r{fie S fiakes :7Vewsletter

VoI.32:no.2 "Let me study so, to know the thing I amforhid to know" Spring 1996 Oxford, the Order Authorship Fireworks of The Garter, at the Sixth World and Shame Shal

As examples, he mentioned links between Events at the World Shakespeare Congress Ovid's MetamOlphoses and A Midsummer Visions, revisions and a premature death Night's Dream, and between Hollinshed's Chronicles and Macbeth. by Carol Boettger In the S.A.A Seminars fonnat patiici­ LOS ANGELES. The combined meet­ In a Short Paper Session (lecture to a pants have all read each other's papers in ing of the International Shakespeare Asso­ smaller group) entitled "Historicizing the the preceding weeks. In the Seminar on ciation and the Shakespeare Association of Early Stuart Accession", 1. Leeds Ban'oll "Social Division and Hierarchy" Richard America was held in Los Angeles on April of the University of Maryland, Baltimore Wilson (University of Lancaster) referred 7-14, 1996. The majority of those attend­ County, discussed the early reign of James to the "violence Shakespeare seemed to ing were Stratfordian academics, but with I of England. Prof. Barroll took the posi­ endorse" in Twe(frh Night "unlike other the large Society membership in California, tion that King James had admired the social dramatists of his time" who were more plus the Board meeting and reception, group of which Sir Philip Sidney, and the likely to ridicule dueling. A Twe(frh Night there were dozens of Oxfordians also at­ Earls of Essex and Southampton had been example: Antonio heroically sought to de­ tending. members. BatToll believes this admiration fend "Sebastian" in a duel even though Besides the academic sessions, there was the reason that Southampton was re­ Antonio ran the additional risk of arrest for was a field trip to the Huntington Library to leased from prison by James, soon after he past acts. see the exhibit from the Extra-Illustrated became king. Society Trustee Charles Boyle patiici­ Turner Shakespeare and performances of In another Shoti Paper Session, pated in the "Theatrical Enterprise" Semi­ several of the plays nearby. An evening Andreas Hofele (University of Heidelberg, nar. In his paper, entitled "Allowed Fools: performance of Venus and Adonis by Ben Germany) spoke on "Twentieth-Centmy Notes Toward an Elizabethan Twe(frh Stewart drew rave reviews from those who Intertextuality and the Reading of Night", Boyle discussed Elizabeth's comi attended. It was frequently necessary to Shakespeare's Sources". At the risk of as the subject of the play and debated choose between several different presenta­ oversimplifying, I will attempt a summaty several Stratfordians as to whether patron­ tions of vatying subject matter (such as of his version of intetiextuality: 1) the way age or the marketplace had a larger role in Short Paper Sessions and Seminars). I one text is transposed into another, 2) the determining the direction of Elizabethan attended as many as I could during a busy range of possible ways one text relates to theatre. (Boyle has written about this week. another, and 3) the intetTeading of the text. seminar on page 4 -Ed.). (Continued on page 23)

Samuel Schoenbaum 1927-1996

Samuel Schoenbaum, one of the two rian and his only serious rival, whose sev­ quirer has made necessary a re-examina­ leading biographers of Shakespeare as the eral biographies appealed more to popular tion of comfotiable assumptions. Miss Cox man from Stratford-on-Avon, died on tastes. has deigned to milk a sacred cow." March 27 at the age of sixty-nine after a Non-Stratfordian scholars, neverthe­ In his last book, Shakespeare's Lives long illness. less, note the many times Schoenbaum (1991 ), Schoenbaum went so far as to ques­ Professor Schoenbaum was a master at must resoti to phrases such as "there can be tion the meaning of the biographical docu­ making the most of the facts and stories of little doubt that..." in his attempt to stitch ments he spent most of his life evaluating. the life of Will Shakspere, as that man was together a biography that unites the man On the book's concluding page he laments: known in Stratford, and of his relatives. from Stratford and the works of Shake­ "Perhaps we should despair of ever bridg­ His William Shakespeare: A Doclimentmy speare. Despite his unfortunate lapses into ing the vertiginous expanse between the Life (1975) is valuable for its authoritative sneering sarcasm when defending the sublimity of the subject and the mundane collection of Stratfordian facts and figures Stratford man against other candidates, inconsequence ofthe documentary record." and the many facsimile reproductions of Schoenbaum was curiously cautious about At his death Schoenbaum was director documents and their provenance. He some of the key Stratfordian evidence. of the Center for Renaissance and Baroque maintained that his book differed from most In a postscript to the paperback edition Studies at the University of Maryland, popular biographies, which, he said, "aug­ (1987) of his Doculllentmy Life, he accepts where he had been an English professor. He ment the facts with speculation or imagina­ the work of Jane Cox of the Public Record had received his master's and Ph.D. de­ tive reconstruction or interpretive criticism Office in a booklet rejecting four of the six grees from Columbia University after of the plays and poems." He may have been "Shakespeare" signatures as authentic. graduation from Brooklyn College. thinking of A.L. Rowse, the British histo- Schoenbaum allowed that "a sceptical in- R. Whalen Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 3

Receptiol1 (Col1til1ued/i'om page /) ford, came to the po­ and members of her Los Angeles based dium and the fun be­ Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable, and gan. Burford took was largely funded through the generosity Hamlet as his theme, of former Society trustee, Russell des and noted right off Cognets. that the openll1g After Carol Sue had welcomed every­ words of the play one, Charles Champlin made some brief ("Who's there?") comments on his 12 years as an Oxfordian, broach the theme of recounting how he, like so many others, had identity. He went on viliually stumbled upon the authorship is­ to describe a conver­ sue at a dinner one night in 1983, and had gence of identities in found himself as much puzzled by the fact the figures of Ham­ that he'd never heard about it properly let, Shakespeare and The Reception hosted by the Shakespeare Oxford Socie()i at the before, as he was fascinated by the story Oxford, the key to Biltmore Hotel drew an SRO crowd ()f curio liS Conference attend­ itself. this unity being the ees. Pictured at the affair are (I to r) Bristish actor Michael York, Champlin said that it was one of the Sonnets, in which an Society President Charles Burford, Pat York, Thad Taylor, and greatest literary mysteries of all time, and author, who speaks Society trustees Lydia Bronte and Michael Pisapia. recalled one of his favorite authorship sto­ in the same regi ster ries from his "early years" as an Oxfordian. as Hamlet, expresses At the beginning of the Century, James M. the specific Court concerns of Edward de the master propagandist in the play is Barrie, when asked what he thought about Vere (see, for instance, sonnet 66). Polonius, who is described as "the/ather of Bacon's possible authorship of the plays, Maintaining the theme of identity, Bur­ good news", while the upholder of truth is quipped: "I don't know whether or not ford pointed out that, in his experience, Hamlet himself whose players will "tell Francis Bacon wrote the works of Shake­ Shakespeare himself was never present at all." The modern propagandists of the speare, but if he didn't, he missed the op­ the Shakespeare Association of America Stratford man, he claimed, are cast in pOliunity of a lifetime." meetings. He had searched for him in the Polonius' mould and should rightfully bear British actor, Michael York, spoke next corridors, he had searched for him in the the name of "Cecilians" rather than Strat­ and echoed Champlin, remarking that his seminars, he had searched for him in the fordians. He cited both the Ur-Hal71let and recent involvement in the authorship ques­ banqueting halls, but he was nowhere to be Funeral Elegy as examples of their irre­ tion reflected his desire "to resolve this found. Nor had he found him in the univer­ sponsible propaganda. extraordinary mystery." He told how he sities across the country. Burford stressed that if one elevates the had been "upbraided" just before the recep­ He accused the professors of being "isms" at the expense of the author's own tion for his "neophyte allegiance to the more interested in literary theory than in mind and outlook, then you end up with a Oxford cause." York went on to talk about literature itself. They had, he said, become text that, because of its unreality, fails to a fax he'djust received from a friend he was mere propagandists for their various "isms" engage the interest of students. Moreover, working with on a "How to act Shake­ - deconstructionism, postmodernism, new the author's philosophy and method be­ speare" volume. His friend asked many historicism etc. - which were all devices for come obscured, and the world loses sight of questions about the famous "To be or not to wilfully misunderstanding the works. They the fact that Shakespeare is one of its great­ be" soliloquy in Hamlet, which, he told were no longer teachers, because they de­ est spiritual teachers and is speaking for York, puzzled him. "Afterall," he added, spised the truth. They were "facilitators of himselfwhen he has Hamlet exclaim: "The "it's the most famous speech in western tenure." time is our ofjoint. 0 cursed spite that ever literature. But what does it mean?" This last remark caused an audible stir I was born to set it right." York said that, as an Oxfordian, such in the audience, with gasps from some and Finally, he went on to answer his initial questions take on a whole new meaning for applause from others. Several listeners in question of "Who's there?" by arguing him. Having a real author in mind, with the back of the room took it as their cue to that the character and psychology of Ham­ "real life" events to illuminate the text, depart. Here, in large part, were the fire­ let are the window through which one can meant that he could think of HamletlOx ford works mentioned on the kfystelJ' web site contemplate the psyche of Shakespeare him­ as a man who did literally "take arms against just two weeks later. self. He claimed that the figure of the a sea of troubles" when he took to sea Burford went on to identify the battle alienated courtier, of which Hamlet is the against the Armada in 1588. Actors always between truth and propaganda as a major most thorough manifestation, is the filter appreciate such insights, and he, as an actor, theme in Hamlet, from the moment the through which the author percolated his art appreciated the extra meaning that such a ghost says to Hamlet in the first act, "the and philosophy. It was his point of vision. line now yielded. ear of Denmark is by a forged process of my Burford then described Oxford's spiri­ Then featured speaker, Charles Bur- death rankly abus'd." He pointed out that tual journey in terms of Shakespeare's (Contil1ued Oil page 13) page 4 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

wrong. I remembered a question put to Lessons from a Seminar Norrie Epstein, author of The Friendly Shakespeare, at the 1993 Boston SOS Con­ by another" courtesy, which allows them to ference. She had expressed ambivalence Charles Boyle whittle away at this poor author, making about the traditional attribution but also a him ever more insignificant and irrelevant deep personal and professional respect for This Los Ange­ to his own genius. And who can explain the orthodox professors who had been her les World Congress "genius" anyway? Why try? In seminar friends and mentors. She would not attack is the fourth Shake­ after seminar I've sat through endless, cir­ their conclusions. Someone finally asked speare Association cling talk that never made a point that had her what piece of evidence would ever of America confer­ the courage of eonviction. convince the Stratfordian establishment they ence I have attended. So when I was called upon to respond to were wrong. She answered that she didn't Charles Boyle As a member I have this other paper I was angry. I didn't act think there was any evidence that could has presen ted delivered seminar angry but anger was driving me. I knew I convince them. That it wasn't a matter of paper,ljiJr the last papers at the previ­ couldn't discuss authorship directly. Expe­ evidence but offaith. They Believed. Case 3 years at the ous two. Last year's rience has taught me that if you do every­ closed. You were better off trying to talk SAA AI/Ilual was on the role of one groans and throws up their collective the Pope out of the Virgin Birth. Conlerellce. the courtier fool hands. So I went on and on about reality I asked my friend if he thought what TouchstoneinAs YOll without coming to my real point until an she said was true. He smiled and nodded in Like It. Later I learned that members of my eminent Stratfordian professor in the audi­ a serious but friendly manner. Yes, he said, seminar had met beforehand and agreed ence started yelling that I was boring, bor­ probably it was. He patiicularly liked the among themselves to ignore anything I said. ing! and talking to scholars like they were religious metaphor. We were like two My seminar topics this year revolved fools and that I should just shut up! I pro­ churches. His candor made a strong im­ around the 16th century theatre world. My tested I had only one more thing to add pact. Suddenly I realized I didn't want to paper described a production of Twelfth anyway, which was true enough, but point­ spend the rest of my life arguing with Strat­ Night from an Elizabethan point of view, less. The chair of the seminar asked me to fordians. seeing it as a political satire of her Court, stop and, half out of spite, I never said Most of what I know about Shake­ with the Queen as Olivia and Sir Christo­ another word. speare I learned from Stratfordians. pher Hatton sketched in the character of Yet I went over and over the uproar for They've done some of the best work and Malvolio. I interpreted some of the more two days afterwards, trying to figure some still do. It's just that lacking a real author in obscure jests along these lines, looking for tactful way to have made my major point - the flesh and blood sense - who ever gave the original laugh. In the process I sug­ human identity matters - without giving a tinker's damn about the Stratford man?­ gested the Fool, like Hamlet, was the cen­ offence. But each strategy I devised felt they have no unifying authorial voice to test tral character (though often dismissed as if Iike defeat. their theories against. Authorship itself peripheral, which only captures half his Later at one of the conference functions has become just another theory. Which meaning). Perhaps he had been modeled on I was speaking with another eminent Strat­ isn't right. I'm a reality, you're a reality. Let Oxford? That was as far as I went. I didn't fordian professor. We acknowledged a per­ Shakespeare be a reality too. bring up authorship directly but I did em­ sonal liking for each other and a mutual Stratfordians are intelligent and in­ phasize the play's political and personal regard for our love of Shakespeare. formed. But this case represents a kind of reality. But with Stratfordians you gener­ He mentioned the awful repOlts he had blindness they've been talked into by their ally find that not only won't they talk about heard of my seminar. I told him I truly priesthood. Why make yourself crazy the author as real, they won't talk about regretted what had happened. He shook his banging your head against it? At this point what he was writing about as real either. head sadly and told me I had burned a lot of I'd rather learn more about Shakespeare's The paper I was assigned for special bridges there. I was genuinely taken aback. motives, about the life of Oxford and the review also concerned the Fool in Twelfth Bridges? I was unaware I had any bridges. true history of Tudor England, the age that Night. It suggested that the Fool was not Except for him, mum's been the word to me. set the stage for the world we live in now. so much the creation of Shakespeare as it I mentioned the plan last year to ignore me. No, I don't want to argue anymore was the witty actor who must have played He seemed to be aware of it and nodded (though I know I will). I would rather talk him, Robert Armin. In this gregarious and with grave concern. Shakespeare with the professors and Ox­ likeable paper I saw everything that infuri­ So what was to be done? We agreed the ford with those who haven't fallen in love ated me about Stratfordianism. Of course I Authorship Question mattered and that in­ with Shakespeare yet. It would even be fun understood his problem. Robett Armin is a deed there was a tangible truth involved. to build a movement so prosperous and more real and interesting person to him than Some real individual actually sat down and powerful it made the Oxford story famous the author. But still, the casual assassination wrote these lines. In the simple question of throughout the world - and then let the permitted the "one opinion is as good as who he was one of us was right and the other world decide. Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 5 Minneapolis Conference: full slate of events set

The 20th annual conference of the the basics of the authorship debate. ence Committee, Shakespeare Oxford So­ Shakespeare Oxford Society will be held In addition to these events, a special ciety, 1100 West 53rd Street, Minneapolis, October 10-13, at the Hotel Sofitel, Minne­ conference seminar "Shakespeare and the MN 55419. Voice: (612)823-2957 Fax: apolis. Three special events, free and open Meaning of Edward de Vere's Bible" will (612)823-5649 email: [email protected] to the general public, have been scheduled. be held at I :OOPM, Sunday, October 13th,at First, a public debate on Shakespeare's the Plymouth Congregational Church, authorship will be held on October 10th, Minneapolis. and will be moderated by AI Austen, the This will be the first time since 1994 Call for Papers producer of Frontline's Shakespeare lvJys­ that Roger Stritmatter has made a presenta­ 20th Annual Conference (ely. Society President Charles Burford tion on his continuing work on the Bible, will uphold Edward de Vere's colors, while and he has a wealth of new material to Individuals wishing to present papers at David Kathman has tentatively accepted repmi on. This event will also be open to the Conference should send them to: an invitation as his opponent. There are the general public, and a major pUblicity plans to have two more individuals partici­ campaign is under way to let all in the Twin Charles Burford pate in the debate, making it more of a Cities area know about the Conference and 190 Amory St. #4 panel discussion. Further details will be these special venues where the public will Jamaica Plain MA 02130-450 I announced in the next newsletter. have a first-hand opportunity to see what Papers should be delivered typed double A public workshop on the primaJY ques­ the debate is all about. space, or on disk in ASCII format, Word tions and meaning of the authorship debate All Society members will have been Perfect 5. I, or Word 6.0 will be held on Saturday morning, October mailed Conference Registration packets 12th, running parallel to the presentation by the end of June. For further program Length should be based of conference papers, thus giving members and conference registration information, on a presentation time of the public and family and friends of contact: of approx. 30 minutes Society members an opportunity to learn George Anderson, Chair '96 Confer-

claims that the monies for the first two made via Mr. Price's lawyer. John Price sues categories were loans. No agreement exists The Society, however, in its desire to between him and the Shakespeare Oxford settle this whole matter, is persisting with its Shakespeare Society with regard to these monies. mediation initiative. Mr. Price is demandingjudgment against Mr. Price allegedly obligated the Soc i­ Oxford Society the Shakespeare Oxford Society in the etyto himself to the extent of its total assets amount of$25,243.42, together with inter­ without the consent or authorization of the est at the statutory rate, all of his costs and Board of Trustees. When using his own This report is made to inform the mem­ expenses, together with reasonable money to conduct the Society's affairs, he bership of serious issues that now confront attorney's fees, and any further relief that did not seek, nor did he have, Board autho­ the Shakespeare Oxford Society. It is hoped the Court deems just and equitable upon rization for the expenditures that he was that these issues can be resolved with dig­ the premises. making. That the Society should be recog­ nity and the minumum of upset and expense In the absence of any legal obligation to nizing any sort of moral obligation to reim­ to all those involved. reimburse John Price, the Society has at­ burse him is a measure of its willingness to On April 18th 1996 John Price filed a tempted to fulfill what it sees as a moral do what is just and right. lawsuit against the Shakespeare Oxford obligation by offering him sole ownership Finally the necessary tax returns were Society in the Court of Common Pleas, of the complete inventOlY of Blue Boar not filed on behalf of the Society during Mr. Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The Society's merchandise, which has a current retail Price's tenure as our leader. This has ren­ president, Charles Burford, was served with value of $14,000. In addition, the Society dered the Society liable for considerable papers on Monday June 3rd. has sought mediation through the pro fines and other expenses associated with Mr. Price is suing the Society for monies bono services of Mr. James L. Kenefick, clearing up the financial affairs of the orga­ allegedly spent on behalf of the Society the chairman-elect of the Senior Lawyers nization. between January 1990 and December 31 st Section of the Boston Bar Association. On May 18th 1996 at a duly called 1995. These monies are said to total Mr. Price in a letter to the Board has special meeting of the Board in $25,243.42, and fall into three categories: rejected the reimbursement offered him, Nmihampton, Mass., John Price was re­ Blue Boar inventory, Burford tour ex­ and has opted not to withdraw his lawsuit. moved from the Board of Trustees of the penses, and office expenses. Mr. Price Indeed, a threat of further action has been Shakespeare Oxford Society for cause. page 6 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

The Board of Trustees votes in a new era: fundraising now the lcey By Charles Burford - It was resolved that the sum of$5,000 The experiences of the last few years (raised specifically for that purpose) be have taught us that we can't rely exclu­ The Society's trustees have met twice paid out as a deposit on the Victor Crichton sively on volunteer workers. Considerable since the publication of the last Newsletter: library once a satisfactory contract has though their efforts have been, they can't in Pasadena, Calif., on the 13th of April and been negotiated with Crichton's nephew, take us where we want to go. Their work is in Northampton, Mass., on the 18th of May. Randolph Riddoch. The Society is acquir­ never going to be consistently reliable and A good many new initiatives were passed at ing the library for $15,000. Trustee Lydia committed. Too often people assume of­ both meetings in line with the general phi­ Bronte has agreed to raise the remaining fice in the Society with an initial burst of losophy outlined in thepresident's message monies without obligating the Society. enthusiasm and energy only to find that in the last edition of the Shakespeare Ox­ There are 2,000 books, some of them rare, their "real-life" responsibilities get the bet­ ford Newsletter. In addition, an Action and they have been valued at $30,000. ter of them and essential Society business is Plan for 1996-2004 was approved in prin­ - It was resolved that "The Blue Boar neglected. ciple at the Pasadena meeting pending re­ Gifte Shoppe" be renamed simply The Weare fOliunate in that there are now a view and amendment by the Development Blue Boar, under which name it will be­ number ofOxfordians who are determined Committee. It is printed on page 7, and our come the official merchandising arm of the to make the Oxford cause their life's work. membership is invited to review it and Society. A merchandising committee has It is our duty to create an environment in make suggestions. Here are some of the been set up under the chairmanship of Tim which they can earn a living while working significant motions that were carried at the Holcomb to explore new product lines and to fulfill our mission. To invest in them is to meetings: markets. invest in growth. - It was resolved that the Society trans­ -Itwas resolved that William Boyle and Those who object to growth often say: fer the bulk of its funds to an insured money Charles Burford be paid monthly stipends "We haven't got the money to invest in market account where better interest can be of $1 ,000 and $1,500 respectively to con­ growth." Such a statement fails to take earned and bank fees eliminated. tinue their extensive work on behalf of the cognizance of the fact that the money is - It was resolved that the Society set up Oxfordian cause. It was further resolved there; we simply haven't tapped it. Growth an Endowment Fund, in furtherance of the that such stipends be contingent upon the is, above all, a state of mind. Where there's aims set down in the Action Plan. The raising offurther funds, and that at no time a will and a vision, there's always a way. Gilfillan CD money and the Snap-on-Tools would the Society's coffers be permitted to The alternative to growth is stagnation. stock (total $10,500) will be used as the fall below a figure of $6,000. The reason the Society is not growing prop­ start-up money for the fund. All these resolutions make it clear that erly at the moment is its failure to unite - It was resolved that the Board should the Society is now moving towards a more behind a single plan of action. We have, it encourage all members of the Shakespeare professional, commercially-viable organi­ seems, lost our sense of mission and be­ Oxford Society to switch their long-dis­ zation, with a permanent headquarters/li­ come intent on allowing trivial theoretical tance telephone service to ATCO (Allied brary and a paid staff. As the Society enters concerns to distract us from our most basic Telecomm Corporation). 8% of the bills this new era and builds a lasting monument goals. paid to ATCO by members goes to the to the movement that we all represent, it is It is vital that we concentrate on getting Society. This could mean an income of as essential that we develop a strong financial our message to as wide an audience as much as $1,500 a month for the Shake­ base. It will be the key to our future possible. Thus we should be thinking speare Oxford Society, if all members were success. First, however, the Society must strongly in terms of promotion ofthe exist­ to switch their service. change the way it sees itself. ing evidence, and this means developing - It was resolved that the Society All successful non-profit corporations techniques for the effective dissemination should explore the possibility of a special have to be run like businesses to succeed, of our message. The world of public rela­ Shakespeare Oxford Society credit card. even educational ones like the Shakespeare tions is not one we can afford to ignore, if As with the A TCO plan, a percentage of Oxford Society. Thinking big is an impor­ we are serious about gaining national each transaction goes to the Society. This tant part of growth. The time has come for attention for our cause. Apart from being could be offered together with the A TCO us to envision an operating budget for the the foundation of any fund-raising cam­ signup as part of a membership package. Society in the region of$1 OO,OOOper annum. paign, public relations are intimately con­ - It was resolved that life memberships A well-targeted fund-raising campaign, nected to our sense ofmission. Only if we be set at $1,000, with $100 going into the backed up by a professional business plan, as a Society have a clear sense of our goals general fund and $900 into the Endowment could make such a budget a reality by the can we then communicate our vision effec­ Fund. year 2000. tivelyto the public, thus winning new mem- Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 7

bers and support. The idea that we need a smoking gun to Action Plan and Mission Statement for the Shakespeare convince others of Oxford's authorship is Oxford Society of the 21 st Centmy not only bogus (after all you yourself didn't need one to become convinced), it's also dangerous. It fosters a state of mind that is ACTION PLAN fund-raising and public relations campaign anti-growth, because it says: "We don't (Mission 2004). Target: $ I million. Invest need to bother about promotion. All we Step 1: Raise $12,000 by the end of this money in the Endowment Fund - could need to do is find that one piece of elusive Summer 1996 to ensure continued salary yield $75,000 per annum. Rent library/ evidence that will bring the Stratfordian payments for William Boyle and Charles office space as prelude to acquiring a temple tumbling down." Burford; as well as to design and print a new freehold property for the Shakespeare Unfortunately, the world doesn't work Society brochure and a fund-raising pro­ Oxford Society Research Center. that way. We're in for a long battle, and to spectus. Step 7: 2004: Fulfill the ultimate goal of win it we have to build a Research Center Step 2: Set up an Endowment Fund to Mission 2004 by purchasing the Shake­ which is every bit as formidable as the receive substantial donations from both speare Oxford Society Research Center. Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington members and the general public. Create a This will house the Society's library and D.C. It means converting the Shakespeare separate board of trustees to oversee the archives, a lecture hall and performance Oxford Society into a world-class opera­ fund in conjunction with a bank or space, and administrative offices with full tion, and it's going to take all of us to do it. communtiy foundation. desktop publishing facilities. There will To this end, we must create an organiza­ Step3: Raise $35,000 by the end of Fall also be live-in quarters for a caretaker/ tion to which individuals and corporations 1996 in order to establish a 1997 operating librarian and guest rooms for visiting schol­ will want to give, and which they will trust. budget that will allow the Society to con­ ars. With this accomplished, we can set Before this can happen, we need to develop tinue, and build on, the initiatives begun in about storming the citadel in earnest! a full marketing/business plan with an inte­ 1996. grated fund-raising strategy; we need to Step 4: 1997: Continue to develop the MISSION STATEMENT revise our bylaws to bring them more in line Society's public image through publica­ with the long-term goals of the Society; and tions of excellence (Newsletter and Joltr­ To convince the world that Edward de we need to create a foundation, governed by ncil) , a library catalogue, an index of the Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was the a separate board of trustees in conjunction Society's newsletters and other authorship author of the Shakespeare canon; to pro­ with either a community foundation or a periodicals, an annual report, and a profes­ mote scholarly research and writing on the reputable bank. Thus the Society will have sional business plan for the next ten years. Shakespeare authorship question and on a corpus of money that will remain intact Step 5: 1997: Apply for grant money the English Renaissance, particularly as it and unspent while generating a constant from foundations and corporations for the relates to Edward de Vere; and to foster a and reliable source of income to fund its development of research programs both in spirit of open and unprejudiced debate on miSSIOn. the US and Europe. The Society should these matters and, with it, an enhanced The Society's marketing/business plan start being able to grant scholarships and appreciation and enjoyment of the plays is being developed, in consultation with develop its own educational programs. and poems published under the name Wil­ others, by Randall Sherman, a newly elected Step 6: Fall 1997-99: Launch a major liam Shakespeare. trustee, who lives in San Francisco. It will be presented in detail in the next issue of the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter. Please feel free to contact Randall with ideas or offers of help at (408)737-6590(W) or What you can do now! (415)337-9171(H). We have already made arrangements no fees to join ATCO, and if for any reason I hope that you will become an active with ATCO to be registered as an organiza­ you are not satisfied with the phone member and join with us in creating a stron­ tion to which they will make contributions. service you receive or the costs of your ger and more influential society. As I If you are interested in trying out the long-distance calls, just switch back to mentioned in my last messge, one velY ATCO long-distance service (which will your present long-distance carrier. direct way in which you can help is by save you an estimated 50% average on your Write to us at: Shakespeare Oxford giving at least one gift membership a year. long-distance calls) and still yield an 8% Society, ATCO Plan, PO Box 263, Many of you, I know, already have. Let's payment to the Society of your total long­ Somerville MA 02143, and we'll send you all do it, and so double our membership by distance bill each month, write to us for an an outline of their service plan and direc­ the end of the year! information/signup packet. tions for signing up and designating the Remember, there is no risk. There are Society for the monthly 8% contribution. page 8 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Garter (COlllilllled/imll page /) the Garter. 1569-70, hence the Queen's favor. records, although new material is becom­ Selection ofKGs worked in the follow­ Who received votes and how did the ing available, largely thanks to Prof. Nelson. ing manner. Whenever a vacancy existed Queen make her choices? The category of Moreover, as with Surrey, myths have pro­ an election was held to select a new mem­ 'princes' included about twenty English­ liferated, such as that Oxford cruelly re­ ber, normally at the annual meeting or chap­ men, though a significant number of them jected his wife in 1576. Both B.M. Ward ter on St. George's Day, 23 April, at st. were already KGs, but also included fa­ and Conyers Read, biographers respectively George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. Each vored foreign royalty and near-royalty, as of Oxford and Lord Burghley, concealed KG present voted for nine men, three in well as Irish earls. Twelve KGs voted in the their knowledge of a memorandum in each of the following categories: 'princes', election of 1590, and Henry IV of France Burghley's hand showing that Lady Burgh­ 'barons', and 'knights'. 'Princes'means and James VI of Scotland were up for the ley carried off her daughter after she re­ earls, marquesses, dukes, and royalty (or, first time, and so all twelve KGs made united with her husband upon his return earls and above), while 'barons' and Henry their first pick and James their sec­ from Italy (see H.M.C. Salisbury, 13.128; 'knights' are self explanatory. A viscount, ond; four English earls split the remaining Ward, Eor! of Oxford, 123; Read, Lord who ranks between an earl and a baron, twelve votes. The category of 'barons' Burgh!ey, 136). We must expect more could be nominated under either category, included about fifty men, less those who surpnses. 'prince' or 'baron'. In Queen Elizabeth 1's were already KGs, but they didn't have to We will begin by considering what the reign, the heir to an earl or above could be compete with foreigners. There were about Order of the Garter is and how members three or four hundred knights in England at were selected. We will then take a look at "... the Garter elections are of this time, but the nominations for the cat­ some other nominees besides Oxford; the particular interest at the end of a egory 'knights' were confined to a very Garter elections are of particular interest at tight circle of high Court officials, military reign when a transfer ofpower is the end of a reign when a transfer of power commanders, and the Queen's viceroys for immine1lt, and Elizabeth's reign ;s is imminent, and Elizabeth's reign is no Ireland, Wales, and the North. In the elec­ exception. Finally we will examine the 110 exception.". tions of 1578 and '79, all voters listed Sir record on Oxford. The purpose of consid­ Francis Knollys, Sir James Croft, and Sir ering other nominees before taking up Ox­ nominated under his courtesy title, while a Christopher Hatton, in that order. It is easy ford is twofold. First, we cannot make duke's younger son could be nominated as to see which knights got votes, namely the much sense out of the Garter elections or, a 'baron'. If ten Knights ofthe Garter were Queen's closest servants, and the number of for that matter, anything else that happened present at a given election, with each KG votes received is a good index ofa knight's four centuries ago, without establishing the listing nine nominees, then as many as ninety standing. historical context. Second, we shall dis­ names could be listed, though the more Why noblemen got votes is not so easy cover interesting things about people who likely result would be about twenty. Then to say. Mere rank was not enough. In 1576 are part of the story of Oxford's life. the votes were tallied and presented to the William Paulet succeeded his father as third The Order of the Garter was founded by Queen, who picked whomever she pleased Marquess of Winchester, and Paulet lived Edward III in the 1340s and consists of the or no one at all. until 1598. During that time England had sovereign and 25 Knights of the Gaiter As an example, we may consider the no dukes and no other marquesses, so Win­ (KGs). Membership in the Order remains election of 1572. Nine members were chester stood alone above the earls. And yet the highest honor bestowed by the British present, and they voted for seventeen names. he received only twelve votes for the Garter monarch. The great prestige ofthe Order is The top finishers were these: the French during the entire period. His record is due in large measure to its exclusiveness; no Duke of Montmorency, the newly created particularly sad compared to that of his one may be elected KG unless the death or Lord Burghley, and the Queen's first cousin, cousin Sir Hugh Paulet, Governor of Jer­ degradation of an incumbent creates a va­ Sir Francis Knollys, each received nine sey, Vice-President of Wales, and second­ cancy. During the period 1569-1604 there votes; Sir James Croft received eight; the in-command at the defense of Le Havre, were about sixty peers, so the Order of the Earl of Oxford and Lord Grey of Wilton who received twenty-eight votes in the last Garter was far more exclusive than the each got seven; four other men got either six five years of his life, 1569-73. Sir Hugh's peerage. In contrast, the French Order ofSt. or five votes; and Walter Devereux, Vis­ son, Sir Amias Paulet was Governor of Michael was debased in the mid sixteenth count Hereford got four. Three places were Jersey, Ambassador to France, and jailer to century by being awarded to all and sundry, vacant, so the Queen selected Burghley, Mary of Scotland; he received twenty-three and so in 1578 Henry III created the Order Grey, and Hereford as the new KGs; later votes in the period 1580-85. The Marquess of the Holy Spirit, limited to one hundred that year Burghley became Lord Treasurer of Winchester's problem was that he was a knights. Given the much larger population and Hereford was created Earl of Essex. stay-at-home, whose best GaIter year, four of France in those days, the Holy Spirit was Hereford's wife was the Queen's first cousin votes in 1580, coincided with his only sig­ about as exclusive as the Gaiter. The ninth, once removed (the daughter of Francis nificant office, Lord Lieutenant of Dorset. eleventh, thiiteenth, fifteenth, and twenti­ Knollys), and Hereford had shown great Family connections helped. The sec­ eth de Vere Earls ofOxford were Knights of energy opposing the NOlthern rebellion of ond Earl of Essex received his first Garter Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 9 vote in 1587 from his stepfather, the Earl of is truly remarkable is that Robert, by then perity, but the Earl of Oxford felt other­ Leicester. In 1603 Lord Howard de Walden Lord Cecil, didn't get a single vote in the wise. It will be recalled that he said of was able to cast all three ofhis 'baron' votes election of June 1603, with King James on Ralegh's rise, apparently at the time of for fellow Howards. The only votes ever the throne and Lord Cecil clearly confirmed Essex's execution, "When jacks start up, received by the dissident Catholic second as the new King's right hand man. Presum­ heads go down". Ralegh's rise in Garter Earl of Southampton were cast by his fa­ ably the Knights of the Garter respected the votes exactly coincides with Essex's fall, ther-in-law and co-religionist, Viscount frequently displayed military skills ofTho­ 1599-1601. Montague, in the elections of 1574-78. mas, while the Queen valued his abilities Biographers have remarked on thepopu­ Montague was not present to vote in 1579. enough to make him President of the North larity of the third Earl of Southampton, Southampton rejected his wife in early 1580, in 1599. Meanwhile the KGs probably which is borne out in the Gatier elections. and so he failed to get Montague's vote in resented Robert's status as his father's un­ He got four out of twelve votes in 1595 at that year and the next, whereupon he died. derstudy, and the Queen failed to put in a age twenty-one and ten votes out of twelve The Queen's choices seem to have been word to help him garner some votes. in 1596. In 1597 all ten voters picked the influenced by three factors besides per­ Lord Henry Howard, Oxford's enemy Duke of Wuerttemberg, thereby reducing sonal favor: rank, service, and good behav­ in 1580 and 1581, held the rank of younger the votes available for English earls, but ior (from her point of view). As Sir Robert son of a duke, but never received a vote Southampton managed to pick up two, in­ Naunton remarked, Queen Elizabeth was during Elizabeth's reign, though he picked cluding Lord Burghley's vote for the first partial to the nobility (including noblemen time. But Southampton did not get the Earl by courtesy), and it shows in her Garter "Biographers have remarked of Essex's vote in 1597 (though he did in selections. In the first three decades of her '95 and '96); the attachment of South amp­ 011 the popularity of the third reign, only one 'knight' received the Garter, ton to Essex begins with the Azores voyage Sir Henry Sidney in 1564. But in her later Earl of SOllthampton, which is later that year. The theory of an Essex­ years the Queen grew more democratic: borne out ill the Gurter elec­ Southampton social circle going back to the Hatton finally got it in 1588, Knollys in tiolls. " early 1590s is a myth originating in a mis­ 1593, and Sir Henry Lee in 1597. Barons dated letter. G.P.V. Akrigg's Shakespeare were more than twice as numerous as earls, up five out of six as James' favorite in June ([nd the Earl ofSOllthampton provided the but Elizabeth selected slightly more earls 1603, and was elected unanimously in 1604. evidence to puncture the myth, but Akrigg for the Garter, showing again her prefer­ (Incidentally, one must be careful with failed to realize its significance; the Garter ence for rank. Separating service to the names and titles when examining the Garter election of 1597 provides more evidence. Queen from her personal favor is difficult register, especially when the prolific Howard In 1599, newly arrived in Ireland, Southamp­ for she combined the two. Her leading clan is involved. The "Lord Howard" who ton was decidedly in the Queen's disfavor favorites over the course of her reign were received numerous votes in 1599 and 1600 owing to his begetting a child by one of her the Earls of Leicester and Essex, Sir Chris­ is the same "Lord de Effingham" who re­ maids of honor, whom he secretly married, topher Hatton, and Sir Walter Ralegh. All ceived votes in 1601 and 1603, that is but he still received four out of nine votes. received offices of great responsibility, and William, Lord Howard of Effingham, heir In 1600, presumably even more deeply out the first three were also Privy Councillors to the Earl of Nottingham. Lord Henry with the Queen as a result of the Irish and KGs (Sir Walter just missed on both Howard was son of the Earl of Surrey, who campaign, Southampton yet polled six votes counts). was heir to the third Duke of Norfolk. Lord out ofthirteen. In 1603 only six KGs voted, Among the men whose standing can be Hemy's brother became the fourth Duke of all selecting James' Scottish favorites, the judged by the Garter elections are Thomas Norfolk, and Hemy was treated as a duke's Duke of Lenox and the Earl ofMarr, as two and Robeti Cecil, Henry Howard, Walter son.) oftheir three 'princes'. Of the six remain­ Ralegh, and the third Earl of Southampton. Sir Walter Ralegh' s rising political ing ballots in the 'prince' category, The Dictiol1([])' of National Biography power at the end of Elizabeth 's reign and his Southampton and the Earl of Pembroke (DNB) is quite scornful of Thomas Cecil, sudden collapse may be seen in the Garter each got three, and James selected both Lord Burghley' s older son, though it allows elections. He received single votes in 1590, English earls as KGs. that he eventually received the Garter in '92, '96, and '97, then four out of nine in We now turn to the Earl of Oxford. 1601 for helping to suppress the Earl of 1599, eight out ofthirteen in 1600, and nine With regard to the Gatier elections, Oxford's Essex's rebellion, which the DNB calls a out of twelve in 1601. Reeling under the life can be divided into four phases: 1569- "foolish riot". But Thomas Cecil regularly new King's disfavor, Ralegh received a 80,1581-4, 1585-8, and 1590-1604. received votes from 1590 on, with the num­ sole vote from his friend the Earl of Oxford received numerous votes from bers steadily increasing; in 1601 he was Northumberland in June 1603, shortly be­ 1569 to 1580 and probably would have picked by eleven out of thirteen members. fore being arrested for treason (Lord Henry gotten the honor, except that the Queen Robert Cecil never received a vote until Howard had been poisoning James' mind preferred someone else. In 1569 and '70 1604, when he got fourteen votes out of against Ralegh for several years). As a the underaged Oxford received the vote of sixteen, being finally elected in 1606. What Virginian, I rather like seeing Ralegh' s pros- William, Lord Howard of Effingham. In (Colltilllled 011 page 10) page 10 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Gartcr (Col1til1ucd ji-Olll pagc 9) his sexual misconduct. Clearly Oxford's in 1595, Oxford's daughter Bridget almost 1571 Oxford was picked by all ten voters. standing with his fellows was seriously dam­ married Pembroke's older son William in In the eight elections from 1572 to 1580, aged. 1597, and Oxford's daughter Susan mar­ Oxford averaged close to eight votes annu­ Oxford was allowed back at COUlt in ried Pembroke's second son Philip in 1605. ally and never less than four. Oxford's June 1583, but the Queen was not fully These marriages seem to have been ar­ supporters included not only the Earl of mollified. In May 1583 she was still con­ ranged by the Cecils, and the fathers were Sussex, as one would expect, but also the cerned about the charges made by Howard dead in several cases, but the Garter votes Puritan leader, the Earl of Leicester. The and Arundel, and she permitted Oxford's support a connection between Oxford and various misdeeds and alleged misdeeds of return to COUlt only after "some bitter words the other two earls. Charles Arundel had Oxford's youth - such as trying to rescue and speeches". Oxford's standing presum­ accused Oxford of plotting to murder Lord the Duke of Norfolk in 1571, or running ably improved fUlther after Charles Arundel Howard of Effingham, who was the first away to the Low Countries in 1573 seem fled to France in the wake ofthe discovery cousin of Lord Henry Howard's father, the to have had no effect on his standing with of the Throckmorton plot in November poet Surrey. But Effingham's three subse­ the KGs, though they may have prevented 1583, which resulted in the re-incarceration quent votes for Oxford seem to indicate that the Queen from selecting him. Lord Burgh­ of Lord Henry Howard. Arundel was fur­ he didn't take the charges seriously. Derby, ley always voted for Oxford as his first ther discredited in September 1584 by be­ Pembroke, and Howard of Effingham had choice among English 'princes' (foreigners ing named as one of the co-authors of the one obvious thing in common - they were were always listed first), even during his all patrons of major acting companies (see separation from his wife from April 1576 to the DNB or The Reader 's Enc)'c1opedia ol 1582. Burghley's forbearance stands in "Lord Burgh/ey always voted Shakespeare for dates and other details of marked contrast to Viscount Montague's for Oxford as his first choice their troupes). reaction to the rejection of his daughter by amOllg English 'princes' ... even The GaIter election of 1589 produced the second Earl of Southampton. Burghley' s during his separation Ii'OJIl his two new KGs, Lord Buckhurst and the fifth various writings on the breakup of the mar­ w(le... " Earl of Sussex, but the votes were not re­ riage invariably take a hurt or defensive corded. Buckhurst was the Queen's cousin, tone, rather than expressing outrage, pre­ libelous Leicester's Commollwealth. That a Privy Councillor, and several times an sumably reflecting the primary role of Lady Oxford was fully restored to the proper ambassador, and presumably benefited from Burghley in the separation. Incidentally, status of his rank in the period 1585-8 is the death of his enemy Leicester in 1588. Lady Burghley' s invasion ofOxford' shouse shown by the Garter elections and proffers Sussex was the military commander of Ports­ at Wivenhoe, trying to raise his servants of two military commands. mouth, and he emptied his magazines to against him and carrying off his wife, oc­ In April 1585 Oxford received five votes replenish the English fleet with powder and curred in April 1576 while Oxford and Lord out of thirteen for the Garter, while that shot during the Armada fight the previous Burghley were at Windsor Castle for the summer he was offered command of the year. Lord Admiral Howard of Effingham chapter of the GaIter. cavalry contingent of the English expedi­ and Lord Hunsdon had previously been Oxford was torbidden from COUlt until tionary force to the Netherlands. In 1587 Sussex's leading suppOlters for the Garter, June 1583 as a result of having a son by Oxford got four votes out of eight, and he the Admiral being Sussex's first cousin, Anne Vavasour in March 1581. In 1582 received three out of seven in 1588. In the Hunsdon his first cousin once removed, and '83 Oxford and his followers had to summer of 1588 Oxford was offered com­ both were present for the 1589 election, and defend themselves against attacks by mand of the key port of Harwich during the so Sussex was selected. Vavasour's kinsmen and their men. More­ fight against the Spanish Armada, and he Oxford received one vote throughout over Oxford was involved in a scandal of was prominent in the victory celebrations in the period 1590 to 1604, that of his brother­ charges and countercharges with Lord Hemy November. Lord Burghley voted for Ox­ in-law, Thomas Cecil, second Lord Burgh­ Howard and Charles Arundel beginning in ford in all three elections, always naming ley, in 1604. Oxford's loss of his father-in­ December 1580, though we have little evi­ him first among the 'princes'. Two recently law's vote is easily explained by Anne dence of how seriously the charges against made KGs who voted for Oxford were the Cecil's death in 1588, but his failure to get Oxford were taken. Oxford received no seventh Lord Cobham and the third Earl of anyone else's vote seems to indicate that he votes in the four Garter elections during Rutland. Oxford's other supporters had all was living under something of a cloud in 1581-4. The Queen's anger explains the voted for him before 1581, namely Henry this period. The least dramatic explanation results for 1581-3, but Oxford's failure to Stanley, fourth Earl of Derby, Henry of Oxford's disrepute would be his finan­ get any votes in 1584 (an election that Herbert, second Earl of Pembroke, and cial collapse around 1590, accompanied by Burghley missed) indicates that he was still Charles, second Lord Howard ofEffingham the loss of his daughters to Burghley, their not fully rehabilitated. His disfavor in these and Lord Admiral (the future Earl of guardian after 1588 (and Robert Cecil be­ years may be contrasted to the third Earl of Nottingham). came their guardian when Burghley died in Southampton's situation in 1599-1600, It is worth noting that Oxford's daugh­ 1598). when he continued to receive votes despite ter Elizabeth married Derby's son William But Lord Sussex was even more broke Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 11

than Oxford. Between his election as KG ceived two votes under his courtesy title in in the picture. But, from the point of view and his installation, Sussex wrote a letter to 1590 and '91, and no votes after that, even of the Knights of the Garter, he seems to the Queen explaining that his inherited es­ after becoming a marquess in 1598. Last have become a pariah. Ward quotes tate yielded but 450 pounds per year, while we find the third Earl of Bath, who received Oxford's first modern editor, Dr. A.B. he owed her a debt of 500 pounds per year. zero votes in the entire period 1590 to 1604. Grosart: "An unlifted shadow somehow lies Sussex begged that his annual payment be So Oxford comes in behind Bedford, Lin­ across his memory" (389). As the Garter reduced to 200 or 250 pounds. Oxford had coln, and Winchester, and barely beats Bath. elections show, Grosart hitthe nail squarely his 1,000 pound pension from the Queen, he Lords Winchester, Bath, Bedford, and on the head. also had lands wOlih at least several hun­ Lincoln were all nonentities. None of them In the Summer 1995 Newsletter, I dis­ dred per year, though we do not know the rates an entry in the DNB, nor even the kind cussed the appropriateness of Shake­ size of his debts. On the other hand, his ofsub-entry given to the sixth Earl of Derby speare's self-description in Sonnet 37, second wife was a woman of some wealth. at the beginning of the entry on his son, the "lame, poor, [and] despised", as applied to To judge Oxford's lack of votes during seventh Earl. Examination of GEC's The Oxford. Regarding the word "despised", r 1590-1603, we must compare him to his Complete Peerage confirms the DNB' s ver­ quoted Sir John Peyton's 1603 comment peers. Twenty-five other Englishmen held dict on these four lives ofnon-achievement , that Oxford lacked friends. The Garterelec­ the rank of marquess or earl in that period, especially that of Lord Bath, whose invis­ tions powerfully re-enforce Peyton's evalu­ and fifteen ofthemwere KGsby 1603. One ibility must set the record for Tudor earls. ation. The seventeenth Earl of Oxford had ofthe remaining ten, the fifth Earl of Derby , But Oxford was anything but a nonentity, been a man of popularity and prestige, but died a few months after inheriting his title, and he didn't go into rural hibernation after he fell from favor and honor twice, first in and there was no election during his short 1588. 1581, then again after 1588. Shakespeare's period as an earl. So we are left with nine B.M. Ward entitles the final section of personal sense ofdisgrace is found through­ earls and marquesses besides Oxford who his biography of Oxford "The Recluse", out his Sonnets: the poet is barred from never became KGs. But several of them, stating that "[ fJrom 1589 onwards the life of "public honour and proud titles" (25), he such as the Earls of Kent and Hertford, Lord Oxford becomes one of mystery" wants his name buried with his body (72), regularly received a respectable number of (299). From 1589 to about 1593 we are he knows himself to be "vile esteemed" votes, as Oxford did during 1585-8. Those indeed in some doubt as to Oxford's activi­ (121). Shakespeare alludes to the cause of who did worst were the third Earl ofBedford ties, but we know where he was after that - his dishonor several times, most clearly in and the second Earl of Lincoln, who re­ at Court and living in or near London. He Sonnet 110: "Alas, 'tis true I have gone here ceived three votes each from 1590 to 1603 was still in the Queen's good graces, so it and there/And made myself a motley to the and one vote each in 1604, followed by the seems, he had a new wife and son, his view ... " fourth Marquess of Winchester, who re- daughters were getting married, and he was

Some Further Thoughts on Research, Biography and the State of the Debate Prof, Nelson has recently speculated speculate on' how this new Stratfordian in effect, paints a portrait of Edward de about Oxford's status as revealed by the, interest in the biographical nature of the Vere, but sees no contradiction with main­ Garter elections, but with the oft-repeated works will play out over the coming years taining his Stratfordian faith, since he is Stratfordian view that his evident "disgracell and how it will affect the authorship de­ describing the inner life of his subject. For somehow disqualifies him as the author of bate. Will it work to our advantage? him, Shakespeare is' "a uattuul aristocmt", Shakespeare's works. Probably not. Everythil1gthatwill ever with fastidious tastes and a disdain for There is certainly an irony in this claim, be discovered about William Shaxpere money. and now, in 1996, that irony looms even has surely already been discovered. Armed Grotesque as it may seem, then, in the larger as Funeral Elegy is sedulously fitted with the few biographical facts that they 1110nths and years to COme we are likely to out as the new Stratfordian flagship. do have, the trick ror the professors will be see a m01'e Oxfordian Shaxpere~ an aristo­ For, as followers of the Elegy story to reconstruct the author's inner life -~his cratic Shaxpere even! Can't you just hear it? know, 1tis the Elegy author's lamentation of psychology-- which is very safe gi"ound He developed his fastidious tastes as a reac­ his disgrace that has Prof. Donald Foster et indeed. ,¥ho is going to gainsay the pro­ tion to the dunghill he had to endure outside a/ telling us how such insightsabotlt the posal'that Shakespeare was feeling pro­ his father's house. His disdain for money author will make us "better readers" of foundly depressed and alienated in 1598? was born of a surfeit' of the same. His Shakespeare. All of which is to say that we are aristocratic attitude was a compensation Some day Stl'atfordians should hold a probably going to see many more biogra­ mechanism. And, best of all, he suffered special authorship conference where they phies along the lines of Frank HaUlS'S from an identity crisis. might all try to at least get their stories remarkable work The jY!al1 Shakespeare Anything to avoid asking the ultimate straight. But, until then, it is interesting to and lIis Tragic Life Story (1909). Harris, question: "Who was he?" Editors page 12 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Funeral Elegy: An update Does the Emperor Have Any Clothes Yet? By Stephanie Caruana

The battle over the FuneJ'(/1 Elegy by lauded W.S. for displaying "considerable Peter' s death to publisher' s registration) W.S. (1612) rages on in the pages of the daring in affording pride of place to the suggests to Vickers that both elegies "be­ London Tillles Literal), Supplement. 'other woman' as the most deeply aggrieved long to the traditional genre of eulogistic or Professor Stanley Wells of the Univer­ of Peter's mourners." He concluded by epideictic rhetoric ... offered as .. .consola­ sity of Birmingham began the round by attempting to connect Prospero's abjura­ tions for the surviving family and friends. " rejecting the identification ofW.S. as Wil­ tion of magic in The Telllpest with W.S.'s After making a good case for Wastell, liam Shakespeare (TLS 1126/96, p.28). He "plain style." but perhaps inadvertently throwing the barn pointed out that it would have been unlikely Brian Vickers, an editor of Shakespear­ door wide open to rival claimants with any for Shakespeare to focus his attention on ean books, took up the cudgel (oops! baton) set of initials, Vickers concluded: " ... no writing and publishing an elegy for William with "Whose Thumbprints?- A more plau­ kudos attaches to identifying an obscure Peter since his own brother Gilbert died and sible author for A Funeml Elegy." (TLS, 3/ [headmaster] with the authorship of any­ was buried in Stratford only nine days after 8/96, p.16-18). He argued against Foster's thing, while identifying Shakespeare's hand Peter' s death. "too great reliance on computerized would be the great prize. I regret that Foster's Wells' s other objections focus on the stylometrics," because "depending ... on an well-considered avoidance of an absolute poor quality of the Elegy itself, which atomistic notion of style [use of computer claim for Shakespeare's authorship has been "seems not so much bad as tedious in a programs] has produced bewi Ideringly con­ overwhelmed by Richard Abrams' s enthu­ very unShakespearean way." He noted the flicting results." siastic but indiscriminate advocacy." generalized, nonspecific praises heaped on Vickers delivered a crushing blow to Richard Abrams' response (3 /22/96) the murdered man, and the mistakes W.S. the significance of Foster's study of Jaco­ seemed patterned after second-rate college made about details of Peter' s life. He bean poets whose initials were ' W.S.' He debaters everywhere. He accused his oppo­ questioned the value of Foster's computer­ cited John Horden, to the effect that a pair nent of "errors, misrepresentations and in­ ized measurements of word usage, and the of authorial initials may be false, or re­ consistencies," hurled a few insults, and way computer programs are currently touted versed, or may represent the last letters ofa claimed victory. He hinted darkly of new, as superior to human literary perception. name, and supplied instances for each case. still unrevealed, and "more compelling He ended by saying he would "continue to He brought up " the power of negative in­ reasons to accept the Elegy as Shake­ harbor a suspicion that W.S . was ... perhaps stances (it takes only one black swan to speare's .... Untii the new evidence is before a curate with literary aspirations, who had falsify the proposition that all swans are him, Vickers should probably try to keep little personal knowledge of William Peter white.)" his foot out of his mouth." but was commissioned by Peter' s family to He pointed out "the overt piety of sev­ Foster made his own short but vicious memorialize him in an effort to minimize eral passages, quite unlike anything in riposte (TLS, 3/29/96, p .17). He accused th e unpleasant, ifnot disreputable circum­ Shakespeare." Finally he proposed another Vickers of "advanc[ing] his case with an stances of his death." candidate for author: Simon Waste II, who inattention to facts that would not be toler­ Professor Richard Abrams of the Uni­ was headmaster of a school at ated in an undergraduate student." He then versityof Southern Maine,DonaldFoster's Northampton. Foster had tentatively iden­ quoted lines from: champion in the current drive to canonize tified Wastell as the author of The Muses --an elegy by Michael Drayton the Elegy, sees the Elegy as a statistically Thank/iilness, A Funeral Elegyfor Robert, --a 1627 elegy by Wastell (?) stolen unimpeachable example of "Shakespeare's Baron Spencer ( 1627), in which he "plagia­ from Drayton' s elegy (and from all the late style" (TLS, 2/9/96, p.25-6). By this he rized a whole series of funeral elegies, in­ other elegy writers on the block), and means Helll), VIII and The T1VO Noble cluding W.S. ' s on William Peter, Samuel --some lines from W.S's elegy that are Kinslll en- two plays which have tradition­ Daniel ' s elegy for the Earl of Devonshire supposed to show W.S.'s vast superiority. ally been dogged with doubts and questions (1606), Tourneur's for Lord Oxford (1609), OK folks, here's a snap quiz I have regarding their own authorship. He re­ and John Webster' s for Prince Henry prepared (kind oflike a Benezet test): I will sponded to what many see as an inexpli­ ( 1613)." quote lines from the three elegies Foster cable error with regard to the duration of The elegy to Robert Spencer was 614 cites above, but I won't tell you which elegy William Peter' s marriage (tlu'ee years in lines long, compared to Peter's 578-line they are from. You be the judge of their reality, as opposed to "nine ofyears ... in his elegy. This similarity in length, combined relative quality, and whether or not they bed" (Elegy 511-2» with an unsubstanti­ with a curious sameness and flatness of come from the same collective elegy cookie­ ated tale ofa nine-year affair with a mistress content, and the speed with which the Peter cutter: while Peter was a student at Oxford. He elegy was ground out (nineteen days from Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 13

Canst thou depart and be forgotten so, they are upset, given that they have wa­ them and Shakespeare, are in fact so gross As if thou hadst not been at all? gered their whole professional reputation as to defeat computerized statistics; the o nol But in despite of death the world shall see That Muse which much graced was by thee. on the claims for Shakespeare's authorship, scale is too large; it only needs a normal Can black Oblivion utterly out-brave and stand to lose a lot once it is generally reader with some powers ofjudgment to tell And set thee up above thy silent grave? discredited." But he added, "In fact they the difference." When those weak houses of our brittle flesh are guilty not only of arrogance but of He describes Foster's odd dilemma: Shall ruin'd be by death, our grace and strength, Youth, memory and shape that made us fresh pervasive dishonesty." He detailed Foster's "Foster was doubtful about pressing the Cast down, and utterly decay'd at length; methods oftiptoeing through the computer identification, since the poem's language When all shall turn to dust from whence we came data, discarding any tests that disproved his was not so figurative or filled with word­ And we low-level'd in a narrow grave, thesis. playas is characteristic of Shakespeare. What can we leave behind us but a name? Then he addressed what is to me the Then emerged his Svengali, Richard crux of the problem: "Foster and Abrams, who said in an interview: 'where I Foster states, "In its prosody, diction, Abrams ... represent that recently emergent came in ... was to notice that the poem syntax and thought, Wastell'soriginalwork type of scholar who performs elaborate avoids the language of the imagination is as unlike A FUI/eral Elegy as can be." analyses of poetic language by using con­ because, in the poet's mind, imagination is Like Abrams, he referred to unrevealed cOl'dances and other electronic resources strangely implicated in the murder of his "new evidence" which has shifted the bal­ rather than by reading poems. But what do friend. Shakespeare was deliberately writ­ ance of evidence decisively. He talked of machines know about literary conventions, ingthis way.'" In other words, Shakespeare "the recent groundswell of support for a genre, rhetoric, or figurative language? .... In arbitrarily decided to write a banal poem Shakespearean attribution ... [and] emerg­ all the thirteen years he has been working because he felt like it. That's why it's bad, ing consensus that Shakespeare wrote this on this poem, Foster seems never to have folks; just take my word for it. How can strange and challenging poem," noticed ... that both the epistle, in which the anyone argue with such nonsense? Foster But like a harbinger of more grief to author describes his inexperience in writing accepted Abrams' rationale, and danced come, on the same page was a letter from poetry, and the modesty topos, as used with out on this treacherous limb. Stephen Katherine Duncan-Jones, of Somerville such banality in the poem itself, would Greenblatt of the University of California College, Oxford, stating her belief that this alone be enough to exclude Shakespeare plans to include the poem in his forthcom­ "dreary poem" was probably written by from consideration, with a lifetime's work ing edition of Shakespeare's works. some member of the Devonshire gentry. of unequalled range and variety behind Meanwhile, it's hard to see how Foster She proposed William Strode or one of him .... The parallels that I see between [the and Abrams can summon up the chutzpah to Thomas Stukeley's many brothers. 1612 Peter Eleg)' and the 1627 Eleg)' for return to the vaudeville stage of the TLS, Brian Vickers returned for a final mop­ Baron Spencer], and the difference that where further literary brickbats and rotten up on 4/12/96. He commiserated with F os­ many more people see between either of tomatoes are sure to greet them. ter and Abrams: "It is not surprising that

Reception (Continued/i'om page 3) Walter de la Mare's poem "The Traveller" Of her Will characters. He traced his growing disillu­ with its haunting refrain "Is there anyone sionment, from Berowne, through Romeo there?", and pointed out that no one an­ Ever well affected "will", and Hal, to Hamlet and, finally, Lear, in swers the traveller when he knocks on the Loving "goodness", Loathing "ill", whose godson, Edgar, Oxford finds true moonlit door. He identified the traveller I nestimahle Treasure: wisdom and fulfillment. It was from his with Oxfordians, while those who hid in the Since such a power hath power to spill, nothingness that he was able to plumb house and ignored him represented the A nd save us at her pleasure. deep spiritual truths. Stratfordian establishment. Oxfordians, he To reinforce this idea, he gave his favor­ said, must keep knocking, while, in the B thou our Law, sweet "will", and say Even what thou wilt, we will obey ite quote from W.B. Yeats, who wrote: meantime, they are at least entitled to cry T his Law, if J could reade it: "Shakespeare's myth, it may be, is that of a out with the faithful traveller: "Tell them I Herein would J spend night and day, nobleman who was blind from very nobil­ came, that I kept my word .... " A nd study still to plead it. ity, and an empty man who thrust him from his place and sawall that could be seen from R oyal"free will", and onely "free", very emptiness." Each other "will" is Slave to thee: But the Stratford man's life journey, he Visit the G lad is each "will" to serve thee: said, followed the opposite path, and was Shakespeare Oxford Society I n thee such Princely power is scene, on the Intemet wholly material in nature. As Lear was N a Spirit but takes thee for her Queene, Clying out on the heath 'Who is it that can A nd thinkes she must ohserve thee. Home Page. located at: tell me who I am?', Shaxpere was warming http://www.shakespeare-oxford.colU By Sir John Davies, in his his feet by the fire at Stratford. HVl11lls to Astmea ill Acrostic Verse Coming full circle, he quoted from page 14 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter The debate heats up on the Web In the winter Newsletter we reported on months is the two new authorship Sha\{espeare Oxford Society the great strides taken by the Society in Web sites that came online on April Home Page bringing the authorship debate to the 23rd, the day that Frontline re­ Vtoro Nihil Vnius World Wide Web. In the three months broadcast The Shakespeare Mys­ since then a good deal has happened, which tery. reaffirms our beliefin the power ofthis new The Stratfordian Shakespeare information technology and our commit­ Authorship Page has come out ment to carry the debate onward into all swinging, taking on the producers corners of cyberspace. of The Shakespeare Mystel)l, the At the time the SOS Home Page was SOS Page, and every Oxfordian in launched (Sept. 1995), it was one of only a the world. In one article ("What few Shakespeare pages, and the only one Did George Puttenham Really Say Shakespeare Oxford Society Home Page: http://www.shakespeare-oxfonl.com on the authorship. This past April 23rd, about Oxford?"), they have gone two more pages joined the authorship fray. so far as to proclaim that the In conjunction with the rebroadcast of conflation oftwo quotations from The Shakespeare MystelY, a Shakespeare The Arte of English Foesie on Mystelypagewas set up as pati ofFrontline ~5 Frolltline and on the SOS page has Web site. And on the same day a Stratford­ exposed the falsity of all Oxford­ ian authorship page, the Shakespeare Au­ ian arguments in the 20th century, thorship Page, was launched by David and put the whole debate to rest. The Shakespeare Authorship Page Kathman and Terry Ross. And some web surfers, and web Also this year several Baconian pages site managers, looking for a bit of Dedicated to the Proposition that Shakespeare '''rotc Shakespeare have appeared: Shake-n-Bacon (with nu­ Stratfordian comfort, have un­ merous full text versions ofdocuments pro­ surprisingly responded quite fa­ vided) and Penn Leary's" Are there ciphers vorably to the new page. The Shakespeare Authorship Page: in Shakespeare?" While much of the material on http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/-tross/ws/will.html Prof. Alan Nelson, who is researching the SA Page is old hat, they have Oxford's life, has put up a page under his made an interesting point in chal­ name that includes the full text (in lenging the quotes from The Arte, unmodernized English) of all the Earl of as well as presenting a new chal­ Oxford's letters that he has transcribed in lenge on dating The Tempest. the past year. Some of these letters have We will be responding to these never appeared in print before. claims in the near future, first on And then there are the pages sponsored our Home Page this summer, and at various colleges and universities geared later in the Summer Newsletter, to Shakespeare course work, pages with full which will be mailed to members texts of the works, orpages such as "Project in early September. W.S.", in which seven students at East W. Boyle Tennessee State consider the Funeral EI­ The Shakespeare Mystery: eg)' attribution (did he or didn't he?). Their http://ww2.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frolltline/shakespeare/ online bibliography includes hyperlinks to online resources" which now include the two Funeral Elegy articles that appeared in the winter Newsletter, Discussion Group Changes As ofJune 14, 1996 the email discussion groups EVetUlOre and Library have been A student (Jimmy Brokaw) somewhere discontinued in their present format. There will be new arrangements by September, in Great Britain has even created his own or perhaps earlier. authorship page, dedicated to telling the Matty Hyatt will most likely run a private, Oxfordian only list. The Society will world about Edward de Vere. And we have be exploring arrangements for an uruuoderated, automated list, open to all comers. had students from around the country email Meanwhile, for those not presently pmticpating, send all inquiries and comments us from the SOS page asking for help on to: [email protected] to learn what is happening and how you can participate in writing about or debating the authorship one or both of the new discussion groups. Issue However the biggest news these past Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 15 Globe Theater's Mark: Rylance latest to sign Authorship Petition

Mark Rylance, Artistic Director at the page. It will be presented to the S.A.A. each Norrie Epstein, author Globe Theater in London and a long time year. Since it's appearance in both the Sir John Gielgud, actor skeptic of the Stratford story, has joined Newsletter and on the Internet, more than Michael Hart, author with others in signing the Authorship Peti­ 50 new signatories have been added to it. Norris Houghton, producer/director, author tion sponsored by the Shakespeare Oxford To date more than 400 writers, lawyers, Sir Derek Jacobi, actor Society. actors, teachers, students and other lovers Kevin Kelly, drama critic (Boston Globe) The Petition was informally presented of Shakespeare have signed the petition, Edgar Lansbury, producer to the S.A.A. on April 12th at the Recep­ which asks that the authorship question and Kristin Linklater, author tion sponsored by the Society. Charles the evidence pointing toward Edward de Felicia Londre, professor Boyle gave a brief talk explaining the Vere be given serious consideration by the Christopher Lydon, journalist petition's origins, and how it could not be academic establishment. Louis Marder, professor formally presented this year because there Paul Nitze, author and statesman were not yet 20 S.A.A. members to spon­ Among those who have already signed Louise Robey, actress sor it (Oxfordians who are also members are: Mark Rylance, actor of the S.A.A. number 18 at this point). The Duke of S1. Albans However, the petition will remain a per­ Verily Anderson, author Hank Whittemore, author manent part of the Society's long term Armand Assante, actor Michael York, actor plans, and will be listed in each Newsletter Lydia Bronte, author and also on our Internet World Wide Web Charles Champlin, arts critic (LA Times)

A Petition sponsored by the Shakespeare Oxford Society on the matter of the authorship of the works of William Shakespeare.

We, the undersigned, petition the Shakespeare Association of America, in light of ongoing research, to engage actively in a comprehensive, objective and sustained investigation of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon, paliicularly as it relates to the claim of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.

Name: ______

Address: ______

City: ______State: ____ ZIP: ____

Phone: ______

Occupation/affiliation: ______

Signature: ______

This form should be xeroxed, signed and and mailed to:

Charles Boyle, 208A Washington St. #9, Somerville, MA 02143 page 16 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Oxfordian News: Nelson-Chiljan debate in San Francisco; "Shaksper" dethroned at Shakespeare Duel in Michigan; Annual Oxford Day Banquet in Boston

California DANZANDO, a southern California troupe dedicated to recreating the dances of the 15th through 17th centuries. Performing in In San Francisco on April 23rd Prof. elegant period costumes, their perfor­ Alan Nelson of UC-Berkeley debated mance included the galliard, almon, Katherine Chiljan on the authorship be­ spagnoletta, and volta, as well as two En­ fore an audience of students and faculty. glish country dances. The event was sponsored by the A special thanks to trustee Sally Mosher Horatio Society in San Francisco, co­ for arranging for their appearance. Sally founded last year by Chiljan and Randall has also been working hard the last two Sherman. years to document music named for the Prof. Nelson is currently conduct­ Earl of Oxford. We will repOli more about ing research into the life of de Vere, and Professor Alan Nelson poses with Katherine this in our next Newsletter. plans to write a biography of him in the Chiljan after their debate. But will he wear his Some of the familiar west coast faces near future. Ms. Chiljan has been quite new T-shirt under his Stratfordian garb? seen were David Hanson, who presented active in the Bay Area, along with the feature speech at the March Shake­ Randall Sherman, in promoting de Vere's always an emphasis on the miist's life as speare Authorship Roundtable event cause and holding public meetings and de­ part of that study. ("Prince Hamlet and the Second Cause"), bates where the issue can be explored. Nelson rejoined that Chaucer and Ben Thad Taylor, Ron Allen, Robert Treash, After both Nelson and Chiljan made Jonson were two examples of writers who Tal Wilson, John Wood, and most of the their cases, a Q &A period followed which are not in their works. He conceded that, for members of the LA based Authorship yielded some interesting comments from Shakespeare, only the Sonnets and perhaps Roundtable. A special thanks to Carol Sue Prof. Nelson on the authorship and Shake­ Hamlet were "personal". Lipman and all the Roundtable members speare. The Professor cited his own recent The final question of the day was the for making the local arrangements for the research when stating that, even if the Strat­ perennial favorite: "How much does it mat­ SOS Reception. ford actor was proven not to be Shake­ ter who wrote the plays?" Again, Prof. speare, he believes he has eliminated de Nelson's reply was most interesting: "I Massachusetts Vere through examination of the spelling in think it would matter -not that the impor­ his surviving letters. tance of the plays is tied to the importance Richard Desper of Acton was the win­ At another point Nelson remarked that of the author. But it would give us a kind of ner of the Miller Award, granted by the he "didn't think anyone seriously makes a door into a new realm of scholarship, a new 34th Annual Deep South Writers Confer­ connection between the plays and set of questions to ask about the plays" ence for his play Star-crossed Lovers. Shakespeare's life as a lived psychological and" .. .1 wish we knew more about his [i.e. The award is sponsored by the Judge experience ... .it's not events in Shakespeare's Shaksper of Stratford's] life than we do ... it Minos D. Miller Foundation for the best life that are reflected in the plays, but rather might prod us to ask new questions." play on the Elizabethan era and the Shake­ events from the books of the era." He then Chiljan in her response emphasized how speare authorship question. mentioned hearing at the conference in LA Oxfordians do know more about the author The 8th Annual Oxford Day Banquet, two weeks earlier of a biographer of and have been prodded into asking more hosted by the NOliheast Chapter of the Shakespeare who intends to claim that questions. She continued that much more Society, was held in Cambridge at the Shakespeare's gloomy period around 1600 research on this entire subject is needed, Harvard Faculty Club on April 26th. Ap­ began because there were two murders in and generously praised Prof. Nelson for all proximately 50 Oxfordians and their guests Stratford in that year; this is the sort of his recent work on de Vere's life and the attended. speculation Nelson rejects. new material he has uncovered. Charles Burford and Conference Chair­ A follow-up questioner then asked, And now some further notes on Oxford­ person George Anderson were the sched­ "Why assume that the author's life is re­ ians in Los Angeles for the Sixth World uled speakers, but the festive evening actu­ flected in the plays?" Chiljan responded Shakespeare Congress: ally ran late as the event's founder that it was most likely in this canon of 37 At the SOS reception on Friday Charles Boyle also spoke about his adven­ plays that the author was in there, and that evening, guests were enteliained by a pro­ tures at the recent Shakespeare Congress with most artists she had studied, there was gram of Renaissance dances, presented by in LA, while Elliott Stone spoke on the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 17

Funeral Elegy, and Shakespeare. John Louther Reports: Roger Stritmatter on McPherson plans to be at this year's "He was simply the most learned man in recent authorship en­ Conference, and hopes to show the England in his own field of study." Thus, counters on the inter- videotapes of both Duels I and II to those we have the opinion about John Bale net. interested. He is also prepared to talk with (1495-1563) delivered by Professor Leslie Boyle's thoughts anyone who is curious about setting up Fairfield (John Bale: Mythmaker for the on the Conference Debate/mock trial formats to publicize the English Reformation, Perdue Univ. Press, can be found on issue, as he believes this is an effective way 1976). For centuries the Protestant ex­ George Anderson page 4, while of promoting the cause. Catholic friar's antiquarian praxis has been talks about plans Burford's talk pro­ praised (witness his huge undetiaking in for the Minneapo­ South Carolina vided another ex­ writing Scriptorum ifflistrilll1l majoris ample of his pro­ lis Conference Charlton Ogburn recently wrote us Britanniae catalogue [1557]), but research vocative insights into from Beaufort about two errors found in of Bale as dramaturge unfortunately re­ Shakespeare. TMWS and the pamphlet The Man Who mains neglected --in spite of the tantalizing In discussing Falstaff, Burford pre­ Was Shakespeare: clues in his playwriting history that could sented the possibility that this famous "Charlton Ogburn confesses to par­ lead to identifying the man behind the "Wil­ Shakespeare character may actually be yet ticular shame over two errors in print of liam Shakespeare" pen name. The tireless another portrayal, albeit a burlesque, of de which he is guilty. In The 1I1ysterious Wil­ reformer wrote 21 plays in all. Most, how­ Vere's bete noire, Lord Burghley. There limn Shakespeare, near the top of page 244, ever are lost, including KingJohn and Three are telling lines and comments surrounding four lines are attributed to Julius Caesar Laws of Nature, Moses and Christ, dramas Falstaff's appearances that lend a tantaliz­ that in fact are spoken in Anthony and written to advertise the misuse of power by ing credence to this theory. Burford will Cleopatra by Octavius Caesar. (The the Catholics. By 1537, when the king's expand on this in future talks, or perhaps a confusion was first reported by Nat Kelly anti-clerical advisor Thomas Cromwell re­ conference paper. Cole, son of Nat King Cole, a student of cruited him (to become Henry VIII's "most George Anderson spoke about the cur­ Shakespeare since his 12th year and an prolific playwright"), Bale, his plays and rent state of planning for the conference, active Oxfordian until his sad, untimely buskers were already touring England. and distributed special bookmarks that have death last October.) In The Man Who Was Ruth L. Miller (Shakespeare Identified, been printed up as a fund-raising device. Shakespeare, in the middle of page 16, pp.469-479) reminds us of Bale's electrify­ See page 5 for more on the Conference. another four-line quotation is attributed to ing potential: "It is not without signifi­ Bertram in Cymbeline, when of course cance that .. .John Bale's plays ... were per­ Michigan Belarius is meant. formed almost exclusively ... by the compa­ But, as Mr. Ogburn observes, a great nies of John de Vere and Thomas "The Great Shakespeare Duel II" took puzzle arises from these egregious en·ors. Cromwell. (l.W. Harris, John Bale, Univ. place on May 19th in Grosse lIe, featuring The orthodox Shakespearean scholars, of Illinois Press, 1940). Harris comments, Oxfordian Mark McPherson who debated known for their conscientious objectivity as does R. Wallerstein (King John in Fact Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Myron and scruples, would surely have read the and Fiction), on Bale's Troublesome Raigne Wahls. two publications to make sure that their of King John as the primary source for It is called "Duel II" because 7 years contemptuous dismissal of Oxfordians as Shakespeare's King John --but cannot ac­ earlier a similar debate had taken place, one snobs, ignoramuses and giddy count for how Shakespeare had access to which McPherson had videotaped, and conspiratorialists remained justified, and Bale's unpublished ms .... It is no mystery ... which went on to win a local PBS broad­ yet, thorough and deep as is their knowl­ In August 1561, the Earl of Oxford's play­ cast prize, although it never achieved na­ edge of Shakespeare, none came forward to ers performed Bale's Troublesome Raigne tional recognition. 1989 was, of course, the pounce on [these] misattributions!" ... for the Queen at Ipswich ... that same year of the Frontline documentary, which August at Castle Hedingham, she was again entertained by Earl John's players. garnered all the attention. McPherson has England (or rather , Wales) also patiicipated in other Shakespeare au­ Edward ... heir of the family of Vere, was thorship debates, including the Temple On May 25th Society president Charles [an] impressionable eleven. A year later ...Cecil gathered the twelve year old Ed­ Mock Trial in London in 1988. Burford spoke at The Sunday Times Hay ward into the fold of wardship [and] took In Duel II the audience voted on the Festival of Literature at Hay-on-Wye in possession of all the young noble's assets ... outcome, and the vote was restricted to Wales. What started out as a literaty week­ Undoubtedly "Shakespeare" saw Bale's simply passing judgment on the Stratford end with friends for the Florence family, the story, rather than selecting an alternative Festival's founders, has now turned into ms. plays ... through the eyes of Edward de Vere, who owned many of them in the candidate. The audience on May 19th voted one of the most prestigious literary gather­ 14 to 12 that Shaksper of Stratford was not ings in all Britain, with 150 events over ten library at Cecil House." (Continued on page 24) page 18 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

tel'S ecclesiastical." They would be tried Shakespeare and the Politics and condemned together for their doomed revolt against her in 1601. Yet ofProtestant England "Shakespeare's areas of' refusal ' [were] the by Charles Boyle same issues that Southampton refused." This is interesting stuff. For after While browsing in one of the second­ "a play about the problems of being sub­ you've answered "Who was Shakespeare?" hand bookshops I enjoy haunting, I came jected to a female ruler." with Oxford, the next question becomes across an academic study published in 1992 First it must be understood that in Tudor "Who was Oxford?" And who was called Shakespeare and the Politics ofProt­ England the "church" meant the English Southampton? Why does Oxford link them estant England. I picked it up and read the Church, that strange hybrid, not truly Catho­ eternally in the dedications to Venlls and flyleaf: lic but not Presbyterian or Puritan either - a Adonis and The Rape ofLlIcrece and in the "Donna Hamilton rejects the notion that the kind of state catholicism where Elizabeth, loving, dynastic language of the Sonnets? official censorship of the day prevented the as was the case with her father, was both Some say their love was homosexual, oth­ stage from representing contemporary debates Pope and King, ruling a strictly hierarchical ers that it was a family feeling, some say it concerning the relations among church, state society and a subservient church. Unlike, was both and others neither - but any news and individual. Shakespearc positioned his say, Shakespeare's Henry the Fifth, the of their politics is bound to be helpful. writing politically and ideologically in relation to ... church-state controversies in ways that have Tudors thought they owned people body She notes, for instance, in her chapter on much in common with the ... Leicester-Sidney­ and soul. That is what doomed Thomas King John, how his reign was used for Essex -Southampton-Pembroke group." Moore. These monarchs, father and daugh­ debating the succession to Elizabeth and I checked the index for Oxford. Noth­ ter, had given themselves the right to make stresses how Shakespeare differs from the ing. That was okay. After all, the purpose of and unmake their own legitimacy. Henry anonymous Troublesome Reign oj' King this hoax has always been to depoliticize was arranging to have a bastard son made John, a play performed by the Queen's Shakespeare - the depersonalization came his rightful heir when the boy died. official company. In Shakespeare the "King along as an inevitable by-product. The au­ But, as Elizabeth's reign wore on, her now awards the land to the Bastard." (Fur­ thorship controversy is at heart a fight over mythic status as both secular and spiritual thermore, the author awards him the final his authenticity. Are these works a report leader of her people became subsumed in lines in his history of John.) from the front by some knower? Was he the icon of her as Holy Mother to the nation. In examining Twelfth Night she finds there? Or is he only an inspired patcher of She had come to stand in her church as the the Queen in the reclusive Olivia and sees old plays, a mere entertainer? At least answer to the Roman cult of Mary. In her household as "a model for the state." Professor Hamilton placed him among the England the Queen was the "church", and She overlooks the fact that Olivia (con­ knowers. That was a start. her will, royal and divine, was enforceable stantly called "Madonna" by the Fool) is Though clearly written in academese, I by torture and death. also compared to Lucrece, an emblem, like suspected it would offer invaluable infor­ So the problems of being subjected to a the Virgin Queen, of chastity. But this mation and insight into Oxford's troubled female ruler were particularly acute in Lucrece lusts after a beardless youth, just relationship with the English Church and Elizabeth's day. like that goddess of the poem, Venus Crown. The professor did not disappoint. Yet Shakespeare, I learned, "wrote (another Elizabethan commonplace for It turns out she sees the Queen in play plays that critiqued the increasingly abso­ Elizabeth). Overlooked, but why not? This after play, not mere allusions to her, but her lutist hierarchical...English Church .... At kind of intertexual comparison leads no­ presence in the characters (so does Maljorie the centre of the controversies was the where in the academy. The professor, Garber in her Harvard lectures, finding presbyterian drive to change the form of however, does recognize that a reclusive, Elizabeth in Portia and even Henry the church government, which ... provided the unknowable, almost other-worldly Queen Fourth). This is deep water for the conven­ motivation for interrogating hierarchical cannot exercise enough authority to hold tionally minded. It goes beyond conceding forms, one ofthe chief locations (the other her household together any better than Polonius as Burghley. The possible shock being the issue ofsuccession) of opposition Olivia. She explains: of even that confounded a critic as good as during the reign of Elizabeth." In other "The result is virtually a carte blanche situ­ G. Wilson Knight, who rejected the Burgh­ words the presbyterian system offered a ation for those at the top, one into which no change of policy can be interpolated, and thus ley identification as it opened the door to model for church government that "by­ passed royal authority." one in which repression by way of any number seeing Elizabeth in Gertrude. And that of arbitrary tactics - including systems for con­ Opposition to the English Bishops would be "suicidal". trolling meaning and for demonizing anyone Steeled as I was to the possibility, found support from Leicester and Burghley who does not co-operate - becomes the takell­ Hamilton's first recognition of her took me as well as Essex and Southampton. These for-grantedness that characterizes daily life." by surprise. In the seemingly frivolous Com­ last two, Hami !ton observes, "became asso­ We know this story. Oxfordians are edy of Errors she sees Adriana as "the ciated with two 'oppositionist' issues of familiar with such treatment. The Shake­ suspicious wife, the church, the queen" in Elizabeth's reign -the succession and mat- speare problem is handled this way. But (Continued 011 page 24) Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 19

Book Reviews by Richard Whalen

Edmond Malone, Shakespearean most of them in his introductory note to the Walter Raleigh's operatives in Stratford­ Scholar: A Literary Biography, by Peter lengthy commentary on his edition of the on-Avon in 1616. Apparently, their view is Martin. (Cambridge University Press, Sonnets. "Are the Sonnets to some extent that Will Shakspere of Stratford led a 1995). autobiographical?" His answer is more ques­ double life, as the grain merchant known as Professor Martin's biography of tions followed by a hedged opinion and a Shakspere/Shakespeare and as William Edmond Malone (the first since 1860) de­ convoluted reference to the earl of Oxford. Hall, the secret agent who wrote the poems scribes Malone as a dogged archival scholar, Evans states that all significant art is to and plays of Shakespeare. debunker of Stratfordian myths, and "a some extent autobiographical; then he seems Along the way they must dispose of the telTorto forgers", especially William Henry to say that Oxfordians differ from most other major candidates for authorship. They Ireland. Edmond Malone was a prodigious critics in believing that the sonnets are not cite 1. Thomas Looney's "Shakespeare" scholar and literary celebrity. He collabo­ autobiographical. This totally erroneous im­ ldellt(fied and Charlton Ogburn's The rated with James Boswell on his Life of pression seems to be the meaning ofa triple­ Mystery of William Shakespeare (the U.K. Johnson while struggling to beat the com­ negative sentence: "No critic with a con­ abridgement, 1988), but their critique ofthe petition with his own edition of Shake­ science (unlike Baconians, Oxfordians, etc.) case for Oxford is cursory in the extreme: speare (1790). This edition's Life of Will would now deny that such a Shakespeare Correspondences in the plays are only to Shakspere was the only substantial biogra­ signature is writ large in the Sonnets, as it is, names ofOxford 's relatives; the dedication phy in almost a century. of course, in the plays and other poems." to Veil us and Adonis is from an inferior to At the same time, he maintained an Does he really believe that the "signa­ a superior; Francis Meres mentions both active social life with the leading literary ture" of the Stratford man, that is, his biog­ Oxford and Shakespeare as playwrights, so and artistic figures ofthe time. And he spent raphy, is writ large in the works of Shake­ they can't be the same man; if Oxford was weeks with manuscripts in the Bodleian speare? If so, it is nowhere evident in the working for the Queen there was no need Library and the Public Record Office. He 164 pages of commentary on the sonnets for Will Shakspere as a front man. was the first to examine the Stratford parish that he provides. He comes close, perhaps, The book also has a peculiar format. records and Henslowe' s diary ofthe theater with the "Will" sonnets (135-136) where Each chapter ends with six or eight num­ in London. Several times he tried to re-date the Christian name William is one of six bered paragraphs that re-state the content the plays of Shakespeare, while lamenting senses of the word "will". of the chapter. This is not a book that will the impossibility ofattaining anything close Professor Hecht's long Introduction is be taken seriously. to certainty. an extended explication des textes that con­ For Oxfordians his greatest contribu­ cludes by asking whether the sonnets Cultural Selection, by Gary Taylor. tion was perhaps his exposure of frauds and should be read "as documentaty transcrip­ (New York: BasicBooks, 1996). forgeries by Ireland and several others. tions of personal experience." The ques­ In his last book, Reinventing Shake­ Malone espoused rigorous historical re­ tion, Hecht concludes, is "largely irrel­ speare (1989), Professor Taylor found rea­ search and he pounced on forgers with evant". sons other than creative excellence for uncompromising force despite initial ac­ But then in his final words he betrays Shakespeare's reputation and standing in ceptance of the forgeries by his contempo­ his feelings: "Most of all they speak with a the world of literature. Surveying Shake­ raries. For anyone interested in the first powerful, rich and complex emotion of a spearean criticism and biography over the great Shakespearean scholar and textual very dramatic kind, and we cannot fail to centuries, he suggested that the cultural editor, Martin's biography of Malone pro­ hear in the them a voice of passion and circumstances of the times were powerful vides a straightforward account of his ex­ intelligence." influences. Shakespeare was elevated to traordinary life. the Divine Bard even though some of the The Shakespeare Conspiracy, by Gra­ work of other playwrights was better than The Sonnets, a volume in The New ham Phillips and Martin Keatman. (Lon­ some of Shakespeare's. Cambridge Shakespeare, edited by C. don: Century, 1994). His latest book is written in the same Blakemore Evans, with an introduction by Two Britishjournalists offer a new can­ clever, witty style, and it extends his Dar­ Anthony Hecht. (Cambridge University didate as the real William Shakespeare. He winian theories broadly to the works of four Press, 1996). is William Hall, a secret service agent and other writers and artists. Their works are Shakespeare's sonnets stir up a crowd the "Mr. W.H." in Thorpe's dedication of influential not because of their intrinsic of questions for Stratfordian academics, Shake-Speares SOllnets. William Hall, same merit, that makes them "classics", but be­ most of whom have no answers, or give last name as a Will Shakspere relative, was cause they happened to find a "niche" multiple answers. Professor Evans raises probably disfigured and poisoned by Sir where they could visibly excel and be re (Continued 011 page 24) page 20 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Shakespeare Oxford From the Editor: Newsletter Published quarterl y by the Special Notice Shakespeare Oxford Society In the first two weeks after the Winter appeared in the newslette r. Tn addition, Mr. P.O. Box 263 Newslelfer was mailed to members 111 Ogburn had been upset that the letter of Somerville, MA. 02143 March, we received letters from Charlton his we published in the Winter issue had Editor: William Boyle Ogburn and Judge Minos and Ruth Loyd been shortened without explanation. Well , Editorial Board: Trudy Atkins, Miller. Both Mr. Ogburn and the Millers that was a mistake on our part, because the Charles Boyle, Charles Burford requested that their names be removed as balance of the letter was all about his par­ Stephanie Hughes, Betty Sears, Honorary Trustees ofthe Shakespeare Ox­ ents dealings with Simon & Schuster and Phone: (6 17) 628-34 11 ford Society. tbe manuscript of This Sial' of Englalld. Phone/Fax: (6 17) 628-4258 W e have since spoken on the phone We had, in fact, fully intended topublish it email: [email protected] with both Judge Minos Miller and Mr. Og­ as part of our History of the Oxford Move­ ment series, and it will now appear in the A ll contents copyright © 1996 burn. Mr. Ogburn made clear to us that he Shakespeare Ox ford Society remains a member of the Shakespeare Ox­ Summer Newsletter. The newsletter welcomes art icl es. essays. commentary. ford Society. He had in fact been thinking Judge Minos Miller reite rated to us that book reviews. lellers and IlI;! WS items. Contributions should be reasonabl y concise and, when appropriate, for several years about having his name he and Ruth wish to be disassociated from validated by peer re\'iew. The views ex pressed by contributors do lIo1l1 ecess ari ly re fl ecl1hosc of removed as Honorary President since he the Society, and requested that we publish the Society as n literary and educational organi zation. felt he bore no responsi bility for what their letter exactly as they sent it. Why it Matters This morning, as I was pondering what Oxford ' s story and the Shakespeare Oxford Board of Trustees to write under "From the Editor", the phone Society. Shakespeare Oxford Society rang. It was an inquiry from someone who For there is tremendous potential in the hadjust finished Charlton Ogburn 'sMyste­ Oxfordian movement, and in thi s Society, Lifetime Honorary Trustees: rio us William Shakespeare, which he had for us to take our mission to the next level. ; read after viewing Fl'Ol1tline's Th e Shake­ There is a world of people out there who Dr. Gordon Cyr sp eare Myste/J' last April. have yet to hear of the true nature of this This was a person who loved Shake­ debate, and who, when they do, will see in 1995-1996 Boa rd of Trustees sp eare, had acted in the plays, and yet what an instant what all of us already accept as he saw on Fl'Ontline about the authorship the truth. and Edward de Vere was a revelation. As Charles Burford has outlined for Ptesident "How come I' ve never heard of any of this you in his article on Fundraising on pages 6 Charles Bmford before?" he asked (sound familiar?). and 7, it is time that all of us find a way to Vice-President· He had called the Folger in Washing­ work together on the things we agree on so Charles Boyle ton DC asking how to find the Society so he that we can build thi s Society and thi s could join, and they gave him the Society movement to such an extent that, in 5- 10 Recording Secretary address in Baltimore. Ba ltimore! An ad­ years, none of us will ever again hear of Trudy Atkins dress that is more than 10 years old! Well, someone who has never heard of the au­ fortunately, he was in the end able to get thorship issue, except as a joke, or who has Treasurer/Membership our current address and phone number. heard of Bacon, but not Edward de Vere. WilHam Boyle So this one phone caller reminded me, So while the present difficult state of Dr. Lydia Bronte even as Society politics seem ready to over­ affairs over lawsuits and m embers' political Leonard Deming whelm us, that he is the reason why all of us views is no picnic for any of us, it should not Tiniothy Holcomb are involved in the authorship debate, allow us to lose sight of this larger picture. Isabel Bolden , Morse Johnson Spring in July? Sally Mosher " " Michael ~orsterPjsapja So why is the Spring Newsletter just to our readers. E li sa beth Sears now arri ving after the 4th ofJ uly, some may But we will get back on schedule by Randall Sherniall ask. starting work ri ght away on the Summer ',,' Aaron Ta tUtTi Well, with all the authorship and Soci­ Nell'Sletter, which will be mailed to mem­ Richard Whalen ety events filling our calendar these past bers right after Labor Day. The Fall News­ I' three months, the schedule just kept slip­ letter will be mailed on December 1st. ping and slipping, and for this we apologize Keep sending in your contributions! Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 21 Letters: To the Editor: I would also draw attention to "A Letter from the Millers Kudos for the smashing first edition of Prothalamion or Spousall Verse made by to SOS Members the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter. Edm. Spenser in Honour of the Double That Mark Rylance was named the first marriage of the two Honorable & vertuous To Mr. Boyle: m1istic directorofthe new Globe Theatre in Ladies, the Ladie Elizabeth and the Ladie It has come to our attention that Charl­ London was of special interest to me. He is Katherine Somerset, Daughters to the ton Ogburn has requested that "you insert a '78 graduate of the University School of Right Honorouable the Earle of Worcester a notice in the next Newsletter stating that Milwaukee, my alma mater. A copy ofthis and espoused to the two worthie Gentle­ [his] name is to be considered withdrawn as page was sent to the school at once so that men M. Henry Gilford, and M. William that of honorary president of the Society it might appear in the newest USM Today. Peter, Esquyers, London, 1596." and hence deleted from the masthead of the Then a new group of people will leam As Worcester's Men combined with Newsletter. " of the SOS. the company of the Earl of Oxford and both Ruth and 1 similarly request that a were taken over by James I's consort as notice be placed in the next issue of the Mary Louise Hammersmith "Queen Anne's Men" from 1604, it is most Newsletter stating that we each have re­ Williamsburg V A probable that Edward de Vere knew this quested disassociation from the Shake­ 16 April 1996 particular William Peter. During ongoing speare Oxford Society and that our names Oxfordian archival researches at the be removed as "Lifetime Honorary Trust­ Bodleian, and elsewhere, I hope to deter­ To the Editor ees" and all association terminated. mine that the two Peters were kinsman. In reference to the serious doubts and We ask that the above requested consequent disagreements amongst the notice include this statement: "Members of Derran K. Charlton Stratfordian professors on the very fragile the Shakespeare Oxford Society and all Dodworth, England evidence purporting that the Funeral Elegy others are reminded that they are specifi­ \0 April 1996 to William PeteI', by "W.S. ", was written by cally prohibited from using or reproducing William Shakspere between the death of any and/or all of Ruth Loyd Miller or Peter on 25 January and the poem's entry in Minos Publishing Co. copyrighted books, To the Editor: the Stationers' Register on 19 February, works, pictures, photographs, p011raits, I refer to "An Open Letter from Joseph 1612, I suggest that it ought to be most charts, coats of arms, heraldry, materials Sobran to the members of the Shakespeare significant that William Shakespeare failed and/or sketches without first making a writ­ Oxford Society" in the Winter 1996 News­ to write an elegy in memory of his younger ten request to Ruth Loyd Miller and having letter, and Charles Burford's message that brother Gilbe11 (who most probably died thereafter obtained specific written author­ accompanied it. Last year, the Board of during the very same week as William Pe­ ity." Trustees passed a majority vote in favor of ter) and was buried on 3 February 1612. dis inviting Mr. Sobran to last year's con­ W.S. may have been Wentworth Smith Ruth Loyd Miller ference in response to a petition, to which I (amongst numerous others), a dramatist Minos D. Miller was a signatory. Every reader of the about whom little is known, save that Jennings LA Society newsletter is entitled to decide Henslowe records fifteen plays, now lost, 29 March 1996 whether the Board acted "to the discredit of in which he collaborated with Day, Chettle the Society" when it made its decision, or and others for the Admirals and whether it acted honorably, but readers can Worcester's, 1601-1603. hardly do so without having access to more of the information that the Board consid­ Subscriptions to the Shakespeare Oxford Nt:lI'slefter are .included in membership dues in the ered. Unfortunately, Mr. Burford did not Shakespeare Oxfoj'd Society, which are $35 a year, or $50 a year for a sustaining membel'ship. 'l)\leS are present the entire picture. Many readers $15 .ll year for students and teachers. I)uesand requests for membership s\1ouldbe sent to; will be unaware that the objections ex­ pressed in the petition were to Mr. Sobran's Shakespeare Oxford Society P.O. Box 263 "bigotry and anti-Semitism" as reflected in Somerville, MA02143 recent articles of Sobran's newsletter, a Phone: (617)628-3411 publication perceived by many as a vehicle PhonefFax: (617)628·4258 for prejudiced political commentary. Mr. Tile purpose oftheShakespeare Oxford Society isto establish Edwardde Vere, 17th Earl ofOxfoi:d Sobran's Oxfordian thesis was not a rel­ (1550-1604) as the true author ofthe Shakespeare works, to encourage a high level of scholarly research evant factor when 1 agreed to sign the peti­ and pllblication, and to foster an enhanced appreeiation and enjoyment of the poems and plays. tion. The Society was foundedalldincorporated in 1951 int!;.e State ofNew York and was chartered lmd(ll' An invitation made by the Shakespeare the membersllipcorporatiolllaws of that state as a non~profit, educationAl. organization. Dues, grants and contributions lire tax~deductible to the extent allowed by law: Oxford Society to appear as a keynote IRS No. 13'-6105314; New York 07182 luncheon or dinner speaker confers upon that speaker the status of honored guest. It (Col1til1ued 011 page 22) page 22 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Letters (Continued/i'om page 21) is in that capacity that Mr. Sobran has been of it). So are her wildly inaccurate para­ Not merely as SOS members, but as Ameri­ invited, and it is for that reason that I have phrases of my views. So are her omissions cans, and simply as human beings, we lodged my objection with the Board again. of my many qualifying remarks. should do our best to preserve this free­ I have no objection if Mr. Sobran, as a For the record, I am not anti-Semitic. dom. writer on the authorship issue, presents a One shouldn't even have to say this; the Those who voted to disinvite Mr. Sob­ paper at a regular session, but I do not think burden of proof should be on the accuser. ran have done something shameful. Unless it appropriate that the organization distin­ But for the sake of any members Mrs. we apologize to him, and resolve not to do guish him as a special guest. Matters of Chenoweth may have misled, I will say anything similar in the future, we share in conscience can transcend professional in­ flatly that I consider the rights of Jews, like that disgrace. terests. The poet Ezra Pound was a known those of all human beings, God-given. No anti-Semite, and if he were alive today, sound or decent political philosophy can be Michael Hart some professionals in the world of litera­ based on any other principle. Crofton, Maryland ture would undoubtedly object to inviting I note that Mrs. Chenoweth no longer 24 March 1996 him as an honored guest to a conference. pretends to think that I would do "incalulable If the invitation to Mr. Sobran for the harm" to the SOS by appearing before it. [Michael Hart is author of' "The 100 ", ill upcoming conference was made with the The Shakespeare authorship question, and which he identifies Shakespeare as Edward authority of the Board, then the Board ap­ the right of other members to hear my views de VereJ parently voted to reverse its position of on the subject, seem to be of no concern to last year, so far without explanation. If the her. Her purpose appears to be purely To the Editor: invitation was made without the express disruptive and vindictive. And she accuses I'm writing to express my outrage at the knowledge, due deliberation, and majority me of intolerance? SOS Trustees' decision to censor the vote of the full Board, then the invitation Despite my own objections to Israel and speech of Mr. Joe Sobran, thereby depriv­ was made with disregard for last year's vote. Zionism, 1'd never suggest that Zionists be ing the membership ofexposure to valuable Neither scenario is satisfactory. prevented from speaking on the Shake­ information and hindering the cause to Finally, it was either in poor taste or in speare authorship question. Such an irrel­ which we are all dedicated. ignorance for Mr. Sobran to conclude that evant exclusion could only impoverish the I have been reading Mr. Sobran for anyone who objected to last year's invita­ Society. Politics should be kept out of the close to twenty years, first in National Re­ tion was someone "of no intellectual or SOS, and I thank Lord Burford for his firm view and his syndicated column, and now in Iitermy distinction whatever." Several mem­ determination to keep it out. his newsletter. Mr. Sobran is definitely not bers who supported the petition are in the "politically correct", and he likes to ruffle forefront of Shakespeare-Oxford scholar­ Joseph Sobran the feathers of the political establishment. ship and commentary. Vienna VA And that's why we read him. For honest, 10 June 1996 often courageous, thought-provoking po­ Diana Price litical and social commentary, there's none Cleveland, Ohio To the Editor: better than Joe Sobran. 25 March 1996 I was shocked and distressed to learn This slightto him is especially offensive that Joseph Sobran had been dis invited since he was the first journalist to grasp the To the Editor: from the Greensboro meeting of the Shake­ significance of the Shakespeare-Oxford As a controversial writer, I've gotten speare Oxford Society. question. It was through his column in the used to silencing campaigns, especially I might confine myself to saying that it mid-1980's that I, and I'm sure many others, since I began criticizing Israel over a de­ is foolish for members of the SOS to censor was first exposed to the controversy, and cade ago. Until then I'd been strongly pro­ ideas or persons we disapprove of, since only because of his recommendation that I Israel all my adult life; but as soon as my we are ourselves espousing an unpopular read the book, The Mysterious vVilliam position changed, I found myself accused view (and are not always given fair treat­ Shakespeare. Other than Charlton Ogburn of anti-Semitism, racism, and other inde­ ment by the orthodoxy). However, it seems himself, I doubt there is anyone who has cencies. Nearly every critic of Israel has to me that the issue goes far beyond the done more to further the cause of Edward had the same experience. The people who immediate interest of the Shakespeare Ox­ de Vere than Joe Sobran. make the charges usually insistthat they are ford Society. Unless this situation is rectified, I in favor of free speech, that they don't Our rights to express unpopular ideas, would certainly have to reconsider my equate criticism of Israel with bigotry, etc., to listen to unpopular ideas, and to listen to association with this or any other organiza­ etc., but... people whom many others consider "bad" tion that tolerates political censorship. It's that "but" that's troublesome. So is are the core of what is generally called Mrs. Chenoweth's attempt to put words in "freedom of speech". This is a precious Gary L. Livacari my mouth, like the phrase "Jewish Bolshe­ freedom which most peoples in the world Skokie, Illinois vism" (which was not mine: I had put it in have never possessed, and which is under 15 March 1996 quotation marks to indicate my skepticism constant attack even in the United States. Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 23

COllgress (Colltilluedfi'oll1 page 2) During a Fomm entitled "Shakespear­ the poem, Wells remarked that "The com­ ent people. To which Oxfordians might ean Biography: Problems and Develop­ puter is the tool of those who give it com­ reply, while it could well be that the "W. ments", Katherine Duncan-Jones mands." Shakespea" was William Shakespeare, the (Somerville College, Oxford) discussed her In a Seminar on theatre history, Alan Stratford actor, this does not mean that the theory of Sir Sidney Lee's change of mind Nelson of UC-Berkeley (who is writing a actor was the author. regarding the identity of the "young man" biography of Edward de Vere) indicated During the same hour, Donald Foster of Shakespeare's SOllnets. After support­ that Oxford's men probably composed the discussed his attribution of Funeral Elegy ing first Pembroke and then Southampton company that was in the midst of a perfor­ to William Shakespeare. The presentation as the young man, Lee (writing in the late mance when the 1580 earthquake struck. was similar to that given at an earlier UCLA 1800' s) switched to describing the Sonnets Nelson also indicated that in 1580 Lord conference (see the winter Newsletter). as purely a literary exercise, without per­ Burghley had written the vice-chancellor of At the conclusion of Foster's presenta­ sonal content. Duncan-Jones considers Cambridge, requesting that Oxford's men tion, a large crowd gathered around him for Lee's later position to be due to the fact that be allowed to present a play at the univer­ questions, including Newsletter editor Bill in the interim, Oscar Wilde had been tried sity. Boyle. Eventually Mr. Boyle was able to and convicted of charges associated with In a separate presentation ("Shake­ identifY himselfas editor of the Newsletter, homosexuality. Perhaps Lee felt he was speare Discoveries?") on Friday, Prof. and asked the Professor ifhe would care to "protecting" Shakespeare from similar Nelson discussed his research on Sir respond toJoe Sobran's article in the winter charges. George Buc and Shakespeare. In the Folger Newsletter. Foster replied that he didn't In the same Forum, Park Honan (Uni­ copy of the anonymous play, George a wish to get involved in any debates with versity of Leeds) indicated that new infor­ Greene, there is a handwritten inscription Sobran, or with any Oxfordians for that mation regarding the skills of Mary Arden, attributed to George Buc. The notation matter. "Oxfordianism is dead," he re­ the mother of Shakespeare of Stratford, cites "teste W. Shakespea" as the source of marked, thus betraying the real agenda of will appear in his new biography of Shake­ information about the play (indicating that those who have sought to promote this speare. Honan also stated that while in Buc gotthis information from the testament rather banal poem. grammar school, Shakespeare "had to of Shakespeare). Prof. Nelson has indi­ This remark was later repeated to sev­ please" Thomas Jenkins, who was edu­ cated that Buc knew Edward de Vere and eral Stratfordians attending the SOS recep­ cated at Oxford University. Stanley Wells had discussed Vere family history with tion, and they either smiled or laughed. No indicated that he does not believe William him. Nelson's theory about this inscription one believed it. As anti-Stratfordian Mark Shakespeare wrote Funeral Elegy. Regard­ is that, since Buc knew de Vere, but referred Twain once quipped, "Reports of my death ing Donald Foster's computer analysis to de Vere and Shakespeare by different have been greatly exaggerated." supporting Shakespeare's authorship of names, Buc believed them to be two differ-

Join the Shakespeare Oxford Society If this newsletter has found its way into your hands, and you're not already a member of the Society, why not consider joining us in this intriguing, exciting adventure in search of the true story behind the Shakespeare mystery? While the Shakespeare Oxford Society is certainly committed to the proposition that Edward de Verc, 17th Earl of Oxford, is the true Shakespeare, there is much that remains to be learned about the whole secretive world of Elizabethan politics and about how the Shakespeare authorship ruse came into being, and even more importantly, what it means for us today in the 20th century as we complete our 4th centnry of living in a Western World that was created during the Elizabethan era. Memberships are $15.00 (student or teacher); $35.00 (regular); $50.00 (family or sustaining). Members receive the quarterly Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter and discounts on books and other merchandise sold through The Blue Boar. We also have a Home Page on the World Wide Web located at: http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com We can accept payment by MasterCard or Visa in addition to checks. The Society is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization. Donations and memberships are tax deductible (IRS no. 13-6105314; New York no. 07182). Clip or xerox this form and mail to: The Shakespeare Oxford Society, PO Box 263, Somerville MA 02143 Phone: (617)628-3411 Fax: (617)628-4258

Name: ______Membership CategOlY: (check one) Address: ______Student or teacher ($15.00) City: ______State: ___ ZIP: ______(School: ______Check enclosed___ or: Credit Card: MasterCard__ Visa __ __Regular ($35.00) Name exactly as it appears on card: ______Sustaining/Family ($50.00) Card No.: ______Exp. date: ______

Signature ______page 24 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Whalen (Coillilllled .1;'0111 page 19) Oxfordian News (Confinlled(i'olll page 17) Boyle (Confinued(i'ol/l page 18) membered by posterity. days. Speakers this year included then why wouldn't what worked against Taylor ranges from Aristotle to the Salman Rushdie, Germaine Greer, Carlos Shakespeare and his friends in Twelfth movies, Casablanca in particular. He uses Fuentes, Wilfred Thesiger and the poet Night be used again on his later friends (i.e. Shakespeare to support his two-pronged laureate, Ted Hughes. today's Oxfordians)? theory of relativism in litermy merit and The Festival has a delightfully imper­ Professor Hamilton's book, like most determinism in cultural circumstances. manent quality to it. Three large marquees useful but orthodox studies, is better at Shakespeare is an example ofa shaky stan­ are erected for the events in a field adjoin­ analyzing what Shakespeare is saying than dard of excellence: "Shakespeare's great­ ing the local high school, with a fourth understanding how and why he said it. But ness is never proven; it is simply serving the all-important function ofrest au­ in the end she does grant he was an artist postulated .... Anyone at all familiar with rant, bar and tearoom. There is also a book­ who took "positions that foster the literary history knows that Shakespeare signing tent, where authors go to sign cop­ liberties of the subject" and goes on to note was not always the standard; he became so ies of their latest book after they've spo­ his "habit of constructing and then privileg­ long after his death." ken. It invariably rains throughout the Fes­ ing a marginalised character." Which is Taylor also believes in collaboration: tival, and quite famous and insober poets pretty perceptive and probably about as far "Shakespeare co-wrote plays with Thomas can be seen struggling through the mud. as she can go. Nashe, Thomas Middleton, John Fletcher, The artists are paid in wine, not cash, and But for the busy Oxfordian there is a George Wilkins, and probably others." mingle freely with the hordes. All very treasure trove of puzzle pieces here. Timon ofAthens is mentioned as a play by British; all very democratic. Shakespeare and Middleton. Burford spoke for an hour to an enthu­ Taylor, who is a co-editor with Stanley siastic crowd of 250, his talk provoking a Wells of the Oxford Collected Works of lively, not to say heated, Q & A session, Annouucing a new publication from the Shakespeare (1988), seems to be leaving during which a Welshman in the front row Shakespeare Oxford Society ..... Shakespeare behind. Reportedly he is pre­ eloquently advanced the claims of an paring a work on Thomas Middleton as a Anglo-German, Percival Hart, as the real The Oxfordian playwright who missed his niche and has author of the plays. How else was one to been largely forgotten. explain all the hart/heart puns in Shake­ ... a semi-annual jOl1mal devoted to new research speare? How indeed! Which only goes to and scholarship on the Sbakespeare authorship show: there are more Shakespeares, my question and the life of Edward de Vere. Visit the dear Horatio, than are dreamt of in your First issue to be published in Fall 1996. Shakespeare Oxford Society philosophy! Submit full length on the Internet papers to: The Oxfordian, Home Page located at: PO Box 263, Somerville MA 02143 http://vnvw.shakespeare-oxford.com Attention: Charles Burford, editor. , /

Shakespeare Oxford Bulk Rate U.S. Postage Newsletter PAID P. O. Box 263 Boston MA Somerville MA 02143 Permit No. 53235 Address correction requested

Inside this issue:

Oxford and the Knights of the Garter: page 1 World Shakespeare Congress: pages 1-4 Fundraising: pages 6 -7 Funeral Elegy: An Update: pages 12-/3 Shakespeare-Oxford on the Internet: page 14 Petition on the Authorship Debate: page 15 Oxfordian News: pages 16 and 17 Book reviews: page 19