7Th Annual De Vere Studies Conference Shakespeare Question Debated at Smithsonian

Vol.2:no.4 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments..." Summer 2003 Shakespeare 7th Annual De Vere question debated Studies Conference Attendees treated to new at Smithsonian insights and breaking news By Peter Rush By Peter Rush he 2003 Edward de Vere n April 19 the Smithsonian Institution sponsored a day- Studies Conference in long debate pitting three prominent Stratfordian scholars TPortland, Oregon proved Oagainst three noted Oxfordian experts. It was one of—if not to be one of the best in its seven- the—best such debate that this reviewer is aware of. The right year history. Over the course of people were in the room, lots of important issues were raised and three days of papers and panel responded to by both sides, and each side had the opportunity to discussions, some ground- “throw its best stuff” at the other’s strongest arguments. I believe breaking research was pre- that the preponderance of strong, unrefuted arguments was made sented, and in a few cases, news by the Oxfordians, and that the Stratfordians left many crucial was made. Several of the most arguments unanswered, while the Stratfordians strongest suit was newsworthy stories involved the a number of assertions—drawn largely from Alan Nelson’s forth- authorship debate itself and in- coming biography of Oxford—for which “proof” was promised, formation of interest to all and should be demanded. The result was that—unlike some other Shakespeareans. The biggest news of the debates—we were not left standing on “square one,” but rather the Prof. William Rubinstein spoke weekend came from Conference authorship debate was advanced. Subsequent research and publi- about his experiences in writing a Director Dr. Daniel Wright in cation by Oxfordians can greatly benefit from exposing the weak- pro-Oxford authorship article for his presentation on the Rever- ness of the best the Stratfordian side could throw at certain issues, History Today. and by shoring up several previously unknown or weakly identi- (Continued on page 8) fied soft flanks in the Oxfordian dossier. William Causey, a Washington, DC attorney who helped orga- nize the January 2002 Smithsonian debate, organized, promoted Wilmot did not and moderated the event, and great credit is due him for attracting such a high quality of participants from both sides, for keeping the The “first” authorship story agenda relevant, lively, and moving along, and for establishing an effective debate format where each issue was aired adequately called possible Baconian hoax without the panelists being preoccupied with time constraints. By Nathan Baca The Oxfordian side was represented by Ron Hess, author of a trilogy, The Dark Side of Shakespeare, the first volume of which n Saturday afternoon of the recently-concluded Edward de is now in print, with the next two due later this year; Joseph Sobran, Vere Studies Conference, Professor Daniel Wright reported well-known author of Alias Shakespeare; and Katherine Chiljan, Oon his pursuit of evidence first uncovered by Dr. John editor of The Letters and Poems of Edward, Earl of Oxford. The Rollett that suggests the so-called “Wilmot legend”—one of the Stratfordian side was presented by Stephen May, Prof. of English oldest anti-Stratfordian reports of early doubts about the authen- at Georgetown University and author of several books and numer- ticity of William of Stratford as the Shakespeare poet-playwright— ous articles on Elizabethan and Renaissance poetry (including is a fraud. Professor Wright reported that his examination of the Oxford’s); Prof. Alan Nelson of UC-Berkeley, whose biography on facts uncovered by Dr. Rollett has led him to conclude that if the Earl of Oxford, Monstrous Adversary, will appear later this Rollett’s signal discoveries can be borne out by subsequent tests, year; and Irvin Matus, author of Shakespeare, In Fact. Diana Price, readers of anti-Stratfordian investigations into the Shakespeare author of Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography, hailing from Authorship Question will have no choice but to form an entirely neither camp, made opening and closing remarks, presenting the new—and highly uncomplimentary—“take” on the role that (Continued on page 12) (Continued on page 7) page 2 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003 argued for Equity Law and against out- and commenting, offers to be the one who Letters: dated blue laws, the one he invariably gives Audrey away so that the marriage will turned to when he felt he had to explain be official. Although I agree that there is a To the Editor: himself; and, not least, the one that fi- great deal of Oxford in Jaques, his name nanced his theater ventures once he’d spent suggests that his external model was that I’d like to suggest a different interpre- his inheritance and lost his credit. ironic commentator of the Court scene, Sir tation of “Audrey” from that provided by First, in Act III, scene 3, Touchstone John Harington, author of The Metamor- Alex McNeil in his otherwise excellent ar- compares himself to Ovid, who was exiled phosis of Ajax (a pun for “a jakes,” or ticle on As You Like It. As McNeil notes, from the Court of Augustus and sent to live toilet). I don’t know what role Harington “Audrey” sounds too much like the Latin among Gothic goatherds, much as Oxford played with regard to Oxford’s produc- verb audire to be accidental, particularly was exiled from Court for writing too openly tions, but that there was a community of in this play where every name carries at of Court secrets. Having lost his right to liberal, educated noblemen who supported least a second, if not a third, meaning. entertain the Court, now he must entertain Oxford’s theater enterprise should be a Audire, however, can’t possibly refer to the goatherds, i.e. the public. He asks Audrey matter of simple common sense and plays, as McNeil (and Boyle) would have it, (his “auditory”) if his features content her? Harington’s biography would certainly but to Touchstone/Shakespeare’s audi- Is he her favorite playwright? He wishes make him a candidate. Harington got in ence—that is, his public audience. this audience understood poetry. After a trouble for his book, which was thought to First, audire means “to hear”—which few wry comments on honesty he an- satirize Leicester, and was banished from is what an audience does. Plays do not hear, nounces that Sir Oliver Mar-text will marry Court, 1596-98, a period that corresponds they are heard. Second, a favorite word for them. McNeil sees this Oliver as a mistake, to other changes in the play. The DNB audience in Shakespeare’s time was “audi- since the name Oliver has already been quotes a letter to Harington written just tory” which is darn close to “Audrey.” Third, used for Orlando’s brother, but this may before he embarked with Essex on the ill- Audrey is portrayed as ignorant of poetry actually be Shakespeare’s point, for Mar- fated Irish expedition, stating “that dam- and almost everything else, lacking aware- text represents the bishops whose author- nable uncovered honesty of yours will mar ness of the finer things, a slut, hardly the ity over plays performed for the public your fortunes,” and portraying him as one view that the world’s greatest playwright, were being reinforced at the time that who “considered himself a privileged per- or posterity, could possibly have of these these scenes were probably inserted, and son who might jest at will,” which sounds elegant plays. Fourth, that Touchstone/ the source of their authority was surely a lot like Jaques. Touchstone tells Jaques to Shakespeare wishes to marry his own plays Robert Cecil, the most likely model for “be covered,” in other words, to keep his makes about as much sense as a man wish- Orlando’s stingy brother. Sir Oliver Mar- efforts on Oxford’s behalf private. ing to marry his own daughter, which is text is a combination of Cecil and the Act V, scene 1 is the addition where where you end up if you take the Audrey-as- bishops, authorities who mar the poet’s Touchstone confronts William. Him too plays metaphor to its logical conclusion. text. he instructs to “be covered,” i.e.. to keep There should be no doubt that the Next Jaques, who has been listening in quiet. I don’t agree that William’s age, Touchstone/Audrey/William scenes were added late in the author’s career and that he Shakespeare Matters Subscriptions to Shakespeare Matters are was using them to express something about Published quarterly by the $40 per year ($20 for online issues only). his personal relationship to the theater, The Shakespeare Fellowship Family or institution subscriptions are $60 per but what was that something? With Shake- year. Patrons of the Fellowship are $75 and up. speare, an anomaly among playwrights of Editorial Offices Send subscription requests to: any age because he did not write for money P.O. Box 263 The Shakespeare Fellowship or fame, we must always ask ourselves, Somerville, MA 02143 P.O. Box 561 why he wrote a particular thing? Every- Belmont MA 02478 thing he wrote was for a purpose. He would Editor: William Boyle The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowship not have introduced Touchstone, Audrey is to promote public awareness and acceptance and William simply to make it clear to a Contributing Editors: of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by handful of insiders that he owned the plays, Mark Anderson, Dr. Charles Berney, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550- something they already knew. Charles Boyle, Dr. Felicia Londre, 1604), and further to encourage a high level of Lynne Kositsky, Alex McNeil, scholarly research and publication into all In my view, he inserted this scene to Dr.

Load more