November 2012 An Ox on Our Tongues/Two Reviews De Vere Society Newsletter $QGVRZRXOG,JODGO\« 7ZR5HYLHZVE\.HYLQ*LODU\ ,VSHDNWRWKRVHZKRNQRZWRWKRVHZKRGRQ¶W my mind’s a blank. I never say a word.  The Man who was Never (Tr. Robert Fagles) Shakespeare 7KHFU\SWLFOLQHµ7KHR[LVRQP\WRQJXH¶VDLGWR E\$-3RLQWRQ be ‘A proverbial expression (of uncertain origin) for HQIRUFHGVLOHQFH¶ /RHE AeschylusQ LVXVHGWR 6RIWEDFN 3DUDSUHVVSS explain the watchman’s silence to his master. A prose ,6%1 YHUVLRQ RI WKH VDPH SDVVDJH DERYH LV WDNHQ IURP ZZZSDUDSUHVVFRXN Herbert Weir Smyth’s translation of the play in the ,W¶VEHHQDORQJZDLW±EXWZHOOZRUWKZKLOH7KRXJK Loeb Classical Library collection: RSHQ PLQGHG RQ WKH DXWKRUVKLS FDQGLGDWHV 7RQ\ $KZHOOPD\WKHPDVWHURIWKHKRXVHFRPHKRPHDQGPD\ Pointon has been a regular at De Vere Society meet- ,FODVSKLVZHOFRPHKDQGLQPLQH)RUWKHUHVW,¶PGXPED ings and his knowledge and incisive understanding JUHDWR[VWDQGVXSRQP\WRQJXH²\HWWKHKRXVHLWVHOIFRXOG of the Authorship Question has been outstanding. LWEXWVSHDNPLJKWWHOODWDOHIXOOSODLQVLQFHIRUP\SDUWRI )LQDOO\ZHKDYHWKHIUXLWVRIKLVHQTXLULQJPLQGLQ P\RZQFKRLFH,KDYHZRUGVIRUVXFKDVNQRZDQGWRWKRVH seventeen closely argued chapters. ZKRNQRZQRW,KDYHORVWP\PHPRU\ Tony is Emeritus Professor of Physics at It seems that Shakespeare was telling readers and Portsmouth University with close links to the Admi- playgoers with a classical education that the story be- UDOW\ +H LV DOVR DQ H[SHUW RQ &KDUOHV 'LFNHQV WKH hind FRXOGQRWEHEUXLWHGDERXWLQSXEOLFDQG bicentenary of whose birth was recently celebrated FKRVHDFOHYHUSXQIURPDQWLTXLW\WRPDNHKLVVWDWH- in Portsmouth. Thus Pointon has many reasons to be ment … to those who know. distracted from his long-held interest in the identity of  ,QGHHGWKHYHU\\HDUWKDWWKH6HFRQG4XDUWR Shakespeare. of HamletZDVSXEOLVKHGLQDOVRZDVWKH\HDU  /LVWHQLQJ WR 7RQ\ , KDYH DOZD\V IHOW WKDW WKH JUHDW 6SDQLVK QRYHOLVW 0LJXHO GH &HUYDQWHV I am struggling to keep up whereas he is impatient ZURWHKLVVKRUWQRYHOThe Dialog of the Dogs (later WRJHWRQZLWKKLVQH[WSRLQW6RLWLVZLWKKLVERRN SXEOLVKHGLQ ,QLWKHXVHVWKHVDPHSKUDVH which hurtles us through a whole array of arguments µ+H KDV DQ R[ RQ KLV WRQJXH¶WR FRQYH\ WKH VDPH as to why the man from Stratford could never have PHVVDJHRIRI¿FLDOVLOHQFH written the immortal works of Shakespeare. Even the PRVWOHDUQHGKHUHWLFZLOO¿QGVRPHWKLQJQHZKHUHLQ %HUJDQ]D:KHQ,ZDVDWFROOHJH,UHPHPEHUKHDULQJDWHDFK- Pointon is keen on the idea of ‘identity theft’: HUUHSHDWD/DWLQSKUDVHµHabet bovem in lingua¶«

41 November 2012 Book Reviews: Pointon and Rubinstein De Vere Society Newsletter Pointon draws together many sensible points closely with the regarding the Droeshout engraving and the Stratford Oxfordian case for PRQXPHQWDUJXLQJWKDW'XJGDOH¶VGUDZLQJRI authorship. Never- the man with a woolsack is probably the best likeness WKHOHVV5XELQVWHLQ of the man from Stratford. Perhaps the best part of the is not an Oxford- ERRNGHDOVZLWKYDULRXVP\WKVWKHµGDWLQJ¶P\WKWKH ian and along with false claim that Shakespeare used vocabulary based Brenda James pub- on Warwickshire or that the works have any special lished The Truth reference to local places near Stratford-upon-Avon. Will Out LQ  Although the main purpose of the book is not to con- which argued that VLGHU RWKHU FDQGLGDWHV 3RLQWRQ GRHV EULHÀ\ UHYLHZ Henry Neville was the usual suspects (pp. 201-216). the concealed au- Two or three small criticisms do not detract thor of the works IURPWKHERRN¿UVWWKLVUHYLHZHUZDVRFFDVLRQDOO\ of Shakespeare. confused by the use of the name ‘Shakspere’ to refer Some of the ma- to the man from Stratford and ‘Shakespeare’ for the terial in this book DXWKRU ± VLPSO\ EHFDXVH WKH\ ORRN VR VLPLODU VHF- is necessarily repeated in Who Wrote Shakespeare’s RQGVRPHUHIHUHQFHVDUHOHIWDOLWWOHYDJXHQRGRXEW Plays? but not as much as might be expected. as part of the effort to keep the whole volume under Sixteen years have passed since John Michel SDJHVWKLUGDQGSHUKDSVPRVWLPSRUWDQW,IHHO offered a complete overview of the AQ in Who Wrote that the argument of ‘identity-theft’ over the ‘front- Shakespeare? Rubinstein now covers much the same man’ theory needs further elaboration. The choice of ground in Who Wrote Shakespeare’s Plays? but with the name William Shakespeare (without hyphen) for reference to the many impressive contributions to the the dedication to Venus & Adonis in 1593 seems re- debate which have been made in the intervening peri- markably close to the name of one William Shakspere od. He begins by recounting the grounds for doubting ZKRFRLQFLGHQWDOO\FDPHWR/RQGRQDERXWWKLVWLPH the man from Stratford in the longest chapter of the SHUKDSVDOLWWOHODWHUDQGZRUNHGLQWKHWKHDWUHV book. While there is nothing particularly new to this  7KHERRNLVEHDXWLIXOO\SURGXFHGZLWKLO- UHYLHZHULWVVWUDLJKWIRUZDUGDQGQRQFRQIURQWDWLRQDO OXVWUDWLRQV  DSSHQGLFHV D WKRURXJK ELEOLRJUDSK\ style makes it a useful overview for all readers. of almost 200 items and a comprehensive index. This There follows a chapter devoted to the main book is not just a must-read but also a must-buy for FDQGLGDWHVVWDUWLQJZLWKWKH6WUDWIRUGPDQKLPVHOI HYHU\RQH LQWHUHVWHG LQ 6KDNHVSHDUH HVSHFLDOO\ IRU referring to him confusingly and ahistorically as Wil- those not yet persuaded that there is an Authorship liam Shakespeare. Rubinstein presents numbered Question. It has taken its place on my main bookshelf SRLQWVIRUDQGDJDLQVWHDFKFDQGLGDWHGHDOLQJZLWK alongside John Michell’s Who Wrote Shakespeare? 2[IRUG ZKR UHFHLYHV WKH ORQJHVW WUHDWPHQW  %D- (1996) and Diana Price’s Shakespeare’s Unorthodox FRQ0DUORZH0DU\6LGQH\:LOOLDP6WDQOH\5RJHU Biography (2001). Oxfordians will want a second 0DQQHUVDQG¿QDOO\+HQU\1HYLOOH1RQHRIWKHVH FRS\WROHQGWRIULHQGO\HQTXLUHUVVRDVWRVKRZWKDW WUHDWPHQWVLVPHDQWWREHH[KDXVWLYHEXWDVHULRXV our doubts about Shakespeare are not as daft or as and balanced introduction is supplied for each per- snobbish as some people assert. VRQZLWKPHQWLRQRIWKHPDLQVWXGLHVZULWWHQWRDG- vance their several cases.  Who Wrote Shakespeare’s Plays?  )RU2[IRUGLDQVWKHPRVWLQWHUHVWLQJFKDSWHU E\:LOOLDP'5XELQVWHLQ will be about Edward de Vere. After a thorough intro- GXFWLRQWR2[IRUG5XELQVWHLQ¶VSRLQWVLQIDYRXURI +DUGEDFNSSSDJHV  Oxford’s candidacy are: $PEHUOH\3XEOLVKLQJ6WURXG ,6%1  EDFNJURXQGDQGHGXFDWLRQ  FRQWHPSRUDU\UHSXWDWLRQ EXWRQO\0HUHVLVQRWHG  Bill Rubinstein is well known to many members of (3) parallels between events in the plays and in Ox- WKH'H9HUH6RFLHW\DIWHUPDNLQJWKHDGGUHVVDWWKH IRUG¶VOLIHZLWKEULHIUHIHUHQFHWRHamletThe Mer- GLQQHUWRPDUNWKHTXDWHUFHQWHQDU\RI2[IRUG¶VGHDWK chant of Venice and 1 Henry IV. As a professor of history at the University of Aber-  KLVDQQXLW\DQGKLVNQRZOHGJHRI,WDO\ZKLFKDUH \VWZ\WKKHWDNHVDUHIUHVKLQJO\RSHQDSSURDFKWRWKH VXUSULVLQJO\JURXSHGWRJHWKHU Shakespeare Authorship Question (AQ). Bill is good  SDUDOOHOVLQKLVSRHWU\ZLWK6KDNHVSHDUH friends with the DVS and many of his points resonate  WKH*HQHYD%LEOH

42 November 2012 Book Reviews: Pointon and Rubinstein De Vere Society Newsletter  7KHµHYHUOLYLQJSRHW¶UHIHUHQFHLQ  2[IRUG Stratfordian cry to arms with this point. I challenge lived near a Stratford (east of London) and owned es- him to administer to his literature undergraduates the tates near a River Avon and a Forest of Arden. Benezet Test, which splices together segments of Ox- ford’s poetry with Shakespeare’s in a way which no- Rubinstein, however, is not convinced. He makes the body in my experience has yet been able to puzzle out. following points against Oxfordian authorship: The next points are unnumbered: Rubinstein (1) Lack of direct evidence linking Oxford to the DFFHSWV WKH ÀQGLQJV RI (OOLRWW DQG9DOHQ]DWKDW IUH- works. (This reviewer cringed at the phrase ‘not an quency counts eliminate Oxford’s case, without stat- iota’ and was willing to shriek aloud should there be LQJWKDWWKHLUÀQGLQJVKDYHEHHQFKDOOHQJHGE\-RKQ an ‘egregious error’ or ‘not a scintilla’.) Perhaps Ru- Shahan and Richard Whalen. (See three articles from binstein overstates the number of manuscripts left by The Oxfordian (2009 and 2010) posted on the web- 2[IRUGIHZHUWKDQÀIW\OHWWHUVWRDQGIURPKLPDUH site: www.shakespeare-oxford.com). Rubinstein VFDUFHO\ ¶YROXPLQRXV· ZKLOH WKH GHYDVWDWLQJ ÀUH DW then downplays the parallels between Oxford’s life Hedingham Castle on 25 September 1918 destroyed and plays such as Hamlet. a lot of the family archives. (5) Oxford had little or no relationship with South- Rubinstein notes that Meres refers to Oxford ampton. While mentioning that Southampton refused and Shakespeare separately, as if they were different WR PDUU\ 2[IRUG¶V GDXJKWHU 5XELQVWHLQ LJQRUHV WKH people. But then, how reliable is Meres? Did he per- link that Southampton was a royal ward (he mistaken- sonally interview all the contemporary writers? When ly says Burghley’s ward) at Cecil House while Lady Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit was published, many Elizabeth Vere was living there. contemporaries thought that the work was actually by Henry Chettle or Thomas Nashe. Today, some people (6) Rubinstein dismisses some claims by Oxfordians ÀQGWKHQRYHOVRI0DU\:HVWPDQFRWWFOHDUO\LQIHULRU (‘not a shred of evidence’) for attributing otherwise to those by Agatha Christie without realising that they anonymous plays from the 1570s and 1580s to Ox- are the same person. Rubinstein then states that there ford. +H ZRXOG DGPLW RI FRXUVH WKDW 2[IRUG PXVW is no evidence to link Oxford to the Lord Chamber- have written a number of very good plays to account lain’s Men. This might be surprising but not impossi- IRUKLVUHSXWDWLRQ'RHVKHKDYHDQ\EHWWHUVXJJHVWLRQV" ble for someone who wished to remained anonymous. He also asks why Oxford would have delayed publish- LQJSOD\VXQWLO (2) The wrong dates. Rubinstein is keen to preserve the standard chronology of the plays and denigrates (7) Finally, Rubinstein questions the Oxfordian ac- “Oxfordian attempts to argue for a sweeping revision count of the and asks why it was not of the dates.” He refers later (page 91) to this review- published as a posthumous tribute. er’s Dating Shakespeare’s Plays (2010) which con- Much of the review is taken with arguments against tests the established date for each play and argues that 2[IRUGLDQDXWKRUVKLSEXWRYHUDOOLWLVDZHOOEDODQFHG only a date range can be established and that no plays treatment of the subject. This reviewer does not feel must necessarily post-date 1604, the year of Oxford’s VKDNHQLQKLVFRQ¿GHQFHWKDW2[IRUGZURWHWKHZRUNV death. He says that these attempts have ‘persuaded but accepts Rubinstein’s point that more direct evi- no-one who is not already a convinced Oxfordian’ but dence is needed. Perhaps the biggest criticism is that offers no case for any play being dated post 1604. WKHDUJXPHQWVDUHPHQWLRQHGPRUHDVKHDGOLQHVUDWKHU (3) Oxford ran his own theatre company and as than developed in detail. Rubinstein is very well read in KHZDVVKRUWRIPRQH\KHFRXOGKDYHHDVHGKLVÀ- WKH¿HOGDQGVXUHO\WKHUHFRXOGKDYHEHHQPRUHVFRSH nancial plight by putting on crowd-pleasers such for his acute observations. as the Falstaff plays, rather than assign them to The volXPHLV¿QHO\SURGXFHGZLWKLOOXV- the Lord Chamberlain’s men. Rubinstein overlooks WUDWLRQV D YHU\ VHOHFW ELEOLRJUDSK\ DOWKRXJK PDQ\ the fact that the patrons were unlikely to make money studies are mentioned in the running text) and an in- from their playing companies. Oxford in the 1590s GH[2YHUDOOWKLVERRNLVDYHU\KHOSIXODGGLWLRQWR could no more have staged his own plays in public WKH $XWKRUVKLS 4XHVWLRQ HVSHFLDOO\ IRU LWV GLVFXV- with the expensive costumes than penurious modern sion of other candidates. Oxfordians will want it for playwrights could, without extensive backing, pro- themselves and could well recommend it to interested duce their own plays in the West End or on Broadway friends. today. Kevin Gilvary (4) Oxford’s surviving verse is nothing like Shake- 9LFH&KDLUPDQ speare’s. Rubinstein has clearly been listening to the De Vere Society.

43