Vol.4:no.1 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments..." Fall 2004 A critique of Back to the the “Monument Ashbourne More layers of deception in the theory” 2002 examination of the portrait By Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter, PhD. By Barbara Burris ank Whittemore’s summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters n the fall of 2002, the Folger article, “Authorize Thy Trespass With Compare,” promises Shakespeare Library sent the Hto supply a simple, comprehensive solution to the enigma I Ashbourne portrait hundreds of the sonnets: “Reading the sonnets becomes as clear and of miles away from Washing- uncomplicated as reading a signed, dated letter to a known ton, DC, for examination by the 1 addressee about the events of the day,” writes editor Bill Boyle in Canadian Conservation Institute his accompanying essay. Whittemore’s solution, believes Boyle, (CCI). Why they went so far afield 2 “is absolutely correct” and makes “crystal clear what was once strongly appears to connect to mysterious and opaque.”3 Like many Shakespearean students, we the recent controversy sur- would love to receive the definitive enlightenment promised by rounding the Sanders portrait, a these bold words. Regrettably, however, the Whittemore solution claimed Shake-speare portrait to the sonnets fails to live up to Boyle’s advance publicity. No critique of Whittemore’s “solution” to the sonnets would that was examined by the same be complete without some reference to the highly selective use of company. reference materials used to construct the theory. Although many Dated 1603, the Sanders relevant influences are noted regarding subjects such as the date portrait depicts the head and of Sonnet 107, neither Whittemore nor Boyle acknowledges the The Ashbourne Portrait (Continued on page 15) debt that both writers owe to previous scholars who have analyzed the structure of the sonnets. Traditionally, scholars identify four Engaging significant parts: 1-17 (fair youth/marriage sonnets), 18-126 (fair youth sonnets), 127-152 (dark lady sonnets), 153-154 (mythological coda). From this it can be seen that two of the four Prince Tudor segments which serve to define Whittemore’s monument are Concordia seminar touches the traditional (127-152 and 153-154) in the sense of being acknowledged by many Sonnet scholars. Contrary to Boyle’s third rail of Oxfordianism claim that “all commentators have struggled with” but “none have solved” the question of whether the 1609 Q is in authorial order, hen Prof. Daniel Wright first an- many commentators, including Stephen Booth,4 have argued that nounced last year that the topic for until a better order can be discovered, the best premise is that the Wthe Summer 2004 Shakespeare Au- order is in fact authorial. We see nothing in Whittemore’s analysis thorship Studies Seminar would be the dreaded which materially contributes to this question. Asserting a “Prince Tudor” theory the slings and arrows of chronological order for the Sonnets does not constitute evidence outrage started flying almost immediately, to resolve this question. and they still haven’t stopped. As most Oxfor- The Whittemore “monument” depends on the one structural dians are well aware, this particular issue has innovation of moving the first break from sonnet 17 to sonnet 26. Hank Whittemore stirred passions from the earliest years of the By making this change, Whittemore produces the 100 sonnet gave a presentation Oxfordian movement in the 1920s and has sequence (27-126) which forms the “center and centerpiece”5 of on his new theory more than once proved to be a schism that has (Continued on page 10) on the Sonnets. (Continued on page 8) page 2 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004

used for dead authors. (Additionally, the To the Editor: Letters: spelling “Shak-speare” was never used by the Stratford man.) Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter Finally, what is one to say about Tho- in their report on the recent University of To the Editor: mas Pendleton’s and John Mahon’s upside- Tennessee Law School symposium note down responses to Dick Whalen? Are we that Steven May’s talk dealt with stylistic The Summer 2004 issue of Shakespeare seriously being asked to believe that be- features and imagery advanced as Matters is superb! Clearly, William Boyle cause Stratford Will is shown by Mahon to arguments for the Oxfordian thesis by is proving his mettle as editor. be “difficult,” he could have written the Looney in his classic of 1920. They report His tandem piece with Hank works, but Oxford’s being more “awful” May’s observation that some of Looney’s Whittemore’s provides one of the best proves that Oxford could not? examples “are in fact widely found in expositions of WHY Oxford could not It is high time that Oxfordians repudi- Elizabethan literature and hence are not write poetry or plays under his own name ate the calumnious assertions of Nelson, fingerprints...” They characterize May’s and why Henry Wriothesley’s sentence Giroux, Mahon and their ilk: that Edward was commuted from execution to de Vere was a monster. The truth is, as Sir presentation as “an exceptionally forceful imprisonment. George Greenwood wrote in 1908, “not a and credible critique of the Oxfordian case,” single creditable act” can be attributed to informing us that “Professor May gave Albert Burgstahler the Stratford man. On the other hand, the examples from Turberville, Grange, Lawrence, Kansas tributes to the 17th earl’s character, intelli- Gascoigne, Whetstone, and others to 12 August 2004 gence, generosity, and religiosity are quite reinforce his argument.” numerous—from Gabriel Harvey, Robert Although we were not present to hear Greene, Spenser, Percival Golding, to Sir May’s talk, on the basis of the report and To the Editor: George Buc—and this is only a partial list! our own research we remain skeptical of To Stratfordians, apparently, where abso- the forcefulness and credibility of May’s Much valuable stuff in the Summer lutely nothing is known, anything can be data. Our skepticism relates to the fact that 2004 issue; here is my grab bag of re- imagined (such as Pendelton’s nonsense we have shown in Shakespeare’s sponses. I am very anxious to read Hank about Shakspere “quite likely” being bet- Fingerprints that the names ‘Turberville’, Whittemore’s new book on the sonnets. I ter educated than de Vere)! ‘Gascoigne’, and ‘Whetstone’ were think, based on what he and Bill Boyle Oxfordian pseudonyms. In our soon-to- wrote, that he may well have proved his Gordon C. Cyr appear Never and for Ever, we go on to case—as far as the “central” 100 sonnets Baltimore, Maryland show that the name ‘Grange’ was another are concerned. I am not as convinced, 8 September 2004 such. Haggard hawks aside (many examples however, of his interpretation of the so- called “Dark Lady” poems, although Queen Elizabeth may well have been the subject Shakespeare Matters Subscriptions to Shakespeare Matters are of some of them. Absent some more eso- Published quarterly by the $40 per year ($20 for online issues only). Shakespeare Fellowship Family or institution subscriptions are $45 per teric reading, Sonnet 138 (for example) year. Patrons of the Fellowship are $75 and up. would seem to be addressed to a younger Editorial Offices Send subscription requests to: woman, and Sonnet 130 to a woman with P.O. Box 263 The Shakespeare Fellowship black hair. If the Sonnets 128-154 were Somerville, MA 02143 P.O. Box 561 written earlier than (or concurrently with) Belmont MA 02478 Editor: the first 127, this circumstance would dis- William Boyle turb Hank’s thesis that all of the sonnets are The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowship is to promote public awareness and acceptance in “authorial order”—a contention he suc- Contributing Editors: of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by cessfully maintains (in my opinion) for the Mark Anderson, Dr. Charles Berney, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550- central 100. Charles Boyle, Dr. Felicia Londre, 1604), and further to encourage a high level of Lynne Kositsky, Alex McNeil, scholarly research and publication into all President Alex McNeil omits from his Dr. Anne Pluto, Elisabeth Sears, aspects of Shakespeare studies, and also into the catalog of “noteworthy publications” for Dr. Roger Stritmatter, Richard Whalen, history and culture of the Elizabethan era. 1608-1609 the first quarto of “M. William Hank Whittemore, Dr. Daniel L. Wright The Society was founded and incorporated Shak-speare—His True Chronicle Historie in 2001 in the State of Massachusetts and is Phone (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-3411 chartered under the membership corporation of the life and death of King Lear and his Fax (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-4258 laws of that state. It is a recognized 501(c)(3) three Daughters…” in 1608. This quarto is email: [email protected] nonprofit (Fed ID 04-3578550). singular in being the first publication of a All contents copyright ©2004 Dues, grants and contributions are tax- Shakespeare play in which the author’s The Shakespeare Fellowship deductible to the extent allowed by law. name (along with the 1609 Sonnets quarto) Shakespeare Matters welcomes articles, essays, commentary, book reviews, letters and news items. precedes the title. As Oxfordian Gwynneth Contributions should be reasonably concise and, when Bowen (citing Stratfordian Sir Sidney Lee) appropriate, validated by peer review. The views expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the pointed out, this was a practice mostly Fellowship as a literary and educational organization.

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 3 of which May may have saved himself time From the Editor by culling from our book), lovers of truth in packaging are encouraged to consider Where do we go from here? the following three couplets: With the publication of the long-awaited tant to the Sonnet issue and the “Monu- TURBERVILLE (Tragical Tales 408-9): Stephen Greenblatt biography on Shake- ment” theory is the so-called “Prince Tu- To quite all which good parts, this vow I speare (the Stratford man, that is—see our dor” theory and all that implies for the make to thee: comments below), and continuing devel- debate and our search for the truth. Begin- I will be thine as long as I have power mine opments within our own Oxfordian move- ning on page one in this issue we have a own to be. ment, we have arrived at a crossroads. report about the Shakespeare Authorship In our last issue we announced what Studies Seminar held in August at Concor- SHAKESPEARE (Sonnet 123, 13-4): some of us considered to be a major break- dia University (at which the topic was “Prince This I do vow and this shall ever be, through in the study of the Sonnets, and Tudor; Truth or Delusion?”), which includes I will be true despite thy scythe and thee. along with it perhaps a major new develop- an assessment from Seminar Director Prof. GASCOIGNE (Hundreth Sundrie ment in the authorship debate. With the Daniel Wright. Flowres): publication of a “Critique of the Monument The reason we ask “Where do we go Such one I was and such always will be, Theory” in this issue, our readers can see from here?” is that the Sonnets and the For worthy dames, but then I mean not that first we must decide among ourselves “Prince Tudor” theory are inexorably inter- thee. just what the Sonnets are really about and twined and vexing. And, as we all know, how important they are (or are not?) to contentious. But if the ultimate truth to the Restricting to the Shakespeare- prevailing in the overall debate. We will whole authorship mystery is contained in Gascoigne comparison, we witness a 7- have more on this evolving debate on the the Sonnets, and does involve the truth of fold lexical overlap, a stunning syntactic Sonnets and Whittemore’s “Monument” the relationship between Shakespeare/Ox- overlap, identical rhyme, and equivalent theory in coming issues of SM in 2005. ford and the Earl of Southampton, well, And we should add that just as impor- then, where else is there to go? coreference relations (this : this :: such one : such). Is this example of converging congruence relations a random Will in the World coincidence? That such is hardly likely is Some of our friends over the past year and that is in itself somewhat revealing shown by the fact that analogous examples didn’t think Harvard professor Stephen about both the book and its reception. accumulate and cascade throughout the Greenblatt’s new Shakespeare biography, What’s most stunning is how both Will in the World, would be any big deal— Greenblatt and his reviewers openly ac- relevant works in ways that cannot be just another in a long line of attempts to fill knowledge that his biography is pretty explained by anything other than unique the void of the Stratford man’s life and much “made up.” But no one seems to be authorship. Examples are provided in somehow make it fit the works. bothered by that, since what he’s made up Chapters 9, 12, 13, and 14 of our book. But now that it’s here, and we have seen is such a wonderful story, and it “could Inasmuch as May delivered his paper the “big wet kiss” coverage it is getting in have“ been that way. And this comes, let us to a roomful of lawyers and mentioned major media and cultural publications remind you, from a well-known, well-re- Whetstone, we cannot resist bringing one across the board, we think it’s clear that it spected Harvard professor—a “new his- last comparison to the attention of is a big deal, part of an “authorship war” toricist” whose expertise is setting litera- Oxfordian readers. that we know all about, but which doesn’t ture in its proper historic context to better even get acknowledged by Greenblatt him- understand it. Shakespeare (2 Henry VI, 4.2.36) self or most of his reviewers. At least last The strongest part of the Oxfordian The first thing we do, let’s kill all the year, with the Wood and Nelson books, argument has always been historic context lawyers authorship was more part of the story. and the fit between the author and the work. While we won’t be reviewing the book So now we have Stratfordian context; the Whetstone (Heptameron) until our Winter issue, we do have in this works are made real because they are now If chief magistrates should set their hands issue a review of The New Yorker review, connected to a life made up. Whatever. to this justice, there would be more lawyers hanged for stealing of houses than rogues The Ashbourne Portrait for robbing of hedges. Meanwhile, down in Washington, the in fact the Earl of Oxford. We think our Michael Brame & Galina Popova Ashbourne portrait still hangs in the Fol- readers should take a close look at this University of Washington ger Shakespeare Library, waiting for jus- current contribution, because the story line Seattle, Washington tice. In this issue we return to the Ashbourne is pretty straightforward and clear, and story with an article by Barbara Burris that backed up by the Folger Shakespeare 5 August 2004 examines the technical testing done on the Library’s own files. In brief, the story of the portrait in 2002. 2002 examination provides us with a por- Visit the Fellowship on the Web We have already published in these trait of what Oxfordians are up against in http://www.shakespearefellowship.org pages four articles on Burris’s research trying to prevail in this centuries-long au- News, calendar, discussion boards into the portrait and whether or not it is thorship battle. Check it out.

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 4 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004

Book Notes Will in the World - more Stratfordian gossamer If the general news based Falstaff on Robert Greene “a tri- told that he also messed it up in the artistic of the world isn’t umph of biographical criticism”), Gopnik world of London by making enemies of the discouraging also doesn’t fail to rhapsodize about University Wits—a life (whew!) certainly enough, and in case Greenblatt’s repetition of the most tire- crowded with excitement and incident! you don’t subscribe some Stratfordian commonplaces. He trots (Would—we can continue to wish—that to The New Yorker, out Greenblatt’s familiar clichés about anyone had ever recorded a single minute you yet will want to Stratford Will with the zeal of the propa- of this amazing life…!) obtain a copy of the gandist who tries to convince others of a Shakespeare, however, wasn’t just a September 13th is- spurious claim by repeating it, as though coarse proto-capitalist with a passion for sue in order to read something could become true by merely the demos, a flair for popular drama and suffer through stating it again and again. Shakespeare, (“Shakespeare shows us that you don’t have Adam Gopnik’s in- Gopnik recounts, wrote “two plays a year to look from on high in order to see it all”) terminably long, for almost twenty years”; he probably be- and a habit of engaging in contretemps drooling-with-praise review of Stephen came a tutor in Lancashire during the so- with inferior if learned rivals; he wrote Greenblatt’s biography of Will Shaksper, called “lost years”; he “would do anything plays, Gopnik reports, because, as a Catho- Will in the World, the latest Stratfordian for a joke or a pun”; and he was an artist lic frustrated by the State’s suppression of biography that the Establishment is pro- driven by commercial instincts—an avari- Catholic worship, he needed to find an moting with feverish vigor—this review cious man who, nonetheless, was willfully outlet for his love of ceremony and ritual: article being but one of the more recent ordinary, “self-mockingly modest” and not a Christian of serious conviction, “[i]t inducements in the major media to rally “unprepossessing,” given to small bour- was the pagan part of Catholicism that he public support for a collapsing orthodoxy geois ambitions. loved…” Indeed, cold and distant from the (SM will be reviewing the book in our next Shakespeare, we are to believe, indif- spiritual faith of his ancestors, Greenblatt issue—Ed.). ferently—almost with casual insouci- suggests that Shakespeare probably at- Gopnik’s fawning paean of Greenblatt’s ance—gave birth to the Renaissance in tended the execution of Ruy Lopez where, book—the work as a whole, he encapsu- England by revolutionizing the language as Gopnik reports, watching him hanged, lates, is “startlingly good,” and he acclaims and the world of literary art, all in the drawn and quartered, Shakespeare may it nothing less than “the most complexly effort, first and foremost, to make a few even have “shared a mordant snicker with intelligent and sophisticated . . . study of pennies off the masses’ desire for an the crowd.” (One entire chapter in the life and work [of Shakespeare] that [he] afternoon’s diversion or to satisfy a wealthy Greenblatt’s massive biography of Shake- ha[s] ever read”—is much in the spirit of aristocrat’s vanity. His successes quickly speare is devoted to the execution of Ruy John Leonard’s review of Greenblatt’s book yielded him the ability to pursue his pri- Lopez.) that appears in the September issue of mary goal in life by walking away from Harper’s. Gopnik’s review is a gushing six- London with enough money in his pockets Leading a double life page advertisement, awash in sugary rap- to indulge, at a young age, “the romance of ture for this latest in a line of what we have retirement” and thereby fulfill his dream Greenblatt, as Gopnik recounts, pro- come to expect from the Shakespeare in- of becoming the “benevolent paterfamil- poses that Shakespeare’s injunction against dustry: ever-new biographies, published ias in a small suburban town” —for above disturbing his body (the curse carved on with predictable regularity, that presume all, Gopnik reminds us, Shakespeare was his tomb in the Stratford church) was in- to advance a definitive version of the Strat- “a social climber” who “seems to have tended to keep others from burying his ford man’s life or improve the “spin” on an sworn to do anything in life that he could wife next to him. Gopnik points out that old one—while sometimes paradoxically to get himself and his family . . . in a big Greenblatt thinks Will didn’t spend much suggesting that the provision of a “life” for bourgeois house.” time with his family after his flight from Stratford Will finally isn’t really necessary. Gopnik reports that Greenblatt’s book Stratford in the late 1580s, but yet they (When was the last time, however, that you draws on “fertile decades of biographical remained “the obsessive focus of his finan- ever heard one of these writers or review- scholarship” into the life of Shakespeare to cial advancement for the rest of his life.” ers say that we should forgo probing the tell us that Stratford Will was “something The death of his son, Hamnet, inspired a lives of the writers of Paradise Lost, Crime close to an overnight sensation” and that “revenge play bearing a variant of his son’s and Punishment or I Know Why the Caged by the early 1590s he was “among the most name,” although the play, the exposition of Bird Sings—such works being better stud- famous writers in the country.” He broke “a complete inner life,” probably was writ- ied without the irritating annoyance of hav- into poetry with Venus and Adonis and The ten, we are told, not in a reflex of grief over ing to consider who wrote them and why?) Rape of Lucrece (good first efforts, eh?— the death of his son but out of Shakespeare’s or at least considerable improvements on imaginative anticipation of what he Familiar cliches “Lousy Lucy”!). We are informed that he thought he would feel when his father attained “extraordinary social position,” would die, as Hamlet, for Greenblatt, Full of praise for the author’s new rev- for he was “a pet of the aristocrats” who, Gopnik reports, is not just about the death elations (Gopnik, for example, calls like a sixteenth-century Truman Capote, of Hamnet but a play about Will and a yet- Greenblatt’s declaration that Shakespeare “moved in very fancy circles,” and we are (Continued on page 32) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 5 The Utrecht Conference A psychologist The first Dutch conference on the that Marlowe was the author). The students on authorship Shakespeare authorship question took at the conference were enthusiastic about One of the more intriguing presenta- place 8–10 July 2004 in the pleasant Dutch the competition, and it might be tions at the Utrecht Conference was by city of Utrecht. It was organized by Jan something that could be tried in the U.S. Sandra Schruijer on “Constructing Identi- Scheffer, a psychiatrist at the Pieter Baan Following the student competition ties in the Shakespeare Authorship De- Center in Utrecht, and Sandra Schruijer, a report, DeVere Society member Elizabeth bate.” This was a talk about the actual on- professor of psychology at Tilburg Imlay described progress in the Society’s going political battle between today’s Strat- University. dating project. This in turn was followed fordians and anti-Stratfordians. The opening session took place by Michael Dunn’s impressive performance A summary of her talk was posted on the Thursday afternoon and was followed by a as Conan Doyle’s supersleuth in “Sherlock Authorship Debate Forum on the welcoming reception at the Museum van Holmes and the Shakespeare Mystery,” a Fellowship’s website (the summary ob- Speelklok tot Pierement (Musical Clock performance Fellowship members may tained and posted courtesy of Michael Dunn, and Barrel Organ Museum). Conferees were remember from the 2002 conference in who was in Utrecht to present his one-man treated to a demonstration by the museum Boston. authorship show as Sherlock Holmes tak- director of some incredibly elaborate Saturday’s session featured papers by ing on the debate). mechanized orchestras from the 18th and the conference organizers. Jan Scheffer Schruijer’s key points in this talk in- 19th centuries. Presentation of papers began spoke on “Psychodynamic Aspects of the volved the difference between “relational Friday morning. Dan Wright led off with Author as Appearing in Hamlet,” suggest- conflict” (in which two groups try to win “The Undoing of Shakespearean Ortho- ing that Oxford’s playwriting activities over each other, and often belittle their doxy: Edward de Vere and the Catholic were a form of compensation for having opponents) vs. “task conflict” (in which Stratford ‘Shakespeare’.” He was followed his childhood cut short by the death of his two groups try to find ways to work to- by Odin Dekkers’s report on John father and his subsequent wardship in the gether towards a common goal). She felt Mackinnon Robertson, an early 20th- Cecil household. Sandra Schruijer’s that the authorship debate needed to century philosopher who advocated a contribution was entitled “Constructing move on to the “task” model for any pro- composite-authorship theory of the Identities in the Shakespeare Authorship gress to be made. Shakespearean works. Dekkers is the chair Debate: A Social Psychological Analysis.” What then followed on the discussion of the English Literature department at the She gave an overview of intergroup forum was a typical authorship exchange, University of Nijmegen and editor of the conflicts and suggested ways in which the with the “relational conflict” taking prece- journal English Studies. He is a newcomer debate could be framed so as to reduce dence over any “task” exchanges (though to the Oxfordian theory, and during the partisan emotion. She also reported on her Fellowship trustee Lynne Kositsky weighed course of the conference offered monitoring of the internet exchanges in on her efforts to engage Stratfordians in (informally) to host another authorship between Alan Nelson and Diana Price, “task” oriented debates and noted how her conference next year in Nijmegen. The expressing dismay at the way the former own thinking was evolving as she pursued morning session was concluded with treated the latter. “task” oriented exchanges). Charles Berney’s paper, “The Earl of Another feature of the morning Meanwhile Stratfordian debater Terry Leicester in the Plays of Shakespeare.” program was a presentation by Pieter Ross joined in—in true “relational con- Berney was the Shakespeare Fellowship’s Helsloot on his new book, Edward de Vere, flict” style—to explain to everyone that official representative to the conference. onvermijdelik Shakespeare ( “. . . inevitably Oxfordians are incapable of being “task” In the afternoon, noted researcher Shakespeare”). It’s a slim volume, oriented, and there’s your problem. The Robert Detobel recounted Oxford’s legal handsomely printed, with some previously debate then moved on into the “same old, actions before his death, and concluded unpublished portraits, and accounts of the same old” mode for a month, and—sur- that he may have committed suicide. This Vere family members who died fighting prise! surprise!— no minds were changed. talk was followed by one of the highlights the Spanish in Holland. of the conference, a report by several high Participants agreed that it was a very school students from St. Odolphus in successful conference, and there was Visit the Shakespeare Tilburg on their Shakespeare authorship informal talk of another authorship competition. The students who participated conference in the Netherlands, perhaps as Fellowship on the Web in this project were divided into four early as next year. Scheffer and Schruijer www.shakespearefellowship.org groups, and each group researched the plan to edit a volume of conference case for one of the authorial candidates proceedings. American participants were Featuring discussion boards (Oxford, Marlowe, Bacon, and Stratford surprised and impressed by the amount of with public and private forums Will). The groups were allotted one day for Oxfordian activity in the Netherlands. internet research, and presentations took Perhaps the barrier to consideration of the on the authorship debate, place the following afternoon. A prize was Oxfordian hypothesis will prove to be lower the plays and poems, recent awarded to the Marlowe team for the best in European universities than in English- presentation (this decision was not meant speaking countries. developments, news, and more! to imply that the judges were convinced —CVBerney

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 6 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004 Shakespeare’s Sonnets and the Aesopian Method By Peter Rush he announcement in the last issue example, she simply has nothing to say This very chaos suggests that (SM, Summer 2004) of the imminent about line 9 of sonnet 33, “Even so my sun something else must be involved, a T availability of a pre-publication one morn did shine,” nor about the rest of possibility buttressed by the number of edition of Hank Whittemore’s long- that singular quatrain. The entire quatrain lines that almost all glosses gloss over, or awaited book on the sonnets, The cries out that there is something strange ignore altogether, because they evidently Monument, and two previews in the same being imparted here; why “my” sun, why cannot make sense out of them. “Fair, issue, by Editor Bill Boyle and Whittemore, “the region cloud,” not just “clouds”, but kind and true is all my argument,” “you have at last joined the debate that has one specific cloud, “the” region cloud and love are all my argument,” “Fair, kind been in the offing for the past five years, (whatever “region” might mean), etc.? and true have often lived alone,” “jewel since Whittemore first announced an early Rowse, who also glosses every sonnet, is hung in ghastly night,” “tongue-tied by version of his novel thesis. Emails pro and likewise silent on this quatrain. authority,” “why is my verse so barren of con have already started flying back and To my knowledge, there are no new pride?,” “when in the chronicle of forth on at least one Oxfordian internet Oxfordian attempts to do for the entire wasted time,” etc. Space limitations forbid discussion group debating Whittemore’s sonnet sequence what a few Stratfordians further discussion of these, and several approach to understanding the sonnets, have done. Obviously, knowing that the dozen more lines, that simply don’t make and I am sure that Oxfordians everywhere author is Oxford and not Shaxpere of sense in the context of the imputed love are preparing to enter the lists—some Stratford, is absolutely essential—no triangle that is the stuff of so many based on only the published previews, Stratfordian efforts, no matter how well scholarly works, but which stand as others who intend to hold their fire until intentioned, can possibly get anything challenges, the failure to meet which they can study the entire work. right if they have the wrong author. But indicts all previous efforts to explicate the To assist the latter, this article will that substitution made, I submit that most sonnets. The reader will have to wait to briefly develop a core insight without Oxfordian analyses founder on the same read The Monument to find out what they which the debate will be rather sterile, shoals that have doomed all Stratfordian really mean. with which a whole new world of efforts. There is a better way, and Whittemore possibilities will open up. It is the belief that “what you see is what is the only author I know of to have Shakespeare’s Sonnets is truly a there is.” discovered it. Starting with Oxford as the singular work. Most readers, and even most The prevailing approach is to assume poet, and early on realizing that the youth authors on the subject, make no pretense that the poems are about the poet, whether had to be Southampton, and that Sonnet of fully understanding the entire corpus of Oxford or Shaxpere, and his relationship 107 celebrated the forthcoming peaceful 154 sonnets. A brave handful of scholars to a young man (some Stratfordians, and accession of James days after Elizabeth have attempted to gloss all 154, but none many Oxfordians, actually agree that he is died, and also James’s order to release save one, A. L. Rowse, makes the claim that the 3rd Earl of Southampton), and a woman, Southampton from the Tower, dating it to he has fully solved the enigma of the sonnets. who completes a love triangle. The sonnets April of 1603, Whittemore suddenly saw All, including Rowse, resort to a sonnet- are thought to be mainly about the trials that the key to Sonnet 27’s sudden black by-sonnet ad hoc attempted explication and tribulations of these three persons. tone had to be that it referred to du texte, taking each sonnet and trying to The devil is in the details, as usual. Such Southampton’s arrest and incarceration in intuit a story behind that sonnet, most of readings compel the creation of an the Tower in February 1601. This, in turn, which posit the poet, his beloved “fair elaborate scaffolding of imagined events suggested that Sonnets 28-106 were youth,” and a woman who seems to be among these three: the youth betraying the bracketed by those two fixed dates, and playing with both of them. poet, stealing the woman, and being fickle, were all written in reference to the period Even a casual perusal of selected sonnets the poet going through a gamut of emotions of confinement of Southampton. from such books as Katherine Duncan- as all this is happening, traveling here and Pursuing that hunch, Whittemore found Jones’s Shakespeare’s Sonnets, one of the there, and so on. A great deal of “plot” has other lines referring to historical events best and most extensive recent attempts to to be invented to support each such reading during the period in question. More explicate every sonnet (and one which of each sonnet, and taken as a whole, this importantly, he began to see that the sonnets doesn’t posit a homosexual relationship to approach becomes an incredibly were written in a sort of code, where the youth), reveals the inability to intuit a convoluted speculation on what “might” commonplace words, like “love,” “age,” meaning for large numbers of singular be going on, dependent on “reading into” “fair,” “true,” “beauty,” “one,” “time,” words, phrases and lines. Just to pick an the sonnets most of the supposed meaning. “moon,” “sun” and many others, if

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 7 understood as metaphors each with a ideas and information that cannot be safely of any sonnet, can be used to refute consistent meaning, yielded a story, a said in public, where censorship forces Whittemore’s decoded Aesopian meaning. chronicle, of Southampton’s tenure in the political statements underground. “Tongue- The two operate on parallel tracks, and do Tower and of Oxford’s efforts to spare his tied by authority” is almost certainly not intersect. Both are, in effect, “correct,” life, and get him released. Oxford’s statement of the conditions he neither can falsify the other. Discovering for the first time in four faced while writing the sonnets. However, the surface meaning is just centuries that the sonnets are written in a Oxford all but gave away the game that, the disguise, the mask, the ephemera, code is the signal breakthrough that when he stated in sonnet 76 that he had to of no lasting consequence. The “real” permitted Whittemore to solve this 400- “keep invention in a noted weed.” “Weed” meaning is, obviously, the underlying year-old mystery. As he progressively is best translated as “disguise,” and message being communicated. decoded more and more words, more and Whittemore’s discovery is that the entirety Hence, the only relevant way to critique more sonnets yielded a clear, unambiguous of the sonnets as conventionally interpreted Whittemore’s thesis is to show that either meaning, to the point today where every is nothing but the disguise for the real, there is no underlying Aesopian message, sonnet has yielded to his method, and tells underlying, political meaning, largely the or that there is one, but Whittemore hasn’t a consistent, coherent story, about chronicle of Oxford’s efforts on behalf of a found it. Both approaches require delving Southampton, Oxford, and Elizabeth. condemned traitor (sonnets 27-126). into the details of Whittemore’s exposition There is a name for Oxford’s method. It If Whittemore is correct, then the of each and every sonnet, examining how is called “Aesopian.” An excellent dictionary conventional avenue of criticism that has consistently he applies his code, and trying definition is “communications that convey been leveled against his thesis misses the to show that it doesn’t explain what he an innocent meaning to outsiders but hold point. If there is an Aesopian layer of thinks it does. Just citing lines from various a concealed meaning to informed members meaning beneath the surface, apparent sonnets, and giving surface meanings as a of a conspiracy or underground move- meaning that scholars have never yet supposed “proof” that Whittemore’s ment.” It is typically used when the author penetrated, then no reading of any Aesopian meaning is wrong, is not a viable seeks to communicate important political individual line, no standard interpretation line of argument. Shakespeare Authorship Trust in London The Second Annual Shakespearean “facts,” none of which connected his believes that the play was written in 1604 Authorship Trust Conference was held on candidate to the writing of the plays and for King James to instruct him about mercy July 3-4, 2004 in London. American poetry. He contended that his candidate and authority. Oxfordians in attendance included Prof. wrote Measure for Measure in 1604 for Charles Beauclerk presented a splendid Daniel Wright (Portland, OR), Gerit Quealy King James but otherwise had nothing to paper outlining the authorship of the earl (NYC) and Pidge Sexton (St. Louis, MO). offer to tie his man to the writing of the of Oxford through his biography and his Quealy, a former SOS trustee, is an active play. close relationship with Queen Elizabeth. member of the De Vere Society in England. Michael Frohnsdorff presented for The character of the duke in Measure for Dr. Wright was appointed an Associate Christopher Marlowe contending, as many Measure, Beauclerk maintains, is the Trustee of the Authorship Trust following Marlovians do, that his death was a ploy to author pulling his dramatic strings to force this meeting. cover up his espionage activities after which Queen Elizabeth to recognize her The meeting was opened by Mark he went to Italy and wrote the works of shortcomings, especially in chastising him Rylance, Artistic Director of The Globe Shakespeare. Frohnsdorff contended that for follies that were similar to her own. Theater, London. Rylance welcomed all Marlowe wrote Measure for Measure in There was some significant media and set the ground rules for the conference. 1604 after he supposedly returned to coverage of the conference, with Robin This was not to be a debate; the four speakers England in disguise. Williams’s talk on Lady Pembroke being were merely going to present their Robin Williams presented an interest- publicized in advance and The New York candidates for the authorship of the ing biography of Mary Sidney, attempting Times covering it in August (William Shakespeare canon and make an effort to to tie her to the writing of the Sonnets Niederkorn article, August 21, 2004). connect that candidate to the play of the because she had a much younger lover. While having such a prominent evening, Measure for Measure. In his Miss Williams emphasized Mary’s great authorship venue clearly results from the opening remarks, Mr. Rylance requested learning and that her home, Wilton, was efforts of Globe artistic director and that questions from the audience be where she developed a great literary circle. outspoken anti-Stratfordian Rylance, it was inquiries for information and that any Here again there was no connection of the announced at the end of summer that Mr. remarks be also of an informative nature. candidate to the writing of Measure for Rylance would be leaving the Globe after This was not to be a forum for attacks upon Measure. the 2004-2005 season, a development the speaker, his message or his candidate. Peter Dawkins presented for Francis which could call into question any future First to speak was Michael Wood, for and Anthony Bacon believing the plays to authorship events being held under the the Stratford man. He presented the usual be their collaboration. Dawkins also Globe’s auspices. —Pidge Sexton

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 8 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004

Bill Boyle (3) Marguerite Gyatt Enjoying an excursion to the Cascade Mountains southeast of Portland are: (top left) Mark Jackson, Paul Altrocchi and Marguerite Gyatt; (top right) Dan Wright, Earl Showerman and Helen Gordon; (bottom left) Wenonah Sharpe and John Varady; (bottom right, left to right) John Varady, Bill Boyle, Paul Altrocchi, Earl Showerman, Pat Urquhart, Dan Wright, Hank Whittemore, Mark Jackson.

Engaging Tudor (cont’d from page 1) they support the royal heir theory. Once skeptic remarked that whereas the sonnets kept all Oxfordians from working together Whittemore committed to participate in had always seemed hard to read, they were over the years. Wright thought that some- the seminar, John Varady (Los Altos, CA) all remarkably clear when glossed from the thing so longstanding, with so many deeply agreed to represent the alternative point of “Monument” point of view. committed adherents, merited serious con- view. Wright himself always has been an Also of interest was the unanimous sideration in the search for the truth about outspoken critic of the theory, but also agreement that it was virtually impossible the authorship mysteries. always has supported the ideal of open for the imprisoned 2nd Earl of Southamp- The theory, in its basic form, is that the discourse on all matters related to the ton to have been the actual father of the 3rd relationship between Shakespeare and the authorship debate. Earl, his Oct. 6th, 1573, letter reporting the Earl of Southampton, as expressed in the While Wright has written up his own birth notwithstanding. Seminar partici- Sonnets and the dedications to the two assessment of the seminar (opposite page), pants agreed that the birth announcement narrative poems, must be parental—not we can say that it was definitely an interest- could have been: “It’s a bastard!” that of lovers, not that of friends, and cer- ing week, and while no minds were A rarely seen painting of the 2nd Earl’s tainly (for Oxfordians) not that of patron changed, some progress was made in un- wife, Mary Browne, was shown at one ses- and poet. It is in fact the Sonnets which have derstanding how the issue fits into the sion, and seminar participants debated been—right from the beginning—the pri- larger picture of the authorship debate whether the 3rd Earl did or didn’t resemble mary source of theories about Southamp- itself. In fact, by the end of the week when her (it was 50-50 whether he did or not). ton as a prospective Tudor heir. Without it was suggested at the concluding Still, considering that participants agreed them there could well be no such theory. roundtable discussion that, “Discussing the that the 2nd Earl most likely was not the In considering having this theory as the PT theory is reasonable, and dismissing it father, that leaves wide open the question topic for the 2004 seminar, Wright knew out of hand is unreasonable,” there was of just what the relationship between Ox- that the person he needed to have on hand unanimous agreement with the statement. ford/Shakespeare and the 3rd Earl 20 years was Hank Whittemore, a leading propo- A good part of the week was taken up later was—for if he wasn’t the 2nd Earl’s nent of the theory and someone who has with a presentation by Whittemore of his son, then whose son was he? And who knew? been working for years on a book about the “Monument” theory, including detailed line There is much more to consider on all Sonnets (The Monument, now published) by line, sonnet by sonnet readings of Son- these matters, which we will in upcoming that would attempt to explain the Sonnets nets 27 to 126. All participants agreed that issues of SM, and which will also take place fully, and in so doing, demonstrate how this was an exceptional experience, and one at next summer’s seminar. —WBoyle

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 9 Prince Tudor Seminar: An Assessment By Dr. Daniel L. Wright This year’s Shakespeare Authorship Bosworth Field and his legacy not been left into exile are not exactly uncommon fig- Studies Seminar at Concordia University to the savage imaginings of Tudor-financed ures in Shakespearean drama. may not have achieved consensus with pens? Would we know anything—any- So: do the Sonnets record the history respect to the authority or definitive char- thing!—of the causes and conduct of the of a passionate same-sex romance that acter of the Tudor Heir thesis (after a great Peloponnesian War if it were not for could not, because of the capital nature of week’s intense scrutiny of the issue, the the literature of the Athenian aristocrat its offense, speak its name? Possibly. Do seminar remained about as it began—half Thucydides? they record the history of a love affair with supportive of the Tudor Heir thesis, half We cannot forget, too, that many of the a prominent woman at Court whose iden- opposed or skeptical)—but all of tity, for her own special safety, the participants were able, at the needed to remain concealed? Pos- seminar’s conclusion, to recognize sibly. Do they record the history of that in the task of interpreting the a son, born to royal promise but Elizabethan past, the historical denied the fulfillment of that prom- record must be expanded to in- ise? Possibly. The sonnets will bear clude the witness of its poets and these and other interpretations. playwrights—most notably Shake- Such, therefore, is the conundrum. speare—and that historical record The Sonnets surely tell a story, but includes the Sonnets. what story is it that they tell? What The achievement was not insig- is the truth behind the shadows of nificant. In a world which some- The seminar concluded with a Friday morning roundtable Shakespeare’s art? If it is discern- times naively supposes that the his- discussion on the week’s events and talks. ible—and we have to think it is if tory of a nation is recorded most Shakespeare is honest in declaring authoritatively (or only) in its official docu- Western world’s greatest writers lived not to his primary recipient that his “monu- ments and records—inaccurate testa- just in tumultuous times but under the ment shall be my gentle verse”—then there ments though we often know those official personal shadow of the axe, and they wrote is a meaning to the Sonnets that ought to records to be—Shakespeare challenges us urgently in response to that intimate ter- be fathomable. But to whom is Oxford to look at his work with an eye to his ror: Dante was condemned to be burned at speaking, and how are we to know? engagement of persons and issues of his the stake for opposing the foreign policy of To this end, perhaps the most hopeful age. That is a task too few modern readers Pope Boniface VIII; Fyodor Dostoyevsky offering on the horizon for fresh consider- of his work are willing to embrace because was sentenced to death for opposing the ation is Oxfordian actor and author Hank we all grew up with the fiction that litera- tyrannical Czarist government of Nicholas Whittemore’s forthcoming study of the ture, as opposed to “history,” is “art” or I; Voltaire was cast into exile for outraging sonnets: The Monument. We’ve enjoyed, at “pretty poetry”—rarely serious in the sense the aristocracy—and after his death, his our CU seminar this summer, a bit of what that we ought sometimes to hear in litera- body was desecrated and thrown into a may be “a foretaste of the feast to come” in ture the voice that often speaks as it does garbage pit. In our own day, we are familiar an all-too-laconic survey of some of Hank’s because truth cannot otherwise be spoken. with writers such as Wole Soyinka, the insights during a lazy August week punc- However, when we reflect on the task heroic Nigerian dramatist and political tuated by picnics, day trips into the Cas- of many of literature’s great writers, we satirist who was sentenced to death on cade Mountains, and late-night dinners on have to affirm that, despite our often easy trumped-up charges during the brutal mili- the river. assumption that writers usually write for tary dictatorship of General Sani Abacha. Whether Hank’s provocative analysis superficial or narrowly personal reasons, If Oxford was Shakespeare, and if his and conclusions will prove right, wrong or many of the world’s greatest writers have son was Henry Wriothesley, he had to an- merely another interesting contribution written not for entertainment or commer- ticipate (and even participate in!) his son’s to an already crowded history of analysis, cial reward (or even to celebrate their art) delivery to the headsman’s block—and we await publication and study to dis- but because of their passion—their need— perhaps face (and flee?) his own arrest on cover. One thing is certain: with Hank’s to tell the truth about an event, an age, or what he may have feared was a forthcoming forthcoming book, a new hope that we may a person to which posterity might, but for charge of treason in 1604 when Wriothesley be able to unlock those poems that the the writer’s contribution to history, be and others were re-arrested on 24 June of great poet, William Wordsworth, identi- blind and deaf. Where would we be in our that year. The Sonnets, moreover, may not fied as “the key to Shakespeare’s heart” is appraisal of the significance of the man, be the only literary testaments of Oxford soon to offer itself for our consideration. Jesus, if the record of his life had been left that speak to the possibility of these events My hope—and the hope of all the seminar solely to the account of Flavius Josephus? and suggest the means by which he would participants—is that Oxfordians will give How would we assess the reign of Richard have us understand them: changeling chil- it the careful attention all signs suggest it III if he had defeated Henry Tudor at dren, royal bastards and aristocrats driven deserves.

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 10 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004

Monument critique (cont’d from page 1) pilgrimage” to the addressee. The thematic describes only one day? The inconsistency the monument. When introducing an continuity is obvious, calling into question is troubling and Whittemore provides no innovation into scholarly discourse it is the basis for identifying Sonnet 27 as a coherent justification for it. He even seems customary to provide a thorough break of any kind, let alone one marking an unaware that a justification is required. If justification for the change in emphasis as event as dramatic as the imprisonment of Shakespeare set out to write a 100-sonnet well as to explain what elements of the case the Earl of Southampton. “center” to his “monument,” surely the are based on the authority of other scholars. Using Sonnet 107 as the marker, rules would remain the same throughout? Whittemore’s justification for the Whittemore divides the 100-sonnet Anything else appears arbitrary. And if innovation is that the sonnets can be mapped sequence (27-126) into two segments: The each poem in the final segment describes onto a chronological framework which first segment of 80 sonnets (27-107) is said one day, how would the poet know in accords with the events of the Essex to correspond to the 26 months spanning advance that these daily poems would Rebellion and the imprisonment and Southampton’s February 8, 1601, arrest to number 20, thus bringing him to the liberation of the Earl of Southampton. convenient 100 he needs to construct the Within this schema, Sonnet 27 represents monument? These “sub-groupings” also the February 8, 1601, imprisonment of “When introducing an disturb the symmetry of the 100-sonnet Southampton. Unfortunately, this super- center, which we might expect to consist of ficially attractive schema suffers from a innovation into scholarly 50 and 50 sonnets rather than 60, 20, and number of obvious defects. First, 20. Whittemore is forced to entirely disregard discourse it is customary Nevertheless, at least at the beginning the discrete nature of the marriage sonnets of the final segment, Whittemore is (1-17) as a group. Second and more to provide a thorough fortunate enough to enjoy the authority of importantly, although Whittemore’s prose the many other scholars who date Sonnet is engaging and the story dramatic, the justification for the 107 to spring 1603 and regard the phrase evidence in 27 allegedly connecting to “the mortal moon hath her eclipse endured” Whittemore’s historical narrative simply change in emphasis as as an indication of Elizabeth’s death on evaporates on close inspection. This is in change in emphasis as March 24. It is entirely plausible, therefore, no discernible way a sonnet about an arrest that the line “Supposed as forfeit to a or imprisonment, but a lyrical meditation well as to explain what confined doom” refers to Southampton’s by the poet, who has been travelling and in imprisonment. But one sonnet does not a his evening rest imagines the continuation elements of the case are monument make, and the possible context of his physical journey to the addressee. of 107 presents another problem. If, as The significant point here is that the poet based on the authority Whittemore contends, it is written to is or has been away. The addressee has celebrate Southampton’s release, it neither been removed nor arrested. And of other scholars.” precedes a sonnet that seems likely to refer although it may be true that the image of to his imprisonment or execution. In the jewel “hung in ghastly night” (27.11) is, Sonnet 112 the poet speaks of the youth as in the most general sense, consistent with his April 10, 1603, release; the second one who is the charged emotional atmosphere of the segment (107-125) covers the period from events Whittemore describes, mere Southampton’s release to Elizabeth’s April ...so strongly in my purpose bred consistency is hardly enough to confirm 28 funeral, with Sonnet 126 added on as an That all the world besides me thinks y’are his interpretation, unless other, more “Envoy” to Southampton. But this division dead. (112.13-14) compelling, corroborative evidence can conceals, and partly competes with, be cited. Whittemore’s further qualification about To us, the “Essex rebellion” reading of the Sonnet structure: Sonnets 27-86 (60 this couplet is plausible—although other Reviewing the Evidence: sonnets), according to Whittemore, are interpretations are also plausible. Sonnets 27-126 written at the rate of one per day and are However, identifying the line as being about said to cover the period beginning with Southampton’s imprisonment under Establishing a break at Sonnet 27 Southampton’s imprisonment. Sonnets 87- sentence of death has an unfortunate produces the illusion of structural 106 (20 sonnets) apparently cover the next consequence for Whittemore’s “monu- coherence, but the division, alas, is two years of confinement; while 107-126 ment” thesis. If both 107 and 112 are about arbitrary. Sonnet 26 begins to develop the (the final 20 sonnets) match the 20 days the Essex Rebellion, and if 107 truly marks theme of the poet’s absence, referring to between Southampton’s release and the Southampton’s release from the tower, the “written ambassage” the poet has sent Queen’s funeral if one includes the “Envoy.” then it follows that the sonnets are not to the fair youth. In fact, Vendler calls 26 It is unfortunate that the rules governing arranged in chronological order, a finding “the first epistolary sonnet”6 (148), the sequence change. Why, for instance, which undermines, if it does not destroy, suggesting that the poet may already be may one poem in the second segment Whittemore’s “monument.” travelling. In Sonnet 27, it is the poet’s cover many days or even months, while In fact, with the possible exception of thoughts that “intend a zealous each poem in the first and third segments 107, 112, and 124, a close reading of

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 11

Sonnets 27-126 reveals no evident Whittemore’s evidence connecting Southampton as one of the “precious connection to the events of the rebellion Sonnet 30 to the Privy Council trial of friends hid in death’s dateless night.” (30.6) and Southampton’s imprisonment, and Essex and Southampton is even less As the “friends” are described in the third some of the sonnets manifestly cannot be credible: person and the youth in the second person, about either. For example, Sonnets 71-74 this is clearly not a viable reading. are all meditations on the poet’s imminent Oxford records in 30 that the Privy Additionally, the youth cannot be one of death. In these and other sonnets, the poet Council will summon him to the Sessions the “precious friends,” as they are already repeatedly emphasizes the fair youth’s or Treason Trial of Essex and Southampton dead. He is, instead, exactly as in Sonnet surviving him, a curious emphasis indeed to sit as the highest ranking earl on the 29, providing solace for the poet’s if the youth is living in the Tower under a tribunal of peers who will judge them.8 “losses...and sorrows” — acting, in other death sentence. Furthermore, many words, as a replacement for those already sonnets in the 100-sonnet sequence (27- Here Whittemore mistakes a meta- gone. When the poet calls the addressee 126) address the youth as an object of “the grave where buried love doth live” in consolation to whom the poet turns when Sonnet 31, his meaning is transparent and distressed by other circumstances: “Although legal has nothing to do with the imprisonment or imminent execution of the addressee; But if the while I think on thee, dear friend, rather, the youth has become the repository All losses are restored and sorrows end. metaphors do permeate for the poet’s lost loves. This reading is (30. 13-14). without ambiguity, for the poet continues:

Why would the poet be consoled by, or this sonnet (and many Their images I loved I view in thee, find joy in, the idea of his beloved if that And thou, all they, hast all the all of me. beloved is incarcerated? This couplet and others), there is no (italics added) many others make no sense of the context as defined by Whittemore, who creates the Treasons Compared illusion of such a connection only through mention here of a the adroit selection of certain words and Also critical to Whittemore’s thesis is phrases with no regard for their immediate trial, except perhaps his analysis of Sonnet 35, in which “Oxford or larger context as parts of sonnets or accuses himself...of ‘authorizing’ sonnet sequences. Southampton’s ‘trespass’ or treason by We have already considered Sonnet 27. in the most oblique ‘compare.’” The word “treason” does not Let us now examine the evidence appear in this sonnet; interestingly, it Whittemore presents for linking Proustian sense...” appears only in 151, outside the 100 “Essex subsequent sonnets to Southampton’s Rebellion” sonnets. There it refers imprisonment. He states: metaphorically to the body’s rebellion against the will, and is in fact a bawdy Identifying with the younger earl’s phorical use of the words sessions and description of male erection. Attempting plight, [the poet] records in 29 that he summon for a literal one. The “sessions” to to skate over the critical problem of his himself is “in disgrace with fortune (the which the poem refers are the poet’s own own interpretation of 35 by placing an Queen) and men’s eyes” in the same way imaginative sessions of “sweet silent unwarranted interpretation on the word Southampton is suffering in the Tower.7 thought” and the “summoning” is not of sensual, Whittemore defines “sensual fault” the session, but of a “remembrance of as “willful, riotous crime.” However, a close reading of the sonnet things past.” Although legal metaphors do In other words, “sensual” means willful shows that the poet is not in any way permeate this sonnet (and many others), and/or riotous. This definition is contrary identifying with “the plight” of the there is no mention here of a trial, except to the word’s uses in Shakespeare (See addressee, but talking of his own disgrace, perhaps in the most oblique Proustian Measure for Measure 2.4.160, As You Like which is again compensated for by his sense (i.e., a psychological “trial” at which It, 2.7.66, and Sonnet 141.8) and pleasant thoughts of the youth: the writer is defendant, advocate, and contravenes usage as specified by various judge). Moreover, even if one understood authorities we consulted.9 By no stretch of Yet in these thoughts myself almost “sessions” and “summon” to be literal rather the imagination can “sensual” here be despising, than metaphorical, the direct link to the construed to mean what Whittemore Haply I think on thee, and then my state, Southampton trial would still be (Like to the lark at break of day arising) appears to think it does. A “sensual fault” is unestablished. Although Whittemore does a sin of the flesh. The word “trespass,” used From sullen earth sings hymns at heaven’s not acknowledge the fact, these terms apply gate, in the sonnet as a synonym for the “sensual to many different kinds of trials, not just For thy sweet love remembered such fault,” appears to have a similar meaning wealth brings, capital crimes such as treason. in Romeo and Juliet: That then I scorn to change my state with Compounding these implausibilities, (Continued on page 12) kings. Whittemore attempts to identify Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 12 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004

Monument critique (cont’d from page 11) sentence was commuted from death to a and Whittemore depend on to make their Sin from my lips? O trespass sweetly urged. lesser punishment. Unfortunately, simple thesis. Boyle’s caption for the sonnet Give me my sin again. (I.5.111) awareness of this circumstance falls far declares that “The word ‘misprision’ in short of a demonstration that Sonnet 87 Sonnet 87 has never been glossed as Of sonnet 42, Whittemore states: has anything to do with the Essex Rebellion ‘misprision of treason’ since no one ever or Southampton’s imprisonment. To start had the correct context.” We suggest an Oxford reminds [Southampton]...that with, “of treason” is missing, even by alternative reason for the word never having for now he is stuck with Elizabeth as his implication. More important, this is a been glossed in this way: The context of the sovereign and that he himself had “loved sonnet about emotional leave-taking. It sonnet does not support it. Instead, the her dearly” or served her with devotion, appears at first as if the poet is abandoning preferred meaning is clearly “under- but now his “chief wailing” or sorrow is his relationship with the addressee, but it valuation.” To accept the meaning supplied that she has Southampton in her prison soon becomes clear that the addressee is by Boyle and Whittemore requires us to fortress.10 ignore the obvious context (with its extensive monetary metaphors) of the A less plausible exegesis of what is sonnet itself in favor of a hypothetical apparently a poem about a lovers’ triangle “The foregoing analysis context, which the sonnet, without the is difficult to imagine. None of the misconstruction of the word “misprision,” following words are mentioned in the identifies areas of entirely fails to support. sonnet: “Elizabeth,” “Southampton,” “prison,” or “fortress.” Instead, the poem interpretation which are Context: Peeling the Literary Onion describes the familiar circumstance of two men, the poet and presumably the so basic that we are forced The foregoing analysis identifies areas addressee, fighting over a woman. The of interpretation which are so basic that we poet rationalizes his position by suggesting are forced to reflect on the nature of a that as his friend and he “are one,” the to reflect on the nature methodology that could produce such poet’s mistress loves only the poet himself. demonstrably erroneous results. We have He describes his own conceit as a “sweet of a methodology that already seen Bill Boyle declare the “entire flattery” (“flattery” here meaning meaning” of Sonnet 87 hinges on one delusion)—a very strange phrase to employ could produce such word. This kind of focusing on individual with regard to “Southampton in [the words or phrases, separated from the larger Queen’s] prison fortress.” demonstrably “story” of the sonnet, is characteristic of the methodology employed by both Boyle Misprision of Definition and Whittemore. Boyle describes the erroneous results.” discovery of the monument solution as “an In many ways, the crux of Whittemore’s intriguing process of focusing on key words argument can be found in a single word in and phrases and mulling on Sonnet 87. Boyle declares that actually relinquishing the poet, as clarified possibilities.”13 Unhappily, these “possi- in Sonnet 89, which begins, “Say that thou bilities” are then revealed to the world as Equally important [to the theory] is didst forsake me for some fault...” (89.1: certainties. A startling example of this is how the meaning of other words in other emphasis added). When the poet states in Sonnet 63. After quoting the sonnet’s sonnets suddenly becomes clearer. 87 that the addressee is “too dear” (too concluding sestet, Boyle writes: Foremost among such other words is beloved or costly) “for [his] possessing...” “misprision” in Sonnet 87, glossed by all (87.1), the line anticipates the abandon- Just as suddenly I got it. I saw in my commentators for two centuries as a ment which becomes clear in 89. mind a picture of Southampton being led “misunderstanding” of some sort...the Boyle does not acknowledge the to the block, about to have the “confounding entire meaning of sonnet 87 really hinges implications of the Sonnet’s surrounding [Elizabethan] Age’s cruel knife [the on this one word—misprision.11 context. Like sonnets 4 and 134, 87 is headman’s ax]” cut his “life” [head] off, saturated with financial metaphor (dear, even as the poet, picturing the same thing As Boyle observes, an interesting possessing, estimate, charter, bonds, and “fortifying” himself through his technical alternative was available to the granting, worth, riches, gift, patent). If we writing, swears he shall never be cut from poet. In Tudor law, “misprision of treason” want to understand “misprision” in its memory because “he...still green” [he shall could refer to a crime which fell just short actual, as opposed to hypothetical, context, live forever] in “these black lines” [my of treason. Given the extended we should read the word in relation to this verse].14 imprisonment of Southampton and his financial schema. Stephen Booth notes eventual release, it is certainly legitimate that one definition of misprision is The extensive interpolation of to suppose, although concrete evidence is “undervaluation,”12 which accords interpretative glosses is a clue to the apparently lacking, that at some point the perfectly with the language of the sonnet problems inherent in this line of reasoning. verdict was changed to misprision and his without recourse to the meaning that Boyle One need not read beyond the first two

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 13 lines to understand that the poet does not line cited by Whittemore word “Tower” not occur in this sonnet, anticipate the addressee’s death; on the “place” does not either! It has been lifted contrary, he expects him to live until he’s As soon as think the place where he would from 44. Moreover, the sonnet’s messen- at least the poet’s present age: be. (44.8: italics added) gers, whom Whittemore represents as horsemen, are explicitly identified in the Against my love shall be as I am now does not refer to Southampton, to the Earl sonnet as the metaphysical abstractions, With Time’s injurious hand crushed and of Essex, or a “fair youth” of any kind, as the “slight air and purging fire” (45.1), o’erworn... (63:1-2) addressee in the sonnet is “thou.” The symbolizing thought and desire. And, antecedent is readily apparent in the although Whittemore writes of “[the poet’s] The sonnet tells us the poet wishes to preceding line: home [in Hackney],” the poet himself does commit the addressee’s youthful beauty to not, but instead suggests again that he is memory through poetry–not, as Boyle travelling by use of the phrase “wherever I infers, because he expects him to be abide” (45.2). In short, there is no hint in executed, but rather because he expects either 44 or 45 of the historical events that him to live until “all those beauties whereof “Our English teachers Whittemore assures us are the secret key to now he’s King/Are vanishing or vanished the Sonnets. out of sight.” (63.6-7) Boyle’s inter- pretation depends on ignoring this level of Missed Opportunities poetic context (that is, reading the sonnet always taught us to as an entire coherent statement), and places Our English teachers always taught us a wholly unjustified misconstruction on to beware the bold generalization and shun the word “Age’s,” so that it will conform to beware the bold the unverified proclamation. So far in this the meaning required by his theory about article we have raised objections to the a hypothetical historical context. “Age” positive interpretations on which Whitte- does not refer to the “Elizabethan Age” but generalization and more and Boyle have rested their case. is a personification of the aging process. Doubtless reply will be made that we have The phrase “Age’s cruel knife” alludes to not waited to evaluate the entirety of the the Renaissance commonplace of Death, evidence contained in Mr. Whittemore’s who arrives with a reaper’s scythe. A similar shun the unverified book. This is true but also irrelevant. No image occurs in Sonnet 12: “And nothing larger case which depends on the kind of ’gainst Time’s scythe can make defence.” examples cited in these two articles can be (12.13) If we accept that Sonnet 63 is talking proclamation.” regarded as a sound one. Moreover, we about execution, surely we must accept wonder how a theory that fares so poorly that 12 is communicating the same idea? with respect to the sonnets chosen for Yet Sonnet 12 lies far outside Whittemore’s analysis can possibly accommodate the 100-sonnet center and is a part of a sequence For nimble thought can jump both sea and content of sonnets that are not mentioned. urging the addressee to marriage. On the land, Boyle and Whittemore are not shy about contrary, both instances of the image are a As soon as think the place where he would claiming a global explanatory power for personification of time.15 be. (44.7-8) their theory. Boyle states: “Everything in the middle sequence of one hundred “Sometime I’ld divide, and burn The lines are about the ability of sonnets is real and related to the Essex in many places”—Ariel thought, Ariel-like, to traverse physical Rebellion and its aftermath.”16 If this is so, space and experience a desired location how do we account for Sonnet 57? Another example of this kind of which is not physically present. Whatever misperception of individual words, on “place” Shakespeare may have intended by Being your slave, what should I do but which detailed interpretations are then the word—and there is nothing in the tend, sonnet which supports Whittemore’s Upon the hours, and times of your desire? developed, is “place,” which Whittemore I have no precious time at all to spend; in Sonnet 44 interprets as a deliberately reading—it is definitely not the Tower of Nor services to do till you require. obscure reference to the Tower of London London. Nor dare I chide the world without end (a proposition he bolsters with select Undaunted by such empirical hour, citations from historical sources); however, problems, and having, he presumes, Whilst I (my sovereign) watch the clock for what Whittemore doesn’t say, and securely identified the locale in 44 by the you, apparently hasn’t considered, is that “place” fiat of defining a mind to be a prison Nor think the bitterness of absence sour When you have bid your servant once occurs over 450 times in Shakespeare’s palace, Whittemore then states of Sonnet adieu. plays and 10 times in the sonnets, and very 45: “Messengers are riding back and forth Nor dare I question with my jealous rarely in Shakespeare can it possibly have between the Tower and [the poet’s] home thought, the specific meaning to which he attributes [in Hackney] to bring news of Southamp- Where you may be or your affairs suppose, it here. Most damaging of all, the “he” in the ton’s health battles.” Not only does the (Continued on page 14) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 14 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004

Monument critique (cont’d from page 13) connection between a single word a 3 Boyle, ibid., 11. But like a sad slave stay and think of nought hypothetical historical context. 4 Booth, Stephen. An Essay on Shakespeare’s Save where you are, how happy you make Finally, it is important to notice that Sonnets. New Haven and London: Yale those. the legal terminology Whittemore University Press, 1969. So true a fool is love, that in your will, identifies as key to this 100-sonnet 5 Boyle, op. cit., 11. (Though you do anything) he thinks no ill. 17 sequence is in fact not confined to these 6 Helen Vendler, The Art of Shakespeare’s sonnets. We have shown above that Sonnets. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of The addressee in this sonnet is “treason” occurs only in sonnet 151. manifestly not in prison but is free to come Harvard, 1997, 148. “Prisoner” and “pent” occur in 5. “Conspire” 7 Whittemore, Hank. Shakespeare Matters and go as he pleases. Indeed the poet occurs in 10. “Doom and date” occurs in declares himself unable to question (Summer 2004), 18. 14. “Heinous crime” occurs in 19. “Do 8 Whittemore, ibid., 18. witness bear” occurs in 131. “Prison,” “jail,” 9 See, for example, the definition at with my jealous thought “ward” and “pent” occur in 133. “A several www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn. Where you may be or your affairs suppose. plot” occurs in 137. These examples, few of (Emphasis added) 10 Whittemore, op. cit., 20. many, illustrate that the alleged “context” 11 Boyle, op. cit., 12. of the Essex Rebellion and Southampton’s In fact, the poet is in a sense imprisoned 12 imprisonment is more a statement of the Shake-Speare’s Sonnets: Edited With an by the addressee, as he waits on his “desire,” poet’s legal interests or education and Analytic Commentary by Stephen Booth. while the addressee makes others entirely superfluous to the interpretation New Haven and London: Yale University elsewhere happy with his presence. Sonnet of most, if not all, of the sonnets in the 100- Press, 1977, 291. 58, thematically similar to its predecessor, 13 sonnet sequence. Boyle, op. cit., 15; our emphasis. confirms this reading: 14 Boyle, ibid., 13. 15 Here, of course, Whittemore may well reply L’envoy That god forbid, that made me first your that “Time” is a figure “representing slave Elizabeth Tudor, Queen Elizabeth I of I should in thought control your times of It is both impossible and unnecessary pleasure, England” (16)—if this proposition is true, in a short paper to comment in detail on all then it would seem to nullify our criticism, Or at your hand th’account of hours to of the misapprehensions found in crave, since the “knife” could be both the knife of Whittemore’s and Boyle’s articles,18 and Being your vassal bound to stay your time and the executioner’s axe. Unfortu- our critique has by design been abbreviated leisure... nately this generalization regarding the Be where you list, your charter is so strong, to reflect only a few of the most egregious problems; however, we believe the meaning of “time” cannot be defended by That you yourself may privilege your time any convincing evidence. It is awkward, to To what you will... (Emphasis added). Whittemore-Boyle “monument” theory is flawed both in its method and its say the least, to equate the power of time In the art of literary interpretation no conclusions. The alleged monument fails to a monarch who is herself subject to the concept is more evasive and difficult than to manifest the numerical structure mortal aging process. To do so would be to that of context. Boyle and Whittemore attributed to it, and the only point of commit an idolatrous flattery of which we propose a radical new “context” for chronological plausibility in the entire believe the author wholly innocent. Other evaluating the sonnets. What they have schema is Sonnet 107 (spring 1603). euphemisms, such as “Beauty,” or “Rose,” failed to acknowledge and grapple with is Contrary to the theory’s claim, it is seem far more appropriate as symbolic the multi-layered nature of “context.” Their impossible to reconcile the entire sequence references to Elizabeth. method short-circuits close reading of of Sonnets 27-126 with the alleged 16 Boyle, op. cit., 14. Our emphasis. sonnets and their sequences, affecting to chronological and historical context. 17 Ibid., 20. discover a “solution” in a hypothetical As we have shown, even those sonnets 18 For example, Boyle states that the external context which is very weakly, if at which Whittemore and Boyle single out publication of Q “was undoubtedly all, reflected in the contents of the poems as exemplars of the theory’s persuasive suppressed,” but the bibliographical it is supposed to elucidate. An acceptable force fail to substantiate their claims. We evidence does not support this interpreta- reading should encompass, at the very urge all readers to study carefully the tion and neither does any other concrete least, an entire sonnet, but instead they sonnets themselves and to formulate their evidence of which I am aware. Rollins’s seize on a word or a phrase, deduce a own conclusions regarding the utility of 1944 census in The New Variorum Edition connection to the dramatic events of the the “monument” theory. Testing the text (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1944) Essex Rebellion, while never returning to against the theory will always yield an identified 13 surviving copies, a large the sonnet itself to see if their interpretation advancement of knowledge. number for a publication as perishable as can be substantiated by a reading of the Endnotes: Q. By contrast, only two copies exist of entire sonnet in its published sequence. In nd almost every case, it cannot. The method Hamlet Q1, and seven of the 2 quarto. 1 Boyle, William. Shakespeare Matters achieves the illusion of significance only These numbers are typical and are not by ignoring the immediate, actual context (Summer 2004), 11. evidence for suppression. 2 of the Sonnet while discovering an alleged Boyle, ibid., 11. Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 15

Ashbourne (cont’d from page 1) terials testing with the question of whether stricted by the Folger to analysis of only the shoulders of a young man painted on a the Sanders is a portrait of Shake-speare. gold paint in certain parts of the painting wood panel with a fabric label on the back Perhaps the conclusion proclaimed by the and only the top level of that paint. CCI was identifying it as Shakespeare. The Sanders title of Corbeil’s talk could be attributed to directed to do radiographic examination claims, which have surfaced a number of overzealous Stratfordian partisanship. The and to look for “any changes” in the paint- times during the last century and have far more likely explanation is that Corbeil ing, but was not provided with crucial been rejected each time, resurfaced in 2001 was simply representing the interests of background information to perform this as the result of an enterprising reporter’s her CCI client, the owner of the portrait, task. search for a story in a Toronto newspaper who had a huge financial stake in the Not surprisingly, the CCI report sup- circulation war. The hype surrounding the portrait being that of Shake-speare. ports the Folger’s claims about the painting, now owned by a Canadian, en- Ashbourne in every area, including their couraged much wishful thinking among The Folger hires CCI to claim that the inscription is original to the Stratfordians seeking a more appealing examine the Ashbourne painting—a critical part of their Hamersley physiognomy for their man than the claims. Sweeping generalizations are Droeshout and the Stratford monument. It is then not surprising that the Folger made from inadequate technical materi- As a result of this publicity a conference Shakespeare Library turned so far afield in als analysis. was held in Toronto in November 2002, September 2002 for a technical, but ex- In this article we will analyze the report featuring the experts who had examined tremely limited, materials examination of showing how the limitations placed on the Sanders. Also on the panels were Folger the Ashbourne portrait to shore up their this “examination” invalidate the very con- Shakespeare Library personnel. Partisans claims that Sir Hugh Hamersley is the clusions that were drawn. We will concen- of the Sanders painting were hopeful that sitter. In this testing they attempted to trate on the main issues involving the con- the conference would proclaim the paint- refute Charles Wisner Barrell’s experts’ X- dition of the canvas and the related issue of ing to be a portrait of Shake-speare. ray and infrared testing of the painting. Art the authenticity of the inscription. CCI’s But things soon went awry as the ex- experts had long urged the Folger to send 10-page report, containing less than four perts began to point out major problems the painting out for thorough testing, one pages of text, provides the primary basis with the Shake-speare attribution. Much to recommending the Amherst College fa- for this analysis. the chagrin of the Toronto reporter, the cilities nearby (Amherst trustees oversee Additional information was provided panelists who dealt directly with the evi- the Folger), but this advice was ignored. from the author’s extensive phone inter- dence displayed polite reservation or out- Possibly the Folger’s sudden interest in view of Marie Claude Corbeil on Novem- right skepticism about the Shake-speare testing was in response to my series of ber 8, 2002, after she had completed her attribution. There was one curious excep- articles in Shakespeare Matters beginning report and sent it to the Folger. The infor- tion, the Canadian Conservation Institute in the fall of 2001. Those articles, espe- mation from the interview with Ms. Corbeil panelist, who spoke on the most techni- cially articles 3 and 4 in the Spring and Fall provides some important background in- cally restricted look at the painting. of 2002, exposed alterations made to the formation not included in the report. After the 2001 Toronto newspaper ar- Ashbourne while in the Folger’s posses- ticles CCI had been hired by the owner of sion and provided evidence against the The Folger’s instructions to CCI the portrait to try to date it. At that time CCI, Folger claims that Hamersley is the sitter. which had previously worked mainly for Interestingly, they did not attempt to ad- The mandate museums, had experienced financial prob- dress or rebut directly any of the evidence Corbeil, who very graciously and ex- lems and had lowered its prices to enter the of alterations presented in my articles. tensively answered my questions about the market for individual private clients. Marie Claude Corbeil was again the examination, stated frankly that CCI exam- When CCI chemist Marie Claude chemist and lead scientist (along with Jer- ines only what the client requests be exam- Corbeil was introduced, the large screen emy Powell) who examined the Ashbourne. ined. She said the Folger had “mandated” behind the introducer in the darkened Like her Sanders portrait talk, the title of it to “authenticate the inscription” to de- auditorium blazoned “The Scientific Ex- the CCI report to the Folger, “Scientific termine if it was contemporaneous or was amination of the Sanders Portrait of Shake- Examination of the Ashbourne Portrait of added later as Barrell suggested, and to speare.” There arose a murmur from even Shakespeare/Sir Hugh Hamersley,” makes report “any changes” compositionally over the partisan Stratfordian audience. When a claim for Hamersley that cannot be jus- the painting—specifically in relation to Corbeil took the podium she stated that tified from the examination that was made. Barrell’s findings. In other words, CCI was she was responsible for the wording of that CCI’s limited technical examination pro- aware that the Folger wanted to refute the title, and that she would discuss the radiog- vided no proof that the sitter was Hamersley. Barrell examination and conclusions. raphy, the testing of the dating of the wood CCI never examined the coat of arms on the These areas involved the hair, neck ruff, panel and the “identification” tag of the painting, the Folger’s supposed evidence “CK” initials, the rubbing out of the origi- painting. for Hamersley, nor did it undertake any nal inscription, and Barrell’s (and CCI had done no comparative analysis comparative studies linking the painting Spielmann’s) observations that the same connecting its very limited technical ma- to Hamersley. CCI was specifically re- (Continued on page 16) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 16 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004

Ashbourne (continued from page 15) ing involving matters such as iconogra- it sounds plausible, if Hamersley were the paint in the later added inscription had phy, costume, provenance, school of paint- sitter—which all the evidence negates. been used to paint over the book and ing, etc. Barrell, on the other hand, did do thumb ring. comparative analysis to supplement his Inadequate data for conclusions experts’ technical examination of the paint- I described these restrictions on test- Information not given to CCI ing. ing and the withheld information to a The Folger provided CCI with only The Folger also limited the examina- research scientist for a major art museum two pieces of information to inform and tion in the crucial area of the inscription, whose job involves testing for authenticity guide them in “authenticating the inscrip- which was really the main issue. There paintings offered to the museum. He re- tion” and in looking for “any changes com- were two things the Folger needed to “con- sponded that he would be very suspicious positionally over the painting” in order to firm” here: (1) That Barrell was wrong in of a client who would restrict him to test- respond to Barrell’s findings. These were a ing the top layer of paint only. Nor would copy of the 1940 Scientific American ar- he want to be restricted to certain areas to ticle by Barrell, and William Pressly’s ar- “The Folger provided CCI test. He opined that the client had an an- ticle from his 1993 book (A Catalog of swer it already knew and wanted to receive. Paintings in the Folger Shakespeare Li- As to the withheld information he said he brary) stating that Hamersley was the sit- with only two pieces would want all information about the paint- ter. ing and unequivocal cooperation from the What the Folger did not provide is most of information to inform client. When paintings are tested at his significant. They did not provide their own museum they are provided with all the 1948 X-rays, which confirm Barrell in all intellectual comparative analysis data in- key points—despite changes made that and guide them in cluding iconography, provenance, history show up in these X-rays, such as the attempt of the painting, school of painting, etc., to remove the “CK” monogram of the art- ‘authenticating the before any testing begins. He said they can ist, Cornelis Ketel. They did not provide often preclude a period for a painting, but their files on the portrait, which includes there are very few absolute dating systems important restoration information and inscription’ and in and in most cases they do not make deter- photos and much that refutes its position. minations based on very narrow materials Nor did they provide Pressly’s more exten- looking for ‘any testing, or based on a tiny piece of material sive Shakespeare Quarterly article. Corbeil without all the background information. received no pictures of different states of From the information I told him he con- the portrait other than the post-1932 black changes compositionally cluded that there were not enough data to and white reproduction in the 1940 Scien- draw conclusions. tific American article, and the color photo over the painting...’” from the article in Pressly’s book showing Bias of report the current state of the painting. She was Barrell’s major claim was that the not given any of the recent articles in concluding that the original inscription Ashbourne painting was an overpainted Shakespeare Matters relating to costume was removed and replaced with a new one portrait of the Earl of Oxford. The original dating, coat of arms and Hamersley claims, with the dates “1611 age 47,” which fit the inscription had been removed and a new “CK” monogram issues and evidence of Stratford man. That is crucial to the Folger’s inscription painted to fit the Stratford man’s alterations to the portrait after Barrell, all claim that the present inscription is the age (47) in 1611. A full head of hair had of which would indicate areas to be scru- original inscription, but changed from been painted over, the arms of Oxford’s tinized. The implication of what was pro- “1612” to “1611.” (2) That the “l” painted second wife painted over and other per- vided is that no changes were made to the over a possible scraped out “2” was done to sonal iconography of the painting (book, portrait after its change into “Shake-speare” change the 1612 date of Hamersley to fit thumb ring) covered and hidden with the and that, after Barrell’s examination, the the 1611 date of the Stratford man in the same gold (or orange yellow, as he called portrait had been found to be Hugh change into Shake-speare. They note that it) paint used in the 1611 inscription. Hamersley without dispute. 1612 fits Hamersley’s age of 47 in 1612 (Spielmann in 1910 had also noted the Corbeil was unaware of all this infor- (though it also fits numerous other men in latter alterations). The Folger denied that mation. For example, when I told her about England). They claim that a rubbing out of Oxford was the sitter and later claimed the Folger’s 1948 X-rays she replied that a possible “2” in the date was overpainted from dubious information (as we exposed having those would have helped her. Her with a “l” to fit the Stratford man. This in previous articles) that Sir Hugh conclusions against Barrell in various ar- claim is added to the claim that the coat of Hamersley was the sitter. eas exhibit the importance of this lack of arms is Hamersley’s, and thus they con- This was the issue at the heart of the information. In addition, CCI did no com- clude this proves the sitter is Hamersley 2002 examination. In her limited materi- parative or intellectual analysis of the paint- changed into Shake-speare. On the surface als testing, and without doing any com- Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 17 parative analysis, Corbeil had no ba- noted, “…it is still possible to distin- sis to make a decision in favor of guish the ghostly remnants of both Hamersley over Oxford. Yet the report alphabetical characters and numer- shows acceptance without question als” (p. 44). From this evidence Barrell of the Folger claim’s for Hamersley. concluded that the inscription now Like the Sanders portrait title report, on the painting was not the original the Ashbourne title is conclusive with- inscription and that the original had out basis. “Scientific Examination of been removed and replaced with the the Ashbourne Portrait of Shake- “1611” date and the Stratford man’s speare/Sir Hugh Hamersley” states age of “47” in that year. baldly the acceptance of the Folger The authenticity of the 1611 in- claims. And doesn’t it sound impres- scription became a crucial issue for sive and intimidating, “The Scientific the Folger, which later claimed the Examination”? We will see how “sci- portrait was of Hugh Hamersley. That entific” it is as we look at it more identification was based on incorrect closely. and altered evidence in the coat of arms that we have exposed in previ- Introduction to the report ous articles in Shakespeare Matters. First, we must comment on the To bolster its claim the Folger main- sleight of hand in the introduction. tained, as we noted, that the date was The report begins by saying the por- original to the painting, and had been trait was believed to be Shakespeare changed from 1612 (the year in which until the late 1930s when Barrell’s X- Hamersley’s age was 47) to 1611 to fit ray and infrared examination “showed the Stratford man. The Folger’s claim that the portrait was of another sitter” Fig. 1 By permission, Folger Shakespeare Library that Barrell was wrong about the re- (emphasis added). Even though The Ashbourne portrait as it now appears following restora- moval of the original inscription and tion. Recent technical tests conducted by the Canadian Barrell publicly identified the sitter Conservation Institute have been cited as evidence backing the substitution of the 1611 inscrip- as Oxford, the CCI report doesn’t even up the Folger Shakespeare Library’s claim that the original tion is crucial to the Folger’s claim mention his name. The next sentence sitter was Sir Hugh Hamersley, not Edward de Vere as that the inscription now on the por- continues as if it were summarizing claimed by Charles Wisner Barrell in his 1940 Scientific trait is original to the painting. This Barrell’s findings: “The three most American articles. explains the emphasis on “authenti- notable changes were that a coat of cating” the inscription in the Folger’s arms belonging to the first sitter was com- She then continues: “In 1979, a con- instructions to CCI. pletely painted over, the date, “1612” was servators treatment was undertaken at changed to “1611” so that the age “47” in the Folger Shakespeare Library and the The condition of the canvas the inscription on the painting could cor- coat of arms was uncovered and found to In order to “verify” that the inscription respond to Shakespeare’s age, and the correspond to that of Sir Hugh Hamersley” now on the painting is the original, the hairline of the sitter was raised to imitate (p. 3). This she accepts without question, Folger had to first prove that Barrell was Shakespeare’s baldness” (p. 3, emphasis against Barrell’s finding (which she does wrong about his X-rays showing that the added). The first and third statements re- not mention) that the coat of arms be- original inscription had been erased so flect Barrell’s conclusions; the second, longed to Oxford’s second wife. I asked her vigorously that it left perforations in the however, does not. if she had examined the coat of arms. She canvas. The condition of the canvas thus She has mixed up the Folger’s conclu- responded that she hadn’t looked at it. Nor becomes a crucial starting point. How did sions with Barrell’s findings. As we have did she have the Folger files, their 1948 X- CCI examine the canvas? They didn’t! noted, Barrell’s X-rays showed that the rays or the Shakespeare Matters articles Corbeil told me, as appears in the re- entire original inscription was removed howing alterations to the coat of arms. port, that she could not see the canvas in the and that the inscription now on the paint- X-rays, but that the canvas was smooth in ing was added later in the change to Shake- The inscription the area of the inscription and there was no speare! Corbeil has combined the Folger’s Barrell, himself a photographic expert, evidence of scraping. As Barrell’s X-rays claim of the “1612” date change and their hired the top radiography scientists of the showed evidence of severe scraping that claim that it is the original inscription to time to examine the Ashbourne. In 1940 left perforations in the canvas, to fully make it seem like one of “three” major Barrell reported the results of this exami- resolve these contrary reports Corbeil findings of the original X-ray examination nation in Scientific American, including should have examined the painting for the of the painting! She has also made a con- the fact that the original inscription had possibility of resurfacing. But she chose to clusive statement about an issue (the “1612” been scraped out so “vigorously that per- accept what she could see with no further date change) that is in contention. forations were made in the canvas.” He (Continued on page 18) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 18 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004

Ashbourne (continued from page 17) ment. There was none. Corbeil had told me previously and weak areas, hardly a de- testing. that she had not seen the canvas. How could scription of a canvas “in perfect condi- Instead of investigating further, she any statement be made about the condi- tion,” but a clear confirmation of Barrell’s assumed that Barrell and his experts had to tion of the canvas without ever having report that the original inscription had have been wrong. This is one of a number examined it? Much less that it “is in perfect been scraped so vigorously that it left per- of instances where the withholding of in- condition”? forations in the canvas. Early canvases were formation by the Folger affected the con- Here is what the Folger’s own files thinner than later ones (we dated the paint- clusion of the report. A truly independent (which were not provided to Corbeil) say ing by costume and the “CK” initials and investigation, aware of the conservator’s about the condition of the canvas. In July other information to c.1579 in a previous reports and alerted by other alterations to 1979 conservator Peter Michaels worked article). Scraping and rubbing to erase the portrait, would have included a further on patching the back of the canvas before something is precisely the kind of action investigation behind the inscription to see that would have created holes and thin if the damaged perforated canvas reported spots. Failure to disprove the existence of a by Barrell’s experts had been smoothed “Because evidence of a and covered over so as to be now invisible “Because evidence of a prior scraped out inscription therefore in- in X-rays. validates any CCI testing of the present A major metropolitan museum con- prior inscription is so inscription. Nevertheless the CCI “tested” servator explained to me how a painting the 1611 inscription following the Folger’s could be resurfaced so that prior scraping restrictive directions and concluded, as was no longer visible. He said that some critical a point of dispute might be expected, that it was the original conservationists are experts in replicating inscription. surfaces. After making the repair the re- in the Ashbourne painting, storer would only need to lay down a white in the Ashbourne painting, Varnish testing claims lead oil-based medium that absorbs X-rays The varnish test involved determining and then, knowing the composition of the this area of the inscription whether the inscription sat above or below nearby paint, incorporate the area into the the varnish, in order to establish whether surrounding paint. A skillful restorer could the inscription had been painted at the cover scraping and the surface would thus should have been exam- same time as the painting or later. Gener- appear smooth on an X-ray. The canvas ally, if the inscription paint is above the would not be visible in the X-ray due to the varnish, it was painted after the painting white lead medium. Skilled observers ined and tested for the was completed. If no varnish is found might detect a disturbance in the area in an below the inscription, it was likely painted X-ray if they are looking for it, which possibility of resurfacing.” at the time the portrait was made, after would then require further analysis of the which a coat of finishing varnish would paint layers. Because evidence of a prior have been applied to the entire painting, inscription is so critical a point of dispute inscription and all. However, as an inscrip- in the Ashbourne painting, this area of the relining. He notes in his report, “remove tion can be added any time later, this is a inscription should have been examined old lining, begin scraping glue, remove highly speculative assumption. But the ma- and tested for the possibility of resurfac- wax from back fill holes and thin spots with jor assumption underlying the varnish test ing. ettl mache—apply patches.” Later he notes, by CCI involved a prior conclusion, based I asked Corbeil if she had looked at the “apply more fillings to weak areas in re- on insufficient examination and testing, back of the canvas for evidence of perfora- verse—apply patches—apply patches that Barrell had been wrong about the tions or filling of holes and she said no, the [again]…line on heavy canvas with wax existence of a previous inscription that had painting was re-lined, she couldn’t see the resin.” been scraped, and which also left ghostly canvas at all. In July 1988 conservator Arthur Page remnants of letters, a few of which can be noted in his recommended treatment, “Re- seen in the Scientific American photo and “Furthermore the canvas is in perfect move and/or level any excessive fills with in the 1948 X-rays (especially directly above condition.” a scalpel” and “Remove wax-resin lining the “S” of SVAE). Interestingly it was only A month later I was astonished to read and any patch/fill materials which contrib- this “S” that was used to test for varnish by in the report, after a referral to Barrell’s ute exaggerated thickness to the original going down under layers of pigment with comments on the rubbing out of a previous canvas.” a sample cross-section of this letter. inscription, the statement: “Furthermore, Michaels verifies the existence of holes Corbeil concluded from this small var- the canvas is in perfect condition and does in the canvas and Page in turn verifies nish test that the inscription was original not show any perforations” (p. 4). I looked Michaels’s patches of areas in the canvas. because there was no varnish under the “S.” for a reference in the report to any exami- These appear to be extensive. Michaels also But that conclusion assumed that Barrell nation of the canvas to back up this state- notes thin spots that have been patched was wrong about a previous inscription, a Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 19 conclusion we have already shown to be original inscription for Hamersley was invalid. Her conclusion was also based on changed long after the portrait was painted, an assumption that Barrell was talking with the original “1612” being changed by about an inscription simply put on top of rubbing out a “2” and replacing it with a “l” an already varnished painting. But that is in order to have a 1611 date that would not what Barrell stated. He stated that the match Shake-speare’s age (47) in 1611. In original inscription was vigorously re- addition, the other changes involving the moved. If paint in the inscription area was painting over the book, etc., at the same largely removed, then the varnish on top of time have to fit this changed “1” paint and that paint would also have been removed at Fig. 2 not the paint of the whole inscription as the same time. The entire area would have described by Spielmann and Barrell. to be repainted before the new inscription When numerous old color photos was added and then varnish added on top (Spielmann’s, Ruth Loyd Miller’s, and con- of the new inscription. So there would be servator Michael’s pre-restoration color no varnish under at least part (if not all) of photo) of the painting are compared, the a new inscription (because we don’t know lettering and numbering all looks like the exactly how much of the old inscription same old gold paint, corroborating area is covered with the new inscription). Spielmann’s and Barrell’s observations. Thus Corbeil’s test that found no varnish There is no difference in paint color in the under the “S” also directly supports final “l” of “1611.” The first difference in Fig. 3 By permission, Folger Shakespeare Library Barrell’s conclusion that the original in- The key issue about the tests done by the Canadian the paint color of the “1” shows up in a scription was removed. And if varnish were Conservation Institute involve the Folger’s in- color photo from the slide of the painting to be found under some, but not all of the structions to test only the top layer of paint in the as it appears now, after the 1988-89 Folger inscription, that would be further proof of final “1” of the “1611” date. As can be seen in the restoration directed by William Pressly. Barrell’s findings. Perhaps that is why only enlargements of the dates above, an original date The “1” in the painting now looks like a one letter was chosen for testing. of “1612” had apparently been changed to “1611.” different paint, a paler lemony yellow Thus the conservator’s evidence sup- But when? And why? A comparison of the dates of rather than the gold in the rest of the porting Barrell on the scraped and perfo- the paint in the inscription would be crucial, inscription. And it looks newer. The new but were the tests conducted by CCI a fair compari- rated canvas, showing a prior inscription, paint also appears on parts of the book but son? (Fig. 2 is taken from a 1961 B&W Folger image and the suspicious inability of X-rays to of the portrait; Fig. 3 is how the inscription now it is most visible in the “1” in the inscrip- penetrate the inscription area all the way to appears, with the “1” remaining but a scraped out tion. the canvas, comes back to haunt this ex- “2” also showing.) Corbeil also noticed that this paint of amination. CCI’s conclusion from the var- the “l” is different. She notes that the “yel- nish testing that the present inscription is overpainting of the book and the signet low-painted areas” which she examined the original is invalid, and can just as thumb ring. Spielmann noted that all of but did not chemically test (except for the reasonably be used to support Barrell’s those additions were of an ancient applica- top layer in the “S”) were painted using “a findings. tion. Michaels (in his 1979 restoration golden yellow paint. However, the number work) noted that the inscription paint was ‘1’ painted over the scraped off number ‘2’ CCI claims from paint testing very old and hard. None of them remarks of the date and the mask on the book cover that the inscription is original on any numeral that stands out with a were painted using a different pale yellow different paint, or that such different paint paint. While the golden yellow paint shows As noted, the Folger placed rigid re- is also used to overpaint the book or ring— numerous signs of age…the pale yellow strictions on paint analysis. They restricted which is what the Folger will claim after paint looks newer in comparison” (pp. 4- chemical testing of the paint only to the their 1988-89 restoration. Barrell noted 5). gold paint in certain areas. Two places that the paint on the book and ring covered She notes that the golden yellow paint were tested, the last “1” in “1611” and the over personal identifications of the sitter. of the inscription (from the “S”) was made same paint that appears on an area of the A rubbing taken by Barrell of the thick of lead tin yellow type I, a paint “most book. Only the top layer of paint was tested paint over the signet ring revealed a boar’s frequently used in the fifteenth, sixteenth, on both. Also, the top layer of the gold or head. and seventeenth centuries, and has never orange yellow “old” paint from the letter These statements from Spielmann, been found in a painting done after 1750” “S” was tested. Barrell and Michaels about the paint present (p.5). This will be a significant date. As I noted in a previous article, art problems for the Folger, especially in their The pale yellow “newer” paint of the “l” historian Spielmann, who first observed later claims that the sitter is Sir Hugh and over the mask on the book was found the painting in 1910, and Barrell in 1937, Hamersley. For them the whole inscrip- to be “cerussite, probably massicot.” noted that the entire inscription was painted tion cannot be all the same paint. If it were, Corbeil told me that such paint has long with the same gold paint as in the that would negate their claim that the (Continued on page 20) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 20 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004

Ashbourne (continued from page 19) ford man and it was easier to correct the “l” the paint of the “1” that the Folger was been in use and that she couldn’t date it. I than to change the age. This explanation correct and Barrell wrong. To quote asked her if that paint could be 20th or 21st comports with the fact that the “1” on the Corbeil, “However, the number ‘1’ painted century paint. She admitted that it could painting was originally of the same paint over the partially scraped off ‘2’ in the date be. But in her report she does not mention as the other numerals, as noted by observ- and the mask on the book cover were that possibility and obscures the issue so ers and documented in color photos. As painted using the same pale yellow paint, that the general reader would not under- for the Folger’s claims, it is mere coinci- different in composition from the golden stand its significance. She says, “Massicot dence that Hamersley was age 47 in 1612. yellow paint used in the rest of the painting. is a traditional pigment, the presence of The evidence confirms Barrell’s conclu- It is likely that these elements were added which does not help in determining when sion that the entire original inscription when the portrait of the original sitter was the pale yellow paint was applied” (p. 5). was removed and replaced with the entire transformed into Shakespeare” (p.7). We agree that those elements were added, but Pressly’s directions concerning the we know now they were added in 1988-89. inscription “Here in Pressly’s own In William Pressly’s June 28, 1988, Did Corbeil pick up some of the original Memorandum to Folger Director Werner words is the explanation gold paint with her sample? Gundersheimer about how to incorporate gold paint with her sample? elements of Hamersley into the Ashbourne I will speculate about something that portrait and what directions to give to the for the sudden appearance puzzled Corbeil and seems also to confirm conservator Page, he addresses the issue of this overpainting of the “1” from a techni- the “l” in the inscription: cal perspective. She was to take off only the of the pale lemon yellow top layer of paint. Because she did not As for the inscription, enough of the know that the “1” had been overpainted “2” survives from the original date of 1612 ‘1’... It confirms that the only very recently, she probably picked up that it would be easy to reconstruct. The “l” by accident stray pigment from the origi- at the end of 1611 would not be perma- nal “1” underneath of the same gold color nently removed: it would only be ‘1’ the Folger painted over as the rest of the inscription. overpainted (emphasis added). She notes that the old gold yellow paint ... was originally of the (lead tin yellow) has what appear to be Here in Pressly’s own words is the ex- “lead soap inclusions which are frequently planation for the sudden appearance of the observed in paint films pigmented with pale lemon yellow “1” in the painting. It same old paint as the lead based pigments such as lead white and confirms that the “1” the Folger painted lead tin yellow. This phenomenon is not over—and that Pressly even contemplated rest of the inscription” observed in the pale yellow paint” (p. 5). removing!—was originally of the same The pale yellow paint she identified as old paint as the rest of the inscription. It massicot. She was puzzled at the presence appears that paint which cannot be dated of cerussite in the massicot paint that was was specifically chosen to paint over this inscription now on the painting. applied to the top layer by the Folger: old “1.” The same pale lemon yellow paint One further conclusion can be drawn “However the presence of cerussite is un- was also used on the “mask” on the book from CCI’s testing of the paint in the “S” of usual: while cerussite (lead carbonate) is cover to make it appear that this change the inscription. According to CCI this often found associated with lead white was done at the same time as the “l” in this paint has never been found past 1750. (lead carbonate hydroxide, a traditional concocted change into Shake-speare from Therefore the inscription and other white pigment) as an impurity, it has rarely Hamersley. Here was another “proof” for changes to the portrait into Shake-speare been observed by itself” (p. 5). Hamersley added by the Folger to the had to have been done prior to 1750. This Now put the two together with the painting. eliminates Kingston as the person who knowledge of the Folger’s overpainting What about the shadowy scraped off altered this portrait into Shake-speare, as with the pale yellow paint. The gold yellow figure behind the “1” that could be con- he was first connected with the Ashbourne paint of the original inscription (lead tin strued as a “2” and shows up in Barrell’s X- portrait in 1847. Other evidence about yellow) contained lead soap inclusions. rays? Is there an explanation? Yes, and it has Kingston corroborates that view. It came Cerussite is often found associated with nothing to do with Hamersley. The sim- to him or to the Ashbourne School as a lead white. Could it be that, in picking up plest explanation that fits all the known portrait of Shake-speare. Future articles in the top layer sample of the pale yellow facts is that it was a mistake made at the Shakespeare Matters will discuss the paint used to paint over the old “1,” Corbeil time the entire inscription was added and portrait’s provenance and dates of change. just happened to also pick up stray bits of was corrected immediately. Someone got Perhaps if CCI had the Folger files they cerussite from the gold paint below? Or, the year wrong or age wrong for the Strat- would not have concluded so readily from perhaps, was lead white used on top of the Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 21 old gold pigment of the “l” before painting changes. This limited technical “CK” area, the ruff area, the inscription, the it over with the pale yellow to shield it from examination is nothing more than a wrist ruffs, the book, ring, gauntlet, head being seen by X-ray or from having the cherry-picking exercise to verify the area, nose, etc. Examination for resurfac- gold paint beneath picked up in a top Folger’s foregone conclusions. ing is needed in the inscription area as well sample? Regardless, Corbeil picked up This examination of the report has ad- as examination of the back of the canvas in something below this top layer sample duced evidence of further alterations to this and the ruff area, etc. But this is a highly that didn’t fit the paint in the sample. the painting in the inscription area— unlikely prospect at this time. Hopefully, namely the overpainting of the “1” that CCI a regard for the integrity of this extremely The “CK” monogram, neck was to test in only the top layer. It has also important painting would now prevail at ruff and coat of arms provided technical evidence that supple- the Folger, to prevent any further alter- ments other evidence against Kingston’s ations and destruction. The Folger has a We will briefly discuss other issues responsibility to preserve this invaluable where Corbeil concluded that Barrell was portrait for future generations. wrong and the Folger was right. She didn’t “What is badly needed In the meantime the truth about the see the “CK” initials. As noted in a previous painting does not have to wait for further article, attempts were made to remove the technical analysis. Were it not for the Ox- “CK” initials after Barrell’s 1940 Scientific is a full technical ford Shake-speare issue involved, there American article and before the 1948 X- would have been little or no dispute over rays. The very visible and identifiable rem- examination overseen it in the first place. Barrell’s discoveries nants of the “CK” initials are still in the spot about the overpainting of this portrait of a in the coat of arms where Barrell’s X-rays nobleman, along with later research con- show them and where the Folger’s own by independent experts cerning the costume, provenance, iconog- 1948 X-rays show them. Even Pressly ad- raphy, etc., is enough now to convince any mitted the remnants were there in the and by both sides of fair-minded art expert of the identity and article Corbeil had. Maybe she didn’t look dating of this portrait without any further hard enough for them. Regarding the neck technical investigation. ruff, Corbeil says Barrell maintained it was the dispute who have full The evidence is there, were it not for the double the size of the visible ruff but she threat of Oxford as the real Shake-speare to did not observe this on the CCI infrared or documentation of all the the Stratfordian establishment. That is the X-ray. I am almost afraid to venture a guess crux of this battle over the Ashbourne that as to what might have been done to what the Folger purchased in 1931 as a genuine was visible of the old ruff in Barrell’s X-ray history of alterations portrait of Shake-speare—the largest and picture in the Scientific American—given finest portrait of the true Bard. all the alterations we have uncovered thus to the portrait.” far. As we noted, Corbeil never even con- Sources sidered the coat of arms worth looking at and took the Folger’s word that it was Barrell, Charles Wisner, “Identifying Shake- speare,” Scientific American, (January, Hamersley. having altered the painting into Shake- 1940): 4-8 and 43-45. speare. Ironically, our examination of this Corbeil, Marie-Claude, CCI chemist, Phone con- Conclusion report has brought out more evidence versation regarding Ashbourne examina- against Hamersley. tion (November 8, 2002). Corbeil, Marie-Claude and Powell, Jeremy, Ca- It is significant that the CCI conclusions What is badly needed is a full technical nadian Conservation Institute, Scientific Ex- support the Folger’s long-held positions, examination overseen by independent ex- amination of The Ashbourne Portrait of in opposition to Barrell’s findings, and perts and by both sides of the dispute who Shakespeare/Sir Hugh Hamersley for the Folger Shakespeare Library. Washington, often in opposition to the information in have full documentation of all the history DC, USA, (October 11, 2002). the Folger’s own files. We have shown that of alterations to the portrait. Such an analy- Folger Shakespeare Library, The Ashbourne these conclusions lack credibility and sis must be augmented with equally im- Portrait Files. Michaels Conservation File validity, beginning with the condition of portant comparative analysis of other as- and Page Conservation File. James, A. Everett, Jr., SC. M, J.D., M.D. Radiol- the canvas and following through the pects of the painting such as costume, ogy of Fakes and Forgeries in Art, CRC inscription changes to the “CK” initials provenance, artist, etc. The excuse cannot Press LLC (1998): 265-277. and the lack of any examination of the coat be made that further microscopic paint Private conversations with museum conserva- of arms. We have noted the limitations analysis would damage the painting—con- tionist and research scientist, which they requested not be attributed. imposed by the Folger regarding paint sidering all the abuse it has undergone. Spielmann, M.H., F.S.A. “The Ashbourne Por- analysis and the withholding of important Analysis of all layers of paint— and in some trait of Shakespeare, I and II” The Connois- background information necessary for an cases the underlayment—is needed in a seur (Jan-April 1910, May-Aug 1910): 244- understanding of where to look for number of areas of the coat of arms, the 250 and 38-42. Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 22 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004

Column A year in the life By Hank Whittemore 1601 (II): “I ... watch the clock for you” n the evening of February 19, 1601, painful of all the sorrows he had endured the truth in words, and having already as the day-long treason trial drew to in his half-century of life to now. Seven done so in private sonnets to Henry Oits close amid the lofty gloom of years earlier he had publicly committed Wriothesley, it is just as unthinkable that Westminster Hall, the twenty-five peers himself to Henry Wriothesley by pledging he would fail amid the current crisis to take on the tribunal delivered their unanimous up his “tables” or writing tablets with a verdict one by one in order of rank, from vengeance, motivated with a greater than lowest to highest, ending with Edward de ever sense of mission to set the record Vere, Earl of Oxford, who now uttered the “...Oxford reacted to straight. 8 single public word from his lips all day: Such is the perspective of The “Guilty.” Southampton’s tragedy by Monument, my forthcoming edition of Robert Devereux and Henry Shake-Speares Sonnets, presented to set Wriothesley, the Earls of Essex and forth and demonstrate a coherent Southampton, were brought again to the launching into what explanation of both the form and the bar. “The peers here, who have heard the content of the 154 consecutively numbered evidence and your answer in defense, have verses. In my view Oxford reacted to found you guilty,” said the Clerk of the would become the most Southampton’s tragedy by launching into Crown, who glared at Essex: “Now what what would become the most intensely can you say for yourself why you should not intensely sustained sustained poetical sequence the world has have judgment of death?” known. The scenario envisions him writing The tall, proud Lord Essex replied by two or three sonnets at a single sitting or paraphrasing a well-known line of poetical sequence the even up to a dozen at a time, before revising Shakespeare (from Henry IV, Part 1 when and carefully arranging the initial Prince Hall tells Sir John Falstaff: “Why, world has known.” outpouring with 60 sonnets in precise thou owest a death!”) as he addressed the correlation with 60 days—from Sonnet judges: “I do not speak to save my life, for 27, upon the imprisonment of Southamp- I see that were in vain. I owe God a death, ton on the night of February 8, 1601, for which shall be welcome how soon ever it in print: “The love I dedicate to your playing a lead role in the Essex Rebellion, pleaseth her Majesty!” Lordship is without end … What I have until Sonnet 86 in alignment with the Given that Shakespeare himself was done is yours, what I have to do is yours, calendar on April 8, 1601, two months later.9 hearing his own written words within this being part in all I have devoted yours.”5 These 60 daily sonnets, ultimately real-life context, it would be difficult to Privately he had celebrated his personal comprising the first segment of a 100- find a more extraordinary historical bond with Southampton by telling him sonnet center within Oxford’s “monument” moment – except for when Southampton, how “happy I that love and am beloved” of verse for posterity, coincide with events his beloved Fair Youth of the private while calling him “Lord of my love, to that came one upon another as the Cecil- sonnets, turned to the noble audience and whom in vassalage thy merit hath my duty run government rushed to ensure its own pleaded for help: strongly knit.”6 Yet just now, having no safety, exaggerate the rebels’ crimes and “I pray you truly to inform the Queen of choice in the matter, he had voted to send prosecute them with all the power and my penitence,1 and be a means for me to the 27-year-old earl to death – for a crime authority of the Crown to carry out its Her Majesty to grant me her gracious against the state that he himself may have justice of choice. Unfolding pell-mell were pardon. 2 I know I have offended3 her, yet helped to trigger through writings such as the public proclamations of treason, the if it please her to be merciful unto me, I Richard II, which had been revived for summoning of the peers, the Essex- may, by my future service, deserve my life political propaganda on the eve of the Southampton trial on February 19, the 4 … I have spent the best part of my failed attempt to remove Secretary Robert beheading of Essex six days later at the patrimony in Her Majesty’s service, with Cecil from his power behind the throne.7 Tower of London; the trial and condem- frequent danger of my life, as your Given that he had made such nation of five others at Westminster Hall Lordships well know … But since I am declarations to Southampton, it becomes on March 5; the public mutilation of two of found guilty by the law, I do submit myself virtually impossible to think that Oxford, them on March 13 at Tyburn and the to death, yet not despairing of Her Majesty’s who so desperately clung to the truth as the beheading of two more on March 18 at mercy to me.” last defense against the erosion of his soul, Tower Hill, where Londoners continued to For Oxford, in that dank Westminster would fail now to do what he could to help gather each morning in expectation of courtroom, this may have been the most him. Also, given his compulsion to express Southampton’s death, until it dawned on

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 23 them that he had been spared. THE 100-SONNET CENTER Within this chronological framework Sonnets 27 - 126 Oxford is viewed as continuing apace by recording his agreement with Cecil to THE PRISON YEARS SONNETS 27 – 106 (80) further conceal his relationship with Southampton from the world and bury his Sonnet 27 Feb 8, 1601 Rebellion and Imprisonment name beneath that of “Shakespeare,” Sonnet 30 Feb 11, 1601 Peers Summoned to Trial culminating with Sonnets 78-86 of the so- Sonnet 38 Feb 19, 1601 Trial of Essex-Southampton called Rival Poet series. He would begin Sonnet 44 Feb 25, 1601 Execution of Essex the next 20 verses with Sonnet 87 (revealing Sonnet 52 March 5, 1601 Trial of other Conspirators the new, lesser judgment against Sonnet 60 March 13, 1601 Merrick & Cuffe Executed Sonnet 65 March 18, 1601 Danvers & Blount Executed Southampton of “misprision” of treason) Sonnet 66 March 19, 1601 Southampton’s Life Spared and cover the remaining two years of his Sonnet 87 April 9, 1601 “Misprision” of Treason imprisonment until Sonnet 106, thereby Sonnet 97 Feb 8, 1602 1st Anniversary of Rebellion completing this extraordinary “Chronicle Sonnet 104 Feb 8, 1603 2nd Anniversary of Rebellion of wasted time” in correspondence with Sonnet 105 March 24, 1603 Death of Queen Elizabeth I the younger earl’s final night in the Tower Sonnet 106 April 9, 1603 Final Night in the Tower on April 9, 1603.10 THE FINAL DAYS SONNETS 107 – 126 (20) By this reckoning Oxford includes 80 sonnets to record the full two years and two Sonnet 107 April 10, 1603 Liberation by King James months during which Southampton was Sonnet 125 April 28, 1603 Funeral of Queen Elizabeth Sonnet 126 April 29, 1603 Farewell to Southampton reduced to the commoner “Mr. Wriothes- Figure 1 ley, Henry” (legally “the late earl”) while remaining “supposed as forfeit to a poetical form. During the four days leading In the very next line, alluding to the confined doom” in Her Majesty’s fortress.11 to his execution, he completed 384 lines to expectation that Southampton will follow He followed with a series of 20 sonnets the Queen: Essex on the scaffold, Oxford feels the (107-126), matching each of the 19 days blade on his own neck as well: between April 10 (when Southampton was I see that my continuance in this place actually liberated from imprisonment) and Cannot be long… But ah, thought kills me… To gain thy favor whil’st my life dost last... April 28, 1603 (the date of Elizabeth’s 12 funeral, the official end of the Tudor Ev’n in the meanest place to wait on thee In Sonnet 45 he continues to merge his dynasty), capped by the concluding envoy life with that of the younger earl: Essex’s use of “place” for the Tower (126), addressed to “my lovely Boy.” recalled the trial, when the Lord High So ends the 100-sonnet center (see My life being made of four, with two alone Steward told the two condemned lords: Figure 1 for highlights) of the “monument” Sinks down to death… “You both shall be led from hence to the that Oxford would build for Southampton. place from whence you came, and there to Within this sequence he would promise And in the ensuing days he will confront remain during her Majesty’s pleasure— him in Sonnet 55 to preserve the “living death by referring both to Southampton’s from thence to be drawn upon a hurdle record of your memory” and reinforce that mortality and to his own obliteration: through the midst of the City, and so to the pledge in Sonnet 81 with concise testimony place of execution…”13 that he had agreed to “die” or allow his own “Die to themselves … Sweet deaths” The unmistakable reference to the identity as “Shakespeare” to stay hidden (54); “Gainst death and all oblivious enmity” royal prison-fortress as the “place” appears from contemporary view and disappear (55); “This thought is as a death” (64); in Sonnet 44 on February 25, 1601, when “For restful death I cry … Save that to die” completely for at least some generations Essex lost his head to the executioner’s axe. (66); “After my death … deceased I” (72); to come: Oxford, using the “noted weed” or familiar “Death’s second self … As the death bed” costume of poetry,14 vows that the “thought” (73)… From hence your memory death cannot take, in his mind can nimbly leap to the “place” where “he” (the thought) would prefer to Within the 80 prison verses this thread Although in me each part will be forgotten. will reach a crescendo in the powerful Your name from hence immortal life shall be: have, lines of Sonnet 81, when their twin fates come together in a single great reckoning Though I (once gone) to all the world must No matter then although my foot did stand with fate: die… Upon the farthest earth removed from Your monument shall be my gentle verse, thee, Which eyes not yet created shall o’er-read… Or shall I live your Epitaph to make, For nimble thought can jump both sea and Or you survive when I in earth am rotten, Shortly after the trial, waiting in the land From hence your memory death cannot Tower to learn his fate, Essex also began to As soon as think the place where he would take, set down his thoughts and feelings in be. Although in me each part will be forgotten. (Continued on page 24) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 24 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004

Year in the Life (cont’d from page 23) February 27, 1601, Oxford echoes the trial in the Tower, where the Crown has “The death of Essex left Sir Robert and how Southampton, upon the verdict, dispatched “thirty extraordinary guards to Cecil without a rival in the Court or cabinet,” delivered a plea for the Queen’s mercy. Key help with the additional duties” occasioned Strickland writes, “and he soon established words are woven within his poetical fabric: by the Rebellion:21 himself as the all-powerful ruler of the realm.”15 My heart doth plead that thou in him dost Thee have I not locked up in any chest, “The fall of Essex may be said to date lie… Save where thou art not, though I feel thou the end of the reign of Elizabeth in regard But the defendant doth that plea deny… art to her activities and glories,” Stopes adds. To ‘cide this title is impaneled Within the gentle closure of my breast, A quest of thoughts, all tenants to the From whence at pleasure thou mayst come “After that she was Queen only in name. heart, and part. She listened to her councilors, signed her And by their verdict is determined… papers, and tried to retrench in expenditure; “O thou bloody prison, fatal and ominous but her policy was dependent on the Such words are found in a similar to noble peers! Within the guilty closure 16 of thy walls Richard the Second here was decisions of Sir Robert Cecil.” context in the plays of English royal history: The Secretary had envisioned even hack’d to death!” – Richard III, 3.3.9 swifter revenge. “By the time my letters “What lawful quest [jury] hath have given shall come unto you,” he had written to Sir their verdict up unto the frowning judge?” March 2: “Lawful Reasons” George Carew two days after the failed – Richard III, 1.4.180; “Thy son is banished He fears in Sonnet 49 that Southamp- Rebellion, “both he [Essex] and the Earl of upon good advice, whereto thy tongue a ton will “frown” upon him and regard him Southampton, with some of the other party-verdict gave” – Richard II, 1.3.233; “strangely” for having cut a deal with Cecil; “Forthwith that Edward should be principals, shall have lost their heads.”17 but he also emphasizes that he is acting pronounced a traitor and all his lands and “against myself” while arguing for the Edward de Vere would have to deal goods be confiscate [Southampton’s with Cecil, his brother-in-law, to secure a current fate]. What else? And that “lawful reasons” by which the younger earl stay of the younger earl’s execution. To succession be determined [Cecil’s current can be saved: further gain the promise of Southampton’s goal]” – 3 Henry VI, 4.6.54 eventual release with a royal pardon, he And this my hand against myself uprear, would be forced to continue at the February 28: “A League” To guard the lawful reasons on thy part… Secretary’s mercy. In the near future Cecil Oxford in Sonnet 47 alludes to the would enter a secret correspondence with “league” or alliance that Secretary Cecil The crux of the legal agreement behind James VI of Scotland, preparing for the has forced him to enter on Southampton’s the scenes is that he and Southampton will King’s succession while retaining his own behalf: “leave” each other by being able to “allege power behind the throne; and it may well no cause” of any relationship: be that Oxford himself would become the Betwixt my eye and heart a league is took… 18 To leave poor me, thou hast the strength unidentified “40” in the correspondence. of laws, league “I must plainly confess that both ye and “You peers, continue this united leagueleague” Since why to love, I can allege no cause. your faithful colleague 40 have by your – Richard III, 2.1.2 vigilant and judicious care so easily settled March 3: “My Grief “ me in the only right course for my good,” March 1: “Locked Up” He testifies in Sonnet 50 that, riding James would write to Cecil on June 3, Continuing this historical record in on horseback from the Tower back to his 1602, adding, “I always and ever shall Sonnet 48, he refers to the “wards” or Hackney home, he has just visited with account [you and 40] as one.” The King guards at the Tower: Southampton to explain the details of the would also write to the hunchbacked bargain face to face. The journey is only a Secretary “assuring 40 that with God’s How careful was I, when I took my way, Each trifle under truest bars to thrust, few miles, but he suffers from the “weight” grace he shall never be disappointed of his and “woe” of their meeting: confidence in my honesty upon your That to my use it might unused stay, From hands of falsehood, in sure wards of relation … and thus, praying 40 to be trust! The beast that bears me, tired with my woe, assured that by your means only he shall Plods duly on to bear that weight in me… hear from me.” (On July 29, 1602, however, “Truest Bars = “most reliable locks or the King would write directly to “40,” barricades” – Duncan-Jones; Falsehood The cutting of all ties with Southamp- promising “that all my dealings with you = “The usual adverbs in legal records ton from this point on produces the “grief” shall ever be accompanied with these three alongside the descriptions of particular that lies ahead of him in life; behind, in the qualities: honesty, secrecy, and constancy,” treasons are ‘falsely’ and ‘traitorously’” – Tower, is the Fair Youth himself: reiterating that “I will deal with you by no Bellamy; Wards = “Meaning ‘guards’ … other way but by the means of 10 [Cecil].”19 the range of its applications include chests and prison cells” - Booth20 My grief lies onward and my joy behind. Our previous column concluded 20 days (and 20 sonnets) after the failed March 4: “Where Thou Art” Rebellion and only two days after the Then he directly addresses Sonnet 51 is a companion piece in beheading of Essex. In Sonnet 46 on Southampton, who is literally “locked up” which Oxford uses his ride from “where

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 25 thou art” to weave in allusions to That millions of strange shadows on you Sonnet 54 as “Sweet Roses” whose inner Southampton’s “offence” and his own tend? substance cannot be killed even if he is efforts to legally “excuse” his crime by Since every one hath, every one, one shade, executed: And you, but one, can every shadow lend. lessening the judgment against him: Of their sweet deaths are sweetest odors Having introduced “Shakespeare” with Thus can my love excuse the slow offence made. Of my dull bearer, when from thee I speed Venus and Adonis dedicated to Southamp- And so of you, beauteous and lovely youth, From where thou art… ton in 1593, he now reinforces the When that shall vade, by verse distills your identification of him as the Fair Youth of truth. “My nephew’s trespass may be well forgot; the Sonnets: it hath the excuse of youth and heat of Duncan-Jones understands the final line blood, an adopted name of privilege, a Describe Adonis and the counterfeit as “by means of verse [in general], your hair-brained Hotspur, govern’d by a truth is preserved and transmitted to future spleen; all his offences live upon my head generations.”25 But Oxford is also referring and on his father’s” – 1 Henry IV, 5.2.16; “My soul is heavy and troubled for my “Here Oxford/Shakespeare to “my” verse of these specific sonnets and offencesoffences” – Southampton, writing from paving the way for the great lines that the Tower to the Privy Council after the immediately follow. trial22 now makes his first March 8: “The Living Record” March 5: “Up-Locked” specific pledge to build With Oxford still uncertain about Standing trial for high treason are Sir Southampton’s fate, his towering verse in Christopher Blount, Sir Gelly Merrick, Sonnet 55 is motivated directly by these Henry Cuffe, Sir John Davis (not Davies) a ‘monument’ for the grim circumstances. Here Oxford/Shake- and Sir Charles Danvers. All are found speare now makes his first specific pledge guilty and sentenced to death (Davis, who Fair Youth to preserve to build a “monument” for the Fair Youth may have been a Cecil agent in their midst, Fair Youth to preserve to preserve “the living record of your will be spared), as Oxford expands upon memory” for posterity. And we cannot the two previous verses by referring again, ‘the living record avoid including the entire sonnet, which in Sonnet 52, to his prison visit: emphasizes the fundamental struggle that Edward de Vere is waging for Henry So am I as the rich, whose blessed key of your memory...’” Wriothesley against the forces represented Can bring him to his sweet up-locked by Time:26 treasure… Is poorly imitated after you… Not marble nor the gilded monument27 By the terms of the bargain made with Of Princes shall outlive this powerful rhyme, Cecil to save his life, the “solemn” and March 7: “Sweet Deaths” But you shall shine more bright in these “rare” sight of Southampton was among Robert Cecil writes to George Carew contents such “feasts” that, from now on, will occur Than unswept stone, besmeared with “to let you know what is like to become of sluttish time. only “seldom” (if at all) in the “long year” the poor young Earl of Southampton, who, When wasteful war shall Statues overturn, that appears to lie ahead, merely for the love of the Earl [of Essex], And broils root out the work of masonry, hath been drawn into this action.” Because Nor Mars his sword nor war’s quick fire Therefore are feasts so solemn and so rare, shall burn “most of the conspiracies were at Drury 28 Since seldom coming in the long year House, where he [Southampton] was always The living record of your memory. set… ‘Gainst death and all oblivious enmity chief,” he continues, “those that would Shall you pace forth! Your praise shall still deal [plead] for him (of which number I find room “Thus did I keep my person fresh and new; protest to God I am one, as far as I dare) are Even in the eyes of all posterity my presence … seldom, but sumptuous, much disadvantaged of arguments to save That wear this world out to the ending showed like a feast, and wan by rareness 29 23 doom. and solemnitysolemnity” – the King in 1 Henry IV, him.” So till the judgment30 that yourself arise, 3.2.53 The Secretary hereby puts himself on You live in this, and dwell in lovers’ eyes.31 record as a Southampton supporter, while March 6: “Strange Shadows” prolonging the agony by claiming to be March 9: “This Sad Interim” Edward de Vere (“every” = E. Ver) and “disadvantaged of arguments to save him.” In Sonnet 56 he likens this sorrowful, Henry Wriothesley (“one” = his motto One Cecil may be building up the difficulty, in nerve-wracking time of Southampton’s for All, All for One) both suffer in Sonnet anticipation of taking credit for any imminent execution to a force as powerful 53 under the “strange shadows” of reprieve, but at the same time he may as the royal sea: Elizabeth’s imperial frown: genuinely doubt that the Queen can be dissuaded from going forward with the Let this sad Int’rim like the Ocean be What is your substance, whereof are you execution.24 Which parts the shore, where two made, contracted new Oxford writes of Southampton in (Continued on page 26) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 26 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004

Year in Life (cont’d from page 25) Come daily to the banks… The “Invention” at the Center 153-154 “Here, then, we have Shakespeare typifyng (2) his Friend variously as a sunsun, a godgod, an ocean or a sea: three familiar metaphors which he and his contemporaries use to 1——26/27—————————76/77——————————126/127——152 represent a sovereign prince or king.” – (26) (50) (50) (26) Leslie Hotson 32

March 10: “Watch the Clock for You” Sonnet 76: “My Verse” Sonnet 77: “Thy Book” Oxford in Sonnet 57 embarks on a Figure 2 series of 10 verses for 10 days that build in desperation (and literary power) as they is so strong Alluding to Cecil’s “crooked” figure lead to the moment of truth for That you your self may privilege your time and to his malignant or devious character, Southampton. They are akin to the To what you will. To you it doth belong he blames both him and Time (Elizabeth) sequential chapters of a dramatic narrative, Your self to pardon of self-doing crime. for the destruction of Southampton’s “gift” recounting the history of what took place I am to wait, though waiting so be hell… of life and blood: behind the scenes as Edward de Vere waged “CharterCharter: a written document delivered war with Time on behalf of the younger Crooked eclipses ‘gainst his glory fight, by the sovereign … granting privileges earl whom he now, directly and specifically, And time that gave doth now his gift … granting pardon … to receive a pardonpardon” calls his sovereign: – O. E. D.; “Then I crave pardon of Your confound. Majesty” – 3 Henry VI, 4.6.8; “Thus in Nor dare I chide the world without end haste I crave Your Majesty’s pardonpardon” – March 14: “The Watchman” hour Oxford to the Queen, June 159933; Edward de Vere glances at himself as Whilst I (my sovereign) watch the clock for “‘y’have passed a hell of Time, / And I, a “ever” in Sonnet 61, vowing to you. tyrant, have no leisure taken / To weigh Southampton: how once I suffered in your crimecrime” – March 11: “Imprisoned Absence” Sonnet 120 To play the watchman ever for thy sake. He writes to the imprisoned earl in For thee watch I, whilst thou dost wake Sonnet 58 as a “vassal” or subject March 12: “A Former Child” elsewhere, addressing his king: Oxford, having offered Venus and From me far off, with others all too near. Adonis as “the first heir of my invention” Being your vassal bound to stay your for Southampton, is now “laboring” by the “As we be knit near in our alliance” – leisure. same “invention” (method of concealing Oxford to Cecil, February 2, 1601 O let me suffer (being at your beck) yet revealing) to give him rebirth and Th’imprisoned absence of your liberty, growth in these private sonnets. Under the March 15: “Thee, My Self” dire circumstances as time keeps running As the hour draws even closer for The last line above suggests “lack of the out, he opens Sonnet 59 by describing this Southampton to lose his head, Oxford liberty of you,” Booth writes, expanding supreme effort in a four-line howl: records that his own self-love is but a this to “lack of the privilege of unrestricted reflection of his love for him. He merges access to you” – that is, an accurate report If there be nothing new, but that which is their two selves in Sonnet 62 to indicate by Oxford that he can no longer visit Hath been before, how are our brains that, by “painting” or writing these verses Southampton in the Tower. beguiled, for posterity, he shares in his fate: Which, laboring for invention, bear amiss “His liberty is full of threats to us all” – The second burthen of a former child! ‘Tis thee (my self) that for my self I praise, Hamlet, 4.1.14; “I am sorry to see you Painting my age with beauty of thy days. ta’an from libertyliberty, to look on the business “Bear Amiss” suggests “miscarry” – present. ‘Tis His Highness’ pleasure you “Burthen” Booth; “Burthen” = burden; “My first March 16: “I Now Fortify” shall to the TowerTower.” – Henry VIII, 1.2.204 burthenburthen, coming before his time” – John March 16: “I Now Fortify” Lyly, 1580, dedicating Euphues his England His intensity grows in Sonnet 63 as Even if Elizabeth spares him and King to Oxford Southampton faces death at any moment: James releases him, Southampton will need a royal “pardon” from the new March 13: “Crooked Eclipses” Against my love shall be as I am now, With time’s injurious hand monarch to avoid being re-accused of the Merrick and Cuffe are hanged, drawn crushed and o’er-worn, same crime; and now he has it in his own and quartered as Oxford braces for When hours have drained power to accept the bargain with Cecil and Southampton’s own reckoning in Sonnet his blood… gain the promise of one: 60: “O let her [Elizabeth] never suffer to be Be where you list, your charter So do our minutes hasten to their end… spilled the blood of him that desires to live

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 27

but to do her service … The shedding of March 18: “Hold a Plea” all the other verses (and echoing Hamlet’s my blood can no way avail her” – Danvers and Blount are beheaded on “To be or not to be” soliloquy), falls within Southampton from the Tower, to the Privy Tower Hill, leaving no more excuse for this chronology as the 40th sonnet on the 34 Council after the trial the Crown to delay Southampton’s 40th day proceeding from Southampton’s execution. Writing in Sonnet 65 of the imprisonment on February 8, 1601; viewed Bringing it all back to “now” in the younger earl’s “sad mortality” and “beauty” from this perspective it becomes diary, Oxford incorporates the real situation while referring to him as a “flower” about Shakespeare’s exhausted emotional with “knife” for the executioner’s axe, “cut” to be crushed, Oxford echoes the legal response to Queen Elizabeth’s private for the expected beheading and “life” for “plea” and “action” to save his life: decision on March 19 to spare the Fair the flesh-and-blood life of Southampton Youth from execution: that is about to be lost: Since brass, nor stone, nor earth, nor boundless sea, Tir’d with all these, for restful death I cry… For such a time do I now fortify Against confounding Age’s cruel knife, That he shall never cut from memory Among his listed complaints appears My sweet love’s beauty, though my lover’s “...the London public will the limping, swaying figure of Robert Cecil, life. who in fact holds sway over Oxford, Southampton and Elizabeth as well as over “In fine, she hath the hand and knifeknife,/ begin to assume that her England’s destiny: That may both save and end my lifelife” – Oxford poem (“The trickling tears”), The And strength by limping sway disabled… Paradise of Dainty Devices, 1576; “And there cut off thy most gracious head” – 2 Majesty must have “It is tempting to suspect a glance at the Henry VI, 4.10.81 control of the State, including vigorous military men like Raleigh and Essex, by March 17: “As a Death” commuted Southampton’s the limping Robert CecilCecil” – Dover For the bargain with Cecil to save Wilson36 Southampton and gain his release with a pardon, the royal “ocean” of King James sentence to perpetual After a week or so the London public must “gain advantage” on the “shore” of will begin to assume that Her Majesty must England by an “interchange of state” have commuted Southampton’s sentence through his succession, as Oxford envisions imprisonment.” to perpetual imprisonment. No legal in Sonnet 64: explanation for the reprieve will be announced or recorded by the government When I have seen the hungry Ocean gain But sad mortality o’er-sways their power, (although Cecil will get credit in history Advantage on the Kingdom of the shore… How with this rage shall beauty a plea, for having obtained the royal mercy), but When I have seen such interchange of Whose action is no stronger than a flower? Oxford supplies the answer in Sonnet 87 state… for “eyes not yet created” (see endnote 30). “But if I shall defer anything in this actionaction, This column will continue the “living “Even to our Ocean, to our great King I will leave the whole consideration thereof record” in the next issue, when Oxford John” – King John, 5.4.57;”And says that to Her Majesty” – Oxford to Burghley, June reaches the exact midpoint of the 100- once more I shall interchange my wane 7, 159535 state for Henry’s regal crown” – 3 Henry sonnet center of his “monument” for posterity (see Figure 2) and explains his VI, 4.7.3 He refers to the “gates of steel” within “invention” for writing “my verse” of the the Tower fortress: Because this will also mean the Sonnets. obliteration of Elizabeth’s own “state” and Nor gates of steel so strong but time dynasty, Oxford will continue to “weep” decays… Endnotes: even if that which he “fears to lose” O fearful meditation! Where, alack, (Southampton) is spared: Shall time’s best jewel from time’s chest lie 1 “Penitence” is echoed in Sonnet 34: “Though hid? thou repent, yet I have still the loss.” 2 Or state itself confounded to decay, Or what strong hand can hold his swift foot “Pardon” is echoed in Sonnet 58: “Yourself to pardon of self-doing crime.” Ruin hath taught me thus to ruminate back? 3 That Time will come and take my love away. “Offended” is echoed in Sonnets 34, 42, 51, 89 and 110 of the Fair Youth series (and This thought is as a death, which cannot the Tower “I am come to survey the Tower this day nowhere else). choose …Open the gatesgates!” – 1 Henry VI, 1.3.1 4 Both “mercy” and “my life” will be repeated But weep to have that which it fears to “With meditating that she must die at in Sonnet 145 of the Dark Lady series, lose. once” – Julius Caesar, 4.3.190 when, according to this view of the “But you must know that your father lost chronology of the poems, Oxford will react a father, that father lost, lost his” – Hamlet, March 19: Southampton Is Spared to the Queen’s reprieve of Southampton’s 1.2.89 Sonnet 66, a virtual suicide note unlike execution by writing: “Straight in her heart (Continued on page 31) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 28 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004 Sir Walter Scott as Paleo-Oxfordian Part 3: The Monastery by Chuck Berney have argued on two previous occasions on reading this description bears a strong “Ah, that I had with me my Anatomy of that a close reading of novels by Sir resemblance to the Welbeck portrait of Wit—that all-to-be unparalleled volume— IWalter Scott (Kenilworth, The Abbot) Oxford in a foppish mode. More clues that quintessence of human wit—that suggests that Scott was aware that the works follow: treasury of quaint invention—that of Shakespeare were actually written by exquisitely-pleasant-to-read, and inevitably -necessary-to-be-remembered manual of th . . . the etiquette of the times did not Edward de Vere, 17 Earl of Oxford, and all that is worthy to be known—which permit Sir Piercie Shafton to pick his teeth, moreover that Scott was familiar with many indoctrines the rude in civility, the dull in of the details of de Vere’s life. Since Scott or to yawn, or to gabble like the beggar whose tongue (as he says) was cut out by intellectuality, the heavy in jocosity, the was writing 100 years before the the Turks . . . [p. 174] 1 blunt in gentility, the vulgar in nobility, publication of Looney’s book, Shake- and all of them in that unutterable speare Identified, I have dubbed Scott a perfection of human utterance, that The reference to tooth-picking reminds “paleo-Oxfordian.” Response to these eloquence which no other eloquence is us of the Bastard’s speech in King John essays from the community of Oxfordians sufficient to praise, that art which, when (1.1.190) in which he pictures himself as a interested in Scott’s works has been so we call it by its own name of Euphuism, we courtier: “Now your traveler,/He and his 4 enthusiastic that I have been encouraged bestow on it its richest panegyric.” [179] toothpick at my worship’s mess,/And when to delve into yet another of the Waverley my knightly stomach is suffic’d,/Why then novels. He is referred to many times in the text I suck my teeth and catechize . . .” And The Monastery (1820) is the prequel to as “the Euphuist.” The ostensible “Turk” was Elizabeth’s nickname for The Abbot, which was discussed in implication of the definite article is that, of Oxford.2 Shakespeare Matters (Fall 2003). It follows the characters being discussed, he is the When Sir Piercie Shafton first makes the fortunes of two brothers, Halbert and only one devoted to the practice of his appearance in the novel he is Edward Glendinning. Halbert’s interests Euphuism. It can also be taken to mean accompanied by Christie of the Clinthill, a are chiefly hunting and the use of arms; that Sir Piercie is intended to be identified thuggish henchman of the lawless Baron Edward’s nature is contemplative and with the central figure of Euphuism (in the Julian Avenel. On approaching the spiritual—indeed, he becomes the same way that “the Christ” is the central Glendinning dwelling, Christie calls out eponymous cleric of the sequel. The plot figure of Christianity, or that “the Dane” is to a servant is moved along from time to time by a the ruler of Denmark). Who is the central ghost called “the White Lady,” a figure of Euphuism? The orthodox answer “Ha! Art thou there old Truepenny?” [171] contrivance to which many of Scott’s is that it’s John Lyly, secretary to the Earl readers objected (The Monastery was not of Oxford, who is taken to be the author of This is virtually identical to Hamlet’s one of his more successful novels). Euphues: His England and The Anatomy of line as he addresses his father’s ghost One of my motives in undertaking Wit. However, Brame and Popova, using (1.5.150). It has been pointed out3 that another Scott novel was to see if I could linguistic techniques, have concluded that “Truepenny” is a direct reference to find one which did not contain a character “The fingerprint evidence shows that de Oxford’s father, who was the son of a Vere resembling Edward de Vere—a control, so Vere did write the plays ascribed to his (True) and a Trussel (part of the mechanism 5 to speak, to make sure I was not reading former secretary Lyly . . .” Warren used in stamping pennies). At the end of the things into the novels that weren’t there. Dickinson, an independent scholar, chapter, Christie is regaling the servants For the first week or so I thought The concurs: “This nobleman who nursed The with tales of his wild exploits Monastery was it. Then on page 171 Sir Anatomy of Wit with great love must 6 Piercie Shafton, the Euphuist, is certainly have been Lord Oxford.” . . . and Tibb Tacket, rejoiced to find introduced. Mysie, the miller’s daughter, However, Sir Piercie, like Oxford, is not herself once more in the company of a jack- restricted to the Euphuistic style. describes him thus: man, listened to his tales, like Desdemona to Othello’s, with undisguised delight. [185] “I think this rider be not of our country. . . . Sir Piercie . . . replying without trope or figure, in that plain English which He has a crimson velvet bonnet, and long So the section of the narrative brown hair falling down under it, and a nobody could speak better when he had a beard on his upper lip, and his chin clean introducing Sir Piercie Shafton begins and mind. [186] and close shaved, save a small patch on the ends with a specific allusion to one of the point of it . . .” Shakespeare plays. Slighter clues abound almost without Sir Piercie is an enthusiastic follower limit. I don’t know about you, but the image I get of the school of Euphuism: Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 29

[Sir Piercie] broke forth into a soliloquy. ballon, made betwixt the divine Astrophel “For your intent in going back to school “What foul fiend sent this wench hither? . . . (our matchless Sidney), and the right in Wittenberg, it is most retrograde to our 10 But patienza, Piercie Shafton . . .” [197] honourable my very good lord of Oxford.” desire . . .” [2:52] At one point Sir Piercie lists some of the The word “soliloquy” inevitably “braveries” by which he distinguishes Presumably Scott intends to remind reminds us of Hamlet. The phrase ‘foul himself from the vulgar. fiend’ recalls Edgar’s speeches in Lear the reader of the tennis-court quarrel involving Oxford and Sir Philip Sidney, (3.4.61 et seq). And why use the Italian “ . . . my rich crimson silk doublet, word for “patience” if not to remind us of though of course Oxford and Sidney did slashed out and lined with cloth of gold, Oxford, “the Italianate Englishman”? Later, not play each other, but argued about the which I wore at the last revels, with baldric Sir Piercie reminisces: use of the court. Perhaps the incident is an and trimmings to correspond—also two invention of Sir Piercie’s, since at the end pair black silk slops, with hanging garters “ . . . —quitting the tiltyard, where I was of carnation silk—also the flesh-coloured silken doublet, with the trimmings of fur, ever ready among my compeers to splinter a lance . . . —exchanging the lighted halls, “And why use the in which I danced the salvage man at the wherein I used nimbly to pace the swift Gray’s-Inn mummery . . .” [215] coranto, or to move with a loftier grace in the stately galliard . . .” [208] Italian word for Ogburn12 lists some of Oxford’s youthful expenditures for clothing: “. . . one doublet Ogburn quotes an account of Oxford’s ‘patience’ if not of cambric, one of fine canvas, and one of triumphant jousting in the court black satin. . . four yards of velvet and four tournament of May 1571: “The challengers others of satin, for to guard and border a . . . all did very valiantly, but the chief to remind us Spanish cape . . . one velvet hat and one honour was given to the Earl of Oxford.” 7 taffeta hat: two velvet caps, a scarf, two Mention of “the stately galliard” echoes Sir of Oxford, pairs of garters with silver at the ends, a Toby Belch’s line in Twelfth Night (1.3.120), plume of feathers for a hat, and another hat “What is thy excellence in a galliard, band.” Ogburn also has something to say knight?” More directly, we are reminded ‘the Italianate about Edward de Vere and Gray’s Inn: “At that Oxford himself was one of the best seventeen, in 1567, Edward was admitted dancers in the Elizabethan court.8 Later, in Englishman’”? to Gray’s Inn, there to acquire the legal the second volume, there is further mention knowledge that would impress so many in of Sir Piercie’s excellence in a galliard (and the plays.” Ogburn describes “masques” and “revels” performed by the students at other forms of music), together with his of the novel it is revealed that he is not Gray’s Inn, and adds “If we know our man, predilection for sonnets. everything he claims to be. But ballon is he lent a hand in the writing and production not the only exercise at which Sir Piercie is Then she could hear him resume his of those masques and acted in them, taking adept; Scott himself testifies that walk through the room, and, as if his the first steps to making himself ‘a motley spirits had been somewhat relieved and to the view’.” elevated by the survey of his wardrobe, she The English knight was master of all could distinguish that at one turn he half the mystery of the stoccata, imbrocata, Question 1. recited a sonnet, at another half whistled a punto-reverso, incartata, and so forth, Question 1. Did Scott knowingly use galliard, and at the third hummed a which the Italian masters of defence had historical figures as prototypes for his saraband. [2:150] lately introduced into general practice.11 fictional characters? The answer is yes. In [2:54] his notes at the end of the second volume, Again like Oxford,9 Sir Piercie has been Scott writes having financial troubles. And Sir Piercie, like Oxford, is eager to put his skills to the test in actual combat. JULIAN AVENEL. If it were necessary “ . . . my estate, I wot not how, hath of to name a prototype for this brutal, late been somewhat insufficient to maintain “In a word, I am willing to head all who licentious, and cruel Border chief, in an age the expense of those braveries wherewith will follow me, and offer such opposition as which showed but too many such, the it is incumbent on us, who are chosen and manhood and mortality may permit . . . and Laird of Black Ormiston might be selected selected spirits . . . to distinguish ourselves be assured, Piercie Shafton will measure for that purpose. He was a friend and from the vulgar.” [212-3] his length, being five feet ten inches, on the confidant of Bothwell, and an agent in ground as he stands, rather than give two Henry Darnley’s murder. At his last stage he was, like other great offenders, a seeming Oxford himself makes a cameo yards in retreat, according to the usual motion in which we retrograde.” [2:286] penitent . . . [2:315] appearance in one of Sir Piercie’s nostalgic reminiscences about the idyllic life he led It is unusual to see the word Question 2. Can the parallelisms in Elizabeth’s court. “retrograde” in a nonastronomical context. between Sir Piercie and Oxford described above be attributed to chance, or do they “ . . . it was my envied lot to lead the The only other example I can think of is winning party at that wondrous match at Claudius’s speech to Hamlet (1.2.112): (Continued on page 30)

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 30 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004

Scott (continued from page 29) by Sir Piercie to himself. No doubt there NOTE ADDED IN PROOFPROOF: I have found require that Scott have had Oxford were a number of Elizabethan courtiers my control sample. Scott’s novel The specifically in mind? We summarize the who could read Italian, or speak it Fortunes of Nigel (1822), though it has a similarities and clues (in the order listed occasionally, but how many habitually sprinkling of Shakespeare quotes, is (as far above) as follows: appearance/ toothpick, thought in Italian? To me, this is a clear as I can determine) completely free of Turk/ “Truepenny” quote/ Desdemona- reference to de Vere, the “Italianate Oxford-identified characters. Othello/ Euphuism/ skill in plain English/ Englishman.” (3) Christie of the Clinthill’s speaks Italian/ good jouster/ good dancer/ quote of the “Truepenny” line from Hamlet. Notes: knows sonnets/ good musician/ financial What function does this serve? Christie troubles/ plays ball with Oxford and cannot be knowingly quoting from Hamlet 1. Pagination follows the 1893 edition of Dana Sidney/ good fencer/ aspires to military (a) because the character is illiterate, and Estes & Co., Boston. This edition consists leadership/ fancy dresser/performer at of two volumes bound as one; page 123 in Gray’s Inn. Let us assume the null Volume 2 will be written as 2:123. hypothesis—that is, that Scott was 2. Paul Altrocchi, “ ‘My Turk’: Why the “This casually- Nickname?” Shakespeare Matters 3.3 interested only in creating a generic foppish (Spring 2004) 22-24. See also SM 3.4, p. courtier and did not have Oxford 2. specifically in mind. Then he might well mentioned detail 3. Stephanie Caruana, Shakespeare Oxford have chosen appearance, Euphuism, good Society Newsletter 29.3A, Summer 1993. dancer, knows sonnets, good musician, is one of astonishing 4. You will be astonished to learn that the financial troubles, and fancy dresser to critics found Sir Piercie to be as objection- characterize his creation. This accounts able as the spectral White Lady. specificity, and 5. Michael Brame and Galina Popova, for seven of the 17 attributes and clues we Shakespeare’s Fingerprints (Adonis, listed. It seems clear that Scott intended 2002),p. 405. Sir Piercie to be a comic character, but it comes 6. Warren Dickinson, The Wonderful Shake- some of the remaining attributes are at speare Mystery (Omni, 2001), 231. 7. Charlton Ogburn, The Mysterious William odds with such an intent—for example, a like a bolt comic character is not usually one who is Shakespeare (EPM Publications, 1984), 479. a good jouster, a good fencer, or one who from the blue.” 8. Ogburn, 473, 598. The Dictionary of aspires to military leadership (these are, from the blue.” National Biography (Oxford, 1921) in its however known attributes of Edward de entry for Edward de Vere (Vol. XX, pp. Vere). The jousting is particularly difficult 225-9) quotes a letter from Gilbert Talbot to reconcile with the null hypothesis—it (b) the setting of the novel is the early to his father (11 May 1573): “My Lord of required enormous amounts of money to 1560s, and 1583 is the earliest date anyone Oxford is lately grown into great credit, for acquire the armor, the war horse and other has suggested for the writing of Hamlet the queen’s Majesty delighteth more in his personage, and his dancing and valiantness, accoutrements. At the end of the novel, it (though it must be admitted that Scott the than any other.” is revealed that Sir Piercie is the grandson writer gives avoidance of anachronism a 9. DNB, loc. cit. : “ . . . Oxford’s continued of a tailor, and would have no estates to remarkably low priority). And remember extravagance involved him in pecuniary draw on for an expensive pastime like that “Truepenny” is not just a line from difficulties.” jousting. It plays no part in the plot. Hamlet, but a codeword incorporating 10. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Apparently Scott has given his courtier an two Vere family names. The only ballon (obs., rare) as “a little ball or attribute that undermines the character’s explanation I can think of is that Scott is packe.” It defines balloon (alt. spelling ballon) as “the game played with this ball.” believability for no good reason, except blowing a fanfare for the cognoscenti, The citation for balloon is “The winning (possibly) to enhance his resemblance to signaling that after 171 pages he is ready party at that wondrous match at ballon.” Edward de Vere. to introduce his Oxford character. (4) The 11. Compare Mercutio’s line in Romeo and So far we have examined 10 of the 17 Gray’s Inn performance. This casually- Juliet (2.4.25): “Ah, the immortal attributes and clues, and have found that mentioned detail is one of astonishing passado, the punto reverso, the hay!” seven are consistent with the null specificity, and it comes like a bolt from 12. Ogburn, 453-4. the blue. How many foppish courtiers went 13. 2 Henry VI, 4.10.40. hypothesis while three mitigate against it. 14. Those who attended the 2003 Shakespeare Let us admit that the toothpick-Turk quote, to law school? (Well, Oxford did, and he Fellowship Conference in Carmel will the Desdemona-Othello reference, and the went to Gray’s Inn.) Nowhere in the novel recall that one can prove anything using game of ballon with Oxford and Sidney, is Sir Piercie’s legal training required, anagrams. However I cannot resist while suggestive, do not rise to the level of mentioned, or even hinted at. And he pointing out that a perfect anagram for evidence. We have four items left to performed in a dramatic production! SIR PIERCIE SHAFTON is IRONIC examine. (1) Skill in plain English. Who Surely the probability of a novelist imbuing SHAFTSPIERE. ‘Shaftspiere’ is at least as close to ‘Shakespeare’ as ‘Shake-scene,’ other than Oxford/Shakespeare could be a courtier from central casting with these which our orthodox brethren without described as speaking English better than specific attributes is vanishingly small. As exception construe as a reference to the any other? (2) Speaks Italian. This attribute far as I’m concerned, the null hypothesis is Bard. is revealed by one word, “patienza,” spoken dead as a doornail.13, 14

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 31

Year in the Life (continued from page 27) of two or three sonnets throughout the email forum Phaeton; otherwise the most did mercy come … And saved my life, sequence, particularly among the 80 frequently mentioned possibility has been saying, ‘Not you.’” “prison” verses, to the point where they Oxford’s friend Charles Howard, Earl of 5 From the dedication of Lucrece in 1594. all read as a continuous narrative poem. Nottingham, Lord High Admiral (and hero 6 Sonnets 25 and 26. 10 Sonnet 106: “When in the Chronicle of of the 1588 victory over the Armada), who 7 It would seem entirely possible that Cecil wasted time…” was also one of Elizabeth’s closest threatened to charge Oxford himself with 11 Sonnet 107, celebrating Southampton’s confidantes. treason for writing the deposition scene in release from the Tower on April 10, 1603: 19 Akrigg, G. P. V., ed., Letters of King James Richard II and/or for allowing the Lord “Not mine own fears nor the prophetic VI & I (Berkeley & Los Angeles: Univer- Chamberlain’s Men to perform it at the soul/ Of the wide world dreaming on things sity of California Press, 1984), 192-195; request of the conspirators – although it’s to come/ Can yet the lease of my true love James wrote to the Earl of Mar and difficult to see how he could have avoided control,/ Supposed as forfeit to a confined Edward Bruce on April 8, 1601, that Cecil revealing Oxford as the author of the doom.” “is king there [England] in effect.” Shakespeare works. There is no direct 12 May, Steven, Studies in Philology (Chapel 20 Duncan-Jones, Katherine, ed., Shakepeare’s evidence that Southampton personally Hill: University of North Carolina Press, Sonnets (Great Britain: the Arden gained the playwright’s authority to use 1980), 48; and The Elizabethan Courtier Shakespeare, third series, 1997), 206; the play for propaganda, but many Poets (Asheville: Pegasus Press, 1999), Bellamy, John, The Tudor Law of Treason historians have assumed it (possibly 255, 330; the poem was later entitled The (Great Britain: Routledge & Kegan Paul correctly); for example: “It was he Passion of a Discontented Minde; to May Ltd., 1979), 33; Booth, Stephen, ed., [Southampton] who had arranged the goes credit for confirming Essex’s author- Shakespeare’s Sonnets (New Haven & performance of Richard II before the ship and offering details of its composition London: Yale University Press, 1977), 211. rebellion,” Catherine Drinker Bowen writes in the Tower. 21 May, Studies in Philology, op. cit., 95, citing without qualification in The Lion and the 13 The Arraignment, Tryal, and Condemnation Acts of the Privy Council of England, ed. Throne (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., of Robert Earl of Essex, 1679, edited by John Roche Dasent (London, 1906), 1956, p. 154). And Oxford appears to Margaret Pierce Secara and reproduced at XXXI, 155, 262. suggest in Sonnet 35 that he had authorized http://renaissance.dm.net/trial/index.html. 22 Salisbury Papers, vol. X1, p. 72: “After Southampton to use the play: “All men A direct record is in Calendar of State February 19, 1601.” make faults, and even I in this,/ Authoriz- Papers Domestic, Acts of the Privy 23 Stopes, op. cit., 224. ing thy trespass with compare…” Also in Council (Cecil Papers, Hatfield House); 24 “Elizabeth did not waver – though once, it that verse he pledges to help the younger and William Camden included an account in is true, she remanded the order for Essex’s earl by making some legal agreement that his Annals of 1630. execution, then canceled her remander” – would harm himself: “Thy adverse party is 14 Sonnet 76: “And keep invention in a noted Bowen, op. cit., 163. thy Advocate,/ And ‘gainst myself a lawful weed” 25 Duncan-Jones, op. cit., writing that plea commence.” 15 Strickland, Agnes, 675. “whereas in Sonnet 1 [and other marriage 8 Hamlet interrupts his own tirade against 16 Stopes, Charlotte Carmichael, The Life of sonnets] procreation was recommended as King Claudius to write down his thoughts Henry, Third Earl of Southampton (New the means of preserving beauty’s rose, that and feelings. “O villain, villain, smiling York: AMS Press, 1969, reprinting of the power is here attributed to poetry.” damned villain!” he cries, only to stop cold 1922 edition), 243. 26 TIME, appearing only in the Fair Youth and mutter, “My tables. Meet it is I set it 17 Stopes, op. cit., 198; Handover, P.M., The series (1-126) represents the ever- down that one may smile, and smile, and Second Cecil (Great Britain: Eyre & dwindling time left in the life and reign (and be a villain – at least I am sure it may be so Spottiswoode, 1959), 224, citing the ultimately the dynasty) of Queen in Denmark. (Writes)” – Hamlet, 1.5.106; Camden Society, 66. Elizabeth; this is the concrete timeline of and this appears to reflect Oxford’s habit. 18 Researcher Nina Green first suggested that the diary. 9 Scholars such as Duncan-Jones see linkages Oxford may have been “40” on her private (Continued on page 32) Subscribe to Shakespeare Matters Regular member: Name:______e-member ($20/year) ______(Website; online newsletter) Address:______One year ($40/$50 overseas) ______Two year ($75/$105 overseas) ______Three year ($110/$155 overseas) ______City:______State:______ZIP:______Family/Institution: Phone:______email:______One year ($60/$75 overseas) ______Two year ($115/$145 overseas) ______Three years ($170/$215 os) ______Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____ Patron ($75/year or over): ______Name on card:______Special offer for new subscribers: Card number:______Exp. date:______Bible dissertation ($69) ______P&H for Bible ($5) ______

Signature:______Total: ______

Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478 Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 32 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004

Year in the Life (continued from page 31) Will in the World (continued from page 4) path of all would-be Shakespeare biogra- 27 Nearly all editions emend “monument” to living-but-thought-about-as-if-dead John phers and their apostles who, like so many the plural “monuments,” but I see no Shaksper—“a play about a son struggling before them, have begun their hopeful reason for it. to set his father’s soul free.” Greenblatt, journey to the Emerald City of Stratford by 28 Within the monument is this diary linked to real events in real time, so the record of however, in any event, does not think that taking one of many roads only to have their Southampton’s life is in fact “living” and Hamlet is Shakespeare’s most autobio- journey ended by discovering that once dynamic, as he had promised in Sonnet 18: graphical play; he thinks that distinction they gain entry to the citadel, they find out “So long as men can breathe or eyes can belongs to A Midsummer Night’s Dream. they’ve entered a world where horses con- see,/ So long lives this, and this gives life to He suggests, too, that Shakespeare lived a stantly change their colors and all the thee.” double life—one amongst the London residents are dupes who are ruled by a 29 Southampton, upon his release in Sonnet 107, will have been “supposed as forfeit to glitterati and another, quietly and alone, in fraud. a confined doom” or judgment of perpetual rented rooms or in occasional domestic Greenblatt’s “biography” (for which, it imprisonment. retreat during summer holidays with the is rumored he was paid $1 million dollars), 30 Oxford is writing of various kinds of wife and kids in Stratford – the same wife leaves readers, therefore, right where they “judgment” aside from the biblical Final with whom he did not want to share a grave, began: dazed and baffled in Munchkinland, Judgment. One meaning is related to the a daughter with whom he would have a ready for yet another house to be dropped verdict of high treason against Southamp- ton at the trial, which will be reduced to a difficult relationship, and a little boy who on them, lost in the forest, or drugged and “better judgment” of “misprision” of may have inspired but did not even appear asleep amongst the poppies. When will treason, enabling him to be released and to in, let alone dominate, the dramatic action readers, one has to wonder, stop paying gain a royal pardon. This reduction of the in the play ostensibly loosely named after heed to the frenzied wizards of verdict will be announced in Sonnet 87: him. Stratfordianism and, fed up with being “So thy great gift [of life] upon misprision Shakespeare’s “life,” as one can readily told to stop their pestering inquiries be- growing/ Comes home again, on better judgment making.” see both in Greenblatt’s book and Gopnik’s cause “Oz has spoken!” start to exercise 31 “Lovers” as Brutus uses the term: “Ro- survey, makes absolutely no sense of the their curiosity and discover that the man mans, countrymen, and lovers, hear me for man—Adam Gopnik’s desperate attempt who is the real wizard is the man behind the my cause.” – Julius Caesar, 3.2.13, i.e., to give Greenblatt’s chaotic and disharmo- curtain? —DWright loyal subjects or supporters. nious biography shape and symmetry aside. 32 Advertisement Hotson, Leslie, Mr. W. H. (New York: Greenblatt, like the biographers before Alfried A. Knopf, 1965), 28. 33 Chiljan, Katherine, ed. (Letters and Poems him, is left largely to supposition, conjec- The Monument: of Edward, Earl of Oxford, 1998), 123; ture, guesswork, intuition, imagination Shakespeares Sonnets Oxford to Elizabeth, June 1599, Cecil and reliance on hearsay and rank nonsense Papers 71.26. in attempting to sort the man from the by Edward de Vere 34 Stopes, op. cit., 225-26. legends and reconcile the man to the works. 35 A new study of the Sonnets Chiljan, op. cit., 106. He seems, in his attempt to come to terms 36 Wilson, J. Dover, ed., The Sonnets (London: by Hank Whittemore that Cambridge University Press, 1966), notes with the phantom writer from Stratford, to answers all the questions. for Sonnet 66. want it each way, all ways and every way – and perhaps, finally, we cannot fault Order the limited first edition now. $75.00, check payable to the Shake- Greenblatt or reviewers like Adam Gopnik speare Fellowship, PO Box 561, too much for that. Theirs, after all, is the Belmont MA 02478

Inside this issue: Shakespeare Matters The Voice of the Shakespeare Fellowship Critique of the “Monument Critique of the “Monument P. O. Box 263 Theory” - page 1 Somerville MA 02143 Address correction requested Back to the Ashbourne - page 1

Engaging Prince Tudor - page 1

Will in the World - page 4

1601, Part II: “I watch the clock for you” - page 22

Paleo-Oxfordian Sir Walter Scott’s The Monastery - page 28

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent)