The Shakespeare Oxford O Newsletter Vol. 53, No. 1 Published by the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship Winter 2017 The Mystery of Emaricdulfe by Gary L. Livacari, D.D.S. I am grateful to the late Joseph Sobran for introducing me written extensively about Shakespeare’s sonnets in his to the Shakespeare authorship controversy in the 1997 book Alias Shakespeare, Sobran immediately noticed mid-1980s. At the time Sobran was a political columnist “an abundance of Shakespearean touches and verbal for National Review magazine. On frequent occasions he parallels, including similarities in style, themes, and would digress from his normal political commentary to details,” adding: write passionately about an Elizabethan nobleman named Edward de Vere, whom he believed was the author of the About an hour with the 40 sonnets was enough to Shakespeare canon, writing under the pseudonym convince me that Shakespeare—that is, Oxford—had “William Shakespeare.” He rejected the conventional indeed written them. I was amazed, ecstatic. The more wisdom that assigned authorship to the man from I studied the poems, the more Shakespearean parallels Stratford, often dismissing him derogatorily as I found. Eventually I identified more than 200—five “Shaksper.” per sonnet, or one every three lines! Even the In 1994 Sobran left National Review and started his dedication has echoes of the dedications of Venus and own newsletter, Sobran’s. He continued his digressions Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece. Whoever wrote the into the Shakespeare controversy, now with more Shakespeare canon wrote these sonnets. And it could frequency and conviction, and often used his newsletter as hardly be the man from Stratford. Of Oxford we know a vehicle to showcase his original research. Sobran’s had a that he had a towering literary reputation in his own small circulation, so many of his contributions went day. Edmund Spenser was one of many who praised unnoticed by Oxfordians. In the January 1998 issue he him lavishly, and also that he thought it vulgar for a announced what he considered a major discovery: “I’ve gentleman to publish his work under his own name. uncovered a previously neglected work by the man who was Shakespeare. Moreover, it tends strongly to confirm The forty sonnets comprising Emaricdulfe can be that he was actually, viewed at this link: as I tirelessly http://www.luminarium.org/renascence-editions/ contend, Edward de Emaricdulfe.html. Vere, Earl of Two copies of the original text exist, one at the Oxford.” Huntington Library and the other, in very fragile While browsing condition, at the Folger Shakespeare Library. Interestingly, through an the Folger copy is found bound with three other known Elizabethan-era works of Shakespeare: The Passionate Pilgrim, The Rape poetry anthology, of Lucrece, and Venus and Adonis, implying common Sobran stumbled authorship. The theme of Emaricdulfe is that of a upon an anonymous nobleman’s love for a beautiful lady of the court and his collection of forty lamentations over his failure to win her love. The lady is sonnets. These identified only by the coded name Emaricdulfe and is largely forgotten otherwise unknown to history. The title page identifies the poems, composed in author-speaker only as “E.C., Esquier,” an apparent the highly stylized pseudonym. After extensive study Sobran concluded that Petrarchan tradition, “E.C.” and “Shakespeare,” i.e., Edward de Vere, were the were first published same poet. He offered the further speculation that in 1595 with the odd Emaricdulfe was the work of a young Edward de Vere, title, Emaricdulfe. written many years before it appeared in print, and that it Having recently may have been among the poems Francis Meres had in (Continued on page 9) Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter - !2 - Winter 2017 “dark lady”? Who was the “rival poet”? Oxfordians are From the President: not unanimous on any of these questions. It has been suggested that Oxfordians can never An Oxfordian Consensus prevail over Stratfordians until we come to a consensus on such questions. It has also been suggested that some of the Who would dare assert that we know all there is to more radical Oxfordian theories (such as the “Prince be known? Tudor” [PT] theory, which posits that Southampton was – Galileo Galilei, Letter to Father Benedetto the illicit child of an affair between Oxford and Queen Castelli, 21 December 1613 Elizabeth) subject the Oxfordian cause to ridicule and that PT advocates should be banished, repudiated, or otherwise There have been some recent discussions among shunned. Oxfordians about the future of the movement. Some are Let me register here my opinions that (1) Oxfordians concerned that the Oxfordian theory will never overcome do not need to arrive at a consensus in order to dethrone the well-entrenched Stratfordian theory until Oxfordians the Stratfordian theory, (2) radical Oxfordian theories are agree on a clear and coherent theory that explains a not the primary threat to our movement, and (3) it hurts number of “loose ends” about Oxford’s authorship: for our cause to suppress and blame others in the movement, example, was Shakspere Oxford’s “front man” during rather than concentrate on spreading the Oxfordian Shakspere’s life, or was he merely a posthumous front message to the world. man after publication of the First Folio? Did Oxford write all the plays by himself, or did others write at least a part Do we need a consensus in order to prevail? or all of some plays? Why did Oxford use the pen name To those who say we need a coherent theory with no “Shake-speare”? Might Oxford have written under other “loose ends” in order to defeat the Stratfordians, let me pen names? Why did Oxford’s authorship have to be kept offer a counterexample: the Stratfordian theory itself. This secret after his death? Why did Oxford dedicate two theory’s utter lack of coherency, consistency, and narrative poems to the Earl of Southampton? Was evidentiary support has not kept it from ruling the stage Southampton the “fair youth” of the sonnets? Who was the for centuries. Do Stratfordians agree on who was the fair The Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Published quarterly by the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship, P.O. Box 66083, Auburndale, MA 02466-0083. www.ShakespeareOxfordFellowship.org. The Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship is a non-profit, educational organization dedicated to investigating the Shakespeare authorship question and disseminating the evidence that Edward de Vere, the17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), is the true author of the poems and plays written under the pseudonym “William Shakespeare.” The Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship pursues its mission by supporting research, educational and scholarly initiatives, annual conferences, website and social media, and by publishing this Newsletter and an annual scholarly journal, The Oxfordian. The Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship was formed in 2013 when the Shakespeare Oxford Society, founded in 1957, and the Shakespeare Fellowship, founded in 2001, united to form a single organization. Dues, grants and contributions are tax deductible to the extent provided by law. TRUSTEES: Thomas Rucker, Treasurer Tom Regnier, President & Communications Committee Chair Wally Hurst, Secretary Richard Joyrich, First Vice President & Conference Joan Leon, Fundraising Committee Chair Committee Chair Julie Sandys Bianchi Don Rubin, Second Vice President & Outreach Committee James Warren Chair Bryan Wildenthal Newsletter editor: Alex McNeil ([email protected]) Articles, essays, commentary, book reviews, letters and news items of interest to the Shakespeare Oxfordian community are welcome. Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship. As provided in the bylaws, “The conferences, publications, and other educational projects of the Fellowship will be open forums for all aspects of the Oxfordian theory of authorship.” Advertising Rates: $100 for full page, $60 for half-page, $35 for quarter-page. Printed by Minuteman Press, West Newton, MA. © 2017 by the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter - !3 - Winter 2017 youth? the dark lady? the rival poet? How do they Stratfordians will use any perceived or pretended explain the apparent love triangle described in the weakness in non-Stratfordian theories against us, and sonnets? Do they agree on the dates of the plays? Do they won’t bother to present our theories fairly. they agree about whether their candidate was a secret Shakespeare Beyond Doubt didn’t face up to the Catholic? Do they come even close to having a arguments made in the major works by authorship satisfactory explanation of how the Stratford man, with, doubters: Diana Price wasn’t mentioned; Looney was at most, a grammar school education, learned so much quoted out of context though his thesis was never about law, philosophy, classical literature, ancient and refuted; Mark Anderson’s meticulous biography of modern history, mathematics, astronomy, art, music, Oxford was dismissed with a sneering comment. No medicine, horticulture, heraldry, the military, Italy, and matter how clear and cogent our arguments are, the aristocratic sports that his easy knowledge of these Stratfordians will distort them and disparage them. But subjects is evident in the works? that tactic cannot prevail in the long run because We do not need to agree on all the particulars of intelligent people will soon notice that the constant, Oxford’s authorship to win over the public mind. shallow ridicule is no substitute for rational discussion “Consensus” is a will-o’-the-wisp, a mirage. I am and presentation of evidence. always suspicious when I hear that a particular question is “settled” or that there is a “consensus” on it. To say What should we do? such things is to underestimate the infinite layers of The authorship question is a political struggle. It knowledge that the universe offers for our examination. concerns the power that some people have over others— Now that I have quoted Galileo in the epigraph to this the kind of “politics” that occurs in families, schools, article, let me quote Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994), one of churches, businesses, and academia.