Vol.3:no.4 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments..." Summer 2004

A year in the life With the Sonnets 1601: “authorize now solved... thy trespass is the debate resolved? with compare...” By William Boyle By Hank Whittemore n the 395 years since the 1609 his column ordinarily looks at quarto of Shake-speares Son- contemporary events of a given I nets was published more than T year in the life of Edward de 1,800 books have been written about Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, and the them. The biggest problem in present chapter focusing on 1601 is achieving an understanding has no exception. This time, however, been that most of the authors have we also draw upon the collection had the wrong Shakespeare, which entitled Shake-Speares Sonnets, first immediately precluded ever deter- printed in 1609, as a genuine his- mining the actual circumstances torical and political document that under which they were written. complements and supplements the Even among Oxfordians (who as- official record. In doing so the col- sume of course that they do have umn introduces some of the themes the correct author) the Sonnets The most famous title page in and data compiled in my forthcom- have been a contentious conun- The notoriously enigmatic literary history, announcing ing book The Monument, a new dedication seems to cry out drum, with various Oxfordian au- to the world the poetry with edition of the Sonnets that sets cipher (and there is one there), thors over the years going in vari- which Shakespeare both un- forth (for the first time, we believe) but in the end the Sonnet ous directions searching for the locked his heart and told his solution is revealed only when ever-elusive “correct” answer to story. In fact, these poems are a coherent explanation of the form individual words and phrases the Sonnet enigma. more like letters that can be and content of the 154 consecu- are viewed in their correct read to help write history. tively numbered verses. historical context. It has occurred to me in recent years that there is perhaps some- Some of the themes are these: thing that almost everyone involved in Shakespeare studies (Strat- fordians and anti-Stratfordians alike) could agree on—first, that • The Monument: The Sonnets comprise a “monument” of there must be a correct answer to the enigma, and, second, that verse written and constructed by Oxford for Henry Wriothesley, it must be comprised of three components: 1) the correct author, Third Earl of Southampton, to be preserved for posterity. 2) the correct Fair Youth and Dark Lady, and 3) the correct • The Living Record: The monument contains “the living context of time and circumstance that led to their creation. Most record” of Southampton in the form of a diary of real events of us are quite familiar with the debates over Who is the author?, unfolding in real time by the calendar. Who is the Fair Youth? and Who is the Dark Lady? But this last • The 100-Sonnet Center: The carefully designed structure component—What is the correct context?— has eluded everyone contains a sequence of precisely 100 sonnets (27-126) posi- who has ever tackled the Sonnets. Many commentators and tioned at the exact center. theorists have gone right from the Who into creating, rather than • The Entrance: Oxford explains his form and structure in finding, a historical context into which the Who might fit. a pair of unique instructional sonnets (76-77) at the exact However, I now believe that this heretofore elusive historical midpoint of the central 100-sonnet sequence, serving as the context has been found, and that with it in place reading and entrance into the monument. understanding the Sonnets is transformed. It is a theory that was • The Invention: Edward de Vere records this chronicle by (Continued on page 11) (Continued on page 16) page 2 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004

her genius-playwright who, under her see the huge design in The Winter’s Tale. Letters: own stimulation, brought lasting glory Here the “marriage” of Poetry and Drama to her realm. must be recognized by the English court in 4. The word “Turk” carried an implica- the face of the repressive Puritans in order To the Editor: tion of duplicity, brutality and being an that the burgeoning English language, lit- “infidel.” If the nickname was derived erature and culture might live! Perhaps as a result of terrorist (Stratfor- from the Gaelic word “torc,” why change On and on it goes from play to play— dian?) infiltration, my article entitled “My it to “My Turk,” conveying a very differ- it is only for us to practice a wider vision in Turk: Why the Nickname?” published in ent and uncomplimentary meaning? order to recognize the enormity of the the Spring 2004 issue of Shakespeare Why not “My Torc”? structures Oxford created. Matters, was the original version first edi- torially accepted in 2002, rather than the Paul H. Altrocchi, MD Pidge Sexton 2004 version revised in the light of Robert Kaneohe, Hawaii St. Louis, Missouri Brazil’s article on the same topic, “Oxford 10 July 2004 25 June 2004 and the Turk,” published in the Shake- Our apologies to Paul for this mix-up. We did To the Editor: speare Oxford Newsletter in the winter of indeed inadvertently use an earlier draft of his 2003. article and not the revised version sent to us in Thank you for your coverage of my For completeness’ sake, you may want January 2004—Ed. to print the following excerpt from my participation at the Portland conference in overlooked 2004 article which comments your Spring 2004 issue. One minor correc- To the Editor: specifically on Brazil’s hypothesis first put tion: I am the Director of the Chicago forward by the Senior Ogburns in 1952: Oxford Society and Marion Buckley is the Congratulations to Chuck Berney for President. his perception in recognizing the huge Did “Turk” derive from “Torc”? Also, who took that awful photo of me? In their epic tome, This Star of En- building blocks of metaphor in Hamlet. Bill Boyle, I bet. (“In Search of Rosencrantz and gland, the Senior Ogburns state on page 819 that de Vere was nicknamed “Boar” Guildenstern,” Shakespeare Matters, Bill Farina after his family rebus when he became Spring 2004). Chicago, Illinois obstreperous, and that the Queen often Oxford had already demonstrated this 12 June 2004 called him her Turk: architecture earlier in Comedy of Errors in which every character and event is an I had a long talk with my camera, and neither Partly, no doubt, to tease him for idiom in the Church controversy. We also of us knows what happened—Ed. his attractiveness to women and his high-handed ways; partly as a pun on the Gaelic word, Torc, meaning Boar. Shakespeare Matters Subscriptions to Shakespeare Matters are Published quarterly by the $40 per year ($20 for online issues only). This latter explanation was recently res- The Shakespeare Fellowship Family or institution subscriptions are $45 per year. Patrons of the Fellowship are $75 and up. urrected and favored by Robert Brazil. Editorial Offices Send subscription requests to: The following reasons are offered P.O. Box 263 against such an interpretation: The Shakespeare Fellowship Somerville, MA 02143 P.O. Box 561 Belmont MA 02478 1. All nicknames used by Queen Eliza- Editor: beth had obvious derivations which William Boyle The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowship were easily decipherable and well is to promote public awareness and acceptance Contributing Editors: of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by known to court personnel. Mark Anderson, Dr. Charles Berney, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550- 2. Gaelic, or Old Irish, was not a lan- Charles Boyle, Dr. Felicia Londre, 1604), and further to encourage a high level of guage heard at Court or familiar to Lynne Kositsky, Alex McNeil, scholarly research and publication into all Courtiers or Maids of Honor. The Queen Dr. Anne Pluto, Elisabeth Sears, aspects of Shakespeare studies, and also into the Dr. Roger Stritmatter, Richard Whalen, history and culture of the Elizabethan era. and de Vere spoke many languages but Hank Whittemore, Dr. Daniel L. Wright The Society was founded and incorporated not Gaelic. To use an obscure old Celtic in 2001 in the State of Massachusetts and is word “torko” or old Gaelic word “torc” Phone (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-3411 chartered under the membership corporation Fax (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-4258 laws of that state. It is a recognized 501(c)(3) as a nickname for a favorite courtier email: [email protected] nonprofit (Fed ID 04-3578550). was not the Queen’s manner. All contents copyright ©2004 Dues, grants and contributions are tax- 3. The Irish were looked down upon and The Shakespeare Fellowship deductible to the extent allowed by law. despised by English nobility as a lowly, Shakespeare Matters welcomes articles, essays, inferior society of peasants. It would commentary, book reviews, letters and news items. Contributions should be reasonably concise and, when hardly be appropriate to use an Irish appropriate, validated by peer review. The views expressed nickname for England’s Premier Earl, by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the Fellowship as a literary and educational organization.

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 3

From the President From the Editor “Who will believe my verse?” Can literature be evidence?

I think you’ll find this issue of Shakespeare Matters especially Our two lead articles in this issue really lead right to the heart interesting. Hank Whittemore has made what may be a real of the single most important question in the Shakespeare author- breakthrough in analyzing Shakespeare’s Sonnets, arguing pow- ship debate: can literature —plays and poems in this instance— erfully that they were published in correct order, that they have a be used as evidence? sequential structure, and—perhaps most importantly—that they This has always been a hotly debated topic within the author- ship movement, and that has always struck us as somewhat relate directly to very real events in the lives of Edward de Vere and peculiar because, without the evidence of the plays and poems of Henry Wriothesley. Hank lays out his case in his “A Year in the Life” Shakespeare, there would be no authorship debate. The works column, and Bill Boyle (removing his editorial hat to write themselves are the primary evidence in the whole matter. Every- personally) amplifies it in his accompanying article. one who has ever become interested in this issue did so because Is Hank Whittemore’s interpretation the only plausible one? they had that familiar moment when they said to themselves: these Of course not. Does it deserve careful scrutiny and thoughtful works could not have been written by that man. criticism? Of course it does. Will it prove to be the “correct” Where the debate gets interesting is in considering just what interpretation? Only time will tell. In the meantime, we welcome kind of evidence the works are. We are all familiar with the debate your comments—pro and con—on this topic. over the education and station in life of the probable author, with Reading those two lead articles prompts me to look back 395 the works forming the basis of theories pointing to someone, 1) years. As we all know, between Oxford’s death in 1604 and the highly educated, and 2) in or connected to the Elizabethan Court. However, beyond these broad general categories things get publication of the First Folio in 1623, virtually no new “Shake- more complicated. If a character in a play says something, is that speare” material appeared in print, except during one brief period. the same thing as the author saying it? And if the “I’ in a poem says Between 1608 and 1609 not one, but four noteworthy publications something, is that the same thing as the author saying it? This is appeared: where there is indeed legitimate concern about where to draw the line between fact and fiction. — Shake-speare’s Sonnets, with its cryptic dedication With a new theory of the Sonnets being published and pro- — a new quarto of Richard II, the first to include the deposition moted in these pages, we are undoubtedly journeying into new scene territory. A core principle of the “Monument theory” is that the sonnets were designed to be “testimony,” a “living record” — Pericles, Prince of Tyre, the only authentic Shakespeare of the lives of the Poet and the Fair Youth. The sonnets are cited in play not included in the 1623 Folio this issue as if they were personal letters, with all the evidentiary — Troilus and Cressida, in two versions, the latter containing value that personal letters have in writing history. the mysterious epistle from a “Never writer to an Ever Reader” We fully understand that this is controversial—and risky. So we invite our readers to let us know what they think of the I can’t help wondering whether one person or group of persons “Monument theory,” and what they think of the proposition of orchestrated this sudden burst of activity. In the case of Troilus and using the Sonnets as historical testimony. Cressida, it appears that the first copies of the play did not contain the epistle; perhaps someone realized the omission and yelled “Stop the Presses!” so that the all-important preface could be Conference 2004 quickly inserted. But who? Southampton? Pembroke and Mont- Don’t miss the 2004 Conference in Baltimore this October 7- gomery? Oxford’s daughters? Ben Jonson? None of the above? 10, 2004. There is already an impressive lineup of speakers and Back to Hank Whittemore’s view of the sonnets. If he is correct, performances. The long list of confirmed speakers include Dr.Daniel Wright, then the most important point to realize is one that the writer Dr. Charles Berney, Dr. Ren Draya, Dr. Kevin Simpson, Dr. Alan repeatedly tells us about his entire body of work—that he’s Nelson, Dr. Roger Stritmatter, Tim Holcomb, K.C. Ligon, Terry Ross, expressing the truth, and that he hopes we will come to understand Bill Boyle, Charles Boyle, Ken Kaplan, Hank Whittemore, Stephanie that. The poet’s uncertainty about posterity’s ability to understand Hughes, William Niederkorn, Ron Hess, Michael Dunn, Marty Hyatt, is nowhere better expressed than at the start of Sonnet 17 (an aptly Dick Desper, Andy Hannas, Barbara Burris, Ron Halstead, Thomas numbered place for such a thought, if ever there was one): Hunter, David Yuhas, Gordon Cyr, and Thomas Regnier. The conference will also feature performances of Julius Who will believe my verse in time to come. . . Caesar by the Baltimore Shakespeare Festival, and Shake-speare by Kinetic Energy Theatre of Sydney, Australia. It’s time for us Oxfordians to answer, “We do.” Accommodations at the Doubletree Inn are $134/night. Call 800-222-8733 to book rooms at the conference rate. Visit the Fellowship’s website (www.shakespeare Alex McNeil fellowship.org) for the latest information on speakers and accommodations, and to register online.

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 4 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004 400th anniversary of Oxford’s Donate to SF death noted by media in US, UK Foundation The 400th anniversary of Edward de Early in 2002 the Shakespeare Fellow- Vere’s death on June 24th received media ship Foundation was established with a coverage in both the US and UK. The De $6000 grant from an anonymous benefac- Vere Society (England) press release gener- tor. This is a trust, handled by an invest- ated stories in the BBC and Reuters, among ment firm, and is separate from the Fellow- others, while a Shakespeare Oxford Society ship itself, which is a corporation (each has press release calling for a “silent standing its own tax-exempt status). The mission ovation” alerted the US media. statement of the SFF is “to aid and assist … In the Boston area the 17th Annual research, support activities and efforts to- Oxford Day festivities highlighted the oc- ward the objective of establishing once casion, celebrating both his birthday and and for all the true and correct identity of commemorating his death. Chuck Berney the author of the enormous literary works was the featured speaker—his paper asking known to the world as ‘Shakespeare’.” whether the Earl of Leicester was a serial Fellowship President Alex McNeil shows off For the past two years the SFF has murderer can be found on page 22. Betty the Oxford Day birthday cake—which this remained quiescent; Fellowship activities Sears was formally presented with the year also commemorated Oxford’s death have been so well run that there has been Fellowship’s Lifetime Achievement Award 400 years ago. no need to tap its resources (the exception was our first conference, which did incur that she couldn’t be in Carmel to accept last voted to semi-obscure rock ’n roll music of a substantial loss, but this was made up by fall. Special events were also held on the the 1960s and early 70s. On his June 25th a few generous donations). Recently a Fel- following day to publicize the authorship program, McNeil led off his show by an- lowship trustee, sensing the potential in a debate and Oxford. This year’s topic was nouncing the recent anniversary of Oxford’s growing SFF balance, contributed $1000 interpreting the sonnets, featuring a panel death, then played a short set of pop music to this fund. A campaign is now being with Joe Eldredge, Bill Boyle and Hank with Shakespearean connections: “Fare- waged to secure further donations from Whittemore comparing Michael Wood’s well Love Scene from Romeo and Juliet,” a other board members. Fellowship mem- recent efforts in his TV documentary vs. selection from the 1968 Zeffirelli film which bers are invited to participate in this activ- Whittemore’s new Monument theory. was released as a single (remember 45s?) ity by donating to this cause. The goal is to In addition, in the days leading up to the and actually reached the Billboard pop achieve a Foundation balance large enough June 24th anniversary, there were several charts; “Just Like Romeo and Juliet” by so that the income could provide signifi- talks given by Fellowship trustees—Chuck Michael and the Messengers; “To Be Or cant support for Fellowship activities (such Berney at the Newton Public Library, and Not to Be,” a soul ballad by Otis Leavill; as providing the prize money for our hugely Sarah Smith (joined by Richard Whalen) “Ophelia” by the Band; a commercial jingle successful essay contest), or alternatively, at the Brookline Public Library. for Falstaff beer performed by Cream; and to help found an Oxford library. Trustee One of the more unusual commemora- Henry Mancini’s “Love Theme from Romeo Lynne Kositsky has pointed out that a gift tions was made on the radio by Fellowship and Juliet (A Time for Us),” also from to the Foundation is a gift that keeps on President Alex McNeil. McNeil is one of the the 1968 film. McNeil reports that one long- giving. “A gift given today will not only hosts of “Lost and Found” on WMBR-FM time listener phoned in during the tribute benefit us, but also our children and grand- in Cambridge, MA, an all-volunteer station to admit that he, too, was already an children who pursue the authorship ques- owned by MIT. “Lost and Found” is de- Oxfordian. tion,” she noted. “It can fund special re- search projects, help us start a journal, Nominations to Board of Trustees publicize Oxford as author, and much more.” The Shakespeare Fellowship Nomi- frequently to Shakespeare Matters. Donations can most conveniently be The Nominating Committee has also nating Committee (Alex McNeil, Earl made by writing a check to the Shake- Showerman and Lori DiLiddo) has nomi- nominated Chuck Berney to serve as Fel- speare Fellowship with ‘Foundation’ or nated three persons, each to serve for a lowship President for a one-year term com- ‘SFF’ in the memo slot, and sending it to three-year term commencing in October mencing in October. Box 561, Belmont MA 02478. 2004. They are Charles V. (Chuck) Berney, Fellowship members may also nomi- Ted Story and Michael Brame. nate persons for Trustee and President by Berney and Story currently serve as petition; any such nominations must be Conference 2004 Trustees and are being renominated for made by August 25, 2004. Visit the Fellowship web site second terms. Michael Brame is a Profes- Anyone who would like further infor- for the latest information on sor of Linguistics at the University of Wash- mation about this process should contact scheduled events or to register: ington in Seattle; he and his wife, Prof. Fellowship President Alex McNeil by tele- www.shakespearefellowship.org/ Galina Popova, are the authors of three phone (617-244-9825) or by email: Conference2004.html Oxfordian books and have contributed [email protected]@comcast.net. Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 5 The Nelson dilemma By R. Thomas Hunter, Ph.D. hat should Oxfordians do about to these reactions to his book provided this ter than amateurs, and who is also, as a Prof. Alan Nelson’s Monstrous issue with its focal point. Yes, the com- member of the Shakespearean establish- W Adversary? ments which Nelson was hearing ultimately ment, seen by many Oxfordians as a re- Do we make a concerted effort to orga- did question his work in his specialty as a source and perhaps even—for some—as nize work by Oxfordians to correct its paleographer. That Oxfordians were dem- an entrée into the mainstream. But this egregious errors or do we ignore it, as has onstrating flaws in the book’s writing and same amiable professor has produced a been suggested, because to give it any logic was one thing, but they were also work demonstrably full of errors of logic more attention is only to raise it to a promi- and fact. What does an Oxfordian do? nence which it does not deserve? It is ironic that Oxfordians may be “Dr. Nelson employs Dialogue’s end responsible for buying most of the 500 copies which Nelson, at the Edward de Vere It would seem to me that the only true Studies Conference in Portland (OR) in practically every kind of and honest answer for Oxfordians must be April, reported sold and that these sales to continue to disassemble Monstrous point could stir interest by a respected academic by point, to demonstrate its errors fully for publisher like the Chicago University Press the record, and to make this record avail- to consider the book. propaganda technique able for public reference. One would think that such a possibility The necessity of doing so is evident in would not be likely, that any academic the review of Monstrous Adversary cited would immediately see Monstrous for what known to man, including ... by Nelson in his website from the March it is, a flagrantly biased presentation which 2004 Choice (Vol. 41, no. 7) which states, contorts logic and fact to make a point. Not “Thankfully, Nelson (Univ. of California, so in today’s academic publishing world. innuendo, smear, hearsay, Berkeley) has not written propaganda for Liverpool University Press accepted it either side but instead produced a meticu- without a quibble, according to Nelson, lously researched and detailed biography, who told the Portland conference that the omission, misrepresenta- the first since 1928.” To the contrary, Dr. publisher had considered the manuscript omission, misrepresenta- Nelson employs practically every kind of so clean that it didn’t need any editing. In propaganda technique known to man, in- the finished product, the lack of editing is cluding but certainly not limited to innu- too often embarrassingly apparent, not to tion, guilt by association, endo, smear, hearsay, omission, misrepre- mention the lack of concern for sound and sentation, guilt by association, and non objective scholarly practice. sequitur. The book is a virtual textbook of While speedier publication and reduced and non sequitur.” propaganda technique. editing—or no editing at all—might ap- The fact of the matter is that criticism pear to be wonderful news for authors, it is of Nelson’s work, which is not intended to a direction which bodes ill for readers. demonstrating errors in Dr. Nelson’s area be a personal attack, nevertheless unavoid- With regard to de Vere studies, it puts the of expertise upon which many had relied ably becomes criticism of his professional responsibility on Oxfordians. We will ei- and which heretofore had gone unques- ability to do the work, in particular, Mon- ther accept that responsibility or we will tioned. Ongoing analysis by Nina Green, strous, which is itself a personal attack not. In Nelson’s case, the alternatives are for example, had by the time of the Port- upon Oxford from first page to last. That is more complicated because of existing re- land conference laid open many areas of where the dialogue ultimately stops. lationships between Nelson and many the book to serious question in terms of Rightly or wrongly, the unlikelihood Oxfordians, but, relationships or not, Mon- what the documents cited in the book said of frank and open dialogue based on expe- strous Adversary must be confronted if we and meant. Although Nelson was copied riences related to me by others who had are to move forward. on each item, he had not answered any, already met Nelson in various debate for- nor has he yet. More recently, in an e-mail mats, had a lot to do with my abandoning The dilemma exchange with this writer, Green states, the “interrogation” concept at the April “The long and short of it is that Alan conference. Ironically, my brief experi- The best expression of the practical hasn’t responded to a single one of the ence with Nelson that day showed me that dilemma involving Prof. Nelson occurred messages I’ve sent or copied to him.” he could and did respond to direct ques- during the much criticized Monstrous Ad- So here is the credentialed Prof. tions and that he could be more concise in versary segment of the Portland confer- Nelson, a thoroughly likeable and engag- answering questions than some audience ence this April when Nelson arose to pro- ing academic, who has generously shared members were in asking them. I would test the survey of the Oxfordian response to his findings and resources with Oxfordians have enjoyed what someone characterized his book as an attack on his professional- whose cause he diametrically opposes and as a Charlie Rose-type give and take but ism. I believe that Prof. Nelson’s objection who, in Monstrous, he regards as no bet- (Continued on page 6) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 6 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004

Nelson dilemma (continued from page 5) Rose” discussion why he is so willing to use Indeed, these concerns over Nelson’s am still convinced that while possibly their testimony—rejected by history and scholarship, scholarly method, and by more engaging, it would not have been by Queen Elizabeth in Oxford’s eventual implication, scholarly integrity raise real more productive. vindication—as authoritative, without any questions as to what extent the work which explanation of its historical context or its he has shared with many of us in the past, Mr. Wytherings, you are probable bias. including documents on his web site, for a white herring Daphne Pearson expressed firsthand which he has received our grateful appre- misgivings with Dr. Nelson’s abusive use ciation, has been reliable or itself flawed. I take direct evidence for that conclu- of scholarly method in an e-mail dated There may be a short supply of paleogra- sion from Alan Nelson’s own website and September 24, 2003, concerning his phers, but if errors abound in Monstrous, the disingenuous way he acknowledges unattributed presentation as fact of Queen how accurate has his previous work been? there the whytherings/white herrings fi- Elizabeth’s taunting Oxford about his al- Who is checking the expert? Can we afford asco, perhaps the most blatant example of leged bastardy (see Monstrous p. 41): not to? Doesn’t our responsibility as seek- his flawed scholarship, dozens of examples “I think Alan must be using the tainted ers of the truth of authorship require us to of which Nina Green, Christopher Paul, evidence of the Howard allegations here. check our sources? Robert Brazil, Robert Detobel and others He has used it in his DNB biography of have detailed continuously since the pub- Oxford and when I taxed him with it, on the For the unsatisfied lication of the book. Serious errors have grounds that it is not supported by any been found in all of the “specializations” other evidence he said it was too good a But there is more. Ms. Green’s an- which Nelson claims for himself on his story to leave out. I do not agree with Alan nouncement begins, “Finally—a level play- website, including “paleography, bibliog- over this and suspect the story was untrue.” ing field!” Those few words, expressed raphy, and the reconstruction of the liter- Finally, we have Nina Green’s an- during the July 4th weekend, can be taken ary life and times of…Renaissance En- nouncement on Phaeton on July 3, 2004, as a kind of declaration of independence gland from documentary sources.” that her own translation of the final section from reliance on a resource whose friend- In an errata section devoted to Mon- of the 16th Earl’s Inquisition Post Mortem, ship heretofore may have been one of con- strous, Nelson acknowledges that Christo- “the official government record of the in- venience for both sides. It has surely been pher Paul pointed out his “egregious error come inherited by Oxford,” shows the an- an uneasy, curious, and to many an inexpli- in failing to recognize that ‘wytherings’ is nual net income inherited by Oxford to be cable alliance. We are learning every day in fact the surname of Anthony Wytherings, only £1761 10s 9d per annum, barely half more and more about the extent to which who had an office related to the Forest” and the figure of £3,500 per annum claimed by it may also be unreliable. that his “interpretation of the letter as Daphne Pearson in her thesis and adopted In my opinion, Oxfordians have no humorous and childish rather than serious by Alan Nelson as a “conservative reckon- choice but to assemble in some format our and evidence of ongoing competition over ing” on p. 193 of Monstrous Adversary. responses to Nelson’s work and to recog- the Forest is incorrect.” He adds that he will The significance of this finding cannot be nize Monstrous as an opportunity to take “expand on this note in due course,” al- overemphasized for two reasons. our message to the world, including the though three months later, he has not. First, it shows that Oxford is much less many details raised by Nelson which help As it is, his note does not come close to likely to deserve the reputation of “reck- our cause despite his pejorative spin. In expressing the immensity of the error, the less spendthrift” which historians have terms of honesty, duty, and our own integ- problems it demonstrates with his schol- bestowed upon him, most recently, of rity, we have no choice. arship, and the credibility it must cost Prof. course, Prof. Nelson, who repeats that It is safe to say that after the April Nelson in the eyes of the objective, knowl- theme ad nauseam throughout Monstrous. conference, the public is still unsatisfied. edgeable reader, who by now must notice Rather, Ms. Green states, the document That event may have been a theatrical that he is not only willing in passages such shows “Oxford’s inheritance was a rela- dud, but to this participant and observer, as “Whytherings” to commit to an absurd tively small one, considering that it was an it framed the conflict which we face, the interpretation but that he will also change earldom, and because of wardship he had conflict which has formed from our the document so that it agrees with the serious cash-flow problems from the start maturing pursuit of the true author and misinterpretation. Nina Green, for one, and then was saddled with a crushing debt brought on by the cumulative force of the has found many examples of this discon- in the Court of Wards when he came of age. original work we are doing. nect between documents in Monstrous Financially, Oxford didn’t stand a chance.” I think of Hamlet’s last words to Horatio: and their representation and interpreta- This gives us a much different Oxford from “Absent thee from felicity a while, and in tion by Dr. Nelson. the received version. this harsh world draw thy breath in pain, to Even more importantly, Ms. Green tell my story.” That may be a romantic Too good to leave out provides evidence that Nelson may have characterization of the job at hand, but it already known this information while de- is no less accurate. Correcting the record Sooner or later the objective, knowl- nying it and supporting the orthodox ver- is already a task daunting enough, let alone edgeable reader must also notice that sion of Oxford as a wastrel. She states, “I showing the truth of the monstrous errors Nelson is willing to base much of his char- still have a message from Alan in which he recorded by an adversary who would be acterization of Oxford on the inherently claimed there were no such values to be our friend. Now there is a conflict that is tainted, unsupported testimony of his en- found in PRO C142/136/12! How Alan worthy of Shakespeare. emies Howard and Arundel. I would have could say that after transcribing the docu- liked to have asked Nelson in a “Charlie ment is a mystery.” Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 7 More on Monstrous Adversary redictably, The Shakespeare News- ment as originally installed did not depict PS: A letter to the editor about a book letter, a Stratfordian quarterly from a writer, and the inscription says nothing reviewed by the editor risks rejection, but the English department at Iona Col- about the poems, plays or the theater. The knowing your usual good humor I still P posthumous First Folio never says “Shake- have hope you’ll take off your reviewer’s lege, likes Alan Nelson’s book, Monstrous speare of Stratford” or gives birth/death hat, put on your editor’s hat and deem it Adversary, despite its mind-numbing dates; and “Avon” and “Stratford” are in worthy of publication even though the plenitude of transcripts of Elizabethan separate, poetic allusions subject to inter- reviewer might disagree with it. documents by and about the Earl of Ox- pretation. Far from being preeminent evi- ford. Co-editor Thomas A. Pendleton wrote dence for the Stratford man, they suggest Attached to this cover letter was the that he was not the poet/dramatist. a long review of it, and his conclusion in following letter for publication: the first paragraph is that “as one would expect, he [Nelson] finds no substance what- “Those who want To the Editor ever to the Oxfordian hypothesis.” The The Shakespeare Newsletter reader might wonder why then all the fuss. [Oxford] to be Your review of Alan Nelson’s myopic Richard Whalen, a regular contributor biography of the earl of Oxford rightly to this newsletter, responded to Pendleton, Shakespeare,” admires his archival research and the hun- who in the past has printed his articles dreds of literal transcriptions that form most of his book. Unaccountably, however, about authorship matters and even an ex- [Pendleton] writes, tended tribute to Charlton Ogburn, a lead- it accepts uncritically Nelson’s off-hand ing Oxfordian, on the occasion of his death. inferences about Oxford’s personality, Whalen has agreed to share his letters and “surely will want which are colored by his naive belief that great writers should be nice people. the editors’ appended responses. This is surprising. The evidence of In his 4,000-word review, Pendleton him to be literary biography suggests the contrary, raises many of the usual Stratfordian ob- that artists and writers of genius have often jections, but he also raises some provoca- more admirable.” been difficult, eccentric people–egotistical, tive points. “Those who want him [Oxford] arrogant, boastful, profligate, unpredict- to be Shakespeare,” he writes, “surely will able, subject to mood swings, by turns I understand that the Stratfordians charming and scornful, cruel and gener- want him to be more admirable.” But that’s are in a difficult position, and I can under- ous, profligate, capable of making great not true. And he says that “it is often sup- stand why Alan’s closet polemic is appeal- friends and bitter enemies, capable of scan- posed that Oxford was highly educated,” ing. But he gets many of the facts wrong. dalous behavior, able to distance them- but he has a confused idea of Oxford’s M.A. Nor is he “thoroughly read in Oxfordian selves from their bad behavior and reprove degrees from Oxford and Cambridge and researches,” as you’ll see in the attached it in their writings. reviews I wrote for Shakespeare Matters. There are many examples, including omits his most important tutor, Thomas Harvey, Digges and Jonson identify Smith. In contrast, he says, “it is quite likely Tolstoy, Byron, Proust, Balzac, Beethoven, Shakespeare as an author? Of course they Van Gogh, Dickens, Wolff, Hemingway, that William Shakespeare [he means the do, and so do many others, which proves Lowell, even Goethe. Kay Redfield Jamison nothing about his identity. Everybody agrees Stratford boy] was actually better educated of Johns Hopkins University, a MacArthur that Shakespeare wrote the great poems than Edward de Vere.” fellow, makes the case most persuasively and plays. The question is, who was he? Whalen responded with two letters, in Touched With Fire (1993). In his Life of Oxford writing under that pen name? Or one to Co-editor Tom Pendleton and one as the man from Stratford with the similar Goethe (1998), John R. Williams of the a Letter to the Editor for publication: (not the same) name? University of St. Andrews says that al- It’s not true that “nothing he wrote though Goethe has long been uncritically Dear Tom, suggests a talent even remotely approach- revered as an icon of German culture Herewith a letter to the editor on your ing Shakespeare’s.” To the contrary, his (shades of William of Stratford), the record review of Alan’s book, plus some attach- early poetry is very close to Shakespeare’s, shows that he was “often contradictory ments for your information/amusement. I as proven by the “Benezet test” found in my and perverse, but always complex and have to admit that in a way I’m happy to see book and Ogburn’s. Try it. subtle...[subject] to extreme mood you devote so much attention and space to Does Alan’s book “undermine(s) some swings...impulsively generous...[given to] Oxford, even if it’s through Alan’s myopia. of the supposedly striking similarities” noisy pranks and drunken escapades In addition to the points made in my letter between Oxford’s life and Hamlet. Not at all. ...sometimes frigid or brutal...[who wrote] to the editor, I offer the following observa- He dismisses a few out of hand. See my brutal character assassinations...also tions: attached summary of the parallels between majestic hymns to the glory of God’s I’m surprised that you consider the Oxford’s life and Hamlet with many other creation.” will, the monument and the First Folio as striking similarities that you and Alan Oxford’s life fits the pattern. From “preeminently” evidence that the Strat- omit. what we know of it, he was indeed eccentric, ford man wrote Shakespeare. The will has Yours, difficult and all the rest. Then think of the nothing literary in it. Nothing. The monu- /s/ Richard (Continued on page 8) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 8 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004 University of Tennessee Law School hosts Shakespeare Authorship Symposium n June the University of Tennessee Law and professors from several disciplines. All relevant perspectives were well rep- School hosted a historic develop- Members of the Shakespeare Fellowship resented at the conference, which included Iment in the authorship controversy. and the Shakespeare Oxford Society also anti-Stratfordians Diana Price, Gerald The UT symposium, “Who Wrote Shake- attended. Participating lawyers were eli- Downs, Richard Whalen, Peter Dickson speare: An Evidentiary Puzzle,” invited both gible to obtain Continuing Legal Educa- and Roger Stritmatter. Speaking from the orthodox and anti-Stratfordian scholars to tion credits for attendance. Several law- orthodox perspective were Alan Nelson, join in a weekend symposium of lectures yers were heard by Micki Fox, one of the Ward Elliott, UT English Professor Allen and panel discussions devoted to explor- organizers, to remark that it was the most Carroll, Daniel Kornstein, and Steven May ing the legal dimensions of the Shakes- interesting conference they had ever at- of Georgetown University. Attorneys Wil- pearean question. The June 4-5 event was tended for credit. liam Causey and Don Paine, a Tennessee the brainchild of the late Professor Jerry Participants and their guests were in- specialist on Rules of Evidence, addressed Phillips, a University of Tennessee profes- vited out to dinner the evening of the 3rd, the conference on questions of evidence, sor of Law and Literature and co-author, and the mood was friendly and relaxed. and William Neiderkorn gave an enter- with Professor Judy Kornett, of the law and This in itself heralded a new beginning; taining paper on the history of the author- literature textbook, Sound and Sense. anti-Stratfordians met with Stratfordians, ship question as revealed in the pages of Phillips had devoted several years to study- perhaps for the first time, in equal num- The New York Times. ing the authorship question and was an bers, and were accorded equal respect. The active and informed reader of all the rel- authorship question, in part because of the Who was Shaksper? evant Oxfordian texts as well as a member tone of this conference and its level of of the Shakespeare Fellowship. The 130 intellectual (and social) interaction, is now Diana Price kicked off with a dynamic conference registrants included lawyers, accepted by many to be a respectable topic presentation, exposing the weaknesses graduate students, actors, schoolteachers, of research. of the official story of the Stratford bard,

More on Monstrous (continued from page 7) Yours, by Richard Whalen in the second para- works of Shakespeare, especially Lear, /s/ Richard F. Whalen graph of his letter. For example, he may Macbeth, Titus Andronicus, Pericles, The have hoarded grain in order to gouge the Rape of Lucrece, Troilus and Cressida. Both co-editors responded in their needy with unconscionable high prices at Are these intensely personal plays the work newsletter to Whalen’s letter for publica- times of famine. Like his father before him, of a nice guy from Stratford? It seems tion. The first is by Pendleton, who slyly he may have charged excessively high rates most unlikely. repeats Whalen’s rejection of the will, of interest on loans. He could be accused of neglecting his wife and children in order to Far from precluding Oxford as the monument and First Folio as relevant evi- genius Shakespeare, what we can discern pursue a theatrical career. If indeed he was dence: of Oxford’s personality, thanks in part to born and raised a Catholic, he wasn’t will- Nelson, makes him eminently qualified to ing to risk the consequences of practicing As I said in my review, the evidence for have been the great poet/dramatist. Espe- his faith. In Bingo (1973), Edward Bond Shakespeare of Stratford–preeminently the cially in contrast to the man from Stratford depicts a particularly bitter and unhappy will, the Stratford Monument, and the who led a life of “mundane inconsequence,” Shakespeare in his last years. It is certainly First Folio–is so abundant as to make the according to another Johns Hopkins pro- true that, by comparison to Shakespeare in search for a “real” Shakespeare basically fessor, the late Sam Schoenbaum (Lives, his last years, the earl of Oxford was an pointless. That being said, however, 568). awful human being, but it does not follow Nelson’s biography makes it somewhat Perhaps unwittingly, Nelson perfectly that Oxford wrote the plays. And while it less likely that “Shakespeare” was written captures Oxford as a poet and dramatist of may be true that people of genius are often by the Earl of Oxford than by aliens from genius. In a flight of imagination inspired “difficult,” it is possible to list at least some Outer Space. We don’t after all, know by his research, Nelson describes what he people of artistic genius who were decent enough about the aliens to disqualify them calls “perhaps his most characteristic pose: enough, such artists as Jane Austin, Franz totally. presiding at a well-furnished table, flanked Josef Hayden and Joaquin Sorolla. by male companions, high in his cups, And co-editor John W. Mahon adds: firing satiric salvos and witticisms, enlist- Visit the Shakespeare Fellowship ing his guests in his conspiratorial fanta- sies. Nothing and nobody was off limits.” I might note that the evidence sug- Bookstore on the Internet: (203) An Oxfordian could not have said it gests that Shakespeare of Stratford was www.shakespearefellowship.org better. “difficult” in at least some of the ways listed

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 9 summarizing her 2000 book, Shakespeare: fall upon the Oxfordians as they are the sophistication of Shakespeare’s legal An Unorthodox Biography, a detailed com- challengers to the official doctrine, and knowledge is proof positive of his formal parative study of Elizabethan and Jaco- that the standard for arbitration of the training in the law and then uses this con- bean writers, which confirms the earlier dispute should be that of a courtroom. clusion to develop the “Brontosaurian” and more impressionistic conclusion of Several audience members, including argument that Shakespeare was someone the anti-Stratfordian tradition (e.g. George Shakespeare Fellowship member Thomas other than the Stratford man (perhaps Greenwood et alia). Price argued that “per- Regnier, who has written extensively on Bacon, but more likely Greenwood’s “great sonal literary paper trails” show that the the subject of Shakespeare’s knowledge of unknown”). Kornstein pointed out that in Stratford man’s authorship is an anomaly the law, questioned Causey’s eagerness for his preface to Pudd’nhead Wilson, Twain from an Elizabethan perspective. Price legal experts to appropriate and control —not a lawyer himself—acknowledges suggested that William Shakspere of Strat- discussion of the authorship question. the assistance of legal expertise in con- ford was a successful theatrical entrepre- structing the novel. To Kornstein this neur and manuscript dealer who eventu- means that Shakespeare could have em- ally became known as a “Batillus”—a nick- “Causey concluded that ployed the same tactic without himself name which refers to the Roman imposter being a lawyer and also that Mark Twain, who appropriated verses written by Virgil who neglected to mention that Shake- and tried to pass them off as his own. speare himself “coulda-woulda-shoulda” Professor Carroll followed Price’s pre- the standard of have employed a similar tactic, must be a sentation with a detailed but unpersuasive hypocrite instead of the most astute satirist orthodox reading of Greene’s Groatsworth of the 19th century. To the detriment of his of Wit. Carroll’s 1994 edition of that im- evidence relevant to own argument, Kornstein spent three quar- portant book is a standard of Elizabethan ters of his time mapping out Twain’s posi- scholarship. Inaugurating a rhetorical tech- tion, and ended up making a stronger case nique which regrettably became institu- the authorship question for the anti-Stratfordians than for the tra- tionalized among orthodox scholars at the ditionalists. Unfortunately the audience symposium (excepting Professor May), was unable to enjoy Mr. Twain’s rejoinder Carroll began his presentation by compar- to Attorney Kornstein’s rather tendentious ing anti-Stratfordians to special creation- was not ... ‘beyond a remarks. ists. The relevance of this ad hominem premise became apparent when at least The Catholic question some among the audience realized how reasonable doubt’ ... but well the portrait of Groatsworth’s “Shake- Kornstein’s was the first lunchtime of- scene”—who appropriates the literary fering. On Saturday, June 5th, Peter Dickson feathers of other writers and “supposes” he ... [rather] ‘clear and took over the mealtime podium, and spoke is well able to bombast out a blankverse— about the Catholic Question as it affected matched the portrait sketched by Ms. Price the Shakespeare Authorship Question. The of the Batillus from Stratford. contrast was marked. While Kornstein convincing evidence.’” sought to entertain and largely failed, The legal argument Dickson, as usual, delivered a thoughtful presentation packed with important infor- William Causey and Don Paine dis- Richard Whalen argued—illustrating mation and new perspectives which chal- cussed the legal doctrine of rules of evi- his case with examples familiar to readers lenged the intellectual horizons of the dence and raised questions over which of Shakespeare Matters but new to many audience. Readers of Shakespeare Matters rules and standards should apply in the of the UT conference attendees—that a will already be familiar with Dickson’s authorship question and on whom the preponderance of the evidence clearly sup- important work showing that the timing of burden of proof should fall. Causey con- ports the “Oxfordian” attribution of the the publication of the Shakespeare First cluded that the standard of evidence rel- works to Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Folio in 1623 was influenced by the Span- evant to the authorship question was not Oxford. Daniel Kornstein, the Stratfordian ish marriage crisis and the desire of the that of the criminal courts—“beyond a lawyer who argued in his book Let’s Kill All “grand possessors”—so they are called in reasonable doubt”—nor that of the stan- the Lawyers that the words of Jack Cade the preface to the 1609 quarto of Troilus dard civil case—“by a preponderance of (Henry VI) quoted in his title must have and Cressida—of the Shakespearean the evidence”—but that of the intermedi- represented Shakespeare’s true opinion manuscripts to publish a political rebuke ate standard of “clear and convincing evi- about lawyers, edified the conference with to James I which would permanently rede- dence” which is applied in civil cases in his prosecution of Mark Twain for hypoc- fine the nature of the—Protestant— which society has a greater stake. Causey risy in Is Shakespeare Dead? Readers English subject and cancel all fears and also argued that the burden of proof should may remember that Twain reasons that the (Continued on page 10) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 10 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004

Tennessee (continued from page 9) who appears to have qualifications in nei- the case posits an improbable conspiracy prospects of a counterreformation. For ther law nor psychiatry—condemned to of silence, that it is destroyed by a single several years Dickson has predicted the the psychiatrist’s couch without blinking. play dated after 1604, and that Oxford had current split within Shakespearean ortho- no motive to conceal his identity of the doxy—symbolized by the recent angry con- Oxford’s poetry not Shakespearean? non-theatrical works—are all familiar to tretemps between Stanley Wells, high Oxfordians but were delivered with a priest of Shakespearean orthodoxy at the Professor May delivered an exception- forceful clarity which the Stratfordian case Stratford Birthplace Trust, and Michael ally forceful and credible critique of the has rarely enjoyed. Wood, author of the revisionist In Search Oxfordian case. Unlike the other Stratfor- of Shakespeare, which secured the en- dian presenters, May avoided sweeping “A life of allegory” dorsement of the BBC for the “Catholic ideological attacks on anti-Stratfordians, Bard” solution to the authorship question. As to the question of the absence of The conference also provided a long motive for concealment of the authorship overdue venue for Shakespeare Fellow- “Stritmatter went of the non-dramatic works, Roger ship member Ward Elliott to reprise the Stritmatter, speaking after May, offered results of his 1987-94 Shakespeare Com- what many regarded as an impressive if not puter clinic, in which Elliott, statistician on to show the wholly conclusive rejoinder. First demon- Robert Valenza, and a team of undergradu- strating in his Powerpoint presentation ates crunched numbers until their com- necessarily allegorical that Elizabethans portrayed themselves puters definitively concluded that Oxford allegorically, and that Keats had stated was not Shakespeare. It is interesting that Shakespeare himself had “lived a life to note that on his first pass Elliott’s statis- nature of Venus and of allegory,” Stritmatter went on to show tics showed that Oxford could fit the pro- the necessarily allegorical nature of Venus file of Shakespeare, so the professor gamely Adonis, delineating and Adonis, delineating the main charac- tried again. Elliott, who has tremendous ters (Venus and Adonis) as representations faith in computers, at length concluded of Elizabeth and Oxford, and suggesting that “Oxford’s poems...are gazillions of the main characters ... that the “purple flower” which “sprung up times less likely than Shakespeare’s out- chequer’d with white” from Adonis’s blood lier; they are in different galaxies.” as representations of likely represented Southampton, the dedi- With the sole and distinguished excep- catee of the poem. tion of Professor May, the failure of the Both days concluded with panels which orthodox team to offer a credible defense Elizabeth and Oxford ...” incorporated all of the day’s speakers with of Shakespearean orthodoxy cannot be the addition of Gerald Downs, an anti-Strat- overstated. In fact, those representing the fordian who made several cogent points. orthodox view of authorship weakened and focused on a series of errors or prob- Well organized and executed, the sym- their own case dramatically through the lems which, he alleged, made the Oxford posium was a tremendous success. The undisciplined and frequent recourse to case untenable. Notably, however, May audience was excited and absorbed, many arguments ad hominem which did little to made no attempt to defend the orthodox attendees showing evidence of previous impress the majority of the audience and position. reading on the authorship question, and not infrequently offended them. Professor The first and perhaps most decisive several approaching the Oxfordians to say Nelson managed to alienate almost the of May’s points was that the supposed that during the conference they had been entire audience with his negative remarks stylistic affinity which J. Thomas Looney persuaded of the validity of the Oxfordian about anti-Stratfordians, and his battering had documented between Oxford and case. There was also a high degree of cama- away at the Oxfordian case with old and Shakespeare is not peculiar to those two raderie; we had dinner with Steven May vacuous arguments that lasted his entire writers. Many of the stylistic features—for and William Causey one evening, and ex- hour. example the use of the ababcc stanza—or changed good-natured insults with “Anyone,” opined Nelson, “who be- imagery such as references to women as Nelson, Elliott, and May and their partners lieves that Shakespeare’s courtroom scenes “haggard hawks”—which Looney believed the next, as we all “met by moonlight” indicates a knowledge of either Italian or were idiomatic only to Shakespeare and de (and by accident) in a local restaurant and English legal principles and practices of Vere—are in fact widely found in Elizabe- sat at adjoining tables. the 16th century ought to have his head than literature and hence are not finger- It is devoutly to be hoped that the Knox- examined.” Nelson’s outlandish statement prints of the Shakespearean. Professor May ville Symposium, “Who Wrote Shake- drew gasps from the audience, which was gave examples from Turberville, Grange, speare? An Evidentiary Puzzle,” will be of course largely composed of lawyers. Gascoigne, Whetstone, and others to emulated and repeated in different locales Some of them were familiar with the many reinforce his argument. across North America over the next several astute legal historians whom Nelson— The other points argued by May—that years. —LK, RS Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 11

Sonnets solved (continued from page one) know that he believes that Southampton the “events of the day” are “your crime, first postulated by Hank Whittemore in was seen by Oxford as a royal son who your trial, your death sentence, my an- 1999, outlined in his article “Dynastic Di- deserved to succeed Queen Elizabeth. This guish, my attempts to save you, I have ary” in the Summer 1999 Shakespeare Ox- theory—aka the “Prince Tudor” theory— saved you!, she has betrayed us both, and ford Newsletter, presented in part at the has been a schism in Oxfordian circles now we both must live in this new post- 1999 Shakespeare Oxford Society Confer- since the 1930s, nearly as old as the move- crime world, and here’s my advice on how ence in Newton (MA), and again at the ment itself. When “Dynastic Diary” was you should now live your second life.” It’s Shakespeare Fellowship Conference in published in 1999, the opening sentence that easy. Cambridge (MA) in October 2002. read, “I wish to present a structure for So, while the theory itself has been Shake-speares Sonnets based on the Language is the key “out there” and available “piecemeal” for hypothesis that Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl five years, the book Whittemore has been of Southampton, was the son of Edward The key to understanding Whittemore’s working on has not been ready for publica- de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford and Queen “Monument” theory of the Sonnets form tion until now. (See the ad on page 21 for Elizabeth.” and content can be found in the language details about The Monument and how to In hindsight both Whittemore and I of the Sonnets, and in the extensive re- order a copy.) To my knowledge, none of (who was then the editor of the Shake- search that has been done to gloss each the previous 1,800 books on the Sonnets speare Oxford Newsletter) agree that this and every word and uncover not just the (including those by Stephen Booth, Helen opening sentence was a big mistake, be- standard dictionary definitions of these Vendler and Katherine Duncan-Jones) cause it actually shortchanged the real words, but—as no one else has ever done— even comes close to the breadth and depth nature of his breakthrough theory, waving what these words meant to Shakespeare. of Whittemore’s analysis—an analysis that the red flag of Prince Tudor controversy in And where else to look for what a word glosses each and every word in each and everyone’s face before delving into what his meant to Shakespeare than in his plays— every sonnet. And only one—Gerald breakthrough thinking on the authorial specifically, his chronicle plays of English Massey’s 1866 Shakespeare’s Sonnets structure of the 1609 quarto was all about. royal history? This may seem like an as- Never Before Interpreted—gets close to The quarto structure is, simply, a chro- toundingly simple proposition, and surely, the true historical context. nological sequence that tells a story, the one may ask, someone, somewhere over most significant sequence being the 100 the past two centuries had thought to do Essex Rebellion is the context sonnets from 27 to 126, which turn out to it. But, so far as we know, no one ever has. be a perfect match with actual historical Given this new semantic context, one Briefly, his theory is that all 154 son- events as they occurred between Feb. 8, finds that the language of the sonnets nets are in authorial order, that nearly all 1601, and April 28, 1603. This middle begins to reveal real answers as to the time were written or rewritten in the last three sequence is both the center and center- and place of their references and as to the years of Oxford’s life, that they are ad- piece of the 1609 quarto. The rest of the nature of the relationship between the dressed to the Fair Youth Southampton structure is comprised of the first 26 son- poet and the youth. The most important and the Dark Lady Queen Elizabeth, and nets (17 on the Fair Youth and marriage, observation about the large picture that they are concerned almost exclusively with plus nine others dated 1592-1600), the comes out of this new context and analysis the politics and aftermath of the Essex last 26 (all Dark Lady), plus the final two is that the oft-acknowledged wealth of Rebellion—its purpose, its disastrous fail- “Bath” sonnets (153 and 154—which vir- legal terms used in the sonnets can now be ure, the treason trial, Southampton’s death tually all sonnet commentators have seen seen as directly tied to their primary sub- sentence, his reprieve from the death sen- as separate and seemingly “added on” for ject matter—the criminal offense, trial, tence, his eventual release from prison some reason to the sequence of 152). Ev- death sentence, reprieve and release of the and pardon, the poet’s observations on erything is explained in much greater de- Fair Youth. Another well-known sonnet their shared guilt and shared shame over tail in The Monument. theme—shame and guilt—can now also Southampton’s “crime,” the poet’s bitter- I’d like to explain why I have come to be seen as direct commentary on the shame sweet advice and admonitions on how believe that the Whittemore solution to and guilt of the youth’s criminal offense Southampton should now live his “sec- the Sonnets is absolutely correct, and to on Feb. 8, 1601—a shame and guilt that ond” life, and finally—in the Dark Lady share some insights into how I have viewed the poet takes to be as much his own as the sequence—his bitter (without the sweet) the sonnets over the 25 years I’ve been an youth’s. rage at their mutual betrayal by Elizabeth. Oxfordian, and how the Whittemore solu- In considering the Sonnets in light of It’s all politics, mixed in with the personal tion has made crystal clear what was once this proposed Essex Rebellion context, I views of the writer and expressed through mysterious and opaque. believe that there are two extremely im- the grand language and philosophy we all In short, once one has 1) the correct portant words to focus on: “trespass” and know as “Shakespearean.” author (Oxfordians do), 2) the correct Fair “fault,” words which appear in six of the The “Year in the Life” column in this Youth and Dark Lady (Southampton and Fair Youth sonnets—“trespass” twice and issue of Shakespeare Matters (see page Queen Elizabeth), and, finally, 3) the all- “fault” eight times. These words are gener- one) incorporates this Sonnet theory into important correct historical context, then ally glossed as an “offense” of some sort, Part I of his analysis and commentary of reading the Sonnets becomes as clear and usually personal and most likely sexual the year 1601—the year of the Essex Re- uncomplicated as reading a signed, dated (e.g., “sensual fault” in Sonnet 35). They bellion. Those familiar with previous au- letter to a known addressee about the have in turn been linked up to words such thorship publications from Whittemore events of the day. In this case, of course, (Continued on page 12)

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 12 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004

Sonnets solved (cont’ from p. 11) and loss of all titles and proper- as “shame” and “guilt” to help ties. Again, Bellamy’s book is im- create theories about hot love portant in understanding how triangles, bed trysts and homo- these legal concepts evolved un- sexual encounters. der a century of Tudor rule as the Robert Giroux in his 1982 The state consolidated its power by Book Known as Q notes (p. 22) expanding the concept of “crimes about Sonnet 35 (in which both against the state.” words appear) that “something The difference between the serious has occurred, but the lan- two charges (treason vs. mispri- guage of the poem is unspecific sion of treason) became a subjec- and open to many interpreta- tive life and death, cat and mouse tions.” He continues that “it may game played between the authori- have been a crisis over the young tarian state and its subjects. Two man’s seduction by the poet’s of the most well-known trials of mistress.” Without the correct the era have treason vs. mispri- historical context Joseph Sobran sion of treason at their center: Sir in Alias Shakespeare (1997) also The words “fault” and “trespass” appearing together in Sonnet 35 are Thomas More in the mid-1530s, goes astray with his homosexual the tipoff to the true historical context of the whole series. and Sir Walter Raleigh in 1603- theory of the relationship between 1604. In both cases charges the poet and the youth, though—interest- type which occurred in 1517 would prob- against each man swung back and forth ingly—he does make note (p. 201) of the ably have been dealt with as riot (which was between misprision of treason and trea- wealth of legal terminology used in the trespass) ... son, finally ending for both in treason sonnets, but then has nothing to say about The case for the meaning of “fault” is convictions and death. why such language might be so prevalent much easier. Southampton himself spoke In the case of Raleigh, he was con- in a series of love sonnets. Joseph of his “fault” in writing to the Privy Coun- victed of treason in 1604, which was then Pequigney’s Such is My Love (1985) is cil begging for mercy sometime in late commuted to misprision—prosecutor Sir another example of analysis that creates February or early March 1601, and when Edward Coke having said that a conviction rather than finds a context, resulting in King James sent a message ahead to Lon- for misprision of treason was all he had another theory having to do with homo- don in April 1603 ordering Southampton’s been going for anyway. Then, incredibly, sexuality and the “shame” and “guilt” that release, he wrote that, “the late Queen our his original 1604 treason conviction was must go along with it. Sister, notwithstanding his fault toward resurrected in 1618 for the sole purpose But when one looks closely at Elizabe- her, was moved to exempt [him] from the of disposing of him as a political sop to than history and Shakespeare texts, one stroke of Justice.” King Philip of Spain! finds that the words “trespass” and “fault” Once one understands that “trespass” In looking at the Sonnet’s story of the are both associated closely with “crimes,” and “fault” are both words that can refer to Poet Shakespeare/Oxford and the Fair in particular crimes against the state— treason, then the Sonnets in which they Youth Southampton this gloss is of great treason. Shakespeare especially, in his appear are transformed. In particular, significance because the entire meaning history plays, uses the words “treason” reading “trespass = treason” in Sonnets 35 of Sonnet 87 really hinges on this one and “trespass” interchangeably. For ex- and 120 has enormous significance for word—misprision. As Tudor law operated, ample, in 1 Henry VI (II.iv.92-94) we find understanding the real subject matter of the legal basis for sparing Southampton’s both these sonnets and the entire middle life had to have been a commutation from And by his treason stand’st not thou attainted, sequence of 100 sonnets. Equally impor- treason to misprision of treason—from corrupted, and exempt from gentry? His tant is how the meaning of other words in death to life in prison and loss of all titles trespass yet lives guilty in thy blood. other sonnets suddenly becomes clearer. and property. Yet there is no official record Just as important as Shakespeare’s us- Foremost among such other words is of such a legal finding, and Southamp- age is the fact that, as documented in Prof. “misprision” in Sonnet 87, glossed by all ton’s major biographers (Stopes, Rowse John Bellamy’s 1979 The Tudor Law of commentators for two centuries as a “mis- and Akrigg) can only say that “he was Treason, offenses such as “trespass” had, understanding” of some sort (which is, spared.” But it is interesting to note that under a century of Tudor rule, slowly be- correctly, one of its definitions and us- Rowse does state flatly that “there was come equated with “treason.” On page 20 ages). But in the Elizabethan era there almost a conspiracy between the Queen Bellamy writes about the 1517 riots in existed a legal concept that had been care- and Cecil to save [him],” and a little later London directed against foreigners, which fully refined over a century of Tudor rule: he says, “Southampton’s life had really the state then, in acting against some of “misprision of treason.” Misprision of trea- been saved by Cecil” (p. 164, Shakespeare’s the rioters, treated as high treason against son was defined as a crime just short of Southampton). the king in disposing of the cases (13 were treason (i.e., having known of treason and So when Shakespeare writes in Sonnet convicted of treason, and then hanged, having failed to stop it and/or report it to 87 “thy great gift, upon misprision grow- drawn and quartered). Bellamy notes: the authorities). Where a treason convic- ing,” what he is really saying is that your tion meant the death penalty, a finding of life has been saved, and now your “great In the fifteenth century disturbances of the “misprision of treason” meant life in prison gift”—a second life—must “grow upon”

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 13 the foundation of your “mispri- experienced it: a day-by-day sion of treason” commutation. countdown to his execution. We should also note here that But only in recent years have Shakespeare himself, in Sonnet I come to appreciate how these 68, directly refers to this second sonnets (63 and 66) fall right in life (“to live a second life on sec- line with those surrounding them ond head”). In discussing this and form a coherent sequence. In interpretation of Sonnet 87 over fact the brief sequence from Son- the past five years with fellow nets 63 to 67 can only be under- Oxfordians it has been said, in stood to make sense if one consid- rebuttal, “well, who says ‘thy great ers them to document what we gift’ means ‘life?’ Couldn’t it be a know happened in March 1601. reference similar to ‘Thy gift, thy Therefore, they must be in au- tables’ (Sonnet 122)?” thorial order, which is the cor- As it turns out, Sir Walter nerstone of Whittemore’s entire Raleigh himself used the same thesis. “How so?” the wary reader phrase in the same circumstances may at this point be asking. just a few years later. In a 1604 The word “misprision” in Sonnet 87 has never been glossed as Well, the real events of March letter to the Privy Council (as “misprision of treason” since no one ever had the correct context. 1601 were that Southampton was cited in Martin Hume’s 1926 Sir scheduled to be beheaded, and Walter Raleigh, p. 199) pleading for his Oxfordian epiphany from which I’ve never that at the last moment he wasn’t. Instead life following his treason conviction (i.e., looked back. he began serving a life sentence, stripped in effect pleading to get commuted from “They’re real.” Indeed. That describes of all titles and property. In Sonnets 63 to treason to misprision of treason) Raleigh the entire authorship debate, the plays, 65 we find the same theme of the poet writes, “For a greater gift none can give, or the poems, the Hamlet-Shakespeare-Ox- anticipating the youth’s death and swear- receive, than life...” It’s enough to make ford comparisons—all of it. Yet I never ing he shall live on in my verse. Abruptly, me think that he may have even seen understood how real the Sonnets were we then come to Sonnet 66, in which the Sonnet 87 or some version of it. until April 1999, when Whittemore was poet now says “I’m so depressed I wish I were These are just a few observations— trying gamely to explain his new theory to dead, but I can’t go, because then I’d be based on just three words—on what the me. For a while I wasn’t getting it, but leaving you behind.” It’s the reverse of what Sonnets are really all about; and as can be kept nodding agreeably, figuring sooner he has just been saying in the previous seen, it’s a story about the real life and or later I would get it or Hank would give three sonnets. death situation of the moment, without up. And then suddenly, we were looking at Now here’s the kicker. In Sonnet 67 even having to consider the more conten- Sonnet 63 and the lines the poet begins by asking tious matter of the precise relationship For such a time do I now fortify, between the poet Shakespeare/Oxford and Ah, wherefore with infection should he live Against confounding age’s cruel knife, And with his presence grace impiety, the condemned youth Southampton. That he shall never cut from memory That sin by him advantage should achieve My sweet love’s beauty, though my lover’s And lace itself with his society? The case for authorial order life. His beauty shall in these black There is no further talk of the youth Another important matter in under- lines be seen, dying—only talk of why should he have to standing the Sonnets that all commenta- And they shall live, and he in them live this way (67), that he has “a second life tors have struggled with, and none have still green. on second head” (68), that he “dost grow solved until Whittemore, is whether they And just as suddenly I got it. I saw in my common” (69), that he should be grateful are in authorial order. In reconsidering all mind a picture of Southampton being led for his great gift [life] and build on it (87), these sonnets over the past five years in to the block, about to have the “confound- and how he should now live [this second light of the Monument theory I noted in ing [Elizabethan] age’s cruel knife [the life] (e.g., Sonnet 94). Consider how the particular one sonnet sequence that is as headsman’s ax]” cut his “life” [head] off, actual events of March 1601—the impend- meaningless and opaque as can be—until even as the poet, picturing the same thing ing doom followed by the sudden moment one understands the context within they and “fortifying” himself through his writ- when he is reprieved—match these son- were written and what historical events ing, swears he shall never be cut from nets. In real time there had to have been are being referenced. memory because “he ... still green” [he the anguish leading up to the expected I am speaking here of Sonnets 63 to 67, shall live forever] in “these black lines” execution, followed by mixed feelings of a sequence which also covers several im- [my verse]. This is certainly not the la-de- depression (66) and resignation (67) to portant moments in my own evolution as da, lovey-dovey stuff that all too many the reprieve and the new reality of serving an Oxfordian. It was 25 years ago, while Shakespeare commentators (Stratfordians a life sentence. Sonnet 67 ends by remark- reading Sonnet 66 (having just finished and anti-Stratfordians) usually speak of. ing on “these last [days] so bad.” And what reading Ogburn’s 1962 Shakespeare: the This was real life and death anguish as it could have been so bad as what the Man Behind the Name), that I looked up must have really happened—as both two of them—poet and youth—had just and said, “Oh my God, they’re real!”— an Southampton and Shakespeare must have (Continued on page 14)

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 14 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004

Sonnets solved (continued from page 13) February 8, 1601, a point further rein- well-documented fact that the payment of lived through? What other known histori- forced by the poet’s bemoaning in the “ransom and fine” was routine for prison- cal context could even come close to mak- sonnet about “once [suffering] in your ers in this era as a means to mitigate their ing sense of the emotions expressed in this crime.” So, in keeping with the thesis that sentences or avoid imprisonment alto- sequence from Sonnets 63-67? everything in the middle sequence of 100 gether. Records show that the majority of sonnets is real and related to the Essex Essex Rebellion conspirators did in fact Sonnets as historical evidence Rebellion and its aftermath, what are we to pay “ransoms and fines.” Charles Danvers make of this final couplet? The answer, I even offered to pay £10,000 to escape his Next, I want to touch on the historical think, is obvious. The poet is saying to the death sentence, but was turned down! But implications of the Monument theory. youth that your crime has become a “fee” for Southampton there is no record of any Eighty years ago J. Thomas Looney pre- [price] that we both must pay—in the ransom or fine paid as part of the process dicted that, if he was right, future scholar- form of a ransom, a payment for release by which he was reprieved from his death ship would find new information that would from captivity. Such a deal could have sentence. No record, that is, until now, fit the Oxfordian hypothesis and none that only been negotiated with Robert Cecil and our new view of Sonnet 120 as histori- would displace it. In that same spirit I and approved by the Queen. cal evidence. believe that the five years spent since the It should be noted here that So then, what we have here could well publication of “Dynastic Diary” in the Whittemore’s current draft at that time be the literary ground zero of the entire Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter have did have the “payment-release” meaning Shakespeare authorship mystery. The mys- proven that point. The book Whittemore glossed, but for both of us there was a tery is the result of the ransom paid to save is now publishing has greatly enhanced sudden realization that the Sonnet 120 Southampton’s life—a ransom paid by the (for both of us) our appreciation of the couplet could well be, in itself, the whole poet Oxford/Shakespeare not in cash, basic correctness of his thesis, and along authorship mystery encapsulated in two but as a political deal. And a deal with that has come the realization that lines. The import of this for both Shake- being a deal, especially in England where something we once only suspected is, in speare and Shakespeare authorship stud- under the Official Secrets Act a secret is fact, absolutely true: the Sonnets are not ies cannot be overstated, because what we a secret forever, the mystery about who just poetry. They are the author’s message then realized was that the “price” [i.e. Shakespeare really was endures to this in a bottle to posterity—they are real, they “ransom,” “fee” ] that the poet must have day. are documentary evidence every bit as paid was not just to give up all title to his important and potent as any letters, any works, but in fact, to give up everything, “Such virtue hath my pen” diary, or anything to be found in the Cal- even his name and his place in history. endar of State Papers. In fact, in some in- This in turn would then explain the But Oxford/Shakespeare had no inten- stances the Sonnets provide historical in- certainty that is spoken of in Sonnets 72 tion of going quietly into that good night formation that exists nowhere else (e.g., (“My name be buried where my body is”) of oblivion. He still had his pen, and I am “misprision” in Sonnet 87). and 81 (“I, once gone, to all the world must sure that he spent his final days rewriting For another example, let’s take a look die”). This certainty about his anonymity and refining much, with a keen eye on his at Sonnet 120. Here, even after spending has always been a puzzle, even for Oxford- new situation. His top priority would cer- years immersed in this new point of view ians. Was it his choice, or someone else’s tainly have been writing and carefully plan- about the sonnets, and having talked with imposed upon him? But now, seen in this ning the sonnet sequence, but I think that Whittemore for hundreds if not thousands new context of a deal to save Southampton an accompanying plan would have been to of hours about them, it was only last —of a ransom paid—then everything sprinkle the plays with as many clues, final summer (2003) that I had yet another becomes clear. It was imposed. His cer- comments and parting shots as possible Oxfordian epiphany. It came while looking tainty is that of someone who has signed (surely he had always been given to name up the word “rascal” in the dictionary on a contract from which there can be no clues and puns, but now that the end was Hank’s back porch (another story for an- turning back. near and—if we are right—a deal con- other day), and on the opposite page my As we noted earlier, even orthodox signing him to oblivion was in place, then eyes noticed the word “ransom: payment scholar A.L. Rowse concluded that Cecil name clues and puns were all he had left). made for release from captivity.” I imme- alone saved Southampton’s life. But left Thus it may be, for example, that cer- diately thought of the couplet in Sonnet out by Rowse (and by Stopes and Akrigg) is tain scenes in As You Like It (e.g., railing 120, and then we both read the entire any reason why. Just because the kid was at the interloper William in V.i, or talking sonnet together. Remember, in this son- young, pretty and had long hair? Because with Jacques in III.iii) were either written net the poet recalls “our night of woe” and his wife and mother wrote such wonder- or carefully rewritten post-1601 to remind how he “once suffered in your crime.” He ful, pleading letters? Because Southamp- posterity that “When a man’s verse cannot concludes with the couplet: ton’s own letters to Cecil and the Privy be understood ... it strikes a man more Council were so damn good? No good dead than a great reckoning in a little But that your trespass now becomes a fee, reason for the sparing of Southampton room” (Marlowe references aside, might Mine ransoms yours, and yours must there have been an actual “little room” in ransom me. has ever been offered. But, outside of Shakespeare authorship circles, it has March 1601, with just a desperate Oxford Note that the all-important word “tres- never been seen as an important question and a smug Cecil in it?). Or perhaps he pass” recurs, referring undoubtedly to the even to ask—let alone to answer. inserted the incredibly inflammatory “Hast “treason” Southampton committed on It should also be noted here that it is a thou a daughter” and “Jephthah” ex-

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 15 changes with Polonius in Ham- correctly deciphered by John let (II.ii), implying that your Rollett—revealing the hidden daughter’s pregnancy is like message, “These sonnets all by maggots in a dead dog—lovely ever”). But what good are hidden thought, but had it ever really messages unless they are sent? been performed at court, in front Even with the political risks of Cecil and the Queen?). Or that had to have been involved in perhaps the ultra-bitter dark defying the “grand possessors,” I comedy Troilus and Cressida was have now come to think that finished, in which Polonius has Southampton must have been now morphed into Pandarus, behind the publication of both; it who has the final line in the play: was the “fee” he knew he had to “I’ll ... bequeath you my diseases” pay to release the poet and his (perhaps a parting shot at the verse from oblivion, the ransom Cecils—father and son—depict- that had to be paid in exchange for ing the father saying to poster- the ransom paid to save his life. ity, “Meet my son”)? The second and final appearance of “trespass” occurs in Sonnet 120, Further, if the theory about How he actually spent his fi- coupled with the provocative mentions of “fee” and “ransom.” there being a deal to save him is nal years is pure speculation, but correct, then his fulfillment of the I can’t help but think that Oxford—who “captive good attending captain ill [i.e., request to “ransom me” (cf. Hamlet to bragged in Sonnet 107 that “Death [now] Cecil]” (Sonnet 66), and would remain so Horatio: “tell my story”) would be more subscribed [to him]” because he would until “released.” He was a captive of his than just taking a risk—it would be actually live on in his verse—must have been busy fate, his anonymity. And a release from violating that deal. But duty called, just as putting his affairs and his verse in order— that captivity would only come if his verse it had once called Hamlet to release his to ensure just that. could someday be understood (Touch- father from purgatory. stone’s line in AYLI), which in turn could Whittemore notes in The Monument A theory in progress only come about if the author’s true iden- (citing Akrigg’s Shakespeare and the tity—and true story—became known. Earl of Southampton, p. 144-145) that in Finally, it is only in recent weeks as I the summer of 1609 King James, while prepared this essay that I had yet again Sending hidden messages visiting Southampton at Beaulieu, appar- another evolutionary moment in my think- ently panicked and guards were called out. ing on the Sonnets and the all important It was the publication of the 1609 quarto One of the first known instances of a James question: “Just how real are they?” Over that launched what we now know was a “panic” occurred on June 24, 1604—the these last five years Whittemore and I have carefully crafted message in a bottle to day of Oxford’s death—when Southampton had innumerable conversations about the posterity. Without the quarto, the entire and other Essex Rebellion survivors were implications of his theory and just what state of Shakespeare studies and biogra- arrested, held overnight, and then released the Sonnets are telling us if they are—as phy (including the authorship debate) the next day, with no official record contended—historical testimony. It has would be vastly different. We must re- as to why they were arrested in the first been an intriguing process of focusing on member that its publication was undoubt- place. These two “panics” provide uncanny key words and phrases and mulling on edly suppressed and there were no subse- parallels in considering to what extent possibilities. So what occurred to me in quent printings. There was not even any political danger may have surrounded these recent weeks is one more step on a contemporaneous discussion about them, the Southampton-Shakespeare-Oxford journey that it is hoped all Oxfordians will in an age obsessed with discussing who connections. soon take—to take the Sonnets as true, likes which poet and poetry. Only 13 cop- After 1609 there were no new Shake- historical testimony and to see where that ies survived, and without them all we’d speare publications for 14 years. And when leads. As Whittemore and I have already know of Shakespeare’s sonnets would be the First Folio was published in 1623, it found, analysis of the Sonnets from this the 1640 John Benson version, which in made no mention of any Shakespeare new perspective consistently comes up effect butchers the original and obliter- poetry, and certainly not the 1609 quarto with significant fits between the text and ates what we now know was the carefully of Shake-speares Sonnets. Troilus and the known history of the period (e.g., “tres- planned structure of the whole. Without Cressida only made it in at the last minute pass,” “fault,” “misprision” and “ransom”). the 1609 quarto there would be no such and is not listed in the table of contents. So, in this instance what occurred to thing as Shake-speares Sonnets as we The Folio is full of obfuscation about the me was a possible answer to what the know them. true author, where 14 years earlier both second half of that final line in sonnet 120 The quarto was published in spring 1609 publications cried out, “It was eVer.” (“...yours must ransom me.”) might be 1609 (registered on May 20th), almost It’s taken 400 years—perhaps longer about, for it does seem to say that simultaneously with the quarto of Troilus than anyone back then would have dared Southampton is expected to ransom Ox- & Cressida. Both works contain enigmatic guess—but we are now close. With the ford. For a while I wondered what captiv- introductions with “never” and “ever” in mystery of the Sonnets now solved, that ity was Oxford in that he needed to be play (the “Never Writer to an Ever Reader” ransom will soon be paid in full, and Ox- ransomed. And then it came to me: he was in T&C and the Sonnet dedication— ford shall at last be released.

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 16 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004

Year Life (cont’d from p. 1) upon and/or revised some an “invention” or spe- THE MONUMENT previous writings, but none- cial language (created theless fashioned and ar- in response to a repres- “The Little Love-God” ranged them to correspond sive regime that has / with Henry Wriothesley’s im- “tongue-tied” his art) 153-154 prisonment. From the night that acts to conceal yet (2 sonnets) of the Rebellion onward, set- reveal the true story be- ting down the most intense ing told. “Lord of My Love” “My Lovely Boy” outpouring of sustained po- • Love and Time: The / / etical confession the world key words of the inven- 1————26 27——————————126 127—————152 has known, he tried to make tion, which convey one (26 sonnets) (100 sonnets) (26 sonnets) sure future generations image on the surface would be able to compre- while simultaneously Figure 1 hend his role and how—by recording the progress of an entirely pathia or The Passionate Century of Love, paying “ransom” for the life, freedom and different topic, are “Love,” represent- which Thomas Watson dedicated to Ox- pardon of Southampton—he agreed to ing Henry Wriothesley, Earl of ford in 1582. bury his identity as Shakespeare. Southampton, and “Time,” represent- This extraordinary 100-verse core se- Beginning with Sonnet 27 on the night ing Elizabeth Tudor, Queen Elizabeth quence is itself divided into two parts: of February 8, 1601, Oxford wrote 60 son- I of England. nets (27-86) matching the first 60 days of • The Timeline: The chronological • The Prison Years: The first 80 Southampton’s incarceration, when the timeline of Southampton’s living sonnets (27-106) cover the two years younger earl faced trial for high treason, record is literally the ever-dwindling and two months that Southampton was sentenced to death, withstood a fearful organic Time left in the life and reign spent in the Tower of London, from the waiting period, learned that his life was of the Queen, leading to her death and night of February 8, 1601 to his last spared, and finally faced a future of per- the royal succession (the way time it- night of confinement on April 9, 1603. petual confinement in shame and disgrace self was measured in regnal years and • The Final Days: The final 20 verses so long as Elizabeth remained alive. (The other writers, including Oxford, re- (107-126) commence with the libera- 60 day-by-day sonnets recall the 60 con- ferred to “her Majesty’s time”), followed tion of Southampton by King James on secutively numbered verses of Tears of by the days leading to Elizabeth’s fu- April 10, 1603 (107), and continue— Fancy attributed to Watson in 1593, wherein neral that brought the Tudor dynasty to with exactly 20 sonnets for 20 days— No. 60 is a revised version of Oxford’s early its official conclusion. until the “envoy” of Sonnet 126 that Shakespearean sonnet “Love Thy Choice,” abruptly follows the Queen’s funeral written circa 1573 to express his loyalty to The opening Fair Youth series (1- on April 28, 1603. the Queen.) The remaining verses (87-106) 126)—in which “time” appears on 78 oc- cover the next two years of confinement casions (but nowhere in the final 28 Son- In terms of the monument as a whole, ending with Sonnet 106 on April 9, 1603, nets)—is divided into two distinct parts. the sequence of 100 chronological verses when Oxford sums up the long dark prison The first segment (1-26) spans the years begins to emerge when Sonnets 153-154 segment as “the Chronicle of wasted time.” 1590-1600 and comes to an abrupt end; about “The Little Love-God” are recog- This 80-sonnet prison section begins but the second segment (27-126), which is nized as the epilogue or prologue of the with the failed revolt and includes the two also the 100-verse sequence at the center of collection. The remaining 152 sonnets subsequent anniversaries, thereby cover- the monument, comprises the heart of contain the Fair Youth series (1-126) and ing the “three winters” noted in Sonnet Shake-Speares Sonnets. This is where the the Dark Lady series (127-152), with Son- 104: real action is. Here, in effect, is a book of net 126 to “My Lovely Boy” as the “envoy” 100 chapters beginning with Sonnet 27 on ending the first series. But the structure of 27 Essex Rebellion Feb 8, 1601 February 8, 1601 (in response to the monument also includes Sonnet 26 to 97 First Anniversary Feb 8, 1602 Southampton’s immediate imprisonment “Lord of My Love” as an envoy, so that 104 Second Anniversary Feb 8, 1603 for the Essex Rebellion), and continuing to Sonnets 26 and 126 bring discrete seg- Sonnet 125 upon the funeral of Elizabeth ments to their conclusions. The result is a Immediately following the prison seg- on April 28, 1603 (when the Tudor dynasty three-part design (Figure 1) that includes ment is Sonnet 107, known as the “dating” officially ended), with Sonnet 126 in fare- the 100-sonnet central sequence; and a verse because of its topical allusions. Here well. closer view (Figure 2) shows how these Oxford celebrates the liberation of his “true Precedents for a 100-sonnet sequence 100 verses are divided into two sections of love” after he had been “supposed as forfeit include the 100 poems scattered within 80 and 20 sonnets. to a confined doom” in the Tower. Now at the anonymous collection A Hundredth All 80 “prison” verses (more than half the peak of his artistic powers and matu- Sundry Flowres in 1573, with which Ox- the total of 154 sonnets!) are addressed to rity, 53-year-old Edward de Vere opens ford has been associated, and the 100 con- Southampton in the Tower for two years Sonnet 107 with a single, sweeping sen- secutively numbered verses of Hekatom- and two months. Oxford undoubtedly drew tence of four lines:

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 17

THE 100-SONNET CENTER Sonnets 27-126

Southampton’s Last Night Southampton’s Elizabeth’s Imprisonment In the Tower Liberation Funeral Feb. 8, 1601 Apr. 9, 1603 Apr. 10, 1603 Apr. 28, 1603 / / / / 27—————————————————————106 107——————————————125-126 (80 sonnets) (20 sonnets) Figure 2 Not mine own fears nor the prophetic soul ment to preserve Southampton within that his love “looks fresh,” comments Of the wide world dreaming on things to this monument of verse. Recalling the further: come late Queen as a “tyrant” who had kept the Can yet the lease of my true love control, young earl as a prisoner, he alludes to In the light of the secondary sense of Supposed as forfeit to a confined doom. plans for Elizabeth’s body to be laid tem- My love looks fresh, it is remarkable that porarily near the great brass tomb in one of the first acts of the newly-crowned Southampton has gained his liberty King was to release the Earl of Southampton Westminster Abbey of her grandfather Henry because of the recent death of Elizabeth, – often thought the addressee of Sonnets VII, who founded the Tudor dynasty in 1485: known as Cynthia or Diana, goddess of the 1-126 – from the prison in which he had Moon, whose mortal body has succumbed languished ever since his participation in And thou in this shalt find thy monument, the ill-fated Essex rebellion of 1601. If although her eternal self, as a divinely When tyrants’ crests and tombs of brass Wriothesley was indeed, to some emo- ordained monarch, will endure. The are spent. tional extent, the you and thou and love of Queen’s death on March 24, 1603, has led Sonnets 1-126, both he and the poet’s to the swift proclamation that James of All events recorded in the 100-sonnet affection for him would have been refreshed Scotland will be crowned King of England sequence lead up to, and then away from, and renewed by the events of 1603 … On the basis of allusions, in short, 1603 seems amid domestic peace rather than the civil the high point of Southampton’s libera- war around succession to the throne that the obvious date—with all which that tion on April 10, 1603. implies for the dating of the sequence.3 had been so widely predicted and feared: In 1866 Gerald Massey offered the first persuasive identification of Southampton Editor G. Blakemore Evans writes in The mortal Moon hath her eclipse as the poet’s “true love” of Sonnet 107: endured, 1996 that “the majority of recent critics And the sad Augurs mock their own strongly favors 1603 as the most likely presage, We may rest assured that Shakespeare date,” adding: “Indeed, the case for 1603 Incertainties now crown themselves was one of the first to greet his ‘dear boy’ over whose errors he had grieved, and (or a little later) is so brilliantly presented assured, by Kerrigan that one is dangerously And peace proclaims Olives of endless age. upon whose imprudent unselfishness he had looked with tears, half of sorrow, and tempted to cry ‘Q. E. D.’”4 half of pride. He had loved him as a father Kerrigan’s final words are emphasized But the most rewarding result is that, loves a son … and he now welcomed him to show how close he comes to perceiving on orders sent by James five days earlier from the gloom of a prison on his way to a the chronological framework revealed by from Edinburgh to London, 29-year-old 1 palace and the smile of a monarch. the structure and language of the monu- Southampton has walked back through ment. One thing this view of 107 “implies Traitor’s Gate into the sunshine of restored Most scholars continue to agree with for the dating of the sequence [i.e., the Fair freedom and honor. the dating in relation to Elizabeth’s death Youth series of 1-126]” is that the diary “My love looks fresh,” Oxford declares and the accession of James in the spring of must extend at least to April 10, 1603; but of Henry Wriothesley, while claiming his 1603. G. P. V. Akrigg recalls in 1968 how a far more crucial implication, once these own triumph over death through this pri- H. C. Beeching proclaimed 107 the only sonnets are viewed as chapters of a cohe- vate diary: verse “that can be dated with absolute sive narrative story, is that all the preced- certainty” and declared it must belong to ing 80 verses have been recording events 1603. Akrigg recounts his own experience Now with the drops of his most balmy time during Southampton’s incarceration and My love looks fresh, and death to me of coming to the “sudden complete convic- leading up to this dramatic high point subscribes, tion” that it refers to spring 1603 “almost when he gains his freedom from the Tower. Since spite of him I’ll live in this poor as if it had the date visibly branded on it,” Another implication is that, just as only rhyme, adding: “This is what Shakespeare had to Henry Wriothesley can be the Fair Youth of While he insults o’er dull and speechless say to Southampton upon his release from the Sonnets, the powerful, deceitful, tyran- tribes. imprisonment.”2 nical Dark Lady who held him captive More recently editor John Kerrigan in during 1601-1603 can only be Oxford’s Finally Oxford reaffirms his commit- 1986, noting the poet’s joyous statement (Continued on page 18) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 18 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004

Year in the Life (continued from page 17) Southampton hope to persuade the aging Southampton, who appears in “my soul’s and Southampton’s sovereign Mistress, Elizabeth to do: imaginary sight” as a “shadow” trans- Queen Elizabeth I of England. In addi- formed into “a jewel (hung in ghastly tion, as no other writers in England were With mine own tears I wash away my balm, night)” that “makes black night beauteous, seeking or competing publicly for With mine own hands I give away my and her old face new.” Southampton’s attention during his im- crown, So begins the 100-sonnet sequence, prisonment, the so-called Rival Poet of With mine own tongue deny my sacred state, the first 60 verses corresponding with the the Sonnets can only be the printed name With mine own breath release all duteous first 60 days and nights of Southampton’s “Shakespeare” with which Henry Wriothes- oaths.7 imprisonment, as Oxford indicates this ley was uniquely associated. pace in 28 by recording that “day doth This column narrows the focus to key It appears informers for Cecil helped daily draw my sorrows longer” and “night events of 1601 within just the first 20 get Richard II performed on this day, to doth nightly make grief’s length seem stron- entries (27-46) during Southampton’s cap- trigger the revolt prematurely.8 Now the ger.” Identifying with the younger earl’s tivity, with the diary of the Fair Youth series Secretary sends an emissary ordering Essex plight, he records in 29 that he himself is (Figure 3,) contributing to the evidence: to face the Council at Court, sending him “in disgrace with Fortune [the Queen] and January 9: Southampton Attacked into confusion even as he refuses. During men’s eyes” in the same way Southampton Lord Gray, supporting Secretary Rob- dinner with Southampton and others, the is suffering in the Tower. ert Cecil, attacks Southampton in the street. earl expresses confidence that the Sheriff February 11: Summons to the Sessions The earl draws his sword in combat, but his of London will supply a 1000 men in sup- Oxford records in 30 that the Privy houseboy has a hand lopped off. port, but this appears to be disinformation Council will summon him to the Sessions February 2: Southampton Leads planted by a Cecil agent.9 or treason trial of Essex and Southampton, A committee at Drury House headed February 8: The Rebellion to sit as highest-ranking earl on the tribu- by Southampton plans a palace coup to The revolt begins after the Crown sends nal of peers who will judge them: remove Cecil from power and gain access officials to Essex House and the conspira- to Elizabeth. tors hold them captive, already an offense When to the Sessions of sweet silent February 3: Southampton Demands against the state. Essex sets off in panic to thought When others question the plans to seize find the Sheriff along with Southampton I summon up remembrance of things the Court at Whitehall, Southampton and 300 men, insufficiently armed, who past… shouts back: “Then we shall resolve upon follow him through the streets as he cries: (“Summon a session,” King Leontes com- nothing, and it is now three months or “For the Queen! For the Queen! A plot is mands in The Winter’s Tale, 2.3.200, call- more since we first undertook this!”5 laid for my life!” Confused citizens stay ing for a treason trial, and referring to it February 6: Shakespeare’s Company behind windows and doors; none of the in 3.2.1 as a “sessions”) Conspirators bribe the Lord Sheriff’s support emerges; and well-pre- Chamberlain’s Men into staging Richard pared agents under Cecil’s orders already Southampton, facing death, is “pre- II, to rouse support by showing how King enter the city gates proclaiming Essex and cious friends hid in death’s dateless night” Richard handed over his crown in 1399 to his cohorts as traitors. and in 31 he becomes “the grave where Bolingbroke, who became Henry IV of With all routes to the Palace blocked, buried love doth live.” The first words of England. Essex and Southampton intend and after fighting with bloodshed, Essex the next verse to him (“If thou survive”) to remove Cecil and gain access to Eliza- returns home to find the Crown prisoners indicate his expected execution while 33 beth, now in her 68th year. have been released. Government officials refers to the “stain” he has brought upon February 7: Richard II Performed surround the house and demand surren- himself. Shakespeare’s acting company stages der. Oxford records his personal sorrow in the play at the Globe as followers of Essex “To whom should we yield?” 34, writing of Southampton as the sun that and Southampton cheer the scenes of an Southampton retorts. “Our adversaries? dries the “rain” (tears) on “my storm-beaten English monarch losing his crown. Oxford That would be to run upon our ruin! Or to face” but “cures not the disgrace” of the may have added the powerful deposition the Queen? That would be to confess our- crime, for which he, Oxford, will pay by scene (not printed until 1608) to help their selves guilty! But yet if the Lord Admiral sacrificing himself (i.e., his identity) in the cause, as Massey in 1866 suggested that “at will give us hostages for our security, we spirit of Christ paying with his life for the the pressing solicitations of Southampton, will appear before the Queen! If not, we are sins of mankind: the drama of King Richard II was altered by every one of us fully resolved to lose our Shakespeare on purpose to be played sedi- lives fighting!” Nor can thy shame give physic to my tiously, with the deposition scene newly At ten this evening Essex and grief; added!” The evidence, he argued, is that “if Southampton fall on their knees and de- Though thou repent, yet I have still the Shakespeare was not hand-in-glove with liver up their swords. They are taken first loss, Th’offender’s sorrow lends but weak the Essex faction, he fought on their side to Lambeth and then carried by boat to the relief 6 pen-in-hand.” In the new scene Richard Tower after midnight; and Oxford records To him that bears the strong offence’s gives up the throne with Bolingbroke in in Sonnet 27 that, in the darkness, his loss.10 his presence, which is what Essex and thoughts “intend a zealous pilgrimage” to (Southampton writes to the Privy Council

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 19

soon after the trial as “a THE FAIR YOUTH SERIES and to subvert the govern- poor condemned man who ment.16 Oxford in 36 an- doth, with a lowly and nounces terms of the “ran- penitent heart, confess his Golden Time Sonnets 1-26 26 Sonnets som” he will pay to save faults and acknowledge his Sonnet 1 Marriage Proposal Begins 1590 Southampton from execu- offences to her Majesty.” Sonnet 25 Irish Military Campaign 1599 He refers to his “sins” as an tion: Sonnet 26 ENVOY to Southampton 1600 “offender” and adds that his soul is “heavy and troubled I may not ever-more acknow - for my offences.”)11 The 100-sonnet sequence ledge thee, Lest my bewailed guilt should Oxford follows with the Prison Years Sonnets 27 – 106 80 Sonnets do thee shame particular information that Sonnet 27 Rebellion & Prison Feb 8, 1601 a “rich” price or fine will be Sonnet 105 Death of Elizabeth I Mar 24, 1603 Because he has linked paid to “ransom” the younger Sonnet 106 Last Night in the Tower April 9, 1603 Henry Wriothesley (and him earl for his “ill deeds” against alone) to “Shakespeare” by the state: Final Days Sonnets 107 – 126 20 Sonnets the public dedications of Sonnet 107 Southampton’s Liberation April 10, 1603 Venus and Adonis in 1593 Ah, but those tears are Sonnet 125 Funeral of Elizabeth I April 28, 1603 and Lucrece in 1594, he must pearl which thy love Sonnet 126 ENVOY to Southampton April 29, 1603 sever all ties to him and never sheeds, claim credit for works at- And they are rich, and Figure 3 tributed to Shakespeare. On ransom all ill deeds. refers to his “sins”; and before submitting the eve of the trial, Oxford likens himself (John Chamberlain will write in May: to the axe at his execution, Essex will call “There is a commission to certain of the in 37 to a “decrepit father” looking upon Council to ransom and fine the Lords and the Rebellion “this my last sinsin, this great, “his active child” and tells Southampton, Gentlemen that were in the action” of the this bloody, this crying, this infectious using his own lameness as metaphor: 14 Rebellion.) 12 sinsin…”) So I, made lame by Fortune’s Oxford accuses himself in 35 of “autho- Oxford goes on to record that behind [Elizabeth’s] dearest spite, rizing” Southampton’s “trespass” or trea- the scenes he is counterbalancing the Take all my comfort of thy worth and son by “compare” or by dramatizing the younger earl’s “sensual fault” or willful, truth. deposition of Richard II: riotous crime with “sense” or lawful rea- son. First he must do his duty to the state February 19: The Trial All men make faults, and even I, in this, as an “adverse party” or judge at the trial, Oxford sits silently on the tribunal as Authorizing thy trespass with compare, which will mean finding him guilty and Attorney General Edward Coke prosecutes Myself corrupting, salving thy amiss, condemning him to death; but he is also his for the Crown with vicious help from Excusing these sins more than these “advocate” or legal defender entering a Francis Bacon, during a daylong travesty sins are. “lawful plea” or argument (to Cecil) on of justice the outcome of which has been (In his letter to the Council noted above, Southampton’s behalf and against him- preordained. Southampton refers to his “faults”; when self: When J. Thomas Looney presented his James orders him released in April 1603, evidence in 1920 that Oxford wrote the the king notes that “the late Queen our Sister, notwithstanding his fault toward For to thy sensual fault I bring in sense, Shakespeare poems and plays, this his- her, was moved to exempt [him] from the Thy adverse party is thy Advocate, toric event took on huge significance: And ‘gainst myself a lawful plea stroke of Justice.” The plays of royal his- commence tory are filled with “fault” for treason: It is clear, from the point of view of the (William Cecil Lord Burghley had equated “Their faults are open,” the King declares problem of Shakespearean authorship, that “sensual” with “willful” in writing of Catho- of traitors in Henry V, 2.2.142, adding: the famous trial of the Earl of Essex as- lic traitors: “I favor no sensual and willful “Arrest them to the answer of the law.” sumes quite a thrilling interest. Standing Recusants.” The second line above is (Trespass and treason are equated, as in: before the judges was the only living per- glossed as “Your legal opponent is also sonality that ‘Shakespeare’ has openly con- “And by his treason stand’st not thou your legal defender” by Duncan-Jones. “I nected with the issue of his works, and attainted, corrupted, and exempt from never did incense his Majesty against the towards whom he has publicly expressed gentry? His trespass yet lives guilty in his Duke of Clarence, but have been an ear- affection: Henry Wriothesley. The most blood” – 1 Henry VI, 2.4.92-94; the Oxford nest advocate to plead for him” – Richard powerful force at working in seeking to English Dictionary for “trespass” cites III, 1.3.85-87) 15 bring about the destruction of the accused “offence, sin, wrong, a fault.” The Tudors was the possessor of the greatest intellect including Elizabeth had expanded trea- February 17: Indictments that has appeared in English philosophy: son to cover “rebellion of all types,” Bellamy one to whom in modern times has actually writes in The Tudor Law of Treason, so Indictments are produced accusing been attributed the authorship of that even “assemblies of a riotous nature Essex of attempting to usurp the Crown Shakespeare’s plays – Francis Bacon. And became synonymous with treason.” 13 and charging him and Southampton with sitting on the benches amongst the judges (Southampton in his letter to the Council conspiring to depose and slay the Queen (Continued on page 20)

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 20 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004

Year in the Life (continued from page 19) Henry Wriothesley’s confinement in “All days are nights to see till I see was none other, we believe, than the real the Tower also explains the prolonged thee,” he writes in 43, again reflecting ‘Shakespeare’ himself, intent on saving, if “absence” of Oxford and Southampton the daily pace of his diary (and the daily from each other: possible, one of the very men whom Bacon nature of Southampton’s prison life), was seeking to destroy.17 Things Removed (31), O Absence (39), “and nights bright days when dreams do When I Am Sometime Absent From Thy show thee me.” For students of Oxford ever since, how- Heart (41), Where Thou Art (41), Injuri- February 25: Execution of Essex ever, the 80-sonnet “prison sequence” has ous Distance (44), Where Thou Dost Stay Essex is beheaded and Oxford writes to remained in a limbo of obscurity, mainly (44), Removed From Thee (44), Present- Absent (45), Where Thou Art (51), The Southampton in 44 of their “heavy tears, because the “three winters” of Sonnet 104 badges of either’s woe.” If he could do so, have seemed to suggest a three-year rela- Bitterness of Absence (57), Where You May Be (57), Where You Are (57), he would fly with his thoughts to “the tionship between Oxford and Southampton Th’imprisoned Absence of Your Liberty place” where Southampton is confined: beginning just before or after Venus and (58), Where You List (58), Thou Dost Adonis in 1593. Once this huge block of Wake Elsewhere (61), All Away (75), Be As soon as think the place where he would verses is positioned within Southampton’s Absent From Thy Walks ( 89), How Like a be confinement during 1601-1603, however, Winter Hath My Absence Been From Thee a window is opened and any previous per- (97), This Time Removed (97), And Thou And although his reference to “the ception of the poet and his subject matter Away (97), You Away (98)…) place” might appear to be a casual one, in is transformed. In terms of the authorship fact he uses a term commonly employed to Oxford is forced to find Southampton question, acceptance of this chronology of signify the Tower: guilty and condemn him to death. React- the Sonnets is equivalent to placing the ing to the “pain” of the trial in 38, he refers “You both shall be led from hence to the poet as directly involved in the trial and the to “these curious [anxious] days” being place from whence you came”— the Lord confirming Oxford as Shakespeare. recorded: High Steward to Essex and Southampton Now the historical record illuminates at trial’s end; “The safety of the place the sonnets while the sonnets illuminate If my slight Muse do please these under my charge”—John Peyton, Lieu- the same history. The events on the calen- curious days, tenant of the Tower; “Because the place is dar and the “numbers” of the sonnets need The pain be mine, but thine shall be the unwholesome”—King James, ordering no rearrangement; when these two fixed praise. Southampton’s release; “I do not like the entities are brought into alignment, they Tower, of any placeplace” – Richard III, 3.1.68 combine to produce the story of what hap- The sacrifice of his link to pened as Elizabeth’s life and reign dragged Southampton proceeds in 39 with instruc- Meanwhile Oxford notes in 45 that to their bitter end with Southampton a tions to “let us divided live.” By his crime messengers are riding back and forth prisoner referred to as the commoner “Mr. the younger earl has stolen himself from between the Tower and his home [in Hack- Henry Wriothesley” and in legal terms as both England and Oxford, who tells him in ney] to bring news of Southampton’s health “the late earl.” Here is the explanation for 40: “I do forgive thy robbery, gentle thief.” battles, which, according to the Council, 20 the terrible wave of emotional darkness He warns him in 41 that “still temptation “he hath had before his trouble”: follows where thou art” [in the Tower] and abruptly descending upon the verses at By those swift messengers returned Sonnet 27 and continuing all the way to the to avoid those who would “lead thee in their riot even there” by urging new revolt. from thee triumph of Sonnet 107. Who even but now come back again Here, too, is the reason for the torrent (Bellamy notes how Attorney General assured of legal terms relating to crime, treason, Coke’s success “in getting various popular Of thy fair health, recounting it to me. disgrace, trials, imprisonment, royal par- riots and assemblies classified as treason (“Whereas we do understand that the Earl brought the Tudor era to a close with the don and much more. An alphabetical of Southampton, by reason of the con- establishment of a markedly royal inter- tinuance of his quartern ague, hath a sampling would include: pretation of the scope of treason”).18 swelling in his leggs and other parts” – the Absence of Your Liberty, Accessory, Ac- Oxford reminds him in 42 that for now Privy Council to John Peyton, Lieutenant 21 cusing, Action, Adverse Party, Advocate, he is stuck with Elizabeth as his sovereign of the Tower, March 22, 1601) Arrest, Attaint, [convict], Attainted, Bail, Bars, Blame, Confess, Confine, Commits, and that he himself had “loved her dearly” In Sonnet 46 Oxford pulls out all stops Crime, Defendant, Defense, Excuse, False or served her with devotion, but now his to convey the nature of this private diary as [false-traitor], Fault [crime], Faults, Gate, “chief wailing” or sorrow is that she has a document of contemporary political his- Gates of Steel, Guard, Guilt, Empanelled Southampton in her prison fortress: tory. He recreates the trial itself, writing [a jury at a court], Imprisoned, Judgment, how his heart “doth plead” while “the de- Key, Lawful Plea, Lawful Reasons, Laws, That she hath thee is of my wailing Locked Up, Misprision [of treason], Of- fendant doth that plea deny,” but a “quest” chief, fence, Offender, Pardon, Plea, Plea Deny, or jury will be “impaneled” in a courtroom Plead, Prove, Purposed Overthrow, Quest A loss in love that touches me more nearly. [actually in a private room of the Palace] [jury], Ransom, Releasing, Repent, Revolt, and “by their verdict” the outcome will be Sessions [trial], Summon [to trial], Sus- (“Wailing Chief” echoes “the common pect [suspect-traitor], Term of Life, Tres- term ‘chief mourner,’ the nearest relative “determined.” As we shall see in our next pass [treason], Up-Locked, Verdict, Wards present at a funeral”—Booth; i.e., antici- column, he will promise Southampton in [guards]… pating Southampton’s execution.)19 49 to literally “guard the lawful reasons Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 21 on thy part”; he will pledge in 57 to “watch 2 Akrigg, G. P. V., Shakespeare and the Earl of 11 Stopes, Charlotte Carmichael, The Life of the clock for you”; and, in 58, suffering Southampton (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Henry, Third Earl of Southampton (New through this “imprisoned absence of your University Press, 1968), 255. York: AMS Press, 1969, reprinting the 1922 3 Kerrigan, John, The Sonnets and A Lover’s edition), 225; Salisbury Papers, Vol. XI, p. liberty,” he will assure Henry Wriothesley Complaint (London: Penguin, 1986; reprinted 72. that, by agreeing with the ransom to be in Penguin Classics, 1999), 317 (emphasis 12 Stopes, 233; (D. S. S. P., CCLXXIX, 91). paid for his life, “to you it doth belong added). 13 Bellamy, John, The Tudor Law of Treason yourself to pardon of self-doing crime.” 4 Evans, G. Blakemore, The Sonnets (New York: (Great Britain: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., Oxford is working with his brother-in-law Cambridge University Press, 1996-98), 216- 1979), 81. Robert Cecil, who now has all power over 17. 14 Akrigg, op. cit., 127. 5 15 the government, to produce a “better judg- Camden, William, Annales of Elizabeth R The O. E. D. cites Burghley’s “sensual and (hypertext edition by Dana F. Sutton, Uni- willful Recusants” from 1584; Duncan- ment” in the form of “misprision” of trea- versity of California Irvine, http://e3.uci.edu/ Jones, Katherine, editor, Shakespeare’s Son- son, whereby once James is crowned `papyri/camden/; “Anno Domini 1601,” 5. nets (England: Thomas Nelson, 1997; Arden Southampton will gain his release from 6 Massey, op. cit., 107; and in The Secret Drama edition), Sonnet 35, p. 180. the Tower along with a royal pardon for his of Shakespeare’s Sonnets Unfolded, 1872, 16 Also indicted on the same charges are Rutland crimes. The announcement that his “great the new Supplement to the 1866 edition, p. and Sandys; see Akrigg, op. cit., 120. 51. 17 Looney, John Thomas, “Shakespeare” Iden- gift” of life will grow anew is to be made in 7 Sonnet 87: The first quarto of Richard II was registered in tified in Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of 1597. The deposition scene (IV.1.154-318) Oxford (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat was printed first in the fourth quarto in 1608. Press, 1975, for Minos Publishing Co., So thy great gift upon misprision Most editors use the scene as it appears in Jennings, LA), 332. growing, the Folio of 1623. 18 Bellamy, op. cit., 48 (emphasis added). Comes home again, on better judg- 8 The culprit appears to have been Lord 19 Booth, Stephen, Shakespeare’s Sonnets (New ment making. Monteagle, who arranged for the Richard II Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 202. performance but was never put on trial; 20 Stopes, op. cit., 245. This column will continue the story in Massey, Supplement, op. cit., 51. 21 Stopes, op. cit., 224. upcoming editions of Shakespeare Mat- 9 The agent may have been Sir Henry Neville. 22 Rollins, Hyder Edward, A New Variorum Edi- ters while further describing elements of See Camden, Annales, op. cit., 17, recount- tion of Shakespeare: The Sonnets, (Philadel- ing that Neville was “shunning the name of phia & London: J. B. Lippincott, 1944), 53, the solution to the Sonnets as set forth in an Informer” while among the conspirators with my emphasis added to “when.” The Monument. Meanwhile we are re- at Drury House. 23 Greenwood, Sir George, The Shakespeare minded of a prediction by Hyder Rollins in 10 In Sonnet 34 the second “loss” is usually Problem Restated, 1908, pp. 83 & 36. 1944: emended to “cross.”

The question when the sonnets were written is in many respects the most im- Special Offer portant of all the unanswerable questions they pose. If it could be answered definitely and finally, there might be some chance of The Monument: Shake-speares Sonnets establishing to general satisfaction the iden- th tity of the friend, the dark woman and the By Edward de Vere, 17 Earl of Oxford rival poet (supposing that all were real individuals); of deciding what contempo- Now, for the first time in the nearly four a mainstream publisher. Order this limited rary sources Shakespeare did or did not centuries since 1609, here is a coherent and first edition now for $75.00 through the Shake- use; and even of determining whether the comprehensive solution to the longstanding speare Fellowship and you will receive a free order of Q is the author’s or not. In the past enigma of Shake-speares Sonnets. Hank monthly Appendix via email attachment and at the present, such a solution has Whittemore’s The Monument is the result of throughout 2005. The appendix will include been and remains an idle dream.22 a life-time’s thinking about Shakespeare and material that cannot be fit into the 900-page the Sonnets, informed over the last 18 years by first edition, plus provide updated reports on knowing that Edward de Vere was the true the response from Shakespeareans of all stripes We also recall Sir George Greenwood’s author. This 900-page book provides summa- to the “Monument Theory” of the form and the declaration of 1908: “The real problem of ries and “translations” of each verse along with content of the sonnets. the Sonnets is to find out who ‘Shake- detailed notes for every line in every sonnet, and Your check for $75.00 will cover the cost of Speare’ was. That done, it might be pos- reveals a story that has been hiding in plain production as well as shipping and handling of sible to make the crooked straight and the sight all this time—the true story of the Poet volumes beginning in October 2004 and con- rough places plane – but not till then.” And Shakespeare, the Fair Youth Southampton tinuing through Spring 2005. First edition to this we add his further comment that, by and the tumultuous events that shaped both purchasers will be given special consideration the same token, “If we could only know their lives as the Elizabthean age came to an in making pre-publication, discounted orders who wrote the Sonnets we should know the end. In short, the 154 consecutively numbered of the 2005 edition. 23 sonnets are a personal diary written within a Send your check or money order (made true Shakespeare.” chronological and historical context of real out to the Shakespeare Fellowship) to PO Box Endnotes: events occurring in real time. 561, Belmont MA 02478, or order online by The Monument will be published in a lim- credit card using The Shakesepare Fellowship’s 1 Massey, Gerald, Shakespeare’s Sonnets Never ited first edition in October 2004, in anticipa- Shopping Cart: http://shakespearefellow Before Interpreted (London, 1866), 79. tion of publication in Summer 2005 through ship.goemerchant7.com Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 22 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004 Leicester’s Commonwealth: Portrait of a serial killer? By C. V. Berney Who was Leicester? Oxfordians know him chiefly as the made by an anonymous Catholic writer.” model for Claudius in Hamlet. He was born Robert Dudley in 1532 The authorship of Leicester’s Commonwealth has been a or 1533 (if the latter, he was the same age as Elizabeth). His subject for speculation since it was first published. Contemporary grandfather, Edmund Dudley, was beheaded by Henry VIII for opinion was that it was by the Jesuit priest Father Parsons. The “constructive treason.” His father, John Dudley, Duke of editor of the modern edition of the book, Dwight Peck, suggests Northumberland, was beheaded in 1553 for his attempt to make that it “was written chiefly by Charles Arundell, probably with the Lady Jane Grey queen rather than Mary Tudor (Lady Jane was assistance of all or some of the group comprising Lord Paget, married to his son Guilford). Robert Dudley, for his part in this Thomas Fitzherbert, William Tresham, Thomas Throgmorton, conspiracy, was committed to the Tower in July 1553. He was and possibly still others . . .”4 arraigned, attainted and sentenced to death in January 1554, but Knowledge is power, and our knowledge of the details of was released and pardoned in October of that year. He and his Oxford’s life gives us the godlike power to leap over centuries of brothers served with distinction at the battle of St. Quentin in puzzlement in a single bound. Historians have praised the skill of Picardy in 1557; perhaps as a reward for that service he was the author: restored in blood. Some sources say Dudley first met the Princess Elizabeth when It was in fact such a masterpiece of character assassination, and so he was 16, during the reign of young King Edward. He married brilliantly written, that many people were convinced of its veracity.5 Amy Robsart, the daughter of a provincial knight, in 1550. Artistically . . . it constitutes something of a minor masterpiece. Its Elizabeth’s confinement in the Tower (March-May 1554) over- language is often vigorous and engaging, in places . . . with . . . a lapped with Dudley’s, and there is a tradition that he sent her delightful quality of outrageous humor. . . . it is not too much to say flowers during this time. At any rate, Elizabeth was strongly that the participants here take on something of the personalities attracted to Dudley, and one of her first acts after her coronation expected of characters from the stage.6 was to make him her Master of Horse. The two spent much time together, and the rumor was that Dudley wanted to marry Eliza- A French edition, described by Peck as “an extremely close and beth, thus fulfilling the family dream of putting a Dudley on the accurate translation,” came out in 1585. Peck considers the author throne. An obstacle to this union was, of course, the existence of of the French edition to be the same as that of the original English his wife Amy. She was found at the base of a stairway with her neck edition of the previous year. This author “mentions further trans- broken in September 1560. The Court and the diplomatic world lations into Latin and Italian shortly to appear (but which, so far were scandalized; on hearing the news, Mary Stuart was reported as is known, never did) . . .”7 to have laughed shrilly and to have exclaimed “The Queen of I’m not going to tell you who the author of the Commonwealth England is going to marry her Horsekeeper, who has killed his wife was, but if you can think of an Elizabethan courtier capable of to make room for her!” A jury declared the death an accident, but writing masterpieces in English, who was also fluent in French, the scandal effectively prevented any marriage between Elizabeth Latin and Italian, and whose characters come to life on the stage, and Dudley. you may be on to something. Elizabeth created Dudley Earl of Leicester on 29 September 1564, and tickled his neck during the ceremony. Was Leicester a serial killer? The FBI defines a serial killer as someone who kills at least three people over an extended period What was Leicester’s Commonwealth? It was a book pur- of time. As we mentioned, the Commonwealth attributes at least porting to be a record of a conversation between a Lawyer, a eight deaths to Leicester: Gentleman, and a Scholar that made scandalous accusations against the Earl of Leicester. Among other things, it accused him Amy Robsart (1560) of being responsible for the deaths (usually by poisoning) of at Lord John Sheffield (1568) least eight persons. It was printed in France in 1584 and distrib- Cardinal Châtillon (1571) Sir Nicholas Throckmorton (1571) uted surreptitiously in England. Although banned by the govern- Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex (1576) ment, it was widely read. It set the tone for the view of Leicester Alice Draycot (1576) taken by early historians such as Camden and Naunton, but Lady Lennox (1578) modern historians tend to give Leicester a pass, rarely if ever Thomas Radcliffe, Earl of Sussex (1583) concluding that he killed anyone. The book itself is customarily described as “this outrageous document,”1 “the scurrilous libel,”2 [Some people would add Edward VI (1547) and John de Vere, or an “infamous tract.”3 The latter characterization is by Alison 16th Earl of Oxford (1562) to this list, but they are not mentioned Weir, who goes on to describe it as “a virulent attack on Dudley in the Commonwealth.] Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 23

fruit of their contentment” and told the unhappy woman “that he had endeavored by one expedient already, which had failed . . .” to dispose of Sheffield. But, he said, he would try once more, and “doubted not would hit more sure.”9

According to some accounts, Douglass dropped this letter and it was found by Sheffield’s sister, who warned him about the conspiracy. He immediately set out for London to apply to Parlia- ment for a divorce. He died 10 December 1568, at the age of 30. In May 1573 Leicester married Douglass in a secret ceremony at Esher, which he later repudiated as having no legal force. Three months later, Douglass gave birth to a son, who was given the name Robert Dudley. By July 1575 Leicester had grown tired of Douglass, and was actively courting Lettice Knollys, who was then married to the Earl of Essex, Walter Devereux. Alison Weir recounts the events described above, and then (referring to the alleged poisoning of Sheffield) writes

No other evidence corroborates this tale, and as Leicester was invariably accused by his enemies of poisoning those about him, even such a friend as Throckmorton, little credence can be given to it.10

I’m having a little difficulty understanding her logic here. Perhaps it would help if I restated it as a formal PROPOSITION.

PROPOSITION: Because Leicester was invariably accused by his enemies of poisoning those about him, he is innocent of the death of Sheffield. Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester Since the opposite of “enemies” is “friends” and the opposite of “innocent” is “guilty,” we are immediately able to deduce: In some ways, the most interesting case on this list is the first one, Amy Robsart, Dudley’s first wife, who was found dead with a COROLLARY 1: If Leicester were invariably accused by his friends broken neck at the base of a stairway. I will not discuss it in detail, of poisoning those about him, he would be guilty of the death of but will refer you to Alison Weir, who devotes 20 pages to it.8 Weir’s Sheffield. thesis, which both Sarah Smith and I find persuasive, is that Amy’s death was arranged by William Cecil as a preemptive strike to But this is an absurdity: friends don’t accuse friends of poisonings. prevent Dudley from marrying Elizabeth. The manner of death is Any person who does so is automatically an enemy. Let’s try again. significant here—the broken neck immediately suggests foul play, whereas if she had been poisoned, a death from natural causes COROLLARY 2: If Leicester were never accused by his enemies of could have been claimed. As it was, a jury returned a verdict of poisoning those about him, he would be guilty of the death of “death by mischance,” clearing Dudley, and we too will give him Sheffield. a pass. Our program now will be to examine the three cases about This result seems counterintuitive, to say the least, seeming to which the most is known and see if we can reasonably determine require an unusual degree of incompetence (or politeness) on the Leicester to be guilty. If we do so in all three cases, we can conclude, part of Leicester’s enemies. Weir presumably believes that if using the FBI criterion, that he was in fact a serial killer. Leicester’s enemies claim that he poisons 75% of the time, then he is 25% likely to have murdered Sheffield, and if they claim he Case 1: Lord John Sheffield. In 1562 John Sheffield, 2nd poisons 25% of the time, his guilt in the Sheffield case is 75% Baron of Butterwick, married the beautiful Douglass Howard (her assured. If you’re ever on trial for murder, try to pack the jury with father was William, Lord Howard of Effingham). In 1565 she met as many modern historians as you can get. Dudley (now Leicester) during a visit to Belvoir Castle. A contem- porary account relates that Leicester, “being much taken with her Case 2: Sir Nicholas Throckmorton. Leicester’s Common- perfection, paid court to her and used all the art (of which he was wealth gives what sounds like an eyewitness account of master enough) to debauch her.” A modern historian writes Throckmorton’s death.

By the time the visit to Belvoir had ended, Douglass was much in . . . wherefore understanding that these two knights [Cecil Leicester’s thrall and fearful her husband would discover her and Throgmorton] were secretly made friends, and that Sir infidelity. To reassure her, Leicester allegedly wrote that he was Nicholas was like to detect his doings (as he imagined), which aware of what an obstacle the unsuspecting husband was “to the full (Continued on page 24) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 24 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004

Leicester (continued from page 23) of the reason; on 5 December 1575, Antonio de Guaras wrote from might turn to some prejudice of his purposes (having con- London, during Essex’s return, that “as the thing is publicly talked ceived also a secret grudge and grief against him, for that he had about in the streets there is no objection to my writing openly about written to her Majesty at his being ambassador in France that the great enmity which exists between the Earl of Leicester and the he had heard reported at Duke Memorance’s table that the Earl of Essex, in consequence, it is said, of the fact that whilst Essex Queen of England had a meaning to marry her horsekeeper); was in Ireland his wife had two children by Leicester.” Essex’s Irish he invited the said Sir Nicholas to a supper at his house in failures brought him home in 1575, but he was soon forced to go London and at supper time departed to the Court, being called back, largely, according to Camden, because of Leicester’s influence for (as he said) upon the sudden by her Majesty, and so perforce in Council . . . In late summer 1576 he was in Dublin, preparing to would needs have Sir Nicholas to sit and occupy his Lordship’s come home again; there he became ill and, after three week’s place, and therein to be served as he was; and soon after by a languishing, died on 22 September.14 surfeit there taken he died of a strange and incurable vomit. But the day before his death, he declared to a dear friend of his all The “three week’s languishing” requires that Leicester have an the circumstance and cause of his disease, which he affirmed agent in Essex’s household, in a position to administer moderate plainly to be of poison given him in a salad at supper, inveighing doses of arsenic over that period of time. Essex’s “yeoman of the most earnestly against the Earl’s cruelty and bloody disposi- cellar” was Roland Crompton. After Essex’s death, Crompton was tion, affirming him to be the wickedest, most perilous and perfidious man under heaven. But what availed this, when he given a position in Leicester’s household. had now received the bait?11 The Dictionary of National Biography sums up the matter as follows: There is a book entitled Assassination at St. Helena Revisited A report that Essex had been poisoned caused Sir Henry Sidney to that gives a detailed account of Napoleon’s death by poisoning at order an investigation immediately after the earl’s death. The the hands of an agent of the French royal family. An appendix lists rumour proved groundless; the post-mortem examination showed 32 symptoms of chronic and seven symptoms of acute arsenic no trace of poison. 15 intoxication. “Violent vomiting” is one of the latter.12 The Dictionary of National Biography gives the following Weir agrees: account of Throckmorton’s death: After Essex died on 22 September, Sir Henry Sidney, the Lord Deputy . . . He died in London on 12 February 1571. Shortly before, he had of Ireland, ordered an immediate post-mortem, but, as he reported dined or supped with the Earl of Leicester at Leicester House. in detail to the Council, there was no evidence of foul play, nor did According to the doubtful authority of Leicester’s ‘Commonwealth,’ the doctors who attended Essex believe that he died of anything other his death was due to poison administered by Leicester in a salad on than natural causes. 16 that occasion . . . Leicester, it is said, had never forgiven Throckmorton for his vehement opposition to the earl’s proposed marriage to the queen. No reliance need be placed on this report. Throckmorton had Both Weir and the DNB neglect to mention that Sir Henry continuously corresponded on friendly terms with Leicester for Sidney was in fact Leicester’s brother-in-law, having married Mary many years before his death, and they acted together as patrons of Dudley on 29 March 1551. Peck is honest enough to inform the Puritan ministers . . . Cecil wrote to Sir Thomas Smith of their reader of that relationship, but it doesn’t shake his confidence in markedly amicable relations on 16 October 1565, and described Leicester’s innocence. Throckmorton as ‘carefull and devote to his Lordship.’13 Henry Sidney, despite his obvious connection with Leicester’s It may be that Throckmorton was “carefull and devote” to interests, was apparently a man of very great honesty, and in the Leicester, but I don’t think that rules out the possibility that absence of harder evidence than we now have, his report should be 17 Leicester killed him. I remember in high school I read a story— believed. I forget the name—about an Italian nobleman who had a grudge It is touching to see such wonderful faith in the essential against a fellow citizen. For years he feigned friendship with the goodness of mankind; these three historians are gleaming candles man, waiting for his chance, until finally he lured him into a vast of innocence in a cynical world. array of underground catacombs on the pretext of sampling an especially rare cask of Amontillado sherry. Then he did something If we are to exonerate Leicester as the above historians have really awful to the man. I forget what it was. Who knows what evil done, we must be convinced of two things: (1) that the medical science of the time was capable of detecting poison if it were there, lurks in the hearts of men? Not the DNB biographer. and (2) that Henry Sidney reported the result truthfully. The Case 3: Walter Devereux, Earl of Essex. Appendix D of interaction of these two conditions gives rise to three possibilities: Dwight Peck’s edition of Leicester’s Commonwealth gives a succinct account of the death of Essex. (i) The post-mortem was accurate and Sidney was honest. In this case we have to join our benevolent historians in exonerating Leicester. Walter Devereux, first Earl of Essex, went into Ulster with a military force in 1573. His wife Lettice Knollys was involved with Leicester, (ii) The post-mortem was inaccurate, failing to detect poison that was at first as early as 1565 and then again in her husband’s absence, as (probably) during the Kenilworth festivities of 1575; she married actually present, and Sidney reported this result truthfully. This him in 1578. Whether Essex sought revenge upon Leicester for would count against Leicester. “begetting his wife with child in his absence” may be doubted, but they were hostile toward one another, and this may have been part (iii) The post-mortem was accurate and detected poison, but Sidney Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 25

reported this result untruthfully. This would also imply Leicester’s were meaningless. And there is a human factor at work here—in guilt. politically sensitive cases such as these, where the possible suspect is a powerful nobleman known for his vindictive nature, it would If the post-mortems of 1576 were 50% accurate and the be an audacious physician indeed who would return a finding of chances of Sidney ratting on his brother-in-law are 50-50, then death by poison. each of these possibilities is equally probable, but since two of them point to Leicester’s guilt and only the first exonerates him, Sidney’s honesty. Let’s review the case against Leicester. In we have a 2-to-1 indication of his culpability. But can we do better 1576 he had been having carnal relations with Essex’s wife for in estimating the odds? perhaps 11 years. Essex knew about it and vowed revenge. By pulling strings, Leicester had Essex shipped back to Ireland, but Medical science in the Elizabethan era. In 2004 we are used Leicester knew he would eventually come back to London. So to precise medical analyses. When the DNB says “the post-mortem Leicester had two strong motives for getting rid of Essex: (1) examination showed no trace of poison,” the image that leaps to continued access to Lettice, and (2) self-preservation. That Leices- mind is a white-coated technician with spectacles and a clipboard ter had formed a relationship with Essex’s “yeoman of the cellar” reporting “We ran the Krogheimer test for arsenic; it showed less is implied by the fact that Crompton joined his staff shortly after than 5 parts per billion, normal for someone living in Dublin. Essex died. Two other people (Robin Hunnis and Alice Draycot) Antimony and mercury levels were below the detectable limit. And who were dining with Essex were also afflicted, Draycot to the we did the Fitzeau procedure for alkaloids, which also came out point of death. I would say the circumstantial case against Leices- negative.” This is the sort of thing that could lead to the unbounded ter is quite strong. Peck, however rejects it because of his faith in confidence in the post-mortem that our historians display. The Henry Sidney’s “very great honesty.” reality was quite different. How far was Sidney willing to go to advance his brother-in- John Hall was the son-in-law of Will Shaksper (the Stratford law’s interests? An earlier incident may suggest an answer. In late guy, not the playwright). He was a physician, and a highly regarded 1560, Robert Dudley had still not despaired of persuading Eliza- one. When he died, the inscription in the burial register read beth to marry him, in spite of the scandalous death of his wife Amy “Johannes Hall, medicus peritissimus”—most skillful doctor. We Robsart. He believed that if he could persuade Philip of Spain to can assume he was on the cutting edge of the medical practice of support the union then Elizabeth would agree. Rather than ap- his time. (I emphasize he was not personally involved in any of the proaching the Spanish ambassador himself, he sent his brother- post-mortems discussed here.) Charlton Ogburn has given us an in-law. The ambassador reported the interview as follows: example of his technique: [Sidney] began by beating about the bush very widely, but at last came A seventy-year-old whom Dr. Hall treated was “oppressed with to his brother-in-law’s affairs and said that as the matter was now Melancholy, and a Feaver with extraordinary heat.” The doctor public property, and I knew how much inclined the Queen was to the applied “Radishes sliced besprinkled with Vinegar and Salt” to the marriage, he wondered that I had not suggested to Your Majesty this soles of the patient’s feet to draw back the “Vapours,” which caused opportunity for gaining over Lord Robert by extending a hand to him “starting and fear.” 18 now, and he would thereafter serve and obey Your Majesty like one of your own vassals. 20 One can only speculate about the Elizabethan procedure for determining if a corpse was poisoned. Perhaps cucumber slices For a British subject to promise to serve and obey the Spanish were placed between the toes of the deceased, and if they turned king “like one of his own vassals” sounds to me very much like blue the test was positive. treason, yet honest Henry Sidney was willing to make that proposal to advance his brother-in-law’s interests. If by some miracle the The poisoning of Napoleon is instructive. Because of the commission looking into Essex’s death had decided that he had political sensitivity of the case, the post-mortem was carried out been poisoned, would Sidney have reported that to the Council? by several doctors, each of whom concluded that he had died of You be the judge. natural causes. Yet when the body was exhumed 20 years later, it was in a state of perfect preservation. It was so loaded with arsenic Epilogue: the death of Leicester. I must confess it was not the poor germs never had a chance to initiate the processes of without a rush of grim satisfaction that I read the following decay. The authors cite a similar case: account of Leicester’s death.

In all, d’Aubray’s illness lasted eight months. The Marquise de Leicester withdrew from London at the end of August. While on the Brinvilliers [his wife], whose crime was discovered, admitted she had way to Kenilworth he stopped at his house at Cornbury, Oxfordshire, poisoned him 28 to 30 times. . . Yet at the post-mortem examination, and there he died of ‘a continual fever, as ‘twas said,’ on 4 Sept.1588, the doctors had judged that Monsieur d’Aubray had died a natural aged about fifty-six. Ben Jonson tells the story that he had given his death. 19 wife ‘a bottle of liquor which he willed her to use in any faintness, which she, not knowing it was poison, gave him, and so he died’ . . . Bliss, in his notes to the ‘Athenæ Oxon.’ . . . first printed a The post-mortems of Napoleon and d’Aubray were carried out contemporary narrative to the effect that the countess had fallen in over two centuries after that of Essex—yet after two centuries of love with Christopher Blount . . . gentleman of the horse to Leicester; medical advances, not only were both wrong, but both were that Leicester had taken Blount to Holland with the intention of stunningly wrong. I can only conclude that post-mortems in 1576 (Continued on page 36) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 26 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004 Poison Power: Natural Death or Murder Most Foul?

By Paul H. Altrocchi, MD

Time shall unfold what plighted a mere million deaths, or perhaps two impediment, her husband the Roman Em- cunning hides. — King Lear I, i, 282 million. peror Claudius, so her fiery son Nero could Throughout his time living at take over as Emperor. On the ascendant icero, who lived from 106 to 43 BC, Longwood House on St. Helena with French path to Roman power, Domitian in 81 AD was ancient Rome’s most eloquent companions and servants, Napoleon expe- enlisted the aid of the lowly tepus marinus, Corator and a highly effective trial rienced a vast array of symptoms, some the venomous sea hare, to assist Emperor attorney. He had the gift of being able to mild, some severe to the point of prostra- Titus into the afterlife.6 view history, law and human nature from tion. They included thirst, constipation, The use of poison lessened over suc- the mountaintop, leaving to posterity some lassitude, headaches, abdominal pain, nau- ceeding centuries until Italy introduced succinct general truths. One saying attrib- sea, numbness and weakness in the legs, the concept of poisons for disagreeable uted to Cicero relative to identifying the pain in the extremities, increase in weight husbands in the 1600s. France, with its perpetrator of a crime is cui bono—“To both from fat and fluid, loss of body hair, usual creative flair, added tiresome rela- whom the good?” Who benefited most sensitivity to light, decreased hearing, pain- tives, unpleasant wives, political oppo- from the crime? ful urination, muscle cramps, and bleed- nents and tedious lovers as candidates for Although cui bono does derive from ing swollen gums.2 poisoning. Cicero’s writings, Cicero himself credited His French and British physicians were For death by acute poisoning, two op- the pithy maxim to a famous contempo- diagnostically puzzled, never thinking of tions headed the list: rary judge, Lucius Cassius: poison on such a remote, lovely island. Napoleon himself wondered about poi- (1) High doses of arsenic which L. Cassius ... in causis quaerere solebat, soning by his British captors, but it never cause severe pain, vomiting, diarrhea, “cui bono” fuisset. Sic vita hominum est, occurred to him that a member of his muscle spasms, very low or zero blood ut ad maleficium nemo conetur sine spe atque emolumento accedere. French entourage might be the culprit. By pressure and swift death. remarkable detective work, it has now (2) A one-two sequence of bitter “When trying a case Lucius Cassius been proven that Napoleon was chroni- almond extract containing cyanide, and never failed to inquire, ‘Who gained by it?’ cally poisoned by arsenic and finally pol- a liquid containing mercury. Encoun- Man’s character is such that no one under- ished off by mercuric cyanide.3 tering hydrochloric acid in the stom- takes crimes without hope of gain.”1 ach, these two ingredients combine to In vino veritas4 form extremely lethal mercuric cya- This paper describes three cases of sud- Arsenic’s noble qualities as a poison nide, causing massive gastrointestinal den death hundreds of years ago in which include lack of taste, color or odor and easy hemorrhage, then being absorbed rap- the concept of cui bono helps shed light on solubility in food and drink. In addition, idly into the blood stream leading to the likely perpetrators. Each victim was an low doses of arsenic cause symptoms which quick death.7 important person, and each, sooner or mimic natural diseases, thus qualifying as later, was suspected of being poisoned. a form of French artistry if properly done. The Bourbon monarchy, which had We start off with a case important to The victim appears to have a chronic ill- been displaced by Napoleon’s successful world history, relevant to Oxfordians only ness while his resistance is being destroyed, revolutions more than once, the last time for the intriguing lessons it teaches which and he is in pain and misery from multiple following Napoleon’s successful escape are applicable to certain unsolved deaths symptoms. from the island of Elba,8 was taking no of the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras. This method of low dose, chronic poi- chances this time. Louis XVIII placed his soning can be traced far back in history to secret poisoner Count Charles Tristan de Case 1 Deadly concoctions on a sainted the ancient Greeks and Romans. Mineral Montholon as aide-de-camp, assigned to isle poisons like arsenic were unknown, but attend to Napoleon’s special needs, in- plants such as aconite, hemlock (the choice cluding fine wine.9 Everyone at Longwood History declares that Napoleon (1769- of Socrates for his self-poisoning), and House, Napoleon’s Court of Exile, ate the 1821) died of stomach cancer on the lonely poppy were described by Theophrastus in same food but only Napoleon drank the Atlantic island of St. Helena where he spent the fourth century BC and by Quintilian special vintages set aside for this pious five and a half years in exile at the unkind and Plutarch in the first century AD.5 humble Corsican. suggestion of the British, his conquerors at In 54 AD, the ruthless Agrippina used For years Montholon added varying Waterloo, after being responsible for only slow poison to get rid of a bothersome small doses of arsenic to Napoleon’s wine,

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 27 causing fluctuating symptoms. The ups Case 2 - Sudden death at Bergen op and downs of his clinical course correlate Zoom well with the level of arsenic in his hair, now well proven by analysis of hair samples Henry Wriothesley, Third Earl of sent by Napoleon as mementos to his ad- Southampton, after considerable tumult mirers in dated letters.10 in his life, was living happily in This detailed research was initially semiretirement at his manor house of carried out by Sten Forshufvud of Sweden Tichfield with his wife, three daughters using the most advanced sequential and two sons. With Henry de Vere, 18th nuclear activation tests for hair arsenic Earl of Oxford, Southampton still led the levels.11 In succeeding decades, additional House of Lords conservative faction de- hair samples were analyzed at several in- voted to maintaining traditional English ternational laboratories, making the case cultural values, including Church of En- airtight.12 gland Protestantism. They opposed the The coup de grace was carried out to weak, foppish King James I and his chief perfection. For his thirst, Napoleon was counselor and homosexual lover, the pow- given a solution of specially imported bit- erful Earl of Buckingham, who were schem- ter almonds containing cyanide in the form ing an alliance with their Catholic enemy, of a sweet syrup called orgeat or eau de Spain, through marriage between Prince fleur d’oranger with an orange flavor. He Charles and King Philip IV’s sister.20 When Napoleon: his death by poisoning was not was then given calomel, a mixture of mer- Charles and Buckingham were rebuffed, solved for 140 years. cury and tasteless sublimate to overcome Buckingham convinced James I to declare the constipation caused by arsenic.13 In the solution. war on Spain and form an alliance with the stomach, the deadly corrosive poison mer- Dutch in 1624. Buckingham immediately curic cyanide was formed, leading to Some lessons from the case of Monsieur pressured Southampton and Henry de Vere Napoleon’s rapid demise. le General to form battle regiments. Southampton’s Since both “medications” had been 1. A successful crime may be solved by 19-year-old son, James, was already in the approved by his attending French and Brit- a later generation. Oxfordian sleuths should Netherlands learning military procedure ish physicians for bona fide symptoms, no not be deterred by the ancientness of an under Horatio Vere.21 Southampton was one suspected poisoning. unexplained death. reluctant to be called upon militarily again, At autopsy, Napoleon’s stomach was 2. A special constellation of circum- at the age of 51, especially for a war which severely ulcerated by the mercuric cya- stances, not often encountered, made the was mainly due to Buckingham’s political nide, showing no evidence of cancer.14 But case of Napoleon very documentable: rashness and stupidity. But he loyally ac- for political reasons the official report of (a) In chronic arsenic poisoning, ar- ceded to his monarch’s official wishes, the British and French stated that he died senic remains in hair indefinitely. gathered a fighting regiment, and arrived of stomach cancer like his father. Despite (b) It was the custom of famous people in Holland in early August 1624. As abundant evidence to the contrary in the in those days to send locks of hair to their Southampton biographer G.P.V. Akrigg autopsy report and the documented ar- admirers in letters which were dated.17 says: senic hair analyses, French and English (c) Modern quantitative sequential historians to this day perpetuate the stom- nuclear activation tests along the length of “This was an age when armies lost ach cancer myth.15 a hair give a daily documentation of ar- more men from sickness than from senic exposure.18 wounds. In November, Southampton’s (d) A precise daily diary of Napoleon’s regiment in its winter quarters at Cui bono ? Roosendaal was afflicted by the dreaded The English did not benefit from symptoms was kept by his loyal valet, Louis fever. Both Southampton and his son Napoleon’s death. In fact, they were criti- Marchand, and later published, yielding a caught the contagion.”22 cized widely for allowing the still popular, perfect fit between daily symptoms and charismatic Napoleon to die on such a daily level of arsenic.19 The only description is by Arthur Wil- relatively disease-free remote island. Sir 3. Undeniably proving a case of histori- son23 who witnessed Southampton’s death: Hudson Lowe, Governor of St. Helena, was cal murder does not change many minds of so verbally abused that he was denied a conventional wisdom devotees, especially “This winter quarter at Rosendale was pension and had to retire to a small town to ideationally-blocked professors and also fatal to the Earl of Southampton and live out his days under an assumed name.16 policy-blocked politicians. As predicted the Lord Wriothesley his son. Both being Then, cui bono? Clearly the Royal Fam- by paradigm shift theory, Napoleon “ex- sick there together of burning feaver, the perts” have concentrated on refuting the violence of which distemper wrought most ily of France which had repeatedly re- vigourously upon the heat of youth, over- ceived the Napoleon boot out of power. powerful evidence of arsenic poisoning coming the son first, and the drooping The secret of this almost-perfect crime rather than accepting it. As George Orwell father, having overcome the feaver, de- lasted for 140 years, from 1821 to 1961 said, “A genuinely unfashionable opinion parted from Rosendale with an intention to when compelling research provided the is almost never given a fair hearing.” (Continued on page 28) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 28 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004

Poison Power (continued from page 27) died of influenza as part of that epi- of this.” This is a warning against the false bring his son’s body into England, but at demic without a single symptom to idea that, because one event follows an- Bergen op Zoom he died of a Lethargy in suggest poisoning. other they are causally linked. E.g., a man the view of the relator, and were both in one (3) Henry Wriothesley had the same dies of a heart attack while eating a steak; small bark brought to Southampton.”24 illness but conquered the fever and therefore the steak caused the heart attack. The 19-year-old heir, James, died on recovered. Poison does not cause fever. Because Buckingham hated Southampton, November 5 and the father on November (4) Southampton died suddenly a had placed him on a murder list, and had 10. No autopsy was done on either one and few days later of a “lethargy,” a non- poisoned at least one other person, does they were buried at Tichfield. An “Inquisi- diagnosis. Uncomplicated viral influ- not mean that Southampton’s death dur- tion Post Mortem” was carried out in Janu- enza does not follow a double-humped ing a flu epidemic was due to poisoning ary 1625.25 This was not a coroner’s in- course, i.e., recovery and then relapse. when there is no primary evidence to sug- quest, but a survey of Southampton’s landed gest poisoning. holdings to see what portion was due the 2. Occam’s Razor. William of Occam Crown as income until the heir came of (1284-1347) was an English philosopher age.26 who stressed that the simplest theory which “Poisoning takes fits the facts of a problem is the theory of Was Southampton poisoned? choice. Unnecessary complexities like The Duke of Buckingham was assassi- Southampton being poisoned should be nated in 1628 by a disgruntled disabled clever planning, the “shaved off” by Occam’s Razor. war veteran. After Buckingham’s death, George Eglisham, a Scottish Physician to Case 3. A Strange death the Royal Court, in petitions to King In a letter to Russia’s Emperor in 1601, Charles I and both Houses of Parliament, right circumstances, Queen Elizabeth described the Earls of accused Buckingham of having prepared a Derby as “being of Blood Royal and “murder list” and poisoning all on that list of greater possessions than any subject 31 including King James, Southampton, and trained personnel within our Realm.” The great grand- the Marquess of Hamilton.27 Eglisham was mother of Ferdinando and William Stanley also on the list. was Henry VIII’s sister, Mary, who was Queen The petitions were published in “The of France before marrying Charles Bran- 32 Forerunner of Revenge” in 1642: and proper timing.” don, Duke of Suffolk. Ferdinando, known as Lord Strange, “Wherein are expressed diverse actions was born in 1559. He and his brother of the late Earl of Buckingham, especially William, born in 1561, attended Oxford. concerning the death of King James and Secondary bacterial pneumonia would Ferdinando was popular and widely re- the Marquess of Hamilton, supposed by cause high fever, and Wilson states that spected as a “scholar, poet, and patron of poison .... Of all murders, poisoning under Southampton had overcome his fever. the drama.”33 He was intensely interested trust and profession of friendship is the Akrigg wonders about a heart attack30 in the theater, forming his first acting most heinous.”28 and so does this author—in someone company at the age of 17. He added de weakened by influenza, under the great Vere’s Paul’s Boys in 1590, his actors per- This is Eglisham’s sole mention of stress of his heir’s sudden death, fight- forming six plays at Court in the winter of Southampton: ing a useless war contrived by inept 1590-1591.34 “For my Lord Duke of Lenox, who was political leaders. The Stanley family had been Catholic, crossed by Buckingham, with his brother like most English noble families, until the and the Earl of Southampton, now dead, Poisoning takes clever planning, the reign of Henry VIII. Henry Stanley, Fourth and one of the roll found of those that were right circumstances, trained personnel and Earl of Derby and father of Ferdinando and to be murdered, well assured me that, proper timing. When Southampton sud- William, was a strong Protestant.35 where Buckingham once misliked, no apol- denly got sick in Holland, none of these On September 25, 1593, Henry Stanley ogy, no submission, no reconciliation, could criteria were present. Arthur Wilson was died and Ferdinando became the Fifth Earl keep him from doing mischief.”29 with Southampton when he died and he of Derby. Less than seven months later, Preliminary conclusions concerning records no suspicion of an unnatural death, Ferdinando died suddenly and unexpect- Southampton’s Death poisoning or otherwise. In sum, there is edly at the age of 34 on April 16, 1594. What are the facts? Few would argue nothing to suggest poisoning except the William Camden, in his History of the that: words of Eglisham who disliked Reign of Queen Elizabeth, commented as Buckingham and was on his “hit list.” follows: (1) There was an epidemic fever “About the beginning of this yeare among the British troops in Holland, Some lessons from Bergen op Zoom (1594), Ferdinand Stanley Earle of Darby ... most likely a viral influenza. 1. There is a Latin motto, Post hoc, ergo expired in the flowre of his youth, not (2) 19-year-old James Wriothesley propter hoc—“After this, therefore because without suspicion of poyson, being tor-

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 29

mented with cruell paynes by frequent inherited everything.43 This is a critical de Vere was traveling abroad to ensure vomitings of a darke colour like rusty factor in analyzing who would benefit most that de Vere’s estate would not leave yron.... The matter vomited up stayned the from Ferdinando’s death. Cecilian hands should de Vere die in Eu- silver basons in such sort that by no art they could possibly be brought againe to The Jesuits had absolutely nothing to rope. The available evidence is quite their former brightnesse ... No small sus- gain by poisoning Ferdinando. If, indeed, against Edward de Vere being the father. picion lighted upon the Gentleman of his Ferdinando’s Gentleman of the Horse was The wedding was planned for June, horse, who, as soone as the Earle took his the actual perpetrator, who hired him to be 1594. But wait! There is a sudden compli- bed, tooke his best horse and fled.”36 the hit man? cation! Ferdinando’s widow, Alice Spen- William Stanley immediately became cer, discovers she is pregnant and all plans Ferdinando’s death sounds similar to Sixth Earl of Derby, inheriting vast estates are put “on hold”—if a son is born, he Napoleon’s Grande Finale, caused by mer- in northern England and Wales.44 William would inherit the title and the riches, not curic cyanide, highly corrosive to the gas- William. Alice shrewdly decided to coop- trointestinal tract and to any silver basins erate with the mighty Cecil and bore a receiving the vomited poison. “Vomitings daughter.46 of a darke colour like rusty yron”37 is a “If, indeed, Ferdinando’s Therefore, on January 26, 1595, Will- description of hematemesis, the vomiting iam Stanley was married to Elizabeth de of blood. Vere at Greenwich Palace in the presence The rumor was spread that a group of Gentleman of the of Queen Elizabeth and her Court and a Jesuits had plotted to overthrow Queen gouty, overweight but beaming William Elizabeth, had chosen Ferdinando with his Cecil. The slight gestational inconvenience new title, wealth and royal blood to take Horse was the of Alice Spencer Stanley led to Edward de over the Crown and, when he refused their Vere’s revision of an earlier play, now offer, poisoned him38—quite an absurd titled “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” be- scenario. Everyone knew Ferdinando’s and actual perpetrator, ing played before the wedding throng not William’s unbending loyalty to the Crown in midsummer, but in midwinter.47 and there is no evidence that either was a practicing Catholic. As B. M. Ward said in who hired him to be Conclusions about Ferdinando’s his 1928 de Vere biography:39 sudden death

“Although both brothers, by their the hit man?” You would pluck out the heart of my words and actions, showed themselves mystery. —Hamlet III, ii, 353 absolutely innocent of any complicity in this mad project, their very proximity to the throne rendered them perpetually open There is little doubt that Ferdinando to suspicion.” would certainly not have poisoned his was a victim of murder most foul in the brother—they were close friends and com- form of deadly poison, probably mercuric Ward concluded that Ferdinando “died panions in life, letters and the theater. cyanide. Whoever did the poisoning was in mysterious circumstances, probably of William did not have the mindset or heart not trained in the time-honored French poison.”40 The Jesuit story is entirely un- to commit such a heinous crime for title tradition of making the symptoms appear documented gossip, smacks of a deliber- and money, nor did Edward de Vere. like a natural disease or act of God. ate fiction and suggests a coverup. William Cecil could hardly contain The question is, who was the perpetra- Ferdinando was eulogized by Edmund his enthusiasm at the prospect of his grand- tor? Ferdinando had no known enemies. Spenser and by three of de Vere’s Univer- daughter Elizabeth marrying Royal Blood The Jesuit story is so farfetched as to be sity Wits, Thomas Greene in Ciceronis, and great wealth. After Ferdinando’s implausible. Logic rules out William George Chapman in “The Silence of the sudden demise, Burghley immediately Stanley, Edward de Vere, and the Gentle- Night,” and Thomas Nashe who called him granted permission for the talented 32- man of the Horse as candidates for plan- “thrice noble.”41 year-old writer William Stanley to marry ning Ferdinando’s murder. 18-year-old Elizabeth.45 Was the entire Then cui bono? Who by his background Cui bono? Jesuit scheme fabricated by Burghley to was capable of such a crime? William Cecil William Stanley and Maid of Honor divert suspicion away from the real culprit, served England and his Queen admirably Elizabeth de Vere, first born of Anne Cecil himself? for 40 years. His private life, however, was and of unknown fatherhood, fell in love in It should be kept in mind that at the replete with endless avarice, deceit, 1591.42 De Vere was a good friend of the very least, Elizabeth de Vere was Cecil’s dishonesty, lies, treachery, and political Stanley brothers, sharing several mutual granddaughter by Anne Cecil. There are murder including the Duke of Norfolk interests including the theater, and he also those who, like this writer, think that and Mary, Queen of Scots. Based upon heartily approved of the match. Lord Burgh- either William Cecil or his son by Mary circumstantial reasoning and cui bono, it ley withheld his consent because William Cheke, Thomas Cecil, was the incestuous is postulated that Cecil, to bring another had no suitable title or material wealth, biological father of Elizabeth de Vere, noble title, Royal Blood and great wealth Ferdinando as the older brother having schemed by William Cecil while Edward (Continued on page 30) Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 30 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004

Poison power (continued from page 29) References Henry, Third Earl of Southampton, into the Cecil family, arranged the poi- Shakespeare’s Patron, AMS Press, NY, soning of Ferdinando Stanley. 1969. 1. Marcus Tullius Cicero. Pro Roscio 25. Public Records Office, Ward 7/72/120, The Summary Amerino, p. 84. Cited by Norbert National Archives, London. Three cases of sudden death, two from Guterman, The Anchor Book of Latin 26 Public Records Office. Court of Wards and Quotations, Doubleday, NY, p. 52, 1990. the Elizabethan Era, are analyzed as to Liveries, 1540-1645: Land Inheritance, The 2. Ben Weider and Sten Forshufvud. Assassi- causation, as follows: National Archives, London.; Details of nation at St. Helena Revisited, John Wiley catalogue, Department details for Ward, & Sons, Inc., NY, 1995. (1) The “perfect crime” of Records of the Court of Wards and 3. Sten Forshufvud. Who killed Napoleon? Liveries, Public Records Office, The Napoleon’s murder by the classic tech- London, 1961; also, Weider and National Archives, London. niques of chronic arsenic poisoning Forshufvud, op. cit. 27. George Eglisham. The Forerunner of followed by mercuric cyanide was un- 4. Alcaeus (c. 625-575 BC) in Fragment 66 Revenge, a tract, published in The Harleian solved for 140 years until modern labo- said, “Wine dear boy, and truth.” In Misc. of a Collection of Scare, Curious, ratory techniques and superb investi- Symposium 217, Plato (c. 428-347 BC) and Entertaining Pamphlets and Tracts, gative analysis discovered not only the quoted the proverb In vino veritas, “In vol. 11, Printed for T. Osborne in Gray’s cause of death but the perpetrator. This wine is truth.” From John Bartlett, Inn, London, 1744; Charles MacKay, case is described to encourage similar Familiar Quotations, Little Brown & Co., LL.D. Extraordinary Popular Delusions & detective work in Oxfordian research Boston, p. 62, 1980. the Madness of Crowds, Three Rivers in general and specifically in suspected 5. John Beckman. A History of Inventions, Press, NY, 1980; also, Stopes, op. cit. murder cases. Discoveries, and Origins, vol. 1, translated 28. MacKay, op. cit. (2) Dr. George Eglisham implied by William Johnston, Editors William 29. Eglishman, op. cit. that the nefarious Duke of Buckingham Francis & JW Griffith, Henry G. Bohn, 30. Akrigg, op. cit. had poisoned the Third Earl of London, 1846. 31. Dorothy Ogburn and Charlton Ogburn. Southampton in Holland, an accusa- 6. Ibid. This Star of England. Coward McCann, tion which has been parroted in Oxfor- 7. Weider and Forshufvud, op. cit. Inc., New York, 1952. B.M. Ward. The 48 dian literature. This paper’s conclu- 8. Emil Ludwig, translated by Eden and Cedar Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, John Murray, sion is that Southampton did not die Paul. Napoleon, Boni & Liveright, NY, London, 1928. from poison but from natural causes, 1926. 32. Ruth Loyd Miller. Shakespeare Identified most likely a heart attack while accom- 9. Weider and Forshufvud, op. cit. in Edward de Vere, vol. 1, Kennikat Press, panying the body of his son home to 10. Ibid. Port Washington, NY, 1975. Charlton England. 11. Forshufvud, op. cit. Ogburn, Jr. The Mysterious William (3) Circumstantial evidence sug- 12. Weider and Forshufvud, op. cit. Shakespeare, The Myth and the Reality, gests that Ferdinando Stanley, Fifth 13. Ibid. Dodd, Mead & Co., NY, 1984. John Earl of Derby, was killed at the age of 14. Paul H. Altrocchi, who checked the Michell. Who Wrote Shakespeare? Thames 34 by mercuric cyanide. Cui bono? original complete autopsy report’s & Hudson, London, 1996; also, Ward, op. Ruling out all others, and considering transcript at Longwood House, Island of cit. the scheming, treacherous, malignant St, Helena, 1997; also, Weider and 33. Ogburn and Ogburn, op. cit. private career of William Cecil and the Forshufvud, op. cit.. 34. MacKay, op. cit.; Ogburn and Ogburn, op. fact that he and his family gained the 15. Weider and Forshufvud, op. cit. cit. most from Ferdinando’s death, it is 16. Ibid. 35. Ogburn and Ogburn, op. cit. hypothesized that Cecil plotted the 17. Ibid. 36. William Camden. Annales rerum murder and paid Ferdinando’s Gentle- 18. Ibid. Angficarum et Hibernicarum regnante man of the Horse to carry out the poi- 19. Louis Marchand. Memoires de Marchand, Elizabetha or History of the Reign of Queen sonous deed. As a coverup, Cecil then 2 vols., Paris, 1952, 1955; Weider and Elizabeth, 2 vols., 1615 & 1625. floated the untenable fabrication that Forshufvud, op. cit. 37. Ibid. it was another Catholic scheme to steal 20. William Boyle. “Shakespeare’s Son on 38. Ward, op. cit. the throne from Queen Elizabeth. Death Row?” The Shakespeare Oxford 39. Ibid. Newsletter, vol. 34, no. 2, Summer, 1998; 40. Ibid. Peter W. Dickson. “Are British scholars As with the monstrous murder of Ed- 41. Ogburn and Ogburn, op. cit.; Ogburn, Jr., erasing two heroic earls from Jacobean op. cit. ward de Vere’s name and the coerced sup- history to protect the Shakespeare pression of his authorship of the world’s 42. Ogburn and Ogburn, op. cit. industry?” Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, 43. Ward, op. cit. greatest plays, William Cecil has success- vol. 35, no. 1, Spring 1999. 44. Ogburn and Ogburn, op. cit.; Michell, op. fully evaded implication in the murder of 21. G.P.V. Akrigg. Shakespeare and the Earl of cit. Ferdinando Stanley for almost 400 years. Southampton, Harvard Univ. Press, 45. Ogburn and Ogburn, op. cit.’ Ogburn, Jr., Cambridge, Mass., 1968. op. cit. Truth will come to light; murder can- 22. Ibid. 46. Ogburn, Jr., op. cit.; Michell, op. cit. not be hid long —a man’s son may, but 23. Arthur Wilson, History of Britain, p. 284, 47. Miller, op. cit. in the end truth will out. cited by Stopes (see next note, 24). 48. Ogburn and Ogburn, op. cit.; Ward, op. cit. —The Merchant of Venice (II.ii.74) 24. Charlotte Carmichael Stopes. The Life of

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

Book Notes ing in a projected “Secret Shakespeare ments from the Puttenham family ar- Series.” The book includes the text of a chives that have not heretofore been pub- arah Smith’s Chasing Shakespeares, prose work called “The Adventures of lished. the trade edition of which was re- Master F.I.” in A Hundreth Sundrie And from the Ukraine comes word of a Sviewed in the Sunday New York Flowres and an analysis of its language book on the authorship issue written by a Times Book Review and was a best-seller that, they maintain, shows that it was professor in the history department of in New England, is now out in a paperback written by Oxford and thus was a novel by Kherson State University. She is Kateryna edition, testimony to the publisher’s faith Shakespeare. Students of A Hundreth Sinkevych, and her book is entitled The that it will win an even wider audience. Sundrie Flowres, the subject of a 378- Shakespeare Question in Modern Liter- Derek Jacobi called it “a wonderfully en- page book edited with commentary by ary Criticism in the United Kingdom and tertaining, thought-provoking and highly Ruth Loyd Miller (published in 1975), will the United States. Professor Sinkevych readable book.” want to compare and contrast it with the says her book, not yet translated from the Smith’s suspense novel follows two interpretations by Brame and Popova. Russian, is the only one on the subject in graduate students as they chase down the The prolific pair have also published the university library so far. She hopes to authenticity of a document that seems to What Thing is Love and Related Ditties, a be able to add other books and perhaps say the Stratford man did not write the collection of Elizabethan love poems. They organize a series of lectures by visiting plays of Shakespeare. One of them main- do not identify the author of the poems, speakers. –RFW tains it was the Earl of Oxford; the other is which are to stand alone as brilliant, po- torn between his Stratfordian preconcep- etic gems, but they say they have “EDited tions and the evidence for Oxford. and DEliVEREd” them to “veritable lov- Oxfordians make cameo appearances, ers.” Lady Pembroke some by name and some lightly disguised. Besides conceiving and giving birth to So do several English professors at books, the professorial partners also an- as Shakespeare Harvard, where Smith earned her Ph.D. nounce the birth of Michael Paul, born in English literature. April 25—just seven days after their joint makes Newsweek She talked about her book in June at presentation at the 8th Annual Edward de the Brookline (MA) Public Library, where Vere Studies Conference at Concordia Uni- The International Newsweek for June she was joined by Richard Whalen, who versity in Portland, Oregon. (Also two 28th carried an article, “Was the Bard a said a few words about the arguments days after the supposed birthday of the woman?” that promoted the idea that Lady against the Stratford man and those for Stratford man and 13 days after Oxford’s Pembroke was Shakespeare, “the sweet Oxford in his book, Shakespeare: Who birthday.) swan of Avon.” The article was based on an Was He? More than 50 people showed up The trilogy by W. Ron Hess, The Dark interview with Robin Williams, an Ameri- for the hour and a half event, which Side of Shakespeare, has grown to a can writer who was scheduled to speak at included a lively, almost tumultuous, Q&A “quadrilogy” (which Spell Check will have the Shakespeare Authorship Trust event period. to add to its list.) The third volume, which in London at the end of June. Elsewhere in the publishing world, is scheduled to be completed this Fall, Lady Pembroke has been considered in two multi-volume Oxfordian works are carries the subtitle, “The Invincible Pala- the past as possibly being a collaborator adding installments later this year. din, Maecenas & King-Maker of His Time.” with others in writing Shakespeare, but, Professors Michael Brame and Galina The subtitles of the first two volumes Newsweek reported, Williams’ talk in Popova of the University of Washington provide an idea of Hess’s work: “An Iron- London would advance the idea that she plan to publish Never and For Ever, the Fisted Romantic in England’s Most Peril- alone was the Bard. second volume of their trilogy, this fall. ous Times” and for volume two, “An Eliza- Among some of the circumstantial evi- The two linguistic scholars have spent a bethan Courtier, Diplomat, Spymaster & dence being put forward is her connection decade applying linguistic analysis to the Epic Hero.” The monumental piece of to the world of letters (she was Philip works of Shakespeare, Oxford and many work, exhibiting years of research and Sidney’s sister, one of the best educated other Elizabethan writers. The results are wide-ranging reading, will exceed 1,700 woman in England and the leader of a staggering: The linguistic evidence sug- pages. “literary circle”). And, of course she was gests that Oxford was extremely prolific, From England comes a book on George the mother of William and Philip Herbert, writing not only as Shakespeare but also Puttenham written by a descendant. to whom the First Folio was dedicated, under the names of many contemporar- Shakespeare and George Puttenham’s The article quotes Stanley Wells for ies, and not only Arthur Brooke, Robert Art of English Poesie by Charles Murray the usual dismissal of the whole notion of Greene and George Gascoigne. Willis explores the life of Puttenham and an authorship problem, but it does end Meanwhile, Brame and Popova have his connections to Oxford and to on the interesting note that the “intrigue published Secret Shakespeare’s Adven- Shakespeare’s works. Willis includes po- could prove as immortal as the works of tures of Freeman Jones, their first offer- ems by Puttenham and a number of docu- the Bard—whoever he or she really was.” Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 32 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004 “Good night, sweet prince” By Prof. Daniel L. Wright

he controversy over the legitimacy Forty-one illegitimate children of the En- not himself uniformly denigrate bastards. (or even the propriety!) of discussing glish kings can be identified with near Shakespeare, in fact, contrary to expecta- the so-called Tudor Heir thesis likely certainty. Including doubtful attributions, tions we may nurture of him as a play- T the figure is past the fifty mark. There must wright composing in deference to author- will continue to inflame sensibilities on all have been many more whose names have sides as partisans and detractors of this disappeared entirely….Henry I alone fa- ity and custom, makes a bastard the central proposition argue over the value and place thered at least twenty royal bastards, Henry character of our interest in King John— of “Prince Tudor” in Oxfordians’ efforts to II at least three and King John at least and as E.M.W. Tillyard says of him, “he is demonstrate the implications of Edward seven. (17) one of Shakespeare’s great versions of the de Vere’s putative authorship of the Shake- regal type” (Shakespeare’s History Plays speare canon. Some candid appraisals of Edward IV, a near-immediate prede- 226). the merits of the argument and a fresh cessor to Queen Elizabeth’s grandfather, During the reign of Elizabeth I, allega- perspective on the dispute, however, might Henry VII, was notorious for fathering a tions in England and abroad that the Queen go far to calm this argumentative tempest host of bastards. This fact, indeed, was the had given birth to at least one (and perhaps amongst Oxfordians. Intelligent engage- cornerstone of Richard of Gloucester’s several) children were widely rumored. ment of the issue might lead both support- claim to the throne when, soon after Ed- Apart from the question of whether these ers and opponents of the Tudor Heir theory ward IV’s death, it came to light that, in rumors were true, it’s noteworthy to con- to achieve some agreement on ways to addition to the king’s many other bastards, sider that the fact of their advancement evaluate the evidence and argumentation both the Prince of Wales and the Duke of suggests opponents of the Queen (herself that contribute to and undermine this con- York (better known to us as “the Princes in a bastard—at least according to Catholic tentious thesis (hence the convocation of a the Tower”) were illegitimate children as reckoning) clearly thought such reports week-long seminar on the topic, “Prince well, sons to Edward by a bigamous mar- might be regarded as plausible. Such Tudor: Truth or Delusion?” at Concordia riage to Elizabeth Woodville. assumptions would have been well- University from August 8-13 this year). Elizabeth’s own father and grandfa- founded. After all, in the first half of her First, it needs to be said—contrary to ther were fathers of illegitimate children reign, rumors of the Queen’s fecundity those who bleat in loudest protest against (Roland de Veleville, for example, was were not being propagated solely by her the oft-assumed “novelty” of the Prince widely reputed to be the bastard son of enemies. Even the author of Leicester’s Tudor thesis—that royal bastards not only Henry VII, although the evidence for de Commonwealth accused Robert Dudley were numerous in medieval England but Veleville’s status as Henry VII’s bastard son of widely giving it out that he secretly had often were at the center of crises of legiti- is less than conclusive. That Henry Fitzroy married the Queen and—based upon what macy. Disputes over the right to lawful was the bastard son of Henry VIII is, how- Dudley knew to be an apparently widely- succession by heirs of less than perfect ever, beyond doubt). There is little reason held (or at least widely circulated) assump- descent were dominant keys in a chord to think that de Veleville was ever seriously tion that the Queen had given birth to at struck repeatedly in English history, even considered as a candidate to succeed his least one (and perhaps as many as five) of as early as the Norman Conquest. The father, as Henry VII (whose father’s legiti- his children—planned to foist one of his capture of the English throne by William, macy also was actively disputed) sired sons many illegitimate children on the Realm Duke of Normandy, after all, was hardly of legitimate descent, but we do know that as Sovereign if the Queen were to miscarry. one that all were inclined to receive with Henry VIII and his advisors considered the This course was undertaken by Leicester, easy acceptance, as William, though indis- bastard Fitzroy a possible successor (for declares the writer of Leicester’s Com- putably king by right of conquest, could more on this, see Beverly Murphy’s Bas- monwealth, in order that were the Queen lay little emphasis on his right to the Crown tard Prince: Henry VIII’s Lost Son). suddenly to die, Dudley might “make le- by legitimate descent, he himself being a Royal bastards, therefore, were not only gitimate to the Crown any one bastard of bastard (William was son to Robert, Duke commonplaces in medieval England; they his own,” and he sought to accomplish this of Normandy, but his mother was a com- often were highly regarded, respected, seizure of the throne for his heirs, declares mon tanner’s daughter—hence the not-so- honored and feared; controversy over them the writer of Leicester’s Commonwealth, subtle insult implicit in his opponents’ shaped the history of the nation. As a by contriving to replace, via an act of frequent waving of animal skins at him consequence, bastard sons of royalty regu- parliament, the words “lawful issue” with when he passed by). larly were promoted and supported by the words “natural issue” in stipulating Chris Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis’s powerful statesmen and used for diplo- who alone, after Elizabeth, would qualify The Royal Bastards of Medieval England matic ends; sometimes they were regarded as England’s rightful heir. Under the cir- is but one of many texts to remind us that by powerful statesmen as grave threats. cumstances, one has to ask how Dudley English royal bastards were anything but Shakespeare—never given to steering the could have hoped to prosper by such an rare: politically safe course in his plays—does emendation to the rules of succession

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 33 unless it were widely supposed that the of at least one bastard son himself, as well Queen, in fact, had borne a child of as one accused (albeit by his enemies and Leicester’s that, with the assent of Parlia- without proof) of some of the most shock- ment, would be eligible to succeed to the ing and twisted kinds of sexual exploits throne on Elizabeth’s death. imaginable. Moreover, we know that several years The question before us, I think, there- before Leicester’s Commonwealth was fore, is not so much whether a Prince Tudor published, it was being circulated abroad event was possible; manifestly, something (especially by Catholic enemies of the like one of the imagined scenarios, how- Queen) that she was the mother of many ever improbable, could have happened. illicit children, and it was said by detrac- The question is whether it did, and whether, tors of Elizabeth that the Queen “never if it did, how it ever might be known. goeth [o]n progress but to be delivered.” In a world where we lack definitive Moreover, in Madrid, the testimony of knowledge of the sexual escapades of even Arthur Dudley before Sir Francis Englefield the most highly-scrutinized members of st had established, to many people’s satisfac- Henry Fitzroy was the bastard son of 21 -century society, our ability to recover tion, in England and on the Continent, that Henry VIII. any facts that would confirm a sexual liai- even if the claims by Arthur Dudley did not son between Edward de Vere and the Queen conclusively establish him as a son of Le- The staggering number of incestuous af- of England that resulted in a son who was icester and the Queen, questions about his fairs, illegitimate births, political use of spirited away to a Catholic noble house- parentage were being raised by his revela- bastard children, and the innumerable hold to be raised as someone else—even if tions that were difficult to account for by and constant problems occasioned by the it happened!—seems, to me at least, al- any alternative explanation. consequences of irregular sexual conduct most impossible to imagine. As we’ve been finding out of late—via, engaged in by men and women of the But doubts persist, and the question is for example, Robert McNamara’s disclo- royal family and higher aristocracy for an ancient and historically valid one— sures of his and President Johnson’s crimi- whom ordinary monogamy proved too even if most historians, to date, have come nally ignorant guidance of the American great a challenge has to be acknowledged down on the side of Elizabeth I’s perpetual war effort in Vietnam, and the recent dis- as a valid context within which to look at virginity. Majorities, though, as we all know, closures of orders by the present Secretary the question of Edward de Vere and his do not define truth—and for those of us of Defense that reveal his role in quietly relationship to other powerful person- interested in exploring the question of the advancing an agenda of torture and degra- ages in the realm. The curiosity is all the authorship of Shakespeare’s works, I am dation to “detainees” in Iraq—today’s ru- more appropriate because we know Ox- sure all of us can agree it is a good thing mor and unheeded report is tomorrow’s ford to have been an adulterer and the sire they do not. embarrassing truth. Will today’s rumors of a secret prince that was a pawn in Elizabethan-era succes- The 3rd Annual Institute of Oxfordian Studies sion politics also prove to be true? Personally, I think not. There are al- Summer Seminar - August 8-13, 2004 most as many Prince Tudor theses, first of all, as there are Prince Tudor advocates, The Institute of Oxfordian Studies con- tional costs, books, classroom supplies and and the idiosyncratic and speculative ex- venes a week-long seminar on the Concor- the cost of all day trips (former trips have planations that arise from partisans in one dia University campus each August to en- included trips to Portland's Japanese Gar- corner of the Prince Tudor camp frequently able registrants the opportunity for close dens and Chinese Gardens, attendance at an compromise or nullify the conjectures study of the Shakespeare Authorship Ques- outdoor performance of a Shakespeare play, offered by others of the Prince Tudor con- tion and the Oxfordian Authorship Thesis. a Saturday picnic lunch, and a luncheon viction. In themselves, all these competing The principal topic for 2004 will be "Prince cruise on the Willamette River aboard the scenarios would not prove a bad thing if we Tudor: Truth or Delusion?" yacht, The Portland Spirit). had some reasonable expectation of ever Equal time will be given to advocates To register, send a check payable to the uncovering a single truth in this matter— for and against the Prince Tudor thesis. Edward de Vere Studies Conference, Con- assuming, of course, that there is any truth Leading the advocacy for Prince Tudor will cordia University, 2811 NE Holman, Port- to uncover. be author and actor Hank Whittemore; land, OR 97211-6099 with a note indicat- But for all that unlikelihood, an in- leading the opposition to the Prince Tudor ing that you wish to be a part of the 2004 quiry, on that basis alone, cannot be dis- thesis will be retired statistician Dr John Institute for Oxfordian Studies summer missed as useless. We pursue many ques- Varady. seminar to convene from 8 - 13 August tions for which there may be no ultimate The cost of $995 per registrant for the 2004. answer (will we ever know, for example, six-day seminar includes housing (double- Interested parties may email Prof. beyond doubt, if Oxford wrote—and how occupancy) on the CU campus, linen ser- Wright at: [email protected]@cu-portland.edu, or much if he did—the works of Shakespeare?). vice, all breakfasts and lunches, instruc- phone him at his office: 503-493-6223.

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 34 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004 Was Shakespeare Gay?

By Galina Popova and Michael Brame

as Shakespeare gay? And does it that is for “women’s pleasure,” hence not obvious parallelism of the final line, which really matter? The answer to the for the poet. The poet is evidently explicit involves an ellipsis of the copula “be.” Wformer question may with some that it is to his own purpose nothing. An- justification be deemed irrelevant by those other positive reading may inhere in the Mine-be-thy love ? thy love’s use-[be]-their wishing to enjoy the immortal plays and phrase “to my purpose nothing.” It is the no- treasure. transcendent poems without regard for thing (rather than what Nature has pricked what the author himself intended. For such The parallelism is simply too well readers, no question will arise upon read- crafted not to have been intended by the ing the following lines written to the fair poet. Accepting it, we emerge with parallel youth: “Shakespeare’s love for possessive subjects, parallel copulas (al- though one is elliptical), and parallel pos- A woman’s face, with Nature’s own hand sessive predicate complements. Rejecting painted, it, the tripartite parallelism is a random Hast thou, the master mistress of my the fair youth was not fluke, which is hardly likely. It is part of passion; (Sonnet 20, 1-2) Shakespeare’s artistry and hence intended, By contrast, for those who care to know showing that Orgel’s elaboration amounts to chasing a will-o-the-wisp. the poet as he himself unlocked his soul in homosexual in nature, Six sonnets later, Shakespeare discloses his luminous love sonnets, the question of sexuality will persist as one of paramount the conditions under which he will reveal the nature of his love for the fair youth, importance. In this spirit one seeks to un- concluding in the terminal couplet: derstand why Shakespeare wrote love po- but rather parental.” etry to a male youth and in so seeking, one Then may I dare to boast how I do love thee; is led to explore the nature of the love the Till then, not show my head where thou poet expresses. mayst prove me. (Sonnet 26, 13-4) Early in any inquisitive reader’s in- out) that is to the poet’s purpose. It follows quiry, lines such as the two just cited must from these observations that there is em- Such a declaration again militates nudge some degree of wonder about Shake- bedded within Sonnet 20 a cogent argu- against the gay thesis, as under no circum- speare’s sexuality. In Such Is My Love, the ment indicating that Shakespeare was not stances within the relevant time frame orthodox Joseph Pequigney views Sonnet gay, and it is remarkable that those few could Shakespeare have revealed the “how” 20 as a cornerstone upon which he founds scholars who advocate the homosexuality of a loving relationship had it truly been his homosexuality hypothesis. There can thesis fail to discern as much. homosexual in nature. be little doubt that the poem relates to sex To counter the obvious requires ad hoc We could go on to discuss more sonnets and the fair youth, but we find no real theoretical elaboration of the kind wit- at greater length, outlining why we find argument emanating from that orthodox nessed in Stephen Orgel’s critical edition that they give incontrovertible evidence critic. Rather than confirming homosexu- of The Sonnets, published by Pelican. Thus, for the conclusion that Shakespeare’s love ality on the part of the Shakespeare’s be- he interprets the first line of the terminal for the fair youth was not homosexual in loved fair youth, this sonnet affirms the couplet to mean “however, since she se- nature, but rather parental. Since we have opposite. A similar conclusion relates to lected you to experience pleasure as women already done so in Chapter 8 of the poet himself. do” and the terminal couplet to be normal- Shakespeare’s Fingerprints, however, in ized as “thy loves use” with a reading “may the balance of this note we want to break And for a woman wert thou first created, your lovers use.” These interpretations are new ground by arguing from an entirely Till Nature as she wrought thee fell clearly forced. In particular, the first misses fresh perspective. In prosecuting this task, a-doting, the pun on the fair youth’s prick. our method will be to look to Oxford- And by addition me of thee defeated, When we take that obvious pun into Shakespeare’s other pseudonymous works By adding one thing to my purpose account, Orgel’s position reduces to hav- nothing. to determine what, if anything, he remarks ing us believe that Shakespeare meant that concerning sexuality in the less familiar But since she pricked thee out for women’s Nature gave the fair youth a prick “to expe- literary context. pleasure, rience pleasure as women do,” clearly an Readers of this journal will already Mine be thy love, and thy love’s use their absurd conclusion. Moreover, the second, have grasped the truth of the claim that the treasure. Sonnet 20, 9-14. opting for “thy loves use” (with a plural name William Shakespeare was a pseud- noun and a verb “use” in place of the widely onym for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Although the fair youth is fairer than a accepted interpretation “thy love’s use,” Oxford. Those readers may also know that woman, the poet frames his stunning cli- with a singular possessive noun plus a Oxford wrote under additional pseud- max by attributing to him a phallus, one noun construction for “use”) misses the onyms. To wit, George Gascoigne, Arthur Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters page 35

Brooke, and George Pettie are striking For to speak my fancy without feigning, I of Shakespeare’s Dark Lady) instances of such pseudonyms, and they are care not to displease twenty men to please The late historian almost gets it right, empirically confirmed as such in Chapters one woman; for the friendship amongst men is to be counted but cold kindness, in intuiting Shakespeare’s parental attitude 9, 10, and 15 of Shakespeare’s Finger- respect of the fervent affections between as the accurate one. Failing to comprehend prints. In this connection, we want to em- men and women: and our nature is rather the real Shakespeare, however, he is led to phasize the estrangement argument pro- to dote of women than to love men. hedge his intuitions with the embarrassing vided in the extended essay following our (A Petite Pallace of Pettie his Pleasure) adverbial modifier “almost.” modern spelling edition of one of Oxford’s A second revealing remark issues from most interesting novels, Secret Shake- In this extract, the alleged publisher of a bona fide critic of sixteenth century litera- speare’s Adventures of Freeman Jones. the Pallace, who by the arguments ad- ture, an author in his own right, including That argument shows that the names vanced in Shakespeare’s Fingerprints is in words whose substance Pequigney conve- George Gascoigne and George Pettie were fact its author, comments upon sexuality niently fails to address. We have added literary names for one and the same author. qua male: “our nature is rather to dote of boldface type font for facility of reference: To this, one may add the fact that their women than to love men.” Though Oxford was certainly inclined to a liberal lifestyle, linguistic fingerprints converge and accu- ... this does not seem to be the poetry of full- mulate. They also cascade, as illustrated by such a remark is certainly not expected from a man of homosexual orientation. It is blown pederasty. Shakespeare, and indeed the following special case of cascade from Shakespeare’s age, did nothing by halves. If Brooke to Pettie to Shakespeare. thus one more indication of the author’s he had intended in these sonnets to be the own sexual preference. Since Oxford- poet of pederasty, I think he would have left BROOKE: Each minute seemed an hour, Shakespeare was that author, the evidence us in no doubt; the lovely [ ... ], attended by and every hour a day: / Twixt hope he lived converges with that of the sonnets to con- a whole train of mythological perversities, and despairdespair, of coming or of stay. firm that the poet was not gay. would have blazed across the pages. The (Romeus and Juliet, 747-8) A general point concerning Oxfordian incessant demand that the Man should marry and found a family would seem to be research is worth appending: issues can PETTIE: but on the other side, the re- inconsistent (or so I suppose—it is a ques- nowned virtue of Camma came to his mind, often be clarified and, not infrequently, tion for psychologists) with a real homo- which persuaded an impossibility to his problems solved by considering works sexual passion. ... What man in the whole purpose: and floating thus between hope Oxford wrote under names other than his world, except a father or a potential fa- and despair he entered into these terms: O most celebrated pseudonym. In addition to ther-in-lawther-in-law, cares whether any other man miserable wretch that I amam, his sexuality, such issues include his reli- gets married? Thus the emotion expressed (A Petite Pallace of Pettie his Pleasure) in the Sonnets refuses to fit into our pi- gious commitments, his relationship to the geonholes.... Tudor government, suspected intimate re- SHAKESPEARE: O miserable unhappy C. S. Lewis. English Literature in the Six- that I am lations with the queen, and much more. teenth Century Excluding Drama (503-5) (Two Gentlemen of Verona, 5.4.28) Two quotes by orthodox devotees relat- ing to the sonnets provide a pertinent punc- With Lewis, as with Rowse, and no doubt The crucial new datum as it relates to tuation to the foregoing discussion: other orthodox critics, we encounter excel- Oxford-Pettie’s sexuality is found in an lent intuitions that simply cannot be recon- extract from the most celebrated work There is an element of the tutorial in Shakespeare’s attitude, almost as if he spoke ciled with the Pequigney framework. Nor Oxford wrote under the Pettie pseudonym: in loco parentis. (A. L. Rowse, The Poems (Continued on page 36) Subscribe to Shakespeare Matters Regular member: Name:______e-member ($20/year) ______(Website; online newsletter) Address:______One year ($40/$55 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) ______Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____ Three years ($170/$215 os) ______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 36 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2004

Shakespeare gay? (continued from page 35) Leicester (continued from page 25) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, Oxford can they be resolved within the orthodox killing him, in which he failed; that the University Press, 1917. VI, 118. Stratfordian framework. Perceptive though countess, suspecting her husband’s plot, 3. Weir, Alison, The Life of Elizabeth I, Lewis is, he too fails to pose and answer the gave him a poisonous cordial after a heavy Ballantine, New York, 1998, 95. obvious next question: if the sonnets can meal while she was alone with him at 4. Leicester’s Commonwealth, Dwight C. only be reconciled with a father or poten- Cornbury. Blount married the countess Peck, ed., Ohio University Press, Athens OH, 1985, 31. tial father-in-law, why then can the ortho- after Leicester’s death, and the narrator of the story gives as his authority William 5. Weir, op. cit., 353. In using the word dox literary critic not fit the emotion ex- Haynes, Leicester’s page and gentleman of “veracity,” Weir unconsciously got it right. pressed by Shakespeare into the pigeon- the bedchamber, who saw the fatal cup 6. Peck, op. cit., 41-2. hole of paternity, our poet as a father or handed to his master. But the story seems 7. Ibid., 11. potential father-in-law and the fair youth a improbable in face of the post-mortem 8. Weir, op. cit., 93-112. son or potential son-in-law? examination, which was stated to show no 9. Luke, Mary M., Gloriana: the Years of The answer is that neither C. S. Lewis trace of poison. 21 Elizabeth I, Coward, McCann & nor Rowse nor any other orthodox critic Geoghegan, New York, 1973, 391-2. can make William of Stratford fill the pa- Ah, yes—the trusty post-mortem ex- 10. Weir, op. cit., 291. rental bill. The orthodox candidate relates amination, which has done so much to 11. Peck, op. cit., 85. 12. Weider, Ben, and Sten Forshufvud, to no noble son or potential son-in-law that sanitize the modern reputation of Assassination at St. Helena Revisited, could by any remote stretch of the imagina- Elizabeth’s favorite, now exonerates his Wiley, New York, 1995, 507. tion exemplify the fair youth of the sonnets. widow, who, driven to distraction by her 13. DNB, op. cit., XIX, 813. By striking contrast, such a son or potential grief, seeks to alleviate it by immediately 14. Peck, op. cit., 267. son-in-law is immediately available to the marrying her late husband’s young Master 15. DNB, op. cit., V, 896. 17th Earl of Oxford. There is no need for ad of Horse. As a keen observer of human 16. Weir, op. cit., 304. hoc theoretical elaboration. The old riddle nature once remarked, “Tis sport to see 17. Peck, op. cit., 268. is resolved. 18. Ogburn, Charlton, The Mysterious William the engineer hoist on his own petard.” Shakespeare, EPM Publications, McLean References: VA, 1984, 317. NOTE: This paper was originally given as a 19. Weider, op. cit., 227. Brame, M. and G. Popova. Shakespeare’s talk at the Shakespeare Fellowship Oxford 20. Ross, Josephine, Suitors to the Queen, Fingerprints. Vashon Island: Adonis Day Banquet, 30 April 2004, in Cambridge, Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, New Editions, 2002. Massachusetts. The audience was empanelled York, 1975, 97. ______, eds. Secret Shakespeare’s Adventures to act as a jury. Leicester was unanimously 21. DNB, op. cit., VI, 119. of Freeman Jones. Vashon Island: Adonis voted guilty on all three counts (Sheffield, Throckmorton, Essex). He thus fulfills the Editions, 2004. FBI’s definition of a serial killer. The Shakespeare Fellowship: Lewis, C.S. English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama. Oxford : References: www.shakespearefellowship.org Clarendon Press, 1954. Orgel, S., ed. The Sonnets. New York: Penguin 1. Richardson, Mrs. Aubrey, The Lover of Discussion Forums, The Virtual Books, 2001. Queen Elizabeth, Werner Laurie, London, Classroom, past issues of Shakespeare Pequigney, J. Such Is My Love. Chicago: 1907, p. 317. Matters, and much, much more! University of Chicago Press, 1985. 2. Dictionary of National Biography, ed.

Inside this issue: Shakespeare Matters The Voice of the Shakespeare Fellowship Sonnets solved - page 1 P. O. Box 263 Somerville MA 02143 1601 - “Authorize thy trespass Somerville MA 02143 with compare” - page 1 Address correction requested

More on Monstrous - pages 5-8

Authorship symposium - page 8

Leicester a murderer? - page 22

Poison power & murder - page 26

Good night, sweet prince - page 32

Was Shakespeare gay? - page 34 Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent)