which he had stewardship, to his son-in-law, 4. De Vere was buried inside the Church of St. Augustine in Francis Lord Norris, husband of Bridget, jointly with Francis Hackney. It had been against English law for more than 60 years Vere.17 The grant was for a period of seven years, at which time de to bury plague victims inside a church. Vere’s son Henry would be 18, a legal adult. Victims dying of plague are too sick to make legal instruments, and lawyers do not make The myth that Edward de Vere died of “Ye Plague” is a classic house calls on plague-infested houses, even if the clients are rich! example of an unfounded belief held uncritically and passed on But, for the reasons already given, de Vere did not die of plague. without scrutiny for the past 74 years. It should be discarded and One wonders whether he had premonitory cardiac symptoms, should remind Oxfordians that it is not only Stratfordians who are did his legal business, and then died shortly thereafter of a coronary capable of believing and transmitting myths but all humans, occlusion. It should be recalled that his father, John, died suddenly including Oxfordians. at the age of 46. Was the mild clumsiness of his right hand, about which he writes, the result of a cerebral ischemic event? Myocardial infarc- References tion is more often the cause of death in such patients than cere- brovascular disease. One can only guess. There is insufficient 1. Ogburn, Dorothy and Ogburn, Charlton. This Star of England. (New evidence to allow a conclusive diagnosis of de Vere’s death at the York : Coward McCann, Inc., 1952) age of 54. 2. Ward, B.M. . The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. (London : John Murray, 1928) Comments 3. Carrington, Phyllis. “Was Lord Oxford Buried in Westminster Abbey?” Newsletter, The Shakespeare Fellowship (American Branch), June 1943. All of us are familiar with the immense power of conventional 4. Ogburn, Charlton Jr. The Mysterious William Shakespeare. (New York : belief and Oxfordians use Stratfordian rigidity as their premier Dodd, Mead and Co., 1984) example. But all humans at times create and/or convey myths, even 5. Fowler, William Plumer. Shakespeare Revealed in Oxford’s Letters. Oxfordians. (Portsmouth, NH : Peter E. Randall, 1986) Myths tend to become more dogmatic as time passes, partly 6. Barron, Randall. “Edward de Vere’s Will.” Newsletter, The Shakespeare Oxford Society, 29: 4, Fall 1993. because of the reverence of disciples for their own authority figures 7. Margotta, Roberto. The History of Medicine. (Reed International and for other guild “experts.” Books, Smithmark Publishers, NY, 1996) Too few researchers have the discipline and tenacity to check 8. Stack, Paul. The Impact of Plague in Tudor and Stuart England. primary sources. Even when they do, they may not believe their own (London : Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1990) eyes and may find it more prudent to perpetuate conventional 9. Stack, op. cit. wisdom than challenge it. To most humans, it just doesn’t seem 10. Lester, Richard. “An Alternative Theory of the Oxford Cover-Up.” The right or natural to doubt respected guild authorities. Elizabethan Review, 7:1, Spring 1999. But, as Skrabanek and McCormick emphasized, “The fallacy of 11. As cited in Ogburn, Star of England; Ogburn, Mysterious William authority is believing things to be true because of the authoritative Shakespeare; and Fowler, Shakespeare Revealed in Oxford’s Letters. source of the information.”18 Despite error in fact or interpretation, 12. Stack, op. cit. 13. London Metropolitan Authority internet address: the myth is thereafter attached to the names of the dominant [email protected] authorities and subsequently referred to as indisputable gospel. 14. Griffith, Rhys. Senior Archivist, London Metropolitan Authority. As Stephen Toulmin of the University of Michigan said: Personal communication. 15. Ward, op. cit An established conceptual scheme carries considerable intellec- 16. Horne, Richard C. Jr., “Message from the President,” Newsletter, The 19 tual authority; a dominant individual carries magisterial authority. Shakespeare Oxford Society, Dec. 10, 1969. 17. Ward, op. cit. Thus a myth is perpetuated in pervasive fashion, mal-influencing 18. Skrabanek, Peter, and McCormick, James. Follies & Fallicies in at least a generation of believing guild disciples and never Medicine (Buffalo, NY : Prometheus Books, 1990) re-scrutinized. 19. Toulmin, Stephen. “The Evolutionary Development of Natural Science.” Although of no significance to the authorship debate, the “ye American Scientist 55: 456-471, 1967. Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 17 Book review Oxford, Son of Queen Elizabeth. By vants.” Streitz’s logic, typically, goes like fies his own work with “alleged” and “if.” Paul Streitz (Oxford Institute Press, 2001) this: It is the myriad mistakes in Oxford, 325 pages, $32.50. coupled with the numerous examples of This title connects Oxford in an irrefut- pure conjecture juxtaposed with factual able way to an acting company and proves errors and typos, that completely undercut By Christopher Paul that such actors were “His servants.” They were servants to the only Lord Great Cham- his efforts. On page 32, for example, he castigates Harold Bloom for not being aware he central premise of Paul Streitz’s berlain of England from 1562 until his disappearance in 1604. By extension, this that “‘his sugared sonnets among his pri- Oxford, Son of Queen Elizabeth I is th vate friends’ was a statement a literary Tthat the 17 Earl of Oxford was the figure of the time, Francis Meres, applied to first son of Elizabeth Tudor and that the 3rd “...[Internet published] the writings of the Earl of Oxford!” (it was, Earl of Southampton was a later product of of course, Shakespeare that Meres was re- their incestuous union. It should be noted ferring to in Palladis Tamia in 1598). On p. that this book is one of an increasing num- books can reveal the flaws 229 Streitz tells us: “Contrary to popular ber of authorship books—Oxfordian and belief, William Shakespeare was not born others—that are becoming available of not having a more on April 24, 1564, in Stratford-upon-Avon. through the phenomenon of internet pub- The man born on that date was named lishing. While it is admirable that authors rigorous editorial and Gulielmus Shakspere.” Does he not com- can now reach readers in this manner, such prehend that such Latin entries were com- books also can reveal the flaws of not hav- publication process in monplace, and that Gulielmus is merely ing a more rigorous editorial and publica- the Latinized form of William, or am I tion process in place to force an author to place to force an author to missing a joke here? On the same page he hone his argument and his rhetoric—or at disconcertingly refers to Looney’s the very least to present a product free of hone his argument...” groundbreaking book as Shakespeare’s typos and easily correctable errors. Identity Revealed. Leaving such problems temporarily At one point Streitz writes: “The myth aside, Oxford begins well enough with a means that other works performed by the of the Virgin Queen has been built up over promising chapter that sets up the impos- Chamberlain’s Men were performed by a the years. When evidence appears to con- ture behind the Ashbourne portrait, nicely theatrical company under the control of the tradict it, that evidence is simply denied.” dovetailing with the deception involved in Earl of Oxford… (p. 211) Yet he not only denies contradictory evi- the authorship issue as a whole. Streitz dence, but in most instances he omits it Streitz then shows us the title page of A draws a shrewd parallel between the mod- entirely. What evidence he does include is Midsummer Night’s Dream, which states it ern-day duplicity of the Folger Shakespeare more often than not misinterpreted. The Library and similar policies in Elizabethan was “acted by the Lord Chamberlain his book does offer plenty of interesting food England, right down to the “myth of the Servants.” One can only conclude from this for thought, yet Streitz’s heedless determi- passage that Streitz is apparently unaware Virgin Queen” and beyond—to the Earl of nation to promulgate acknowledged falla- that the “Lord Chamberlain” and the “Lord Oxford and “circumstances that are simply cies—and to create some new ones—is Great Chamberlain” were two different unimaginable.” simply indefensible. royal offices, held by two different persons. In the following chapter, “Sex, Murder, The first thing one notices is Streitz’s Incest, and Tudors,” Streitz offers mini- As one continues to read, one sees this kind considerable knack for turning words to biographies of the principal characters care- of overreaching connection rear its head his own purpose, forcing meaning where continually. fully crafted to highlight the details rel- this is none, or twisting the evidence to suit When not tripping over spelling gaffes, evant to his purpose. “The Summer of 1548” his objective, such as his rendition of the which the author’s errata slip does not and the first section of “A Hasty Marriage Duchess of Feria’s later account of a mid- begin to cover (the footnotes are generally and Three Murders” lay the foundation for wife who purportedly assisted the Princess the central theory of the book, but miss a mess as well), Streitz’s words flow Elizabeth in delivering a child. Streitz many marks in their narrow frame. smoothly and he has an engaging, often chooses to accept as authentic the entire persuasive style. The open-minded, yet Several astute observations are elo- tale except for the slight detail that the child uninformed, reader will very likely be im- quently rendered in the chapter “A Literary was “miserably destroyed.” For Streitz, only pressed and taken in by much of Streitz’s and Theatrical Life,” but Streitz stumbles in that part “appears to be conjecture” (p. 91). book. Streitz’s foremost shortcoming in a few places here as well, such as his tortu- He manages to back himself into some ous leap in analogizing the title page of The Oxford, however, is the representation of interesting corners as well, as when he Weakest goest to the Wall, which states it his material as fact rather than conjecture. writes within several pages: was played by “the Earle of Oxenford, Lord He accuses Harold Bloom of “stating con- great Chamberlaine of England His ser- jecture as fact,” yet too infrequently quali- (Continued on page 18) Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 18 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002

Book review (continued from page 17) the sons of Queen Elizabeth, Streitz under- Building on this premise that Oxford The depositions may record informa- mines his central premise with the inclu- didn’t die in 1604, Streitz unnecessarily tion that was damaging to Princess Eliza- sion in the Appendix of a section titled relegates The Tempest to the Stratfordian beth, but how thorough do they want to be “Elizabeth’s Babyland” (p. 286). Oddly, chronology and its spurious connection to if Sir Thomas Smith, William Cecil, and Edward Seymour are already privy to a this list of Elizabeth’s alleged offspring the Strachey letter of 1610 when he muses, secret? (page 85) does not include Francis Bacon (the origi- “Could it be that Oxford later returned to nal “Prince Tudor”) or the comparatively England and then wrote his last play which Katherine Parr removes Elizabeth from well-documented case for Arthur Dudley. was recorded as being first performed in the household at Hatfield and sends her to Sir Anthony Denny. She does this with the Yet it includes the likes of the Earl of Essex, 1611?” (p. 166) assistance and knowledge of Edward of whom Streitz writes earlier (p. 156): He does not mention a letter to Robert Seymour (the Lord Protector), Sir Thomas Cecil from Oxford’s widow written less Smith, and William Cecil. (pages 89-90) While this author has not done any than two months after his received date of death, in which she plainly refers to his Yet Streitz offers no explanation why decease.1 He also does not mention that Elizabeth would later write to Edward “Acknowledging that there was an inquisition post mortem for Seymour (in an excerpt he prints on p. 86) Edward de Vere dated 27 September 1604.2 denying that she is “with child.” If Edward he hasn’t done any Neither does he mention a memoran- Seymour was privy to the secret birth, it dum dated 26 November, 1609, regarding makes little sense that they would have research and then ... a London garden formerly owned by Ox- carried on such a correspondence. Streitz ford, in which it states: goes on to write in the same section, “In her offering up an extreme letter, Elizabeth denied she was pregnant, By an inquisition taken at Guildhall, of which no one had accused her” and “Only theory as the ‘most London, 13 Aug. 1608, it was found that Elizabeth ever mentioned the possibility of Earl Edward died seized of such messuage a child.” plausible’ is a hallmark and garden ... The saide Earle Edward ... This is an utterly baffling claim, since about fower yeares past now died…3 in the very excerpt he cites, Elizabeth wrote: of [his] ... approach...” He does not mention any number of Master Tyrwhit and others have told other documents informing us that Ed- me that there goeth rumours abroad, which thorough investigation of the birth of Rob- ward de Vere was deceased, including be greatly both against my Honour and ert Devereux, the most plausible conclu- Nathaniel Baxter’s posthumous paean in Honesty (which, above all things I esteem), sion is that he was the son of Elizabeth and the c. 1606 Sir Philip Sidney’s Ourania, in which be these; that I am in the Tower, and Robert Dudley and was born in 1566. with Child by my Lord Admiral. which the good Earl is extolled in no uncer- tain terms that inform us that he is dead.4 Acknowledging that he hasn’t done any Obviously, she was being accused, and This level of historical distortion oc- research and then—in the same sentence Tyrwhitt had informed her of the rumors. If curs throughout the book. For example, he —offering up an extreme theory as the Tyrwhitt knew of the rumors, it follows that perpetuates various hoary myths such as “most plausible” is a hallmark of Streitz’s Seymour knew of them. In any case, she Margery Vere (née Golding) hastily remar- entire approach to this material. He dem- plainly states that she had been told about rying after the 16th Earl’s, which he inexpli- onstrates throughout his book a strange the rumors being spread, and, in that con- cably indicates was “within months after notion of what constitutes “most plausible.” text, denies that they are true. So it was the death of her husband, but the exact date Another such example of this approach completely appropriate for her to discuss of the marriage is uncertain.” (p. 114) As the can be found in his contention that Oxford the rumors, Seymour having asked her for exact date is not known, how can Streitz did not die on June 24, 1604. Again, such an explanation. She did not haul it in from claim it followed the 16th Earl’s death speculation only undercuts the thrust of the left field, as Streitz implies. And when not “within months?” book’s main argument. Streitz writes, re- quoting spurious letters fabricated by the Further, he also manages to create some vealingly: mendacious Gregorio Leti (p. 70), Streitz brand new historical humdingers, claim- embarrassingly misrepresents authentic The evidence that contradicts this ing on p. 143 for example, letters, such as Elizabeth’s message to theory is the record of Oxford buried in Seymour (p. 87), in which he claims her Hackney (it could have been forged). ... But Then in January of 1575, Oxford de- phrase “to have such a one” refers to a child. then again, this whole story, although true, parted for a Continental tour with permis- is so wildly improbable that a dramatic and sion of the Queen. Before leaving, he en- When this letter is viewed in context, the mysterious end is only fitting. (p. 165) words are obviously a reference to her new tailed his lands to his cousin, Horatio Vere.’ governess, Lady Tyrwhitt (who had just So nothing is sacred in Oxford, and it replaced the long-standing and beloved seems that anything goes. And when one This concoction runs completely Kate Ashley). reads that “a dramatic and mysterious end counter to the extant 1575 indenture prior Not content to have his readers tackle is only fitting,” it is fair to wonder if one is to Oxford’s travel, which lists Horatio Vere Edward de Vere and Henry Wriothesley as dealing here with an historian or a novelist. (who was ten years old in 1575) as the Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 19 sixteenth and very last of the heirs named to New Forest at Beauly House, imbarqued For another kind of interpretation, we inherit Oxford’s lands should the previous himselfe and Traine and came on board the find on page 279: fifteen, beginning with Hugh Vere, “defaulte Prince, then riding in Stokes Bay by Ports- 5 mouth, with the Marquis of Hamilton, the of suche heires males.” Streitz is certainly Lords Chamberlain [Pembroke], Holder- While any literary interpretation is sub- aware of this indenture, and he offers no ness, Kelly, Carlisle, Montgomery, and divers ject to skepticism and misinterpretation, other attendants, who all dined on board suspecting the worst, there simply was no other source to validate his unsubstanti- other way for Oxford to leave any historical ated claim. the Prince, our admiral the Earl of Rutland being absent at London. His Majestie was record of his life except in his poetry and Yet another characteristic example of very well pleased, and after dinner, again plays... . this slipshod approach can be found in his imbarquing in the barge, lay hovering in the take on certain events in August 1623, just midst of the Fleet till all the ships had In light of this statement, it is interest- months before the First Folio was pub- discharged their ordnance, and landed on ing that there is only one place in the entire lished: the shore at Shott Castle. book where Streitz makes an attempt to show any literary allusions pointing to There was a meeting in August 1623 on Oxford as Elizabeth’s son (other than point- the Earl of Southampton’s boat The Prince “...out of 154 sonnets, ing out Shakespeare’s sympathy for bas- (appropriately titled, some might say). At tards and the analogy that the autobio- this meeting were James I, Henry Wriothesley, Horace Vere (Oxford’s cousin), Streitz lists only one— graphical Hamlet was a prince and the son and the Herbert brothers. Publication of of the Queen, ergo…). It is found on p. 270: the First Folio occurred the November after No. 143—that could be this meeting. (p. 241) Now, let us see if the sonnets shed construed as Oxford further light on the two major contentions He repeats this item on p. 289 in his of this book: first, that Henry Wriothesley chronological table “Oxford History.” No was the son of Queen Elizabeth and Edward being the son of the de Vere and, second, that Edward de Vere source is listed, but in all likelihood Streitz was the son of Elizabeth. drew it from A.L. Rowse’s Shakespeare’s Queen. That seems Southampton. On p. 286, Rowse writes: Here Streitz turns to what is arguably rather telling.” the most intensely autobiographical writ- On 14 August Southampton was at ing in the Shakespeare canon. Myriad allu- Beaulieu, requesting a pass for his son, Lord Wriothesley to go to the Low Coun- sions are found which may be interpreted to tries with Sir Horace Vere, with four ser- support the first contention, but out of 154 vants and four horses, and that he might The “Shipwright Phineas Pette” did in- sonnets, Streitz lists only one—No. 143— take leave of the King. It seems that James deed keep the ship’s journal. The full name that could be construed as Oxford being the paid his last visit to Beaulieu this month, of the ship was the Prince Royal, and it son of the Queen. That seems rather telling. with Pembroke and Montgomery in his belonged not to Southampton, but to King This abbreviated and random summary Train as usual. Then they all went on board James. This was the boat upon which he was the Prince at Portsmouth, to pay 6 of some of the faults with Streitz’s book is Southampton’s island-province a visit at making his Progress at that time. Not only not exhaustive and makes no attempt to be. Calshot. does Streitz delegate its ownership to While I have not honed in on the mass of Southampton, he also includes Horace Vere details that must be taken into consider- Rowse’s two footnotes for this informa- as one of the participants at the so-called ation to determine whether Elizabeth Tu- tion cite Cal. S.P. Dom., 1623-1625, 55 and “meeting.” Yet the source mentioning dor had a child by Thomas Seymour in 1548 Nichols’s Progresses [of King James], iv. Horace Vere is completely separate from and whether that child could have been 903. From those sources we see that Rowse that mentioning the Prince, and doesn’t Edward de Vere (there is too huge an amount copied the brief Cal. S.P. Domestic citation necessarily imply Horace Vere was even of raw historical data that is debatable to fill almost verbatim: present. It’s simply a request to the Secre- these pages), I have tried to demonstrate tary of State, Sir Edward Conway (who had that Streitz, in dealing with these difficult Aug. 14. Beaulieu. 104. Earl of served as Francis Vere’s lieutenant-gover- issues and an incomplete historical record, Southampton to Sec. Conway. Requests a nor at Brill), for Southampton’s son to doesn’t seem concerned with accuracy or pass for his son to go into the Low Coun- accompany Horace Vere in the Low Coun- tries with Sir Horace Vere, with four ser- truth in many instances, as long as it propels vants and four horses, and that he may take tries. Had Horace Vere, who was renowned his cause célèbre. Such flaws do not inspire leave of the King. at the time, actually been in attendance, one with confidence or trust in Streitz’s Pette would surely have included him work. Sadly, he seems neither to compre- The entry in Nichols’s Progresses runs among his roster of distinguished names th hend nor simply even to care that publicly thus: that embarked on the 20 . Yet Streitz’s advancing theories posturing as fact can be imagination freely interprets these facts more harmful than beneficial. At this time the King was staying at into something larger and knocks it off as At the very least, as one determined to Beaulieu, the mansion of Henry Wriothesley, some kind of portentous meeting in con- third Earl of Southampton. The 20th of air the theory publicly rather than explore August, says Phineas Pette the Shipwright junction with the publication of the First it through ongoing private research with Folio. in his Diary, “his Majesty, then lying in the (Continued on page 20) Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 20 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002

Wright (continued from page 5) Of course, there are dozens of other egy. In acknowledging that superficial as- Thomas Thorpe (the same man who osten- reasons, much written of elsewhere, to dis- sumptions don’t guide us very reliably sibly had pirated and published Shakspere’s credit the fanciful notion of Shakespeare as when it comes to identifying Elizabethan / Sonnets less than three years earlier!) who author of this miserable poem. A Funeral Jacobean manuscripts, Foster conceded would promptly register it for publication. Elegy not only very poorly compares with that there is a limit to what someone can All other curiosities aside, absent a postal Shakespeare’s mature style (coming, ac- assume about a text’s origins. He stated service, faxes, telephones, good roads, au- cording to Stratfordian chronology, only a that scholars in the future must more care- tomobiles and trains, a rational being can handful of years after his composition of fully consider “how important a close look only be astonished at the pace with which the inimitable Sonnets and during the same at language can be in establishing author- these events took place—so astonished, year that some Stratfordians suggest he ship, rather than depending on title page perhaps, as not to believe them possible. wrote The Tempest). Equally damning of attributions.” The assumption by some Stratfordians the claim that Shakespeare wrote it, in my Finally, of course, we don’t know why that the primacy Shakspere’s placement of appraisal, is the poet’s celebration of the Ford (or, more likely, Thorpe) appended this young man’s death in his renewed expectations for his own youth in this the initials “W.S.” to this poem. Many manu- literary attentions over that of his own wretched doggerel. This is a strange and scripts of dubious origin from the era carry brother might be explained by the poet’s inexplicable attitude to strike many years these initials, and some even bear the name intimate friendship with William Peter— after having mourned in the Sonnets, writ- of “William Shakespeare.” We know that all an intimacy of such degree that, as one ten perhaps more than ten years earlier, of these texts are unlikely to be—in whole Stratfordian has suggested, he may have that even then one could see in him “[t]hat or in part—the work of the writer who been among the first persons away from time of year . . . when yellow leaves, or none, called himself Shakespeare. Maybe now the murder scene to be informed of Will- or few, do hang,” the “twilight of such day some Stratfordians will be less willing to iam Peter’s death. Such a rationalization to as after sunset fadeth in the west” and “the leap in and say these works are account for the rapidity of the composi- glowing of such fire that on the ashes of his Shakespearean merely because a title page tion, transmission and registration of A youth doth lie.” or someone like Donald Foster says so. Funeral Elegy beggars belief. After all, in In any case, the attitude toward the Now we await the embarrassed rush by the Funeral Elegy, the poet praises William authorship of texts that precludes Stratfor- those editors of Shakespeare’s works who Peter as a man who, among his many vir- dian fundamentalists from considering that subscribed to this ludicrous notion regard- tues, has been a husband of “firm affection” the works of Shakespeare just might be by ing the Elegy to disavow their earlier en- for nine years and a father of “careful provi- someone other than Stratford Will thusiasm as they scramble to jettison the dence.” William Peter, however, at the time (“Shakespeare’s name is on the title page, I Elegy from their publications and get into of his murder, had only been married for believe it, and that settles it”) was exploded lifeboats to avoid being sucked down with three years and had no children at all! How by Donald Foster himself in his concession the plunge of this ill-fated vessel, a ship intimate could the relationship between on 20 June to The New York Times that captained by Don Foster that was destined Shakspere and Peter have been? Shakespeare was not the writer of the El- to sink the moment it left harbor.

Book review (continued from page 19) If Oxfordians wish to succeed and domi- 6. In Pepys’s Miscellanies, vol. 5, p. 267 is ‘A List other Oxfordians, Streitz should have em- nate the “Shake-speare” authorship para- of the King’s Ships, Anno 1633; Established ployed a different approach, one that kept digm, it is imperative that there exist some by the Lords of the Council for the measuring the material to a fair level of speculation, understood delineation between the set of His Majesty’s Ships, Whitehall.’ The Prince and one that laid out all the evidence, pro facts that are accepted and defended, and Royal heads the list of 50 ships, weighing in at 1187 tons, length of the keel 115 feet, capac- and con. Unfortunately, as to laying out all budding theories that are not quite Tudor ity of 500 men, and a total of 55 guns. the evidence, there is not a jot of intellec- Roses. ©2002, Christopher Paul tual honesty in Oxford, Son of Queen Eliza- beth I. This failure can only do harm to the References: Advertisement central premise that the author is push- ing—a premise far beyond more conven- 1. HMC Salisbury, Vol. 16, p. 258 - Hatfield 189/ The Real Shakespeare tional explanations of the same set of facts. 147 2. Public Records Office, C142/286/165 In its present form, Oxford, Son of Queen A History changing discovery! Elizabeth I cannot bear up under any kind 3. PRO SP15/39, f. 141; Transcript: Alan Nelson of rigorous critical evaluation. 4. Most Oxfordians are only aware of Baxter’s acrostic poem to Susan Vere in Ourania, in 300 coded signatures in In any future publications on this topic, 300 coded signatures in which it is clear, even there, that her father is Hamlet are absolute proof one has to confront prima facie evidence deceased by Baxter’s use of the word ‘whilom.’ of Ver authorship. that contradicts the Prince Tudor theory in However, this writer will soon be publishing a of Ver authorship. all its protean forms. Any writer who does paper on what else Baxter had to say about Order your copy ($22) of not do so, but sweeps contradictions under Oxford in that work, and its relevance to the The Real Shakespeare the rug as Streitz has, can never hope to Shake-speare authorship question. (1-877-823-9235) 5. Essex Record Office D/DRg2/25; Transcript: ISBN 0-595-19191-6 make a serious impression in the resolu- Alan Nelson tion of the “Shake-speare” mystery. Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 21

A Year in The Life 1580: The year of living dangerously By Hank Whittemore

dward de Vere was just thirty years of their subject during 1580, led him into pursuits. Following is a list of some of some old in 1580, but more than half his the personal crucible from whose fires the events in this “year of living dangerously” Elife had gone by, two-thirds of it world’s greatest tragedies would be born. for Oxford, along with my sporadic com- spent under the sovereign gaze of Eliza- That year “may be said to mark the highest mentary in italics (“Author’s note”) related beth Tudor. As her royal ward and then as point attained by Lord Oxford as a courtier to this hypothesis of his possible intelli- one of her most intimate favorites at Court, and Royal favorite,” writes his first chroni- gence activities. he had supported the Queen amid threats New Year’s Day, 1580: Oxford’s gift to from Spain and the Pope as well as from her Queen Elizabeth was “a fair jewel of gold, own Catholic subjects bent on replacing “...a developing being a ship garnished fully with diamonds, her with Mary Stuart. Now she was alienat- and a mean pearl pendant.” 1 ing many of her own Protestant subjects, hypothesis of this Challenge to Sidney, Jan. 27, 1580: not to mention Puritans, by apparently Oxford and Elizabeth were reported walk- deciding to marry young Alençon of France. column is that Oxford ing together in the orchard of Whitehall Oxford had publicly defended Elizabeth’s Palace at eleven in the morning; and appar- policies along with Lord Burghley and the ently on the same day Oxford challenged Earl of Sussex, in bitter conflict with self- was working on different Philip Sidney in writing to a duel, which the seeking Leicester, whose nephew Philip earl himself declined after Sir Philip had Sidney had joined him in opposition to the levels and in various accepted it. The information is murky, but French match—an alliance that the Queen, it seems Oxford was placed under house despite her gaudy displays of romantic ways in direct association arrest from 29 January to 11 February, passion, undoubtedly intended to keep having been commanded by the Queen to putting off till doomsday. with William Cecil ... keep to his chamber. Sidney, banished from Could it be that Elizabeth would allow Court, retired to Wilton until October.2 a French Catholic anywhere near the throne and Francis Walsingham ... Author’s note: The tennis-court quarrel of England? The betting here is that, no, it had happened in August 1579, so why was all a fantastical act played on the world would Oxford issue such a challenge sev- stage in order to keep the Spanish menace to help gather eral months later? My tentative answer is at bay until England might acquire the that the earl was deliberately making him- intelligence...” self a motley to the view and giving Eliza- military strength to withstand an invasion. beth an excuse to rebuke him—so others Was it merely coincidental that Oxford’s might believe he was on shaky ground in tennis-court quarrel with Sidney the previ- terms of the Queen’s favor. ous August had occurred in full view of the cler, B. M. Ward, in 1928, adding that “be- Spanish Threat: “The year opened full visiting French commissioners, who had fore the end of 1580 he took the first step in of anxiety for Elizabeth. The ostentatious watched this marvelous confrontation from a course of action which—however patri- fitting out of the Spanish fleet, and the the windows of their private galleries? Or otically intended—was destined to de- active support by Spain and the Pope of the was Edward de Vere, a consummate actor throne him from that position of prestige Desmond rebellion, the success of Parma, worthy of the Queen’s own talents, putting and authority which he had occupied at the and the desperate attempts of Orange to on an “antic disposition” that Hamlet would Court” since his emergence at twenty-one reunite Flanders with Holland under have envied? It would seem that both Ox- in 1571. Alençon in the national cause, were all so ford and Elizabeth viewed all England as a It should be noted that a developing many dangers to England. If Elizabeth stage; and who, then or now, might pluck hypothesis of this column is that Oxford offended France or alienated Alençon him- out the heart of either’s mystery? was working on different levels and in self … she would have to face Spain alone.”3 In the year 1580 the current phase of various ways in direct association with Twelfth Night, 1580: A “pleasant con- Oxford’s writing career, which had begun William Cecil, Lord Burghley, and Francis ceit of Vere, Earl of Oxford, discontented at upon his return from Italy in 1576, was Walsingham, Secretary of State, to help the rising of a mean gentleman in the about to become intensely productive gather intelligence—in particular, about English Court, circa 1580”—reportedly through most of this decade that would see the plans and doings of Catholics dedicated cited in Francis Peck’s Desiderata Curiosa England’s victory over Philip’s armada in to overthrowing (and murdering) Eliza- (1732-35) and thought by Clark to be a 1588. Meanwhile the Shakespeare pseud- beth with the help of Spain, with the goal of reference to Malvolio in Twelfth Night as a onym was still thirteen years away, not to liberating Mary Queen of Scots and install- caricature of Sir Christopher Hatton. appear until 1593, when yet another de- ing her as Mary II of England. In this effort, Merchant of Venice, Feb. 2, 1580: cade of labor with his pen would follow. the evidence would seem to show, Oxford “The history of Portio and demorantes was Biographers of Oxford are faced with try- was also playing a variety of public roles to shewn at Whitehall … enacted by the Lord ing to comprehend what exactly, in the life throw others off the track of his serious (Continued on page 22) Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 22 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002

Whittemore (continued from page 21) ert Parsons, arrived in England under papal study men and governments. … Grave with Chamberleyns servants” was a recorded instructions from Rome … to pretend loy- that gravity peculiar to lay preachers, well- reference to actors patronized by Sussex alty until such time as military action took informed on every subject, even on his own and, in the view of Mrs. Clark, an early the place of peaceful penetration. The Pope merits, assured by his conscience that in version of The Merchant of Venice. was openly at war with England; Campion making mankind sharer in his illumina- Antony and Cleopatra, 1580: tion, he will assure their salvation, he ad- Antony and Cleopatra, 1580: Clark and Parsons were working hard to enlist dresses moral epistles to his fellow men to also dates this play to about now, believing recruits.” In July the Queen “issued a proc- guide them through life. Omniscient … he Oxford wrote it to commemorate Alençon’s lamation appealing to her subjects to stand instructs the world in the truth about visit the previous August—a chance to por- fast” and the Privy Council began “a policy marriage, travel, religion. … When women tray the Queen in terms of her charms and of increased severity towards the are his subject he is especially earnest and flirtations, as well as to depict her outbursts recusants,”7 who adds that Elizabeth acqui- eloquent, and having, as it seems, suffered of rage and other aspects, not to mention esced the following year.) Burghley and much at their hands, he concludes: “Come her ability to lie shamelessly and without Walsingham stepped up measures to place to me all ye lovers that have been delivered hesitation. potential leaders of any Catholic rebellion by fancy, the glass of pestilence, or deluded Earthquake, April 6, 1580: “Wednes- under surveillance. by women, the gate to perdition; be as earnest to seek a medicine as you were eager day in Easter week, about six of the clock Euphues and his England, 1580: to run into a mischief.”9 towards evening, a sudden earthquake hap- John Lyly, protégé of Burghley and Edward pening in London and almost generally de Vere’s personal secretary, dedicated this Not to be ignored in Euphues His throughout England, caused such novel to Oxford by referring to Euphues, England was Queen Elizabeth: amazedness of the people as was wonderful The Anatomy of Wit, of the previous year: for that time, and caused them to make 4 Here, Ladies, is a Glass for all Princes to earnest prayers unto Almighty God.” My first burden coming before his time, behold … As this noble Prince is endowed Oxford’s Players, April 12: By now must needs be a blind whelp, the second with mercy, patience and moderation, so is Warwick’s men had transferred into brought forth after his time must needs be she adorned with singular beauty and chas- Oxford’s service and the Lord Mayor com- a monster, the one I sent to a noble man to tity, excelling in the one Venus, in the other plained about a disorder at the “Theatre.” nurse, who with great love brought him up, Vesta … who by the space of twenty and odd for a year: so that wheresoever he wander, years with continual peace against all poli- Next day the Privy Council committed some he hath his Nurse’s name in his forehead, of Oxford’s actors to the Marshalsea for cies, with sundry miracles, contrary to all where sucking his first milk, he cannot hope, hath governed that noble Island. involvement in a fray at the Inns of Court. forget his first Master. The other (right In June both Burghley and Sussex recom- Against whom neither foreign force, nor Honourable) being but yet in his swath civil fraud, neither discord at home, nor mended to Vice Chancellor John Hatcher of clothes, that in his infancy he may be kept conspiracies abroad, could prevail … O Cambridge that Oxford’s men be allowed by your good care from falls, and in his blessed peace, oh happy Prince, O fortunate to “show their cunning in several plays youth by your great countenance shielded 8 people: The living God is only the English already practiced by them before the from blows…” [modern English by au- God, where he hath placed peace, which Queen’s Majesty,” as Hatcher wrote by way thor, HW] bringeth all plenty, anointed a Virgin Queen of advising against it.5 This is “the first … the Goddess of Beauty …10 evidence we have that the Earl of Oxford These extraordinarily popular ro- had become the patron of a troupe of ac- mances represented the birth of the mod- Author’s note: Part of the working hypoth- tors,” Clark writes. “Hitherto, his plays ern English novel. Aimed at the Court and esis of this column is that Oxford was seem always to have been produced by the the universities, but expressly dedicated deliberately fostering the image of himself “to the Ladies and Gentlewomen of En- as the quintessential “Italianate English- Lord Chamberlain’s Company or the Paul’s man” who was quite taken with himself Boys, the former under the patronage of the gland,” they were “mainly pretexts for so- phisticated discussion of contemporary and his fancy clothing and so forth—an Earl of Sussex, his great friend, and the aspect of his volatile “antic disposition” to latter made up from the choir-boys of St. manners and modes in a style whose grace- distract others from considering that he Paul’s Cathedral, probably under the pa- ful ornateness is really an end in itself,” the might be playing an important Secret Ser- tronage of the Queen.”6 Bloomsbury editors write. But Jusserand vice role in terms of gathering intelligence Author’s note: It would appear that the declares, on the other hand: at extremely high levels of the Elizabethan importance of the Chamberlain’s Men under nobility. This is not to propose that he was Sussex during the 1570s up to his death in From the time of Lyly until our own day, a “spy” in the ordinary sense, but that he 1583 cannot be overestimated; and that the the English novel generally speaking has was working on behalf of the policies being Queen regarded Oxford’s plays as essential remained … a moralizing agent; the author pursued by both Burghley and Walsingham; aspects of the royal entertainment pro- has recourse to a thousand skillful and and that he was carving out for himself a vided for the visiting French entourage. In fascinating devices, and leads us by the hand multifaceted role that included recreating addition, when the Egyptian queen came through all sorts of flowery paths; but England’s royal history on the stage as well on the court stage, the image was every bit whatever the manner may be, he almost as working with other writers who were as powerful as the sight of Elizabeth herself invariably, without saying so, leads us to the genuine, government-paid spies. on progress or aboard her royal barge; and sermon. reports of the English monarch as Cleopatra Harvey on Oxford, Summer 15801580: would speed to France and the other Euro- Euphues is a young contemporary Edmund Spenser had written to Gabriel pean courts. Athenian who Harvey about the earthquake, adding he Jesuit Threat, June 1580: “Two Jesu- had received Harvey’s “English hexameters” its in disguise, Edmund Campion and Rob- goes to Naples, thence to England, to and liked them “exceedingly well.” Harvey Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 23 now replied with a “learned judgment of England’s unofficial Secret Service under Author’s note: Was this more of the antic earthquakes” and added some poems, Burghley and Walsingham? In fact, even disposition? Drake’s triumphant return among them Speculum Tuscanismi, a cari- when Oxford himself would be publicly was more than the successful conclusion of cature of Oxford, which included these humiliated by the Queen’s banishment of a miraculous voyage (akin to the moon telling lines: him from Court, Munday would continue landing by the U.S. in 1969); in fact it to enjoy the royal favor and patronage, represented one of Elizabeth’s most mighty becoming a Messenger of the Chamber. In acts in defiance of Spain and the Pope. As Not the like discourser for Tongue, and the years to come, the writers in Oxford’s Trevelyan writes in 1933: “The situation head to be found out, circle would include other known spies, (internationally) reached its crisis over Not the like resolute man for great and including Christopher Marlowe and his Drake’s voyage round the world … the serious affairs, friend Thomas Watson. greatest piratical expedition in history. Not the like Lynx to spy out secrets and Vavasour’s Pregnancy, July 1580: ‘Drake!’ she exclaimed. ‘So it is that I would privities of States…11 Anne Vavasour would have conceived gladly be revenged on the King of Spain for 16 Oxford’s illegitimate son around now, given divers injuries that I have received!’” Author’s note: In other parts of his Oxford’s Treason Charges, December hexameters, Harvey depicted Oxford as the that Edward Vere or Veere would be born Italianate Englishman (in other words, as the following March. One may marvel that 1580: Oxford charged his Catholic associ- Euphues himself), but in the lines above he this Maid of Honor to the Queen was able ates Henry Howard, Charles Arundel and was clearly informing Spenser that the concealed her pregnancy until then, but Francis Southampton, with treasonous earl, while undoubtedly sincere in his Re- apparently she did so; and we might also plans involving Spain and the Pope—to be naissance spirit, was broadcasting his own marvel at the fact that she was related to taken up in our next column, which will eccentric personality in order to accom- Oxford’s Catholic relatives who, even now, deal with 1581 because its events follow so plish much more than that in the way of were colluding with Spain to plan their acts closely from this explosive episode. To “great and serious” matters. of high treason. what extend had Oxford shared the reli- Drake’s Return, September 1580: gious and/or political views of Howard, Zelauto, the Fountain of Fame … Zelauto, the Fountain of Fame … “About that time returned into England brother of the late Duke of Norfolk? Had given for a friendly entertainment to given for a friendly entertainment to Francis Drake, flowing with great wealth, Oxford actually been spying out the secrets Euphues, at his late arrival into En- Euphues, at his late arrival into En- and flourishing with greater glory, having of his erstwhile friends? Had he been car- gland, 1580: Anthony Munday, the anti- gland, 1580: prosperously sailed round about the world rying on with them, in private, to the point Catholic English spy and “Servant to the …in the space of three years or thereabouts, where they believed he shared their goals Right Honourable the Earl of Oxenford,” to the great admiration of all men. … The and finally dropped their guard, telling dedicated this novel to Edward de Vere: Queen received him graciously, and laid up him their secrets? To what shall we at- his wealth by way of sequestration. … His tribute Elizabeth’s subsequent wrath So my simple self (Right Honourable) against Edward de Vere and her banish- having sufficiently seen the rare virtues of ship she caused to be drawn up into a little creek near Depford upon the Thames … ment of him from Court? Was she, too, your noble mind, the heroical qualities of playing a role, perhaps to give him a cover? your prudent person. … Yet thus much I and in it being consecrated for a memorial am to assure your Honour, that among all with great ceremony, she was banqueted, To what extent have we, as Oxfordians, the brave books which have been bestowed, and honored Drake with the dignity of tended to view Edward de Vere as “outside these my little labours contain so much Knighthood.”14 the box” or removed from the central faithful zeal to your welfare as others what- policymaking of the Elizabethan reign and soever, I speak without any exception…. Then came the Lord Chamberlain with its implementation? Might it not be time to his white staff, throw off the shackles of Stratfordian con- Munday had gone into Oxford’s service And all the people began to laugh; ceptions about the man who was “Shake- at the very time he was also gathering And then the Queen began to speak, speare” and begin to view him, beyond the intelligence against Catholics for Burghley “You’re welcome home, Sir Francis writings he has left us, as a central mover Drake.” and shaper of his age? and Walsingham. In the previous year (Elizabethan Lyrics, Ault, 104) Munday had enrolled at the English Col- Written suggestions to Shakespeare lege in Rome, under an alias, and from Matters are welcome. The author would be Eva Turner Clark, citing Albert glad to discuss his evolving hypothesis of there he had gone to Paris and Rheims as an Feuillerat about Oxford as an actor, specu- informer.12 It was Munday who had “suc- Oxford’s possible intelligence role with all lates that people would have “recognized comers (email: [email protected]). cessfully induced Campion to return to Oxford as a comedian who had given them England, duping him into a sham con- 13 much pleasure.” She also notes, “The References: spiracy,” write Phillips and Keatman, question forces itself upon us: Why should adding that Campion walked right into a the people laugh at the Lord Chamberlain? 1. Ogburn, Jr. Charlton. The Mysterious William trap that had been laid for him. (They also … In 1580 the person holding the honor of Shakespeare (MacLean, VA. : EPM Publi- add that, upon Campion’s hanging in 1581, Lord Chamberlain … (was) Sussex, a seri- cations, 1992) 632 (Citing Cooper, Charles Munday “attended the execution, gleefully ous and dignified man, about fifty-five years H. Athenae Cantagrigienses. Cambridge, writing up the event in his diary.”) Deighton Bell, 1861, II, p. 360) of age, so it seems unlikely that there would 2. Christopher Paul supplied evidence from the Author’s note: It would seem that Harvey’s be any occasion to laugh at him. There cryptic description of Oxford’s ability “to Historical MSS Commission 58 – Bath spy out secrets and privities of States” was remains to be considered the incumbent of Longleat MSS., Vol. IV – Seymour Papers, 186, from Hertford’s diary about Oxford accurate. How could Oxford not have that other office with a similar title—Lord Great Chamberlain of England.”15 walking in the orchard with Elizabeth; There known all about Munday’s operations for (Continued on page 27) Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 24 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002

Paradigm Shift By Mark K.Anderson Richard Roe on Shakespeare in Italy

Like Kurt Vonnegut and Joseph Heller be- Richard Roe: I’d long sensed the enor- kings in Sicily were always called castles. fore him, Richard Roe was a World War II mous preoccupation the playwright had There was only one palace, and that was the airman who converted his wartime experi- with Italy. As a result, I thought it was Norman palace in Palermo. ence into peacetime literature. Unlike the downright peculiar that the whole subject A messenger appears at the palace and two American novelists, however, Roe was avoided by the orthodox Shake- tells the king that the two nobles have works in nonfiction. speareans. They were ridiculing this knowl- returned from Delphi, and they are “post- He’s now finishing a project that could edge. I began to become a little bit angry ing” on their way. [Winter’s Tale 2.3.193- rank among such landmarks of Shake- 207] But I said to myself, “Why in the speare scholarship —orthodox or oth- devil would they be posting?” The har- erwise—as Charlton Ogburn’s The bor in Palermo is a thousand meters Mysterious William Shakespeare, from the door of the Norman palace. Roger Stritmatter’s de Vere Bible They could have stopped for a pizza studies and Geoffrey Bullough’s Nar- and a bottle of wine and still beat the rative and Dramatic Sources of Shake- messenger. I decided I would look into speare. Stationed in Italy during the where on earth they would have landed war, Roe fell in love with the land he (see the map on page 25 to follow their was fighting to liberate. He also found route). himself engaged in a hunt that gener- There are many yachtsmen’s rules ates more heat than light from ortho- on why you don’t go north through the dox scholars: The loaded question of Straits of Messina even today. It’s very Shakespeare’s knowledge of Italy. dangerous. Treacherous seas, treach- While Roe was hardly the first to un- erous winds. And in those days they dertake such a task—his predecessors had Scylla and Charybdis flanking the include Ernesto Grillo, Karl Elze and Strait of Messina. Moreover, a sailor I Georges Lambin—his novel approach met in Messina pointed out to me that mirrored J. Thomas Looney’s. He you could go along the southern coast treated the Shakespeare canon as a of Sicily because it’s like a river. It forensic database, never once worry- flows at four knots from east to west. ing about retrofitting the author’s So you could get clear around to the knowledge to a plausible Italian itin- western shore of Sicily without even erary. The Shakespeare he studied, having any winds. So they’ve landed at Roe quickly discovered, was an expe- Trápani. They didn’t land at Palermo at rienced Italian traveler with many all, and that’s why they’re posting. months of explorations across the pen- Richard Roe, author of the forthcoming book Shakespeare In Now there’s a very brief scene that insula stashed away in his memory and Italy: Secret of the Centuries. (Photo by Mark K. Anderson) is usually ignored in productions of notes. The Winter’s Tale in which you’ve got For the past ten years, Roe has trav- these two nobles, Cleomenes and Dion, eled throughout Italy, delving into archives, with that simply because I had enough on their way to Palermo. We know that interviewing local historians and conduct- experience in Italy to know that these people they’re posting [i.e. changing horses] be- ing as extensive a study of Shakespeare’s doing the ridiculing didn’t know anything cause their last remark in the scene is, “Go; Italy as has ever been done. He hopes to about Italy. I had been in Sicily. And I’d had fresh horses!” So where would they be? complete his book Shakespeare in Italy: an occasion in Sicily where I was startled at Trápani was 90 kilometers from Palermo, Secret of the Centuries by November. Ex- how intimately the playwright knew Sicily. and a Sicilian horse was good for about 30 pect it to be a must-have for any Oxfordian— SM: What was it? kilometers. So they’d either be stopping 30 and, one would hope, Stratfordian—book- R.R: In The Winter’s Tale, two nobles kilometers east of Trápani or 60 kilometers shelf by the end of 2003 or early 2004. have gone to ask the Oracle at Delphi east of Trápani. I spoke with Roe at the Sixth Annual De whether or not Hermione has been a faith- And here’s where the playwright fakes Vere Studies Conference in Portland, Or- ful wife. And they return in a very peculiar people out. egon, in April. way from the Oracle back to Sicily. They’re going to Palermo—because it’s the only Cleomenes: Shakespeare Matters: What first inspired place in Sicily that had a royal palace; all the The climate’s delicate, the air most you to investigate Shakespeare and Italy? other buildings which were occupied by sweet, Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 25

Fertile the isle, the temple much surpassing The common praise it bears. (3.1.1-3)

Cleomenes is talking in the present tense — although he’s always construed to be talking in the past tense [i.e. about Delphi]. He says, “Fertile the isle.” He’s talking about Sicily. We know Delphi isn’t an island, and it isn’t fertile. And here he’s given us a clue. Cleomenes says that the temple surpasses its reputation for beauty. And is there a temple? There is. It is beautiful, and it is stunning. And it stands by itself at the first of the two postings [between Trápani and Palermo]. If you look down the road to where the posting station would be, right up there on the rise is this exquisite temple. Map of Sicily, detailing the route that the servants Cleomenes and Dion took in The This guy knew Sicily like the back of his Winter’s Tale, as they returned from Delphi. (NASA satellite image) hand. SM: Shakespeare’s knowledge of the biggest goosebumps anybody could nections are we talking about here? Venice is something that has been given ever get. Then I said to myself, well, maybe RR: When I was about a third of a way a lot of attention over the years. How it’s a kind of a general remark. So I asked the into the manuscript, I made a checklist, and about his knowledge of other northern taxi driver to take me all around the city I counted 78 instances. But now the number Italian cities, such as Verona or Mantua? wall of Verona. Today the sycamores are is out of control. RR: I’ve written three chapters about spread up towards the north and towards SM: How did Shakespeare actually the playwright’s knowledge of Venice, the river. But essentially they were always use his knowledge of Italy? which is constantly startling. As for Verona, on the western side and nowhere else. RR: This is the ultimate question. I can that was the first place I returned to after I That was my second experience. The only give you some ingredients and try to had my tour of duty and gone to law school. first one was in the ultimate southern end draw a conclusion. The plays, as the her- I returned to Verona because of the ease and of Italy. And this was up in the north. etics have suggested, were first performed simplicity of remembering the lines of SM: He seems to know the whole before the Royal court or in front of a group Romeo and Juliet. I’ll tell you about one breadth of Italy. What were some of the of noblemen at a party or some such occa- thing. It was what turned me completely on more revealing connections that you sion. In those environments, he may have to the need to examine the Italian plays. I later found? well wanted to impart a very clever knowl- thought it might help to draw a profile of RR: One of the ones I stumbled across edge of Italy so that they would recognize this playwright, whoever he was, because of that really startled me was the act in All’s his erudition, and in fact he could make the constant assertion that Shakespeare Well That Ends Well where Bertram is them laugh. So they could say, “Oh, I re- was ignorant about Italy. When I arrived in returning to Florence from his victory in member that!” Verona, I steeled my nerves, because either Siena. And the topography of Florence is Here’s the thing. In no case, outside of my project would be a fool’s errand, or it described in startlingly precise and accu- mentioning the Rialto in Merchant of Venice, would be justified. rate terms. But you’ve really got to spend does this author refer to tourist attractions. In Romeo and Juliet, when the brawl is some time in Florence with maps and inter- He doesn’t write a travelogue. In each place, over in the first act, Romeo’s mother is viewing historians. It’s a difficult thing to he is describing something so obscure, off talking to her nephew. She asks him if he describe in an interview. the wall, peculiar that a tourist would not knows where her son is. Her nephew says he SM: Many Stratfordians, of course, even pay any attention to it. He’s giving you saw Romeo earlier this morning in a sy- claim that Shakespeare also got many what I have come to believe is his personal, camore grove. The way it’s described is very things about Italy wrong. Have you direct knowledge of his experiences in specific. He said he saw Romeo among the found any instance where this was so? Italy. That isn’t the kind of thing that some- sycamores that “westward rooteth from RR: Never. None. They are the ones who body would mention that they came home this city side.” [1.2.122] are ignorant, in every instance. I’ve cata- from a trip or mention in a pub over a Now that wall was the same wall that’s logued all the critiques made from the 19th tankard of ale. This stuff is so peculiar and there today. It was built in the early 16th and 20th centuries—and all they’re doing so bizarre. It’s also spread over all of Italy century or the late 15th. So I stepped out of today on the Internet is repeating the same and Sicily—except for two places. my hotel and got in the taxi. I told the taxi old stories. On all occasions, the whole There is no real intimate geography of driver to take me outside of the western treatment of Shakespeare’s [ignorance] of Rome in the Roman plays, and there is no wall of the city of Verona. Italy is wrong. real intimate knowledge of the mainland And the sycamores are still there! I got SM: How many specific Italian con- (Continued on page 28)

Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 26 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002

Confidential Video Bard Midsummer Night’s Dream revisited By Chuck Berney he Spring 2001 issue of the Shake A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Mechanicals leave. An umbrella ascends speare Oxford Newsletter carried the Cut to the Boy walking down a long, above the clouds, then descends. The handle Tfirst Video Bard column, in which I narrow hall, passing a statue of a faun. His is grasped—we see it is Puck, floating in the reviewed five productions of A Midsummer way is blocked by a pair of large doors. He air, the umbrella a parachute. Another Night’s Dream, including a 1968 version puts his eye to the keyhole and sees Theseus umbrella appears, bearing a Fairy; she and based on the Royal Shakespeare Company’s talking to Hippolyta: “Now, fair Hippolyta, Puck do an abridged version of 2.1 (“How production, directed by Peter Hall. Some now, spirit, whither wander you?”). On time after this column came out, I received “She never had so sweet a changeling,” the an e-mail from Shakespeare Fellowship “If [the plays] are Boy watches as Puck plucks a drop from the member Christopher Paul, pointing out umbrella and inflates it to a large bubble, that I had missed a more recent version of adapted for video in which is seen the turbaned face of the Dream which was his personal favorite. changeling (it is, of course, the Boy’s face). I was able to find it in a local video outlet. On the Fairy’s line (“And here my mistress. It is dated 1996, and is again based on a ... by photographing Would that he were gone”), the Boy blows production by the Royal Shakespeare a stream of bubbles into the miniature Company, this time under the direction of actors in realistic theatre. As they descend we see that each Adrian Noble. bubble contains a fairy, the largest bearing In the last issue of Shakespeare Matters surroundings ... [they] Titania (a reference to the arrival of Glinda I reviewed three videos of As You Like It, the Good in The Wizard of Oz; this will not and commented on the difficulties of be the last reference to that magical film). finding a visual style appropriate for the can seem talky and The scene is now a stage, stretching to presentation of Shakespearean plays on infinity, with hanging colored lights sug- video. The plays were written for the stage, unconvincing ...” gesting both foliage and stars. Titania ac- where the palpable presence of living cuses Oberon of dallying with Hippolyta (“. actors (and their interaction with the audi- . . the bouncing Amazon, your buskin’d ence) is an essential part of the experience. our nuptual hour draws on apace. . . .” The mistress, and your warrior love . . .”), to If they are adapted for video simply by play proper has begun. which he replies “I know of thy love for photographing actors in realistic surround- First point: the director has made it Theseus” (thus the text hints that Titania ings (as so many of the BBC versions do) the clear that this is the Boy’s dream, that the and Hippolyta are interchangeable, as are plays can seem talky and unconvincing, the things we see will be governed by the laws Oberon and Theseus). When Oberon snarls heightened language inappropriate and of dreams, not by the everyday laws of cause “I’ll make her render up her page to me” the abnormal. and effect (for example, we don’t see the Boy gasps, strengthening the identifica- I agree with Christopher Paul that the Boy open the doors and hide under the tion of the Boy as changeling. Adrian Noble production is the best Dream table—he simply is under the table). Sec- Oberon’s speech, “I know a bank of the lot—it’s the only one I’ve seen that ond point: the Boy is a surrogate audience; where the wild thyme blows,” is delivered seems magical. This version follows a in every scene there are insert shots of the with his face (and Puck’s) thrust into the 1994 stage production, so the actors have Boy’s reaction—amusement, puzzlement, front of a miniature theatre, while the Boy thoroughly mastered the rhythms and sympathy, fear. Our reactions to scenes are looks in from the back. All three appear to nuances of their lines, and Noble has governed (to some extent) not by their be normal size, in contrast to the bubble- reworked the material extensively for video credibility, but by their effect on the Boy. borne entrance of Titania and the fairy presentation. I believe he was consciously At the end of the scene between Lysander, band, when they were all small enough to aware of the problems mentioned above, so Hermia and Helena (1.1), Helena runs out fit inside the toy stage. When Oberon I am going to describe his treatment in of the room. The Boy follows her, and finds mentions a “sweet Athenian lady,” the Boy some detail. himself falling through a black void (we get moves a miniature female figure forward The camera is floating above a a shot of the Boy in bed calling “Mommy!”). onto the stage. On Puck’s line, “Fear not my cloudscape; far below, one sees a lighted The black void gradually defines itself as a lord! Your servant shall do so,” Puck and window. We cut to the window and glide tube, and the Boy lands with a thump in a Oberon grasp umbrella handles and are into the room. It is a child’s room; as the potbellied stove located in a crude shack. It wafted skyward; the camera pulls back to camera pans we see toys—a teddy bear, a is raining outside, and the Mechanicals show they are suspended by marionette miniature theatre, a rabbit figure, a clown. enter, shaking out their umbrellas, accom- strings which the Boy is lifting—another We pan to the Boy, asleep, with his panied by a rustic gavotte on the trombone. dazzling change of scale. arm across an illustrated edition of At the conclusion of scene two the The action has moved from a realistic Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 27 representation of a boy’s bedroom to a Cowardly Lion (Snug the Joiner appears in Whittemore (continued from page 23) mostly realistic 18th century drawing room lion costume in this Dream sequence). is also information on Alan Nelson’s website to a semi-realistic shack, and finally has Personnel. Alex Jennings displays a la- (http://violet.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/) about Oxford’s challenge to Sidney and his subse- transcended reality altogether by showing ser-like intensity as Oberon/Theseus, and quent house arrest, which may or may not only stages—miniature and infinite. The Lindsay Duncan is serenely voluptuous as have been related. director has seized every opportunity to Titania/Hippolyta (she won a Tony for her 3. Hume, Martin. The Great Lord Burghley show us that what we are seeing is not real, work in Private Lives). We commented (London : J. Nesbit, 1898) 335, as cited in: Clark, Eva Turner. Hidden Allusions in but magical. above on the textual hint that these perso- Shakespeare’s Plays (Jennings, LA : Minos In the last newsletter, the Video Bard nas are blurred; the actors support this by Publishing, 1974) 358-63 made a conjecture: “When several video playing the two roles in exactly the same 4. Stow, John. Annales. (London, 1631) 689. versions of a Shakespeare comedy are avail- way, leading to a little joke at the end: after 5. Chambers, E. K. The Elizabethan Stage. (Ox- able, the most entertaining version will be the performance of “Pyramus and Thisbe” ford : Clarendon Press, 1923) II, 100 6. Clark, Eva Turner. Hidden Allusions in based on a stage production.” The video Hippolyta congratulates the players; when Shakespeare’s Plays (Jennings, LA : Minos reviewed here provides further support for she comes to Bottom there is a start of Publishing, 1974) 362-363. this conjecture. Further, we discussed the mutual recognition (though of course it 7. Read, Conyers. Lord Burghley and Queen necessity of guiding the viewer away from was Bottom and Titania who had the roll in Elizabeth (New York : A. Knopf, 1960) 244- 248. “normal,” realistic expectations to a men- the hay). Desmond Barrit is the most lov- 8. Arber, Edward (ed.): English Reprints tal model appropriate for the stage. The able Bottom of any production I’ve seen. (Euphues). (London : Alex Murray & Sons, director of this production, as discussed The Boy is sympathetically played by 1868) 214-215. above, has done that most brilliantly. Osheen Jones. 9. Jusserand, J.J. The English Novel in the Time Doubling. It is fairly common for the The Director. Adrian Noble recently of Shakespeare (New York : G.P. Putnam, 1890) 103-142 actors playing Oberon and Titania to double resigned as Artistic Director of the Royal 10. Arber, op. cit., 454-458. as Theseus and Hippolyta, as they do in this Shakespeare Company, possibly over con- 11. Grosart, A. B.: The Works of Gabriel Harvey production. Less common is having the troversy associated with his proposal that (London, 1884) vol. 1, 83-86. (also cited in actor playing Puck (Oberon’s assistant) the existing Shakespeare theatre at Strat- Ward, B. M. The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford (London : John Murray, 1928) 189) double as Philostrate (Theseus’s assistant); ford-upon-Avon be torn down (how’s that 12. Nicholl, Charles. The Reckoning. (Chicago : both parts are played here by Barry Lynch for symbolizing the Paradigm Shift?). University of Chicago Press, 1992) 174 with sly knowingness. An even bolder I have barely scratched the surface in 13. Phillips, Graham & Keatman, Martin. The stroke is having the Mechanicals (Snout, describing the fantastic weave of Shakespeare Conspiracy (London : Arrow Starveling, Quince and Flute) double as the Shakespearean text, cultural references and Books, 1994) p. 149 14. Camden, William. Annales, 1625 (Internet: Fairies (Moth, Cobweb, Mustardseed and beautiful images in this amazing video. http://eee.uci.edu/~papyri/camden/ Peaseblossom), reminding us that in The Noble is one of our most imaginative direc- 1580e.html) Wizard of Oz, the Kansas Mechanicals tors—he is a national treasure, and after his 15. Clark, op cit., 361 (Hunk, Hickory and Zeke) reappear in Oz as resignation will surely land on his feet. But 16. Trevelyann, George MacCaulay, History of England (London : Longmans, Green and Co., the Scarecrow, the Tin Woodman, and the will the Royal Shakespeare Company? 1926, 1933) 351 Subscribe to Shakespeare Matters

Name:______Regular member: e-member ($15/year) ______Address:______(Website; online newsletter) One year ($30/$40 overseas) ______Two year ($55/$75 overseas) ______City:______State:______ZIP:______Three year ($80/$110 overseas) ______

Phone:______email:______Family/Institution: One year ($45/$55 overseas) ______Two year ($85/$105 overseas) ______Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____ Three years ($125/$150 os) ______

Name on card:______Patron ($75/year or over): ______

Card number:______Special offer for new subscribers: Bible dissertation ($45) ______P&H for Bible ($5) ______Signature:______Total: ______Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478 Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 28 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002

Anderson (continued from page 25) the Archbishop of Pisa persuaded the sail- Letters (continued from page 3) kingdom of Naples. He has hopped over, ors when they dropped off their pilgrims in are from the same historical source as the I’ve concluded, the papal states and Naples. the holy land—and they’re returning “Masters of Artes” quote that also uses an- And every Italian event alluded to in the empty—to go up on Mt. Calvary and bring tique spelling. If this were true, the only plays that I’ve found occurred prior to home some of the earth. Some of that earth cited source that fits is the cite to John 1580. might contain drops of the blood of Christ. Nichols from 1823. SM: Some fiction writers today pains- This became a very big deal. And it took a But I doubt that Nichols said that Ox- takingly labor over staying true to pre- number of years. But they brought home ford was “the poet-dramatist to become cise details in their works. With intimate enough earth from the mount to spread out ‘Shakespeare’ in 1593” since if this were detail, I think they’d argue, comes inti- two or three feet thick and fill the inside of true, such a statement in 1823 would be prime evidence for the Oxford cause and we mate art. the cathedral. A wall was built around it. So would all know about it. Thus, I doubt that RR: It may have been like a crutch. For if you had the incredible privilege of being the indented paragraphs are quoted from example mystery writers either write about buried in the very earth on which Christ had any historical source even though the use of a city which they have great familiarity, or bled, you’d probably shoot straight to the Latin terminology tends to give that they diagram an imaginary city, and they heaven without any purgatory. impression. keep a map on their desk, so that readers Needless to say, that wasn’t for every- In this era when so many authors are can’t attack them for sending one of their body. You had to be on the inside track with being accused of failing to properly cite characters down the wrong street. the Archbishop. You had to be a pretty sources (Stephen Ambrose most promi- SM: Did you find any good jokes? important guy to get buried inside the nently), advocates of a controversial posi- RR: In The Taming of the Shrew, he “campo sacro.” tion must be especially careful to cite accu- makes a joke about Pisa. It’s a pun. But it’s SM: So the joke is: Pisa, renowned rately, because unclear citations (or lack of been misinterpreted by the critics. And I for its grave citizens. citations) will be seized on by opponents to know he loves the joke, because he tells it RR: Yes. It’s a pun. He’s talking about the discredit the entire argument. twice. He says, “Pisa, renowned for its grave campo sacro. This guy’s a real devil. He’s citizens.” doing this to you all the time. Edward Sisson Now anyone will tell you the Pisans are Chevy Chase, Maryland really quite solemn. When you consider the 5 June 2002 effusiveness of most Italians, the Pisans are Visit the Shakespeare Editors: We thank Mr. Sisson for his remarks, very staid and reserved. And that was a good and must acknowledge that he was not alone in enough explanation for several years. Fellowship on the Internet being somewhat confused by the comments that But then I decided I would branch out and appeared next to the Latinized names of those http://www.shakespearefellowship.org see more than just the Leaning Tower and who received degrees at Cambridge in 1564. spend some more time in the cathedral. Featuring a Discussion Forum These comments came from the author, not Now against one side of the cathedral is a and the Virtual Classroom, plus from Nichols, and in hindsight they should have big wall. And inside the walled area is an current news, calendar, and been italicized and clearly labeled as comments, enormous and elaborate graveyard. other exciting resources not cited text. What happened during the Crusades is

Inside this issue: Shakespeare Matters The Voice of the Shakespeare Fellowship Swan song for Elegy - page 1 P. O. Box 263 Elegy commentary - page 5 Somerville MA 02143 Address correction requested “Ye plague” - not how Oxford died - page 1 Book review - page 17 Year in the Life: “Year of living dangerously” - page 21 Paradigm Shift: Interview with Richard Roe - page 24 Confidential Video Bard - page 26 Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent)