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. Anne Pluto, Elisabeth Sears, aspects of Shakespeare studies, and also into the Dr. Roger Stritmatter, Richard Whalen, explain to his true audience, the so-called history and culture of the Elizabethan era. Hank Whittemore, Dr. Daniel L. Wright “gentlemen of the Inns of Court,” why plays The Society was founded and incorporated that he had written especially for them Phone (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-3411 in 2001 in the State of Massachusetts and is over the years were now being refashioned Phone (Northampton, MA): (413) 585-8610 chartered under the membership corporation Fax (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-4258 laws of that state. It is a recognized 501(c)(3) for the great unwashed at the Globe and email: [email protected] non-profit (Fed ID 04-3578550). other public venues. I think that he actually All contents copyright ©2003 Dues, grants and contributions are tax- relished writing for the public. What play- The Shakespeare Fellowship deductible to the extent allowed by law. wright would not? But he felt he had to Shakespeare Matters welcomes articles, essays, make some sort of explanation to this, his commentary, book reviews, letters and news items. Contributions should be reasonably concise and, when first, best and truest audience, the one for appropriate, validated by peer review. The views expressed whom he pulled out all the stops, used by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the legal metaphors and classical allusions, Fellowship as a literary and educational organization. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 3

“twenty-five,” necessarily refers to the ac- Alex McNeil responds: tual age of Shakspere, although I can’t Stephanie Hughes’s thoughtful letter From the Editor think what else it means; surely it means raises many points, to be sure. Her argu- something. I doubt that Oxford was aware ment that the character of Audrey is in- of Shakspere’s age or of anything about tended to represent Shakespeare’s “pub- Jacobi, York to serve him apart from the usefulness of his “fair lic” audience is certainly plausible, and as honorary trustees name” and that he was becoming an annoy- may even be correct. ance. Like Touchstone, William has some I’d like to think, however, that perhaps It is with great pleasure that we can we’re both right, and that Audrey, like sort of claim on the public audience. Surely announce in this space that longtime it is his surname, which is never men- many of Shakespeare’s characters, may be a composite. To me, there are compel- Oxfordians Michael York and Sir Derek tioned, and just as surely Touchstone’s ling clues that Audrey does represent the Jacobi, two of the most distinguished Brit- claim is the greater. The plays are his while plays themselves (as they existed in manu- ish stage and screen actors of the twentieth only the “fair name” belongs to William. script form), and not merely the public and twenty-first centuries, have agreed to Touchstone’s questions define William audience for them. The use of the word join the Shakespeare Fellowship as as an ignorant country fool. He toys with “foul” to describe Audrey, with its special Lifetime Honorary Trustees. William, threatening him with witty re- connotation to marked-up written mat- “I have long believed that actors, due to prisals if he continues to take advantage of ter, is suggestive, as is her own comment their intimate involvement with the lan- his identification with the plays because of that William has “no interest” in her, with guage and emotions of Shakespeare’s char- his name. Diana Price has suggested that “interest” suggesting a claim of owner- acters, have a privileged insight with re- Shakspere was brokering the plays with ship. As one orthodox commentator noted, gard to the authorship issue,” commented Oxford’s consent. This scene would seem Audrey is “a thing to be possessed.” If so, Shakespeare Fellowship President Dr. to argue against Oxford having any con- the author would more likely be seeking Charles Berney. “Michael York and Sir nection of this sort with Shakspere, but “possession” of his works (especially if the Derek Jacobi are certainly among the most someone was profiting by the sale and author, like Oxford, was not publicly as- distinguished Shakespearean actors in the publication of the bad quartos in the late sociated with them) than possession of his world today; both have played many of the 90s. It may well have been Shakspere. audience. characters, including Hamlet, the most At the end when Touchstone refers to Although Ms. Hughes finds it nonsensi- cal—perhaps even incestuous—“that autobiographical of Oxford’s creations. Audrey as “a poor virgin sir, an ill-favored Thus it is a special pleasure to welcome thing, sir, but mine own; a poor humor of Touchstone/Shakespeare wishes to marry his own plays,” I do not. Obviously, I was Michael and Sir Derek to the Shakespeare mine, sir, to take that that no man else will,” Fellowship as Honorary Lifetime Trustees. he is saying that unlike other Court poets, not suggesting that the author was ex- pressing a desire to be physically intimate Their willingness to be so welcomed lends he is willing to entertain the ignorant with his manuscripts; I was suggesting lustre both to the Oxfordian movement masses, virgins to history and the classics, that among the traditional attributes of and to the Fellowship itself.” thus excusing himself to his noble and marriage, particularly in medieval times, In a year that has seen much good news educated backers, who were distressed that were that the bride (Audrey) would take on all fronts in the authorship debate, the plays were being dumbed down for the the groom’s name, and would, in the eyes having Sir Derek and Michael take such a public. That this was in fact the case would of the world, be considered his. It strikes bold public step just heartens us all the seem to be evident from those “bad quar- me as far more logical that, in this sense, more. Public awareness of and interest in tos” in which the poetry has been elimi- Audrey represents the plays rather than the authorship story seems to pop up at nated. We can have no idea of how many the audience. I don’t see how Touchstone/ every turn, whether it’s the cover of the plays were actually dumbed down in this Shakespeare would have wanted to New Yorker winking Marlowe (see page 5), manner since it’s likely that only a few “marry” his audience. Fellowship trustee Sarah Smith’s new made it into print. The First Folio, of course, As for Oliver Mar-text being “a mis- acclaimed authorship novel Chasing take,” yes. My point, however, was that the concentrated on providing only Shakespeares promoting Oxford (see page Shakespearean caviar for posterity. insertion of a second character named Oliver was clear evidence that As You Like 24), or even such Stratfordian efforts as the One last point: this play has one of BBC documentary trying to make Stratman those marvelous scenes ( Act III, scene 2) It was revised at some time, a point on which we both agree. real (see page 6) and Prof. Alan Nelson’s where the mature Oxford as Jaques con- soon-to-be published biography trying to fronts his juvenile self as Orlando. Their Ms. Hughes expresses “doubt that Ox- render Oxford dead (we’ll report on his mutual disdain is most entertaining. We ford was aware of Shakspere’s age or efforts in our next issue). see something similar with Romeo and anything about him.” Perhaps, sadly, we’ll And then of course let us not forget the Mercutio. Romeo and Orlando were prod- never know. But I prefer to think that Oxford knew Shakspere well, and that remarkable all-day authorship seminar at ucts of Oxford’s youth and the early ver- their paths crossed sometime in 1589, the Smithsonian (see page 1) and the 7th sions of his plays, while Mercutio and Jaques when the Stratford man was 25, the same Annual Edward de Vere Studies Confer- were creations of a matured Oxford. age as William reports in his lone scene. ence breaking new research ground and [By the way, we do know that Shakspere of making news (see page 1). Stephanie Hughes Stratford did know his own age, as he In short, these are exciting times to be Editor, THE OXFORDIAN correctly states he’s in his 48th year when engaged in this most fascinating issue. We Nyack, New York he gave his deposition in the Mountjoy- only wish some of the stalwarts of the past 20 April 2003 Bellott case.] could be with us to savor the moment. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 4 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003 16th Annual Oxford Day Banquet at MIT Boston area Oxfordians gath- an update on the Folger Library’s ered for the 16th Annual Oxford Ashbourne Portrait (subject of a Day Banquet on Friday, April 25. continuing series of stories in this The event was held at the MIT newsletter) and Richard Whalen Faculty Club in Cambridge, moderated a panel discussion on affording a beautiful view of the “the State of the Debate.” Charles River and the Boston After lunch, Alex and Jill skyline. McNeil entertained everyone with The dinner began with enter- “Oxfordian Jeopardy,” an origi- tainment by professional singers nal version of the game show with Stuart “Whitey” Rubinow and all Shakespeare-related and Ox- Dave “The Rifleman” Harrison ford-related content. Roger who wowed the crowd with a Stritmatter, Mark Anderson and version of Cole Porter’s “Brush Sarah Smith bravely agreed to be Up Your Shakespeare,” featuring the contestants. At the end of the additional lyrics composed by Alex and Jill McNeil presided over Oxfordian “JEOpardy” contest, Stritmatter was declared Shakespeare Fellowship President—and Also speaking briefly were composer the winner. banquet host—Chuck Berney. Joseph Summer, a Massachusetts Ox- Here’s the “Final Jeopardy” answer After dinner, Fellowship trustee Sarah fordian who has honored Oxford with his (which, by the way, none of the contestants Smith, author of the new novel Chasing “Oxford Songs,” and Sally Mosher, who got right): Shakespeares (see review, page 24), spoke also gave a harpsichord recital at the First Category: Famous Last Words on the how “the academy” treats Shake- Church in Cambridge the following day Answer: It’s the last word uttered by a speare studies, and especially how it treats (featuring, of course, William Byrd’s “Earl character in the First Folio (see below for

“Shakespeareans” who are outside the acad- of Oxford’s March”). correct response).

)? emy. The topic followed naturally from the Other events on Saturday were held at Cymbeline basic “academics-in-search-of-the-truth” Lesley College in Cambridge, where Shake- (from “peace” is What Response: Correct narrative of Chasing Shakespeares. speare Matters editor Bill Boyle provided Shakespeare Authorship Trust Conference in London A bit of Shakespeare Authorship his- Society, and Stephen Moorer of the Carmel Dawkins—a widely-published author— tory was established earlier this summer Shake-Spear Festival (host of the forth- was particularly skillful in offering a view when the Globe Theatre played host to 70 coming Shakespeare Fellowship Confer- of the merit of the Baconian thesis that was persons on June 14-15 for the first-ever ence). Oxfordian turnout, Dr. Wright re- largely independent of reliance on the Globe-centered conference to explore ported to us, was somewhat disappointing, notorious history of “cipher-revelations” insights into the authorship question. The but he concluded that the conference was in the Shakespeare texts for which event was sponsored by the Shakespeare still a grand success as it provided a here- Baconians so often have been derided. Authorship Trust and was presided over tofore-unrivalled occasion to meet many Mark Rylance, himself a great admirer of by Mark Rylance, the Globe’s Artistic British Baconians and Marlovians who were Dawkins’ work, spoke glowingly of Director. strongly committed, through their own Dawkins and praised the significance of During the two-day conference, cases organizations and efforts, to exploring the his contributions to the Shakespeare Au- for William Shakspere, Lord Bacon, Lord Shakespeare Authorship Question but who thorship inquiry and to the formation of Oxford and Christopher Marlowe were (like many Oxfordians) don’t often congre- his own anti-Stratfordian convictions. advanced, respectively, by Prof. William gate with anti-Stratfordians apart from On Saturday night, conference attend- Rubinstein, Peter Dawkins, Nicholas their own kind. ees had an option of purchasing a ticket to Hagger and Michael Frohnsdorff— According to Professor Wright, Nicho- see Rylance and other actors at the Globe although Professor Rubinstein admitted las Hagger gave a creditable overview of perform an all-male version of Richard the that his presentation in defense of the man the Oxfordian thesis, and he accorded him Second—a novel interpretation of the play from Stratford was an argument to which good marks on his presentation. He also that included some unexpected but highly he, personally, could not subscribe. Still, offered high praise to Professor effective comic moments that have con- he declared his determination to strive Rubinstein’s courageous effort to fairly tributed to winning the performance much mightily to make the best case he could represent the Stratford man as a candidate acclaim among reviewers in the British while suppressing his own anti- for the authorship of Shakespeare’s works, press. The play concluded with a rousing Stratfordian convictions. and he assessed Michael Frohnsdorff’s dance that evoked thunderous applause Several Americans attended the con- Marlovian case to be well done as well. throughout the house, signifying, perhaps ference, including Professor Daniel Wright Wright reported, however, that he was as well, happy days ahead for the inquisi- of the Edward de Vere Studies Conference, particularly impressed with the delivery of tion into the mystery of the identity of the Gerit Quealy of the Shakespeare Oxford the Baconian case by Peter Dawkins. man who wrought such works. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 5 “Will Writ Wrong” Chicago Oxford New Yorker takes a bite of the authorship apple Society In a happy and quite incredible coinci- The Chicago Oxford Society celebrated dence, the same day the Boston Globe its third anniversary with a conference at published its review praising Sarah Smith’s the Adler Planetarium on “Shakespeare novel, Chasing Shakespeares (plural) on and the Stars.” The guest lecturer was Peter the case for Oxford, the New Yorker maga- Usher, professor emeritus of astronomy zine arrived with a cover depicting and astrophysics at Penn State University, “Shakespeares [plural] in the Park.” who spoke on “Hamlet: A Cosmic Alle- On the cover is a drawing of Central gory.” Park with seven Shakespeares. All have the When the audience arrived, they found face of the Stratford man in the monument 40 quotations on astronomy posted on the but are dressed like typical New Yorkers. walls of the auditorium. Christine Ramos (The outdoor theater festival, Shakespeare won the challenge to identify those by in the Park, has been held in Central Park Shakespeare. every summer for years.) After the lunch break, society director The seven Shakespeares are jogging, Bill Farina gave a slide presentation en- bicycling, playing a bongo drum, eating a titled “Snippets of Shakespeare: Lear and piece of pizza, rowing a boat, walking a the Heavens.” And the next day, society dog and reading the New York Daily News. members saw a performance of King Lear The headline at the top of the tabloid’s by the Shakespeare Project of Chicago. front page is “Bloom to Mediate New Tem- Three weeks later, Farina and Marion pest, Asks ‘What’s in a Name?’” Yale Profes- Buckley, co-founders of the Chicago Ox- sor Harold Bloom has published two popu- ford Society, traveled to Massachusetts, lar books on Shakespeare in recent years. where Farina gave his Oxfordian slide pre- Presumably, he’s expected to mediate the sentation on The Tempest at the Wellfleet debate over the author’s identity, a most are the words “Confesses Marlowe.” The Public Library. The event, which drew fif- unlikely occurrence. cartoonist, Mark Ulriksen, must have been teen people, was sponsored by the Shake- The main headline is “Will Writ Wrong, influenced by the recent PBS TV program speare Oxford Seminar on Cape Cod, now I Wrote Hamlet!” Under it, unfortunately claiming evidence for Christopher in its tenth year. Farina, Buckley and Rich- for Oxfordians but in much smaller type, Marlowe as the real author. –RFW ard Whalen, co-founder of the seminar, led a spirited discussion of the evidence for Katharine Hepburn - a Shakespearean woman Oxford as the true author. The seminar With the death of Katharine Hepburn gained five new members. this past month the film world lost one of its great stars. But our readers may not be aware that Hepburn played many Shakes- Measure for Mea- pearean roles in her career—all on the stage, and none ever filmed. sure in real life Among Hepburn’s stage roles were The headline in the Boston Globe read, Cleopatra in A&C, Portia in Merchant, “As hearing nears, plot of Shakespeare play Beatrice in Much Ado, Viola in Twelfth comes to mind.” The story was about UMass Night, Rosalind in AYLI, Katherine in President William Bulger, who—with a Shrew, and Isabella in Measure. It’s a pity Congressional hearing imminent about his that none of these performances was ever Barrie Maguire, with permission Globe Newspaper Co. knowledge of the whereabouts of his fugi- filmed, since—as we’re sure many would and she was wearing pants. tive brother “Whitey” Bulger—was think- agree—she seemed throughout her career Spooner quotes her telling him, in an- ing about Measure for Measure, a play, the to be a “Shakespearean woman.” swer to his question on how to play female article said, that he had been thinking about An interesting remembrance of her was roles, “Read the female roles in Shake- since he participated in a discussion about published in the Boston Globe on July 2, in speare. Everything you want to know about it last October; the discussion, of course, which a former Harvard student, John character and theatre is in Shakespeare.” was the one co-sponsored by the Social Law Spooner, involved with the Hasty Pudding Later that evening, after seeing Spooner Library and the Shakespeare Fellowship. show and the annual “Woman of the Year” in action in a Rockette-style kickline, she Bulger was seeing himself as Isabella vis- award, reminisces about his senior year— counseled the young would-be actor, “I à-vis his brother’s plight. Others in Massa- the year Hepburn won the award. said Shakespeare’s heroines, not Shake- chusetts might wonder whether he should Spooner, playing a woman as is the speare’s fools.” have been thinking more about Angelo, but tradition for the male students, recalls Spooner is today a money manager and in any event it is interesting to see how Hepburn was the only real woman there— an author. Shakespeare matters in today’s world. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 6 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003 Trustee election news Shakespeare As reported in our last issue, the Nomi- Earl first became aware of the Shake- nating Committee has named a slate of speare authorship controversy in 1985 af- documentary candidates for the October election: Alex ter reading an intriguing review of Charlton McNeil for president, Roger Stritmatter, Ogburn’s book in Harvard Magazine. goes Catholic Steve Aucella and Earl Showerman for Having lived in Ashland, Oregon, home trustees. of the renowned Oregon Shakespeare Fes- The long-awaited Michael Wood four- Candidates can also be nominated by tival, he had already become a theatre part documentary In Search of Shake- petition up until 45 days before the elec- devotee, and, after encountering the au- speare began airing in June on the BBC in tion. Petition nominations require 10 sig- thorship thesis, he found it was revelatory England. It will appear on PBS in the US in natures of current Fellowship members, to recognize the beautiful concurrence late 2003 or early 2004. and should be received by August 25th at: between the story of de Vere’s life and the Oxfordian Peter Dickson (Arlington, The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, themes explored over and over again in the VA), who has been tracking this story for Belmont, MA 02478. For further informa- plays—the Italian connection, the com- years, has been keeping his Oxfordian tion contact Chuck Berney at the above edies of forgiveness and their rejected friends up to date via regular emails on the address or by email: [email protected]@rcn.com. women of virtue, the problem play Mea- latest news, press releases, reviews, and of sure for Measure, and especially The course his own take on what Wood’s efforts Board nominee Winter’s Tale, all came to new life with the mean for the authorship debate. Earl Showerman understanding of Oxford’s complex and Basically—as Dickson has been saying A native of Detroit, MI, Earl attended rich life, adding greatly to his appreciation for years—the Wood documentary brings Harvard College 1962-66, and the Univer- of the plays and their historical and psy- to a head an internal contradiction within sity of Michigan Medical School 1966-70. chological significance. the Stratfordian paradigm that could in the He moved to the Portland, Oregon area in During a fundraiser for the renovation end be its undoing. For, by accurately por- the 1970s, where he has held a variety of of the superb outdoor Allen Pavillion the- traying the Stratford man’s true family health services positions, including co- atre, a chair was dedicated to Edward de heritage as recusant Catholics, Wood has founding and developing Epic Software Vere. Although the Festival takes no offi- thrown down the gauntlet to all those in Systems, Inc., a modest enterprise with a cial position on the authorship question, it both England and America who say that the computer program designed to print emer- did host a Stratford vs. Oxford debate last Shakespeare works themselves are not the gency department and urgent care patient summer between two actors in the com- product of a devout Catholic, but rather a discharge instructions and referral infor- pany. But the Tudor Guild bookstore progressive, existential thinker—one so mation (the system is used today by 300 to doesn’t carry any Oxfordian titles, so there progressive, in fact, that he is still consid- 400 hospitals and clinics). He has also is still work to do. ered modern today. Further, the secret served as a volunteer on the board of the Earl has found his involvement in the Catholic take on the Stratford man raises local forestry and watershed environmen- authorship debate to be a wonderful story the serious question of how he could have tal organization, Headwaters, and served to follow, and making informed converts survived politically in Elizabethan En- for two years with the Oregon Natural to Oxford’s case has been personally gland, given that the traditional story has Resources Council. extremely satisfying. him publishing under his own name. In one of his emails on this subject Dickson says, “Wood’s name will go down Conference Update in history as the Stratfordian who put the The Fellowship’s 2nd Annual Conference in will present some provocative material Stratford man’s crypto-Catholicism at Carmel, California continues to attract speak- which could shake the debate to its core. center stage, pushing other Stratfordians ers who Oxfordians will not want to miss. Check in with the Fellowship’s web site at into the orchestra pit ... and then pulled the The latest additions to the scheduled www.shakespearefellowship.org in the roof of the theatre down all around.” slate of talks are William Causey of Washing- coming weeks for the latest word. Wood himself, in an interview with The ton, DC, and Christopher Paul of Atlanta, GA. Others among the 20 scheduled speak- Guardian on June 23, remarked, “There Causey was the key organizer and mod- ers include authors Michael Brame and will almost certainly be plenty of people erator of the all-day authorship seminar at Gina Popova, novelist Sarah Smith, plus unwilling to incorporate into the national the Smithsonian (see story, page 1). He also Oxfordian academics such as Dr. Roger narrative the idea of Shakespeare as a qui- organized the Whalen-Pasteur debate at Stritmatter and Dr. Daniel Wright. etly sly Catholic dissident...” Further, Wood the Smithsonian in 2002. He will speak on Full registrations are $195, which in- notes, “Shakespeare had good reason to be his experiences as a recent Oxfordian and cludes all papers, three plays, and four so guarded and private, in an era where how he sees the debate developing today. meals; $95 for just papers and plays (no spies were everywhere and any dissent ... Paul is an Oxfordian researcher who meals); and a papers-only rate of $15/day or was ruthlessly wiped out.” has published in The Oxfordian and Shake- $50 for all four days. The plays are Taming And there’s the rub in this conundrum of speare Matters. He will be presenting find- of the Shrew and Henry VI, Parts I and II. the Stratford man’s Catholic roots: it con- ings of his most recent research, which we Contact Fellowship President Chuck flicts with the works, with England today, understand is “remarkable.” The early word Berney at [email protected] or at 617- and with the real politique of Elizabethan among those in touch with Paul is that he 926-4552 for further information. England. We’ll have more in our next issue. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 7

Wilmot did not (cont’d from page 1) document or its contents to anyone? If he brary had been transferred to the Univer- Baconians played in 20th-century efforts to had come into possession of the Cowell sity of London), and no one, prior to its displace the man from Stratford from his report prior to authoring his two notable discovery among Sir Edwin’s collections, usurped perch as the writer we know as books on the Baconian case (both were had ever claimed to possess or even know Shakespeare. published in the last years of his life) why of it. How, and through whom, had it there- The Wilmot legend is recorded in what had he made no mention of this landmark fore come into Sir Edwin’s possession? arguably is the most important work in Cowell address to the Ipswich society in How did he know to whom to go for it? the library of famed Baconian Sir either of those books? Why did he not What had he paid for it? From whom, if he Edwin Durning-Lawrence (1837-1914)— declare in any of his books that he pos- did not buy it, did he acquire it, and why namely, the 1805 report by James Corton sessed this document? Even if he came into had neither he nor anyone else spoken of Cowell to the Ipswich Philosophic Society. possession of this document after he pub- its contents or even reported its existence Cowell’s report detailed the fruitless 18th- lished his books, why would he have made after their acquisition of this manuscript— century investigations into the mystery of the most ancient and valuable Baconian the Stratford man by the Rev. James Wilmot document in existence? of the Anglican parish at Barton-on-the- To answer these questions, Professor Heath, a parish church near Stratford- Wright suggested we return to questions Upon-Avon. raised by Dr. Rollett’s investigation of the Professor Wright reported that several Suffolk archives and other repositories years ago, Dr. Rollett (an Ipswich resident that might (but don’t) point us to the indi- and noted anti-Stratfordian scholar) dis- viduals with whom the document was first covered, after extensive archival research, associated. Why, Professor Wright reiter- that there was no record of a James Corton ated, do no records of an Ipswich Philo- Cowell in local archives, nor was there any sophic Society exist? Why are there no record of an Ipswich Philosophic Society records of Arthur Cobbold, the supposed to which Cowell purportedly gave his his- President of the Ipswich Philosophic Soci- toric address! Moreover, he discovered ety? Why are there no records to validate that the putative president of that soci- the existence of James Corton Cowell— ety—Arthur Cobbold, Esq. (whose name is the putative scion of one of the most promi- appended to the cover of the Cowell re- The handwritten title page nent families in Suffolk? And why is the port)—apparently never existed either. to Cowell’s 1805 paper. only record of the existence of Cowell, the This, Professor Wright reported, led first public proponent of the Baconian him to the University of London to study thesis of Shakespeare authorship, found and transcribe the manuscript that Cowell no mention to anyone that he owned it—a on a manuscript discovered in the hold- supposedly read to the Ipswich Philosophic document that, beyond question, was the ings of Britain’s leading Baconian over a Society (the full manuscript, which actu- single most valuable manuscript in his century later? ally consists of two papers, has never been library and unquestionably the greatest Another speaker at the conference, Dr. published). He was stunned to find that it acquisition of his life! Why did it take William Rubinstein of the History Depart- was aimed not so much to exposing a lack almost 20 years after Sir Edwin’s death for ment of the University of Wales- of evidence for Will Shakspere of Stratford Professor Allardyce Nicoll, in a story for Aberystwyth, who was intrigued by Profes- as a playwright, but rather to advancing the Times of London, to break the news of sor Wright’s presentation, also has joined the case for Sir Francis Bacon as the author the existence of this manuscript when it in the search for these elusive men and of the works of Shakespeare. was discovered amidst the particulars of their alleged society, and he recently re- This, Professor Wright reported, Sir Edwin’s library that his widow had ported to Professor Wright that he, like Dr. seemed to him remarkable. No records bequeathed to the University of London in Rollett, has been unable to discover any indicate that a public case for Bacon as 1929? records of these men or the Society in the Shakespeare had ever been attempted prior These and scores of other questions various archives he has consulted since to the mid-19th century (Delia Bacon pub- attend this problem, Professor Wright an- having returned to Britain. lished her famous Baconian tome, The nounced. Apart from the mystery of how So what best accounts for this docu- Philosophy of the Plays of Shakespeare Durning-Lawrence came to possess the ment, the oldest known document of a case Unfolded, in 1857)—and yet, here was a document and yet never said or wrote publicly made for Sir Francis Bacon as the document, purportedly written over half a anything about it, one has to wonder (if the writer we know as Shakespeare? century earlier, which made precisely that manuscript were authentic) how many Forgery, argues Professor Wright. claim for Bacon, and in altogether unex- people might have owned the Cowell pa- Professor Wright acknowledges that a pected detail. per prior to Sir Edwin’s receipt of it. After definitive case for establishing the Cowell Why, Professor Wright wondered, had all, as Professor Wright reported, there are report as a forgery has yet to be made, if it Sir Edwin (arguably the world’s leading no records of its existence until Nicoll’s can be made, given that the challenge may advocate for Bacon as Shakespeare in the account of its discovery in Sir Edwin’s require the task of proving several nega- late 19th and early 20th centuries) never effects in 1932 (a year after all the be- tives. In his effort to pursue this question reported his possession of this historic queathed documents in Sir Edwin’s li- (Continued on page 33)

Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 8 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003

Conf. (cont’d from page 1) to counteract the effect of end John Wilmot (see sepa- the new and increasingly rate article, “Wilmot did popular Looney thesis that not,” page 1). Wright re- identified Oxford, and not ported on continuing re- Bacon, as Shakespeare. search into a discovery Among other highlights first made by Dr. John of the 7th Annual Confer- Rollett of Ipswich, En- ence was a performance of gland, namely that the that famous play of duplic- entire story of Wilmot hav- ity and mistaken identity, ing searched for years for Oscar Wilde’s The Impor- any news of the Stratford tance of Being Ernest, by the man—and finding noth- Concordia Student Players. ing—may have been a 20th- The keynote address on Fri- century fabrication. In two day morning was delivered visits to England, Dr. by Concordia alumnus An- Wright has conformed Dr. drew Werth, who spoke on Rollett’s breakthrough the importance of reading findings and confirmed by At the Awards Banquet on Saturday evening Concordia University President Dr. dedications to Elizabethan his own investigation of Charles Schlimpert (l) welcomed everyone, while Tim Holcomb (r), a Shakespeare Fellowship trustee, was on hand to accept the Achievement in the Arts Award. works and how such dedica- local and regional ar- tions can hold clues to the chives that the Ipswich doings of various Elizabe- Philosophic Society—at which a paper as dating the paper and ink of the alleged than writers, such as Oxford. first reporting on Wilmot’s findings in 1805 report—would be necessary, but he The Awards Banquet was again cel- 1805 was supposed to have been read— felt that he and Dr. Rollett had made enough ebrated at the Columbia Edgewater Coun- apparently never existed, and neither did progress to date to make the story public. try Club. This year’s Scholarship Award the President of the supposed society nor It has wide-reaching implications for all was given to Dr. Deborah Bacon, Professor the presenter of the Wilmot findings, James involved in the authorship debate, espe- Emerita of English at the University of Corton Cowell. cially, as Dr. Wright declared that he con- Michigan, and the Achievement of Arts Dr. Wright cautioned his audience that cludes it was early 20th-century Baconians award went to Tim Holcomb, Director of further research and undertakings—such who probably fabricated the Wilmot story the Hampshire Shakespeare Company in Amherst, Massachusetts. The President of Concordia University, Dr. Charles Schlimpert, spoke briefly and welcomed EDVSC raises over $10,000 during everyone back to Portland. Dr. Charles Berney, President of the Shakespeare Fel- conference for Oxford Memorial lowship and a great fan of Gilbert and Sullivan, spoke after dinner on “Gilbert During the latest Edward de Vere Stud- meeting with Sir Derek Jacobi, also gained and Shakespeare,” relating some of Will- ies Conference at Concordia University, Sir Derek’s pledge to assist in efforts to gain iam Gilbert’s career in the theatre to Shake- contributors provided over $10,000 in the abbey’s official recognition of Edward speare. donations to finance efforts that Professor de Vere’s contribution to English letters. Daniel Wright has orchestrated and coor- The process of approving the petition New research and publications dinated in order to see a memorial to for the memorial is one that now is in the Edward de Vere established in Poets’ Cor- hands of abbey authorities, and the success The conference opened on Thursday ner at Westminster Abbey. While in En- of the initiative is not guaranteed, but Dr. evening with a presentation by Dr. Michael gland for the first-ever Shakespeare Au- Wright reported that Dr. Carr was most Brame and Dr. Galina Popova, both profes- thorship Conference to be held at the Globe interested in the appeal and very receptive sors at the University of Washington, who Theatre, Professor Wright met with the to his fellow clergyman’s presentation of reported on their linguistic research into Very Rev’d Dr. Wesley Carr, the Dean of the merits of the case for memorializing the the Shakespeare canon and Oxford’s known Westminster Abbey, to present him with heretofore-overlooked-and-neglected earl. writings. Their talk, entitled “Linguistic Evidence for Authorship Identification: news of the many thousands of dollars that Professor Wright will report later this Oxford’s Pseudonyms,” was, to say the least, he had raised for the memorial and to year—at the Oxfordian Studies seminar at provocative. Their book, Shakespeare’s present the dean with letters of endorse- Concordia University this August and at the Fingerprints, was reviewed in the last issue ment for a de Vere memorial from such Shakespeare Fellowship conference in of Shakespeare Matters by Dr. Roger leading scholars as Concordia University Carmel, California this October—on de- Stritmatter, who concluded that the au- President Dr Charles Schlimpert, Profes- velopments in this effort to achieve lasting thors and their work must be reckoned sor Steven May, Dr. Roger Stritmatter, recognition for Edward de Vere in England’s with by a mainstream that is used to Professor Ren Draya and Professor Will- most sacred precinct commemorating its dismissing all things Oxfordian as “not iam Rubinstein. Dr. Wright, in a luncheon literary men and women. scholarly.” Brame and Popova not only Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 9

Among the presenters this year were Marlovian John Baker (top left, speaking on the Derring manuscript of Henry IV), Randall Sherman (top right, presenting the research of Robert Detobel on Merchant of Venice), Merilee Karr (bottom left, speaking on the authorship and class politics), and Carole Sue Lipman (bottom right, speaking on a newly edited edition of Delia Bacon’s The Philosophy of the Plays of Shakspeare Unfolded). embrace Oxford as the author of Shake- our university and others might open their Smith’s presentation, on Angel Day’s speare, but they make a strong case for his doors and windows to the sweet smell of 1586 The English Secretarie, posited that authorship of other Elizabethan works veritas.” Day’s work may be yet another instance and generally argue that he was the lead- In addition to Shakespeare’s Finger- where Oxford (to whom the book is dedi- ing mind behind much of the advance- prints, Brame and Popova will also be pub- cated) is the actual force—if not the au- ment of culture in Elizabethan England. lishing two more books (The Adventures of thor—behind the scene. Not all in attendance Thursday night Freeman Jones and Never and agreed, and there were some spirited ex- For Ever) on Oxford as Shakespeare. They Early Shakespeare reference found changes with members of the audience will both be presenting at the Shakespeare about the methodology employed in their Fellowship’s conference in Carmel, Cali- Still another newsworthy presentation research. However, both Brame and fornia (October 9th to 12th). at the conference came from Dr. Paul Popova commented later how much they Another EDVSC presenter with a new Altrocchi, also a Trustee of the Shake- enjoyed their first trip to Portland, re- book out was Shakespeare Fellowship speare Fellowship, who, in preparing his marking that it was rewarding in numer- Trustee Sarah Smith of Brookline, Massa- paper on historian William Camden’s Bri- ous ways. In a statement to SM after the chusetts. Her novel, Chasing Shakespeares, tannia, came across a reference to Shake- conference they said, “We were afforded was published by Simon & Shuster in June. speare that apparently no researcher— the opportunity of meeting and interact- Smith announced that her publisher was Stratfordian or anti-Stratfordian—has ing with many astute Oxfordians, of airing planning to promote the book heavily, and ever seen before. our own views about Oxford’s multiple it should be reviewed in major media in the Dr. Altrocchi showed slides of his find, pseudonymity, of discussing a range of coming months. Chasing Shakespeares a hand-written note in Latin which appears heretical propositions, and most impor- is a novel that features an Oxfordian from under the entry for the town of Stratford- tantly of witnessing the dissemination of Boston linked up with a skeptical on-Avon. The slides were made from the fresh ideas and new evidence relating to Stratfordian in a search for the truth about UMI (University Microfilms) copy of the Oxford’s life and works. We left the confer- a document that could settle the debate (it 1590 edition of Britannia, owned by the ence with the fond wish that professors at is reviewed on page 24). (Continued on page 10) Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 10 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003

Confr’nce (cont’d from p. 9) issues surrounding the Henry E. Huntington great Stratford com- Library in California. moner as the nation’s In his presentation in greatest writer being far Portland Dr. Altrocchi more important than any had a transcription of inquiry into making sure the annotation—and a who actually wrote the translation based on that plays. transcription—that, it Carol Sue Lipman, turns out, was not cor- President of the Shake- rect, given the blurry speare Authorship quality of the annotation Roundtable, also gave on the microfilm. Since some historical perspec- the conference Dr. tive on the debate in her Altrocchi has obtained a talk, “From Delia Bacon copy made directly from The State of the Debate panel was moderated by Bill Farina (c) of the Chicago Oxford to Elliott Baker.” Lipman the book owned by the Society, with Richard Whalen (l) and Ken Kaplan (r) providing stories and insights reported on a new Huntington. He reports ranging from academe to the Internet. abridged edition of Delia his findings in an article Bacon’s The Philosophy beginning on page 16 of this issue. his new coat of arms (which dumped the of the Plays of Shakspere Unfolded, pre- blue boar and replaced it with an eagle or pared by Elliott Baker. Baker, who has Oxford’s new phoenix arising from a crown) for the rest researched and written on the authorship coat of arms of his life. It made its first appearance in for more than 25 years, has produced an Angel Day’s The English Secretarie, and edition of Bacon’s seminal work that is More significant research was pre- was seen again in 1599 in John Farmer’s much more accessible to the average sented by Barbara Burris in her ongoing Book of Madrigals. For more about the reader. Long-time Oxfordian Warren Hope study of the Ashbourne portrait (Parts I to changes Oxford made to his coat of arms in (author of The Shakespeare Controversy) IV have already appeared in these pages; 1586, see Burris’s article beginning on described Baker’s edition as “a little miracle Part V will appear in our Fall 2003 issue). page 20. of editing.” This edited edition can be Burris’s presentation this year focused on purchased under the title Shakespeare’s her theory that the coat of arms now on the Shakespeare and Philosophy Unfolded from XLIBRIS (888- painting had been added to the portrait by class politics 795-4274 x276) or through Barnes & Noble. the Trentham family in the early 17th Some other papers also concerned with century—perhaps as early as 1612. Fur- Another extremely interesting presen- the authorship debate itself included one ther, Burris noted, it would be possible for tation was given by Dr. Merilee Karr, a by William Niederkorn of The New York a unique combination of the Trentham member of the EDVSC Advisory Board, Times, who reviewed how the Times has arms and Oxford’s arms to have included who spoke on “Shakespeare Authorship covered the story for the past 150 years, an eagle and excluded a boar (the Folger and Class Politics.” Dr. Karr covered sev- complete with extensive clippings from Shakespeare Library and experts it con- eral centuries of Shakespearean criticism past years. sulted had made much of the fact the coat with an eye on trying to establish how and Professor William Rubenstein of the Uni- of arms couldn’t possibly include Oxford why Shakespeare became the cultural icon versity of Wales, author of a 2001 authorship since no boar was present). he is today. As many are aware, the modern story in the prestigious British magazine But, Burris continued, it is a well-docu- era of “Bardolatry” really started in 1769 History Today, talked of the response to his mented— yet little known— fact that Ed- with the first Shakespeare Jubilee, held in article and the fact the History Today even ward de Vere had changed his coat of arms Stratford and organized by David Garrick. published it—to record sales for the maga- in the 1580s, and replaced the boar crest What many don’t realize about this semi- zine. Professor Rubenstein has also written with an eagle crest. Therefore the absence nal event, Karr reported, is that during the on such other unresolved controversies as of a boar on the Ashbourne coat of arms— entire week of the Jubilee not one Shake- the JFK assassination and the murders by and the presence of a bird—can be ex- speare play was presented. The emphasis Jack the Ripper. plained. was clearly on concretizing the life of the Also related to the authorship debate Burris believes that the Ashbourne work-a-day actor who Garrick believed was Concordia faculty member Professor painting was tampered with by the Folger wrote them, rather than celebrating the Matthew Becker’s talk on “The Not-so-Free Shakespeare Library sometime between works themselves. Academy: Informal Observations on the the 1940s and 1970s, and the new Oxford As Karr noted, this circumstance clearly Political Realities Surrounding Contro- eagle that had been there in combination foreshadowed much that has followed by versial Issues.” Becker’s topic focused on with the Trentham shield was changed into people who have sought to create an image how the search for truth can be confounded a Hamersley-like griffin. of the Stratford man as a writer when no by doctrinal and dogmatic rigidities, While this theory is indeed controver- such writer from Stratford, in any histori- even—and maybe especially—in higher sial, one part of it is incontrovertible: that cal documents, exists. It may go a long way, education. Edward de Vere made extensive changes to she continued, toward explaining why the Accordingly, that such heretical no- his heraldry in 1586 and apparently used topic is still so sensitive with the class pride tions as Shakespeare authorship have been Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 11 allowed to exist—and to arguing every point thrive—on this campus thrown up at him. All these speaks well for the Concor- exchanges can be found dia system’s policy of let- on the Internet by going to ting issues be played out in the Google archives for the public arena, even is- newsgroups and searching sues that invite contentious under: humanities.lit. disagreement. This year, as authors.shakespeareauthors.shakespeare. in each of the last six, Con- cordia University’s Dean of The works and Oxford the College of Arts and Sci- ences, Dr. Charles Kunert, Other talks over the gave the welcoming ad- weekend concentrated on dress on Friday morning, some of the Shakespeare and, as always, was warm works themselves, or in his praise of Professor During a break some attendees and presenters share refreshments and stories. Left events in the life of Wright and all who trav- to right are Ken Kaplan, Shakespeare Fellowship trustees Ted Story and Sarah Smith, Oxford. eled to Portland for the con- Shakespeare Oxford Society trustee James Sherwood and Richard Whalen. Appearing Thursday ference to pursue questions evening were Dr. Eric surrounding the Shakespeare authorship now dominated by a coordinated pack of Altschuler and William Jansen in a joint debate. Stratfordians who gang-tackle any newbie presentation (“The Unknown Gentleman of who shows up and generally deal with all Nicholas Yonge: Do We Know Him?”), in State of the debate authorship questions using ad hominem which they related how, in 1588, one Nicho- assaults ad nauseum). las Yonge published Musica Transalpnia, a Finally, the premier conference event Still, Kaplan said, it’s useful to keep the collection of translations of 57 madrigal in discussing the authorship debate itself dialogue going, conceding points when texts—most from Italian but a few from was the Friday morning panel discussion. need requires, but always staying cool and French. Yonge said the madrigals had been The “State of the Debate” panelists in- rebutting everything nonsensical or wrong translated by some “unknown Gentleman.” cluded Richard Whalen, author of Shake- that one can. He mentioned how Diana Altschuler and Jansen suggested that this speare: Who was He?; William Farina, Price’s recent book, Shakespeare’s Unor- secretive gentleman was none other than Founder and President of the Chicago thodox Biography, has proved to be a Oxford. The Pacific University Chambers Oxford Society; and Ken Kaplan, an great contribution, and he noted in par- Singers added to the presentation with sev- Oxfordian who has debated the issue ex- ticular how her husband, Pat Dooley—in eral illustrative choral selections. tensively on the Internet in various forums. Ken’s estimation—had shown the hollow- Stephanie Hughes, editor of The Oxfor- Farina served as moderator, asking ques- ness of the Stratfordian attacks by patiently (Continued on page 12) tions of Whalen and Kaplan, and fielding questions for the panel from the audience of almost 200 participants. The Institute for Oxfordian Studies The panel was quite illuminating in ad- dressing issues familiar to all Oxfordians: at Concordia University how to broach the subject with strangers, what to say first, what not to say, and how to announces answer the questions that come up most often (e.g., that all Oxfordians are snobs, The 2nd Annual Oxfordian Studies Seminar “What about the post-1604 plays?”, and, of course, “We have the plays anyway, so who cares?” etc.). Whalen’s review of the debate August 17 – 23, 2003 concluded that much progress has been made with so much recent publicity, and he en- Tuition is $995 and includes instructional costs, all books, couraged that we should keep the public classroom supplies, a week’s lodging on campus, all breakfasts attention up, but “keep our cool” in doing so. and lunches, a luncheon cruise on the Willamette River aboard the Portland Spirit, guided tours of Portland’s world-famous Whalen himself spoke of how he maintains Chinese Gardens, an evening at Powell’s City of Books, and a list of interested university professors other delights. around the country, and how that list has grown over the years (from under 10 in the mid-1990s to nearly 125 today). For more details and to register, Kaplan had several interesting com- contact ments on how the debate has gone on the Professor Daniel Wright, Internet, especially on the Usenet group Director of the Institute for Oxfordian Studies humanities. lit. authors. shakespeare (a at [email protected] group founded by Oxfordians in 1995, but Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 12 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003

Smithsonian debate (continued from page 1) problems may be raised against Oxford, the argument by caricaturing it as an case developed in her book, that Shake- he remains by far the strongest contender, assertion that no author could set a play speare of Stratford was a play buyer, bro- who would be almost universally in any venue he hadn’t visited, hence, ker, impresario, possibly an actor, but not acclaimed were the claims for the Stratford Oxford couldn’t have written Hamlet or a playwright, while maintaining that she is man to be generally recognized as invalid. Julius Caesar because he never went to inclined away from thinking Oxford the Another time Oxfordians would do well to Denmark or classical Rome—an obtuse real author. make this point explicitly. misstatement of the obvious fact that the Rather than attempting a blow-by-blow only plays Oxfordians claim are relevant to reconstruction of the debate, I will com- 1. Strongly made Oxfordian points poorly this point are those set in Renaissance Italy. ment on the issues that I feel were most countered by the Stratfordians. May cited several instances in the plays productively discussed. where travelers make sea voyages between First, I should point out that the argu- Shakespeare’s geographical knowledge. non-seaports in Italy as supposed proof ments of the two sides are not symmetrical. The weakness and state of denial of the that Shakespeare was indifferent to geo- The authorship debate is not really about Stratfordians on this issue suggests they un- graphical accuracy. And May and Nelson whether Oxford or Shakspere of Stratford consciously recognize how fatal this argu- both resorted to simple denial, with Nelson was Shakespeare, but about showing why ment is. Sobran referred to a book from the stating, “The significance [of Shakspere Shakspere couldn’t have been Shake- 1930s by Ernest Grillo, an Italian scholar never traveling outside of England] is zero,” speare, and then choosing the best candi- who was not an anti-Stratfordian, but who and May saying, “I disagree that there is any date from among the known contenders. documented reasons that Shakespeare had [geographical] detail shown in these plays Misdefined as Oxford v. Shakspere, argu- to have visited Italy, including his knowl- [in reference to the items of evidence in ments against Oxford become arguments edge of Italian idioms and accents, specific Hess’s handout]…. There’s nothing to them for Shakspere. This is not true. No matter physical details, and other items in the plays [the instances where Shakespeare included how strong an argument might be against set in Italy that couldn’t have been learned accurate local geographical detail].” the Earl of Oxford, it in no way strengthens from books or travelers. Hess pointed the the case for Shakspere, whose claim audience to his handout (partly based on The Polonius as Burghley issue. Oxfordians obviously believe is indefen- Lambin) with further citations of geographi- Nelson first raised this issue, to pre- sible no matter who the real author might cal references in the plays that could only emptively rebut it, saying that if Polonius turn out to be. have come from first-hand knowledge . The were really “an obvious putdown of On the other hand, the weaker the case Stratfordians neither responded to nor Burghley, the censors would have caught for Shakspere, the stronger the case for refuted a single example. it.” This led to two tracks, one a back-and- Oxford, simply because no matter what Instead, Nelson and Matus ridiculed forth on the issue of censorship, the other

De Vere Conference (continued from p.11) manuscript had actually ducked the ques- how Psalm 45 begins: “My heart is inditing dian, gave an overview of “Oxford’s Life tion of its being a bona fide early draft a good matter: I speak of the things which Story: What We Know and What We Don’t or version of the play. His essay on this I have made touching the King: my tongue Know.” Hughes, who has researched and topic appears on his website: www2. is the pen of a ready writer.” He noted that written on Oxford for a number of years, localaccess.com/Marlowe/msh4.htmlocalaccess.com/Marlowe/msh4.htm. the critical phrase “touching the King” emphasized that there is still much to be Dr. Ren Draya of Blackburn College (which has distinctive legal connotations) discovered about Oxford and/or figured out and Dr. Michael Delahoyde of Washington is unique to the King James translation of from the records that have survived. State University spoke back-to-back on the psalm. Regarding de Vere and James, Randall Sherman gave an updated pre- The Rape of Lucrece. Dr. Draya covered the he also discussed the William Stirling play, sentation on the research of German re- dramatic elements of the poem itself, while Darius (1603)—a known “source” for The searcher Robert Detobel into author’s Dr. Delahoyde pointed out interesting Ital- Tempest. Stritmatter suggested that King rights to their works in Elizabethan En- ian connections that only someone—i.e. James is portrayed in Stirling’s play as gland. Detobel had originally presented Oxford—who had traveled to Italy could Alexander the Conquerer, and de Vere, the his research at the conference two years have been aware of. fallen playwright, as the title character. ago, with particular mention of the staying Roger Stritmatter’s workshop, “Shake- Those who couldn’t make it to of publication of The Merchant of Venice as speare and the King James Bible,” revis- Concordia this April should remember proof of Oxford’s authorship of the play. ited a question first raised by acclaimed that there is also an Oxfordian Seminar on Ramon Jimenez, an independent Oregon fiction writer Richard Kennedy to the Concordia University campus each scholar from Berkeley, California and a the effect that “Shakespeare” may have August, running for a full week under the Board member of the Shakespeare Oxford been associated with the King James Bible direction of Dr. Wright (see the box on Society, spoke on Edmund Ironside, The translation. Stritmatter is not convinced of page 11 for further details about attending English King, as most likely an early his- this, but notes that de Vere could have been this annual summer seminar). The princi- tory play by Oxford. Marlovian John Baker involved in the translation of some parts— pal topic of this year’s seminar is “Hamlet: of Centralia, Washington focused on the most probably the psalms. He invited the Oxford’s Biography?” notorious Dering manuscript of Henry IV audience to examine Psalm 46 and the The 8th Annual Edward de Vere Studies and made an excellent case for its being an well-known numerologicaly embedded Conference will be held at CU from April original version of the Shakespeare play “Shake-Speare.” If this is a signature to 15th to 18th, 2004. Registrations are be- and not a later copy. Baker also explained Psalm 45 (first suggested by William ing accepted even now, as enrollment is how the published Folger edition of this Boyle), he asked the audience to consider limited to 200 persons. —W.Boyle Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 13 the reasons for believing that Polonius was The Cessation of New Source Material Cooke), all of whom knew Shakspere, but a takeoff on Burghley. Again, the Stratfor- after 1603, and Other Dating Issues. not one of whom ever mentioned him as dian side sensed that to concede this point Chiljan and Sobran pointed out two the then well-known playwright William (despite the fact that many Stratfordians types of source material abundant in the Shakespeare—dogs that “didn’t bark.” do concede it) was very damaging, as it was plays, all of which date from 1603 or ear- Hess noted the absolute silence that greeted far more likely that if Burghley were being lier—and none later—strongly suggest- Shakspere’s death, that it was years later satirized, it is much more likely that Ox- ing that the author incorporating that that anyone belatedly wrote about the de- ford could get away with it than the Strat- material ceased doing so just about the parted playwright’s death, in stark con- ford man. time that Oxford died. Chiljan noted that trast to the contemporaneous hubbub that Hess made the point several times that numerous scientific discoveries and ob- was made just a few weeks prior to most Oxfordians believe that many of servations made during the latter 1500s Shakspere’s death when the minor poet Oxford’s—i.e., Shakespeare’s—plays were appear in the plays, and yet not one discov- Beaumont died. “His corpse was paraded first performed either in the homes of the throughout the streets of London by tens of nobility, or at the universities or semi- thousands and then buried in Westminster public places such as Blackfriars, none of whereas Mr. Shaxpere is thrown into a which would have involved the censors. “... the weaker the case boneyard and forgotten,” remarked Hess. The first time Hess brought this up, in Chiljan detailed the very strong nega- arguing that The Winter’s Tale—first li- for Shakspere, the stron- tive evidence provided by William Camden, censed in 1610—could have been around whom Matus himself cited for having re- for many years before being licensed, ger the case for Oxford, ferred to Shakespeare the playwright in a Nelson astoundingly retorted that “I’ve book in 1605. In 1607 Camden published been in this business [for years], and I’ve a revised edition of an earlier tome called never heard that suggestion, and it seems simply because ... he Britannia, which was a county by county to me absolutely impossible.” Later, Hess travelogue account of England in 1607. In countered that it was in a book “recom- remains by far the it Camden has an entire chapter on mended to me by my very good friend Warwickshire and its principal town, Professor Nelson” by one Andrew Gurr, strongest contender...” Stratford-upon-Avon. Obviously familiar that detailed the several ways plays could with the existence of Shakespeare the play- have been written and bypass censorship, wright just two years earlier, Camden makes including performances in private homes. no mention of Shakespeare in connection But the strongest refutation of Nelson’s ery or observation post-1603, even though with Stratford—an inexplicable omission argument came—unintentionally—from the telescope and thermometer both ap- had Shakespeare the playwright hailed Matus, who, for reasons unclear to this peared between 1604 and 1616, when from Stratford. reviewer, cited how the name “Oldcastle” Shakspere died. To none of these points did the Stratfor- in Henry IV was forced by the censors to Sobran had led off the debate by noting dian side choose to respond. Matus did re- be changed to “Falstaff” to disguise the that all the “published sources for the plays spond to Sobran’s question, “Why does Shake- real- life person being referenced, and how end in 1603.” He also noted that the first speare always seem so socially isolated, in a in Merry Wives of Windsor, the name allusion to Hamlet occurs in 1589, an really teeming literary world, like Elizabe- “Brooke” was changed to “Brooms” in impossibly early date for the Stratford than London, it’s just odd, isn’t it?” Matus the Folio edition for the same reason. “I man to have written the play. He observed replied that, “Few people in London of that would believe that if they could censor this that a number of bogus plays initially at- period were less socially isolated than mem- man (the real-life Brooke)…they could tributed to Shakespeare only began to ap- bers of an acting company,” obtusely miss- certainly censor references to the most pear in 1605, the year after Oxford died ing Sobran’s point, which wasn’t that powerful figure second to Queen Eliza- when, had he been the true author, he could Shakspere was a hermit, but rather that no beth,” Matus stated. Which is precisely no longer protest. There is no record that literary or cultural figures ever report a what Oxfordians say was done, when, as Shakspere ever protested the misuse of his first-hand communication with, or any per- Chiljan pointed out, the original name name on these bogus plays. sonal knowledge of, Shakespeare the play- “Corambis,” an obvious pun on Burghley’s None of these points was addressed by wright—despite his presumed presence on motto “Cor Unam,” was changed to the Stratfordian side. the scene in London. Polonius. In all three cases, the censors forced the names to change, while leaving The “Dogs That Didn’t Bark.” 2. The Great Circle: Stratfordian the characterizations intact. Hess and Chiljan provided three ex- Circular Reasoning on Display. Hess also cited additional likely refer- amples of “dogs that didn’t bark,” (a refer- ences to Burghley in Hamlet, including ref- ence to a Sherlock Holmes mystery, “Sil- Early in the debate, May gave the first erences to the “fishmonger business” (pillo- ver Blaze,” solved by Holmes when he of many statements of what may be called rying Burghley’s attempt to make Wednes- realizes that a dog that should have barked the Great Circular Argument, one that day a second fish day), the diet of worms (a at the culprit, but didn’t, proved that the misses the point of the debate, and assumes pun on the Diet of Worms, which was sum- culprit was known to the dog). Hess re- its own conclusion. “The basic problem is moned in the year of Burghley’s birth), and ferred to five people (William Camden, this,” he asserted, “every work attributed to the close parallel between Polonius’s and Michael Drayton, Thomas Greene, Dr. John William Shakespeare was attributed to him Burghley’s duties for the sovereign. Hall [Shakspere’s son-in-law] and Dr. James (Continued on page 14) Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 14 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003

Smithsonian (cont’d from page 13) by George Putnam’s reference that during his lifetime, or within seven Oxford wrote comedies, but that “if years of his death. Not one of those he wrote plays, it would have been works is attributed in any way by for his own company, it would not anyone to the Earl of Oxford.” Some- have been for another company.” how, the fact escapes them that the Returning to this theme a bit later, Oxfordian case rests on the premise he added, “There is therefore no that “William Shakespeare” is a reason, since he had his own com- pseudonym. If the name is a pseud- pany, that he should be writing for onym, then is it any mystery that all another company with which he had works by this author appear under nothing to do. There is no connec- that pseudonym? Did any of Mark tion whatsoever between Oxford and Twain’s works appear under the name any aspect of the Lord Chamberlain’s Samuel Clemens? If not, would the Men or the King’s Men,” the latter existence of someone named Mark Shakespeare’s alleged company. Twain prove that he was the author? While no Oxfordian directly re- The Stratfordian argument would sponded to this, an answer could be appear to say so. May assumes that that Oxford wrote mainly for private Shakspere was the playwright, and performances—as Hess indicated uses that assumption to prove that, —and all companies were then free indeed, such was the case. to perform them. Nelson subsequently pro- pounded a variant of this argument, 5. Potentially Damaging Strat- discussing the issue of licensing and fordian Assertions Awaiting Proof. publication of the plays. Shakespeare “did not write for money…. Shake- The Stratfordians argued several speare was a member of the Com- In bottom photo are Joseph Sobran (l) and Prof. Alan Nelson (r) sharing the podium during a 1997 authorship debate in points not previously known to this pany, he wrote for his Company, his Seattle. Above is Prof. Stephen May speaking at the 2002 reviewer, for which they claimed income, the income of his Company, Edward de Vere Studies Conference in Portland, Oregon. proofs not presented during the de- the entire Company, depended on bate. Nelson asserted, contrary to pre- their plays being performed before the Bermuda. Chiljan disputed Matus’s cita- vious belief on this point, that Oxford did not public, so it was really important that once tion of a book by a survivor of that ship- attend Cambridge for more than one year a play was written, it was acted.” This was wreck, William Strachey, pointing out that and never attended Oxford, and that there’s all stated as if it was settled fact. Again, the it wasn’t published until 1625. She also no evidence he ever studied at the Inns of issue is that the Oxfordian side questions noted that there were many shipwrecks in Court. Nelson referred to his forthcoming whether Shakspere of Stratford was, in the 1580s and 1590s and that there is no book for “absolute proof” of this. fact, a playwright. Not one shred of evi- evidence that Shakespeare based The Tem- May repeatedly stressed the point that dence suggests that the man from Strat- pest on the 1609 one. Oxford’s known literary work was so far ford wrote for any play company. Evidence However, no panelists sought to show below Shakespeare’s in quality that, “I sim- needs to be presented to make the case. Matus’s argument to be absurd by simply ply couldn’t see any hint of that in anything Nelson asserted it without proof. reading the line about the “still-vexed written by the Earl of Oxford.” Later, he Nelson returned to this line of argu- Bermoothes” in context. It occurs in a went further, stating that “If you read ment later on, asserting that the plays which passage where Ariel is recounting a previ- Oxford’s poetry, and consider that the light first appeared in print in the First Folio ous errand he did for Prospero. The refer- years of development between that and (i.e., those not previously published) “were ence to “Bermoothes” has no connection Shakespeare could have taken place in the owned by the play company, by the King’s to the shipwreck that opens The Tempest. highly condensed time that the Oxfordians Men.” If Nelson has discovered some pre- That the shipwreck has occurred in the must commit to it, I simply find it incred- viously unknown document establishing Mediterranean is confirmed when it is ible, there’s just nothing there that even that the “new” plays were conclusively in announced that the other four ships that suggests the germ of a Shakespeare.” the possession of the King’s Men, this is the had accompanied it turned back to their Chiljan countered May by pointing out biggest story in Shakespearean scholar- Mediterranean port of embarkation. that most of Oxford’s surviving poems ship in two centuries, and would definitely under his own name were written by him as strengthen the case for the Stratford man. 4. Strongest Stratfordian Point: a teenager, since they appeared in a vol- Why Would Oxford Write for Another ume published in 1576 (when Oxford was 3. Most Preposterous Stratfordian Company? 26) but compiled 10 years earlier. May Assertion: Dating The Tempest. challenged this by saying that some poems Nelson stated that Oxford had his own were added after an initial set were com- Matus’s first point in the debate was acting company, Oxford’s Men, from 1580 piled, but provided no proof that Oxford’s that the reference in The Tempest to the until 1602 or 1603. He asserted that he poems were among those added later. “still-vexed Bermoothes” was based di- doesn’t find it impossible to believe that Sobran responded, “These are very rectly on reports of a 1609 shipwreck on Oxford wrote plays, certainly corroborated personal esthetic judgments of Alan Nelson, Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 15 they prove nothing about the performed prior to 1623, how quality of Oxford’s writings can he explain the appearance one way or the other.” Under- of even one single “new” play in cutting his own argument, the Folio, much less the 16 pre- Nelson conceded, albeit “to viously unpublished plays ap- my disappointment,” that pearing in 1623? By his reason- “Oxford is a competent, mod- ing, all of Shakespeare’s plays erately experimental poet,” were ex hypothesi licensed, then while May, after his “light promptly performed, since all years” statement, added the money was in performance, “which is not to say that he not printed publication, as he wasn’t a competent mid-cen- claimed. tury poet, I think he was.” Why Returning to this theme, an admittedly “competent” Nelson stated that the plays not poet, almost all of whose known to have been printed in known literary work dates quarto before 1623 “were from his youth, couldn’t have owned by the…King’s Men,” Representing the Oxfordian case were Oxfordian researcher Ron Hess, morphed into a great artist is author of The Dark Side of Shakespeare (2000 photo), and Katherine Chiljan, and that the entire explanation a question the Stratfordians editor of The Letters and Poems of Edward, Earl of Oxford (1998 photo). of the Folio’s appearance was failed to address. Some elabo- the desire of Shakespeare’s fel- rated demonstration by the low actors Heminges and Stratfordians of the hopeless inferiority of that two books (not further identified) on Condell “to bring out the plays of their Oxford’s literary work would be required Oxford’s wardship claim that Burghley did fellow” in print. The only self-consistent to advance this argument beyond the realm not profit personally from his wardships, position Nelson can take is to assert that, of mere opinion. even though other nobles admittedly did. despite the absence of documentary evi- Debate also occurred over Oxford’s dence, all of the 36 plays of the First Folio surviving letters, almost all written to Lord 7. Parting Shot. were, in fact, performed by the King’s Men Burghley, which Nelson characterized as during Shakspere’s lifetime. It would be displaying “about the linguistic compe- The Stratfordian side inserted a variant important for Nelson to be asked this ques- tence of our president,” to which Matus of the Great Circular Argument that also tion. If he says yes, then it’s time for him to retorted “I think that’s too cruel to Bush.” involved an implicit statement about the produce evidence for it. If he says no, then Nelson said the letters were so boring he plays that I believe is counter-factual (i.e. he has undercut—or even entirely de- contemplated recommending readers of a lie), but that went unremarked during the stroyed—one of the strongest arguments his book skip the chapters quoting from debate. In his first remarks, Nelson said from the Stratfordian camp, since the fail- them, to which Hess rejoined, “I find the that, since The Winter’s Tale wasn’t li- ure to license and perform plays suppos- writings of Shakspere to be infinitely more censed until 1610, “to imagine that it was edly written by Shakespeare for “his” com- boring than Oxford’s.” Chiljan said that written by Oxford in 1604…and that it was pany would demonstrate that Shakespeare there are passages in some of the letters just sitting around unused for 6 or 8 years, wrote at least some plays neither for per- that seem to hark back to lines in several is a complete misunderstanding of how formance nor publication—a total contra- plays, citing in particular a passage about plays were written, and what they were diction for the Stratford argument. making substance out of a shadow, a meta- written for, they could only be performed phor which recurs in Richard II, Richard once they were licensed, so the time be- Conclusion III, Titus Andronicus and Sonnet 37. tween the completion of the play and the licensing of the play was very short.” As In sum, this all-day event was a land- 6. Points Debated and Left Unresolved. Hess replied, licensing was only required mark in the authorship debate. There was for public performances, so Nelson’s argu- a thorough airing of many issues and Several points were asserted by one ment boils down to assuming that Shake- many of each side’s best arguments were side, contested by the other, and left unre- speare was a member of a play company— presented. In this observer’s estimation, a solved, in need of further evidence on both the point that ought to be the one in need lot of Oxfordian points went unanswered sides. One such example was Hess’s claim of proof—ruling out the possibility that from the Stratfordian side and a number that Lord Burghley was “one of the greatest Oxford was Shakespeare ex hypothesi. of Stratfordian positions were shown to kleptocrats of his time” who was “essen- Nelson later restated his point, saying be self-contradictory or absurd. tially ruling by thievery.” He continued that, “The strongest argument in favor of However, Oxfordians have some work that, “tons of evidence sent to me by British William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon to do on a number of assertions made, scholars … show that Burghley was not is that he was a man of the theater, the plays, largely ones that are about to make their only inept in ruling England’s financial above all are the product of a man in the first appearance in Nelson’s book, but they matters, but he aided and abetted crime theater.” On what basis does he rest this also now have, with the experience of this after crime, plus he plundered various assertion? debate, the raw material to craft even more wards’ estates,” including Oxford’s. But there is another hidden implication pointed and specific challenges to the Matus rejoined, “I don’t think there’s in Nelson’s argument. Since not all of the Stratfordian camp in future debates and anything with less foundation.” May claimed plays in the Folio were known to have been publications. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 16 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003 Sleuthing an enigmatic Latin annotation

By Paul H. Altrocchi, M.D.

What is the end of study, let me know? own as well as ones borrowed from other Cantuariensi qui templu posuit, & Hugoni Why, that to know which else we should libraries, making copies available to all Clopton Pretori Londinési, qui A vonae not know. libraries in the world. For microfilming pontem faxeum quatuordecem fornicibus subnixum non fine maximis impensis Things hid and barred, you mean, from the 1590 Third Latin Edition it used a copy induxit. common sense? owned by The Huntington Library in San Ay, that is study’s godlike recompense. The key lines with relevance to this (Love’s Labour’s Lost, I.i.55) paper are underlined. The English transla- “The enigma is a tion of the paragraph (with the same key nsolved enigmas stimulate the hu- lines underlined) is: man mind; unraveling them accepts the de Verean challenge seeking “to six word handwritten U From here the River Avon flows down know which else we should not know.” more strongly first through famous The enigma in this case is a six-word Latin annotation Charlcott and the house of the knightly handwritten Latin annotation stumbled family of Lucies which long ago passed to across in the University of Hawaii’s micro- stumbled across ... [in a] them from the Charlcotts as it were by filmed copy of the 1590 edition of William heredity, and through the not Camden’s Britannia. A photocopy of the (un)distinguished little market town of difficult-to-read penned comment was read 1590 edition of William Stratford, which owes all of its reputation to its two foster sons, John of Stratford, the by a consulting Professor of Latin as “Is Archbishop of Canterbury who built the Gulielmo Shakespear Rescio plani nostro” Camden’s Britannia.” church, and Hugh Clopton, the magis- and translated as “Thus I find out that trate of London who began the stone bridge William Shakespeare is an impostor.”1 over the Avon supported by fourteen arches, Could the annotator be the first anti- Marino, California.3 The Huntington had not without very great expense. Stratfordian, even an Oxfordian, possibly purchased the volume from Clarence 4 as early as the 17th Century? When was the Saunders Brigham in January, 1922. The last printed line on page 452 reads: mysterious comment written and who was Brigham was President of the American the writer? The hunt was on. As Professor Antiquarian Society and often volunteered Rudolph Altrocchi has written: to fill gaps in the Huntington’s book col- quod duobus fuis alumnis omnem lections on overseas buying trips, a story dignitatem debet loanni How mistaken those people are who detailed in Don Dickinson’s Henry E. (trans. = ...which owes all of its reputation think the scholar’s life is nothing more Huntington’s Library of Libraries. to its two foster sons...). than a monotonous grind! There are ad- Thus Brigham merely acted as a pur- ventures for the literary sleuth as for the There is a penned underline (see figure much more frequently exalted private de- chasing intermediary for the copy now at tective, adventures in books as thrilling as the Huntington. The bookseller was never 1) beneath the word “alumnis” which means adventures in life. Indeed, what are books revealed and the provenance of the book “alumni” or “foster sons” or, as Philemon if not records of adventures in life? And between 1590 and 1922 is impossible to Holland translated it in the English edi- some old volumes have stories, quite apart trace.5 Camden’s brief description of Strat- tions of 1610 and 1637, “there bred and from those told in the printed page, stories ford-on-Avon appears on pages 452 and brought up.” full of mystery, romance, even crime. These 453 of the 1590 edition and reads as fol- At the bottom of page 452, below that adventures reveal themselves only to the 6 2 lows: underline, is the intriguing handwritten booky explorer, the research scholar. comment in ink which, when photographed Plenior hinc Avona defertur primùm per directly from the book, is seen to state in The facts Charlcott nobilis & equestris familiae Latin: “et Gulielmo Shakeƒpear Roƒcio Luciorum habitationem, quae à Charlcottis planè nostro.” The University of Michigan micro- iam olim ad illos haereditario quasi Three key words—et, Roscio, and transmigravit: & per Stratford emporiolú filmed the six Latin editions (1586, 1587, non elegans [sic. This word was misprinted; planè—are now seen differently from the 1590, 1594, 1600, and 1607) and two En- it should have been “inelegans”], guod original imperfect photocopy of the mi- glish editions (1610 and 1637) of William duobus fuis alumnis omnem dignitatem crofilm and yield an entirely different Camden’s Britannia, using books of its debet loanni de Stratford Archiepiscopo meaning. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 17

Translation of the annotation’s first Word: “Et” The first “word” of the annotation is a Tirolian note for “et”, the Latin word for “and.” It is fancily penned but its main and darkest component is similar to the num- ber “7” and means the same as our modern printed symbol “&.”7 The handwritten shape of such symbols changed over time until printing presses tended to standard- ize their design. Various abbreviations and symbols like Courtesy of the Henry E. Huntington Library the asterisk (*), which connoted poetic Figure 1. The intriguing handwritten annotation—apparently never before noted by any Shakespeare researcher—that the author found in the UMI microfilm copy of Camden’s verses regarded as authentic, can be traced Britannia (1590 edition) while researching entries under “Stratford” in all the available as far back as Alexandrian Greece in the editions of Britannia (ranging from 1586 to 1637). fourth century B.C.8 Most of us do not know shorthand but we all use such shortcut Translation of the annotation’s fourth uniquely great actors, e.g.: abbreviations and symbols as “part of En- word: Roƒcio glish,” e.g.: The second letter is definitely different 1. James Boswell (1740 - 1795), noted from every “e” in the annotation and, de- biographer of Samuel Johnson, wrote, “I 1. Abbreviations: “i.e.” = “that is”, de- spite its solid black ink center, is an “o”, not was sitting with the great Roscius of the rived from the Latin id est; “e.g.” = “for age, David Garrick.” example”, derived from the Latin exempli an “e”. The “ƒ’’ is an “s” in the secretary 2. In Theatre in the Age of Garrick, gratia. hand. The word, therefore, is not Rescio but C. Price said: “To the eighteenth century, 2. Symbols: # % & @ Roscio. What is the meaning of Roscio, a Garrick was the outstanding actor of mod- word not in any Latin dictionary? ern times, and to call him ‘Roscius’ as was The invention of a comprehensive sys- “Roscio” is rarely encountered nowa- so often done was merely to indicate that in tem of shorthand is credited to Marcus days, and the author is indebted to an one respect at least, England could rival 15 Tullius Tiro, a former Roman slave who insightful comment by Roger Stritmatter ancient Rome.” became a freedman and the secretary of from the audience when this material was Cicero (106-43 B.C.). Recognizing Tiro’s first presented at the Seventh Annual Ed- In his later years, Garrick had the dubi- high intellect, Cicero encouraged him to ward de Vere Studies Conference in Port- ous distinctions of financing the fabrica- develop a standard tachygraphic (speed land, Oregon, this past April12 (see article tion of a new statue of “Shakespeare” in writing) system which could be used to on page 1). 1768 for the north side niche in Stratford’s record Cicero’s dictation and speeches and Quintus Roscius Gallus (c.126 - 62 B.C.) Trinity Parish Church (now claimed as “the also be taught to professional scribes.9 was born a slave at Solonium, south of original” by Stratfordians), and in 1769 The system rapidly spread. Many Ro- Rome. Handsome with an elegant carriage, initiating the Shakespearean Festival in mans trained special slaves as shorthand he moved to Rome to study acting, fre- Stratford-on-Avon which continues to the writers. Students learned shorthand to take quenting the Roman forum to study the present day. down lectures. Even prominent Romans eloquence and delivery of famous orators Now back to our Latin annotation. The learned the system, e.g., Cicero himself and including Quintus Hortensius and Cicero. annotator uses the dative case of “Roscius,” Seneca (4 B.C.- 65 A.D.) the philosopher, He became a master of the acting art, the i.e., “Roscio,” in accord with Camden’s use statesman and writer of nine tragedies who finest comic actor of his time, so remark- of the dative case: “. . Stratford, which owes amplified and codified the system further.10 ably outstanding that Cicero took lessons all of its reputation to its two foster sons— So successful was Tiro’s concept and from him and the Emperor Sulla presented John of Stratford, the Archbishop of Can- system that for centuries shorthand was him with a gold ring, symbol of equestrian terbury who built the church, and Hugh known as “notae Tironianae” or “Tironian rank, a unique distinction for an actor. He Clopton . . .” notes.” Tiro retired to a farm and, before even wrote a treatise comparing acting The unknown annotator is adding “and dying at the age of 100, played an impor- and oratory. He amassed a fortune from his to our Roscius . . .” which, in Latin, requires tant role in preserving the literary works acting.13 the dative case. and extensive personal correspondence of In a time of grandeur for Rome and Was Edward de Vere aware of the quint- his close friend Marcus Tullius Cicero.11 some of its famous leaders, Roscius was essential actor, Roscius? Yes, indeed! Our deemed so supremely peerless that his new friend Roscius is encountered twice in Translation of the second and third name came to symbolize greatness in the- de Vere’s plays: words: Gulielmo Shakeƒpear atrical artistry and, in later centuries, su- Gulielmo = William. Shakeƒspear (= premacy in any field of artistic endeavor, (1 ) 3 Henry VI ( V.vi.10). Henry VI is about Shakespeare) has a second “s” in the “sec- i.e., a consummate artist.14 to be murdered by Gloucester and asks retary” style of writing (vide infra) and In 18th century England the term him: lacks a final “e”. Roscius or Roscian was still applied to (Continued on page 18) Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 18 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003

Latin annotation (cont’d from page 17) So what Camden is saying in the 1590 Ardent Stratfordian Giles Dawson of So flies the reckless shepherd from the entry under the town of Stratford-on-Avon the Folger Shakespeare Library summa- wolf; is that the otherwise rather undistinguished rized the demise of the secretary hand: “By So first the harmless sheep doth yield market town owes its reputation to two 1650 it was well on its way towards extinc- his fleece, eminent local sons, John, who became tion, and by 1700 it had vanished not And next his throat unto the butcher’s Archbishop of Canterbury, and Hugh without a trace, but vanished as a distinct knife. Clopton, who built Stratford’s lovely bridge. hand.”24 What scene of death hath Roscius now The annotator is adding his opinion that to act? Stratford also certainly owes its reputation Analysis of the annotation’s to “our” Roscius, William Shakespeare. handwriting: can it be dated? (2) Hamlet (II.ii.392). As a group of theat- rical players arrives at Elinsore Castle, Relevant history of Our annotation is a mixture of secre- Hamlet, feigning madness, mocks English handwriting tarial and italic hands. The two secretarial Polonius: letters are the “e” and the “ƒ = s”. Hamlet (aside): I will prophesy he comes The secretarial hand was an indigenous The clearly secretarial “e” appears four to tell me of the players. Mark it. You English creation—developing from the times in Gulielmo, Shakespear (twice), say right, sir, for o’ Monday morn small handwriting characteristic of the and planè. Each of these “e’s” has a horizon- ing, ’twas so indeed. reign of Henry VII (1485-1509). Fancy and tal slash near the top which is formed by a Polonius: My lord, I have news to tell difficult to write but popular because of its broad separate stroke of the pen, quite you. graceful appearance, the secretary hand distinctive from an italic “e,” which is the Hamlet: My lord, I have news to tell you. was well established in England by 1525 same as our printed “e” today. The italic “e” When Roscius was an actor in Rome and became the working hand both of is well exemplified in personal letters writ- Polonius: The actors are come hither, scribes and businessmen in the 1500s, ten by Edward de Vere.25 The secretary “e” my lord. lingering into the first half of the 1600s.19 persisted longer than all other secretarial Hamlet: Buzz, buzz. As Martin Billingsley said in his 1618 analy- letters as the italic script took over.26 sis of handwriting, The Pens Excellence:20 The “ƒ” (see figure 1) as the sixth letter Translation of the annotation’s fifth in “Shakespear” and the third letter in word: planè The secretary . . . is so termed (as I “Roscio” is a definite secretarial “s” in Planè is an adverb meaning “certainly,” conceive) because it is the Secretaries com- form, quite different from the italic “s,” as used by the great Roman writer of com- mon hand; and partly because it is the only which looks exactly like our modern edies, Plautus, who died in 184 B.C. and was usual hand of England, for dispatching of printed “s.” The “ƒ” persisted so long in paid homage to by Edward de Vere, who used all manner of businesses. mixed scripts that it is given less diagnos- plots from Amphitrua, Aulularia, and tic value in dating than the secretarial Manaechmi in his own plays. Planè was The italic hand appeared in Italy in “e.”27 used by Cicero to mean “distinctly,” “clearly” 1423 and was officially adopted by the The “t” in nostro is flourished but not or “intelligibly”—as in “planissime Vatican’s papal chancery in 1431. It ap- clearly secretarial.28 explicare,” to explain distinctly or clearly.16 peared in England in the early 1500s and In the 1500s the “i” is usually accented The fifth letter in “planè” is a secretary rapidly spread. Why? Because of its greater rather than dotted, so the dotted “i” in “e” (vide infra), not an “i.” The word is not ease and clarity and because emigrating Gulielmo and in Roscio favors a date in “plani,” the Latin subjective genitive case Italian writing teachers dominated Euro- the 1600s or later. of “planus” describing the source of an pean and English handwriting and print- Handwriting analysts try to decide the activity, “Shakespeare’s impostoring” as it ing styles in the 16th century.21 earliest and latest dates for a piece of was first translated erroneously.17 The italic hand soon became favored writing. Given the important caveats that The Latin language used a line over a by scholars at Cambridge, including Roger handwriting analysis is an inexact science vowel such as “i” or “e” to express longness Ascham, who tutored the future Queen and that a sample of six words is extremely in pronunciation. By the middle ages it had Elizabeth I in calligraphy as well as Greek small, the author’s experts state that the disappeared, being replaced by accent and Latin from 1548 to 1550, when Eliza- overall predominance of the italic hand marks to indicate either long vowels or beth was 15 to 17 years old. Having learned (30 out of 35 letters = 86%), mixed with stressed syllables,18 as used by our un- the secretarial hand first, she was adept at secretarial “e’s” and “ƒ’s,” suggest that our known annotator. both scripts, as were Francis Bacon and a annotation was most likely written be- number of Elizabethan nobles.22 Edward tween 1620 and 1650.29 Translation of the sixth word: nostro de Vere and his nemesis, William Cecil, Nostro means “our” in Latin. used the italic hand. Summary and Conclusions We can now see that the complete, There was a continuing battle between correct translation of the annotation is: the two hands in England in the late 1500s 1. The ink annotation found on page and 1600s, written documents and letters 452 of the Huntington Library’s copy of And certainly to our Roscius, William often showing an intermixture but with the William Camden’s 1590 Third Edition of Shakespear. italic hand increasingly predominating.23 Britannia correctly reads: “et Gulielmo Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 19

Shakespear Roscio planè nostro.” Final comments Say? Why and When Did He Say It?” 2. In English this reads: “and certainly (Presentation at 7th Annual Edward de to our Roscius, William Shakespeare.” In addition to the obvious reminder Vere Studies Conference, Portland, Oregon, 3. Handwriting analysis suggests the that one must always make certain that April 13, 2003). annotation was written between 1620 and research material is copied with uncom- 7. Tabor, op. cit. 1650. promised technical accuracy, sleuthing a 8. Sir Edward Maunde Thompson. An 4. By his annotation, the book’s owner cryptic six-word Latin annotation in a 1590 Introduction to Greek and Latin is declaring himself a Stratfordian since he book led to edification in the following Palaeography. Clarendon Press, Oxford, is attributing Stratford-on-Avon’s reputa- scholarly arenas: 1912. tion to Shakespeare as well as to its two 9. Harper’s Dictionary of Classical Literature foster sons, John, Archbishop of Canter- 1. Paleography, the study of ancient and Antiquities. Editor, Harry Thurston Peck, American Book Co., Harper & Bros., bury and Hugh Clopton, the only two writing. NY, 1896. Stratford “alumni” thought worthy of note 2. The wonderful intricacies of Lingua 10. Ibid. by Camden. Latina, the Latin language. 11. Thompson, op. cit. 5. Owners of any book except the Bible 3. The historical origins and development 12. Comment made by Roger Stritmatter after in those days were certainly members of of shorthand. presentation of “What Did William the educated class, especially the owner of 4. The life of Tiro and his historically Camden Say? Why and When Did He Say a book in Latin who wrote a Latin annota- important association with Cicero. It?”, 7th Annual Edward de Vere Studies tion. This does not mean he was a member 5. The life of Quintus Roscius and use of Conference, Portland, Oregon, April 13, of the nobility, since most members of the terms “Roscius” or “Roscian” for 2003. Edward de Vere’s University Wits were supremely gifted artists in any field, 13. Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition, fluent in Latin and none were nobles, and especially actors. volume XXIII. Cambridge Univ. Press, since other bright commoners like Ben 6. Study of Elizabethan handwriting, the England, 1911, p. 275. Jonson knew Latin. The identity of the evolution of the secretary hand and its 14. The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, annotator will never be known. demise, and the supremacy of the italic NY, 2001. (also: Tabor, op. cit.). 6. Since there is no evidence that hand up to the present. 15. Cited by Oxford English Dictionary, vol. Shaksper of Stratford was a famous actor 7. The techniques of handwriting analysis XIV. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989. p. and little or no valid evidence that he was in chronological dating. 103. an actor at all, this reference to “Roscius” 16. Cassell’s New Latin Dictionary. Editor, D.D. Simpson. Funk & Wagnalls Co., NY, raises an interesting question. Just what All of the these derivatives represent a did the annotator know about Shaksper of 1960. rather bountiful harvest from six words 17. Anonymous Latin professor, op. cit. Stratford? He believes Shaksper is famous hastily scribbled more than 300 years ago. enough to be mentioned as an important 18. Bernard Bischoff. Latin Palaeography. Edward de Vere’s viewpoint on literary Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Trans. by foster son of Stratford, but in what capacity? study and research is once again confirmed: Daibhi Croinin & David Ganz. Cambridge If the annotator knew the works of Univ. Press, 1990. Shakespeare, why not call him “Our honey- Study is like the heaven’s glorious sun. 19. N. Denholm Young. Handwriting in tongued Ovid” or “Our mellifluous Love’s Labour’s Lost (I.i.84) England and Wales. Univ. of Wales Press, Virgilian wordsmith?” In the vast majority Cardiff, 1954. (Also: Bischoff, op. cit.) of cases, “Roscius” has been used to refer to The author is indebted to Stephen Ta- 20. Cited in: Giles E. Dawson and Laetitia great actors, including Shakespeare’s two bor, Curator of Early Printed Books, Hun- Kennedy Skipton. Elizabethan Handwrit- usages in 3 Henry VI and Hamlet. Calling tington Library, for sage and helpful ad- ing, 1500-1650. A Manual. W.W. Norton Shaksper “Roscius” would seem to indi- vice. & Co, Inc., NY, 1966. cate that, despite the lack of evidence, 21. Young, op. cit. there were some who thought he was an References 22. Ibid. actor and that acting was how he “made it” 23. Ibid. in London. 1. The Latin professor will remain anonymous 24. Dawson and Skipton, op. cit. 7. The annotation, likely written so because he was so wrong! 25. William Plumer Fowler. Shakespeare soon after Shaksper of Stratford’s death in 2. Rudolph Altrocchi. Sleuthing in the Stacks. Revealed in Oxford’s Letters, preface, Peter 1616, does confirm the remarkable early Harvard Univ. Press, page 3, Cambridge, E. Randall, Portsmouth, New Hampshire, success of what Oxfordians view as Will- Mass., 1944. 1986. iam Cecil’s clever but monstrous conniv- 3. Personal telephone communication, Univ. of 26. Tabor, op. cit. ance: forcing the genius Edward de Vere Michigan Library research staff, 2002. 27. Ibid. into pseudonymity and promoting the il- 4. Personal communication from Stephen 28. Ibid. literate grain merchant and real estate Tabor, Curator of Early Printed Books, 29. Mary Robertson, handwriting expert and speculator, William Shaksper of Stratford, Huntington Library, San Marino, Chief Curator of Manuscripts, The Huntington Library, San Marino, Calif., into hoaxian prominence as the great poet California, 2002. 2003, communicated to the author via and playwright, William Shakespeare. 5. Ibid. 6. Paul Altrocchi. “What did William Camden Stephen Tabor (Tabor, op. cit.).

Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 20 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003 Oxford’s new coat of arms in 1586 If heraldry is a statement about ancestry, what was de Vere saying? By Barbara Burris

n 1950 Giles Dawson of the Folger Apparently, neither Barrell, Dawson, 1599, also show the same eagle crest. Shakespeare Library saw his chance to nor the Herald at Arms was aware that The altered Oxford arms are proof that Iundermine Charles Wisner Barrell’s Edward de Vere had changed the Oxford from 1586 (the year he began receiving his otherwise solid case for Edward de Vere, heraldry sometime between 1574 and 1586. £1,000 pension from the Queen) through 17th Earl of Oxford, as the Ashbourne por- Although de Vere printed these changes, 1599 de Vere publicly proclaimed he was trait sitter. Dawson doubted Barrell’s con- it is unlikely he registered them with the using a different heraldry from the ancient tentions that the entire coat of arms on the heraldry authority of the time. Oxford clan. Why? Heraldic symbolism painting was the Trentham arms—the fam- The startling fact is that de Vere elimi- represented one’s ancestry, and, as one ily arms of de Vere’s second wife, Elizabeth nated the ancient Oxford boar crest and Herald of Arms put it, “the glory of descent Trentham. Dawson showed the Folger x- replaced it with an eagle crest.4 It is the from a long line of armigerous ancestors, rays to a Herald of Arms in the College of latter crest that we will fit into the coat of the glory and the pride of race inseparably Arms in London. The Herald wrote to arms on the Ashbourne painting, showing interwoven with the inheritance of a name Dawson that a woman would not have a that the combined crest and shield on the which has been famous in history. The crest, though the crest could possibly be painting is Edward de Vere’s new eagle display of a particular coat of arms has that of Elizabeth Trentham’s father. The crest above the Trentham family shield. been the method, which society has coun- Herald found the figures on the x-ray of the tenanced, of advertising to the world that shield too indistinct to identify as any Book depictions of the one is a descendant of some ancestor who particular coat of arms. de Vere eagle crest performed some glorious deed,” and is But he stated that the arms could not be “the very sign of a particular descent or of those of Trentham’s husband, the Earl of The fact that Edward de Vere replaced the a particular rank. By the use of a certain Oxford, because, “the Arms of de Vere are Oxford boar with an eagle is beyond dispute. coat of arms, you assert your descent from of a very distinct type quite different from While still in his youth in 1574, de Vere the person to whom those arms were this Coat.”1 The coat of arms (or more published The Composition or making of granted.”6 As the Herald stated, one of the precisely the achievement) of the ancient the most precious Oil called Oleum two essential qualities of armory was that Oxford line consists of a blue boar in the Magiftrate by Dr. George Baker. On the page it was a definite sign of hereditary nobility crest and a silver mullet (star) in the first opposite Baker’s dedication to de Vere ap- and rank. One of its main purposes was to of four quarters of the shield. The crest in pears the Oxford achievement of arms com- demonstrate pedigree and connection to a the uncovered arms on the painting is of plete with the Oxford shield, earl’s coronet, family line. a bird facing left and the shield is of three helmet and blue boar atop the cap of main- Coats of arms were still extremely im- birds heads with ears (griffins). Barrell had tenance (figure 1). These were the ancient portant in the 1500s for these purposes, identified the crest as the Trentham griffin Oxford family arms that had remained un- especially in such a notable aristocratic and lion crest and the shield as the three changed for 16 generations. family as the Earls of Oxford. Why then griffin heads armed and erased of the But 12 years later, in 1586, when The would Edward de Vere distance himself Trenthams. English Secretary (attributed to Angel Day, from the ancient Oxford heraldic arms Although the Herald did not provide but possibly by de Vere) was published the and, by implication, from the Oxford fam- Dawson any clear evidence against Barrell’s Oxford arms opposite the dedication to de ily line? He did not tinker with the arms for claims, the issue of the coat of arms on the Vere appear drastically changed (figure 2). aesthetic purposes but boldly replaced a painting nevertheless presented a prob- The ancient and venerable blue boar of the major component of the Oxford achieve- lem for Barrell’s case. Curiously, given all Oxford family crest has been removed en- ment—the entire heraldic crest of the the evidence that the painting was one of tirely and in its place is a double crowned famous blue boar. (Although he maintained Oxford, there seemed to be no evidence of eagle crest. The shield supporters have been the Oxford mullet arms on the shield he the de Vere boar crest in the coat of arms. redrawn and reversed and 13 quarterings added 13 more arms, some of which appar- One would expect the husband’s crest to be added to the shield. These changes are not an ently do not relate to the Oxford line.) displayed above the wife’s family shield,2 anomaly, or a mistake in printing. They are These changes were not done secretly. especially since the evidence of the uncov- repeated in the 1592 and 1595 re-printings Thus it appears they were done to make a ered arms, despite alterations, shows Barrell of Secretary.5 The arms opposite John statement. What was Edward de Vere say- was correct about the Trentham griffins in Farmer’s dedication to de Vere in the The ing with this heraldry change? The answer the shield.3 First Set of English Madrigals, published in appears to go far beyond the Ashbourne Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 21 painting issues and may lead to part of the explanation of the great “Shake- speare” mystery.

Thomas Chaucer’s Change in Heraldry

At this point it would be helpful to look at another example of a change in heraldry—one involving Thomas Chaucer, purported son of the poet Geoffrey Chaucer. In The Life and Times of Chaucer, John Gardner discusses the issue of Thomas Chaucer’s legitimacy. The story goes that Thomas was actually the son of John of Gaunt, Chaucer’s patron, and Gaunt’s mistress, Philipa. Gaunt and Chaucer arranged that Chaucer would marry the pregnant Philipa, who was of Fig. 1 a higher class than Chaucer. Elizabeth In figure 1 is the traditional Oxford coat of arms, as was the first child born to Philipa and published in 1574 in Dr. Baker’s The Composition or Thomas the second child, rumored also making [etc.]. Figure 2 shows the new coat of arms to be by Gaunt, not Chaucer. “The tradi- that first appeared in 1586 as part of the dedication tion begins with Speght who reluctantly to Oxford in Angel Day’s The English Secretary. Fig. 2 reports, damaging his own case, ‘yet Fig. 2 some hold opinion (but I know not upon study of the claim in The Paternity of focusing on the changes to the crest. what grounds) that Thomas Chaucer was Thomas Chaucer in hopes of disproving We notice that the new eagle crest is not the sonne of Geoffrey Chaucer, but it “but ended up convinced that there was atop a double crown. The earl’s coronet (a rather some kinsman of his whome hee no other way of accounting for the facts.”9 type of crown or coronet of rank) still sits brought up.’”7 But what concerns us here is the evi- above the shield beneath the helmet. But Gardner relates much of the evidence dence of changes to Thomas Chaucer’s instead of the chapeau or cap of mainte- of special treatment of Philipa and Thomas coat of arms. Gardner states that on his nance upon which the old Oxford boar by Gaunt, including a pension for Thomas tomb Thomas took his mother’s Roet arms, stood there is another crown from which that was far larger than Geoffrey’s, later but not Geoffrey Chaucer’s, and though the eagle emerges. This is an uncommon doubled, other large monetary grants to she was of higher degree, Chaucer’s fame double crown crest. Thomas from Gaunt and Gaunt’s family as a poet “makes this omission curious.”10 The second crown in the new crest is after his death, and Thomas’s special rela- But “Thomas’s apparent alteration of his not another earl’s crown or coronet—each tions with the Gaunt family. Also, Thomas’s father’s arms is even stranger. A seal used rank in the peerage has a distinctive coro- failure to claim Hainault property in his by Thomas Chaucer in 1409 is marked S net or crown structure. This crown is un- mother’s line (she was a Roet heiress) is an (G)HOFRAI CHAUCER”—it is not Thomas’s like any of the peerage coronets or crowns. indication of his illegitimacy. Philipa’s seal but Geoffrey’s—“and on this seal we It is a unique ornamental crown. The de- sister Katherine’s son by Gaunt (Katherine find a bend entire. All other surviving coats sign resembles Fleurs-de-lis with the two was also a mistress of Gaunt who eventu- of Thomas Chaucer exhibit a bend “side petals” turned up rather than down. ally married him) was barred from the countercolored.” The explanation this was The configuration of de Vere’s unique ab- Hainault property on claims of illegiti- a personal whim is unconvincing “since stracted ornamental crown resembles the macy until Henry IV issued a special writ the alteration could be construed as a sign flames of a fire (see figures 3 and 4, next declaring his legitimacy (one of the legiti- of bastardy.”11 page). It is a crown of stylized “flames” mized offspring of Gaunt from which de- beneath the eagle with upraised wings rived future lines of kings). Gardner notes The double crown about to fly away (in heraldry an eagle that “according to Prof. Williams the like- rising wings displayed and inverted). This lihood, or anyway suspicion, is that not What statement was Edward de Vere combination strongly suggests a phoenix. only Chaucer’s daughter Elizabeth but his making with these changes to the Oxford In heraldry a phoenix is portrayed as an son Thomas was biologically a child of arms? To answer that question we must eagle issuing from flames. Thus the pecu- Gaunt.”8 Russell Kraus wrote a serious examine the changes that he made, again (Continued on page 22) Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 22 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003

Fig. 3 Figure 3 is an enlargement that shows more clearly the unique, atypical design of the “crown” in the 1586 crest. The design appears to be an attempt to represent “stylized licks of flame” beneath the crest’s eagle (similar to the flames depicted in Elizabeth’s “Phoenix Jewel,” figure 4), thus inviting close observ- ers to see the eagle as a phoenix. Fig. 4 By permission, British Museum

Coat of arms (cont’d from p. 21) as a New Year’s gift to the Queen.17 This is, Elizabeth in the late 1540s, and about liar configuration of this second crown of course, the same year that Oxford’s new rumors of Elizabeth’s pregnancy by him and a major part of its function is ex- coat of arms with its eagle/phoenix crest and the “…lurid rumours of her having plained.12 makes its first appearance in The English given birth to Seymour’s bastard.”18 Secretary. Enough credence was given to these The Phoenix Connection It is easy to see the Queen making use rumors that her servants were arrested and of Diana, Artemis, the moon, etc., as part of interrogated and she herself was interro- But what does the phoenix have to do her persona—virgin goddesses promoted gated. Further evidence was Elizabeth’s with Edward de Vere? We know that one of as her public image. But why is she associ- obvious love for Seymour who had been the appellations of the Queen was “the ated with the phoenix? And where did this making plans to marry her—plans that Phoenix.” Shake-speare’s last poem was association come from in the mid-1570s? leaked to the public not long before he was called The Phoenix and the Turtle (dove) Mainstream texts attempt to explain it as arrested for treason. Shortly after she be- symbolizing (to many Oxfordians) the relating to her personal history of having came Queen, Seymour’s friends presented Queen as the Phoenix and the author as the risen from the ashes of her 1550s imprison- her with a portrait of Thomas Seymour Turtle (dove). A portrait of the Queen (c. ment and near extinction under the bloody with a poem on it. 1575-76) is called the Phoenix portrait reign of her Catholic sister Mary. But perhaps because she is wearing a large jeweled part of the answer also lies in the Seymour De Vere’s heraldic statement phoenix pin. The Phoenix “was one of her arms, the crest of which is a phoenix. favorite emblems and appears in different The Seymour crest is described in the Could Edward de Vere have been making forms on her portraits.” 13 We know that General Armory as, “Out of a ducal coronet a heraldic statement about his connection to Edward de Vere gave the Queen elaborate or (gold), a phoenix-gold issuing from Thomas Seymour and the Phoenix Queen— jeweled pins as New Year’s gifts, and one is flames.” This would appear to be the pri- as the illegitimate offspring of that relation- noted from him in 1575 (new calendar) of mary connection to the de Vere eagle/ ship? Everything in the changed heraldry a ship studded with diamonds.14 phoenix crest. The eagle/phoenix in Ed- seems to indicate that.19 Edward de Vere Karen Hearn, in her book on paintings ward de Vere’s crest is also gold as we know replaced the Oxford boar crest with a stylized of the era, notes, “The phoenix did not from other representations. eagle/phoenix crest that appears to be a dual come into use as a symbol of Elizabeth Is the Seymour phoenix crest merely a reference to Seymour’s phoenix crest and until the 1570s. A surviving ‘Phoenix strange coincidence? Or is it the connection Elizabeth as the phoenix. That these changes Jewel’…dates from c. 1570-80. Within an to the stylized crown of flames with the rising are not coincidental is confirmed by changes enamelled wreath of flowers is set a gold eagle alluding to the phoenix on the altered Edward de Vere made to the Oxford support- profile bust of Elizabeth I, attired similarly crest of Edward de Vere? Is this Seymour ers in other depictions of his changed arms to the present portrait, with a phoenix phoenix also the connection to the Queen as that connect to the Seymour’s unicorn sup- in flames on the reverse.”15 This phoenix the Phoenix that began in the 1570s? porter.20, 21 jewel is dated c. 1574 by Roy Strong16 (see We know there was a connection be- In his chapter entitled “Marks of Bas- figure 4). tween Thomas Seymour and Princess Eliza- tardy” from A Complete Guide to Heraldry Hearn also notes that in 1586 (new beth. Much has been written about Fox-Davies states that despite later times calendar) a phoenix jewel was recorded Seymour’s advances toward the young when arms were improperly assumed, in Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 23 the past “The use of arms was formerly these added arms there is punning, allusion 10. Ibid, 159. evidence of pedigree.”22 It was evidence and changes that cannot be connected to 11. Ibid, 159. that could be taken to court as late as the recognized arms.24 These changes will be 12. Fox-Davies, op. cit., 180. Phoenix are usually depicted as demi-eagles but there early 1800s. That de Vere was making a explored in future articles. They are extremely are full eagles with legs used in phoenix statement about his own pedigree with his important to the Shake-speare mystery. crests. major changes to the Oxford family her- In a future article we will also return 13. Jane Ashelford, A Visual History of the aldry is hardly questionable. These changes to the Ashbourne painting, where we will Costume of the Sixteenth Century (N.Y. were a proclamation. Fox-Davies notes link this changed de Vere eagle/phoenix Drama Book Pub., 1983), #85, p. 87. that most changes to heraldry are known crest to the crest on the Shake-speare por- 14. Miller, op. cit., Vol II, 525. 15. Karen Hearn, editor, Dynasties, Painting in from changes made by royal bastards. And trait. Tudor and Jacobean England 1530 to 1630 he states that “one of the most curious (London: Tate Gallery, 1995), # 34 bastardized coats is that of Henry Fitz-Roy, References Elizabeth I, the Phoenix portrait. Duke of Richmond and Somerset, illegiti- 16. Roy Strong, The Cult of Elizabeth, mate son of Henry VIII.”23 1. Letter to Giles E. Dawson from Anthony (London: Random House Pimlico edition, One might contend that even if de Vere’s R. Wagner, Richmond Herald, 18th April 1999), 73. new crest is that of a phoenix, it cannot be 1950, Coat of Arms Identification File, 17. Hearn, op. cit. . The Ashbourne Portrait File. Folger 18. David Starkey, Elizabeth (New York: conclusively linked to the Seymour phoe- Shakespeare Library. Washington, DC Harper Collins, 2001), 77. Starkey, like nix crest because the phoenix is not an 2. One would expect the husband’s crest to be many biographers and historians, still uncommon crest in heraldry. used even if these arms were portrayed clings to and promotes the myth of the But there is corroboration of the incorrectly, as is not uncommon in virgin Queen—a double standard that Seymour connection in both the 13 added paintings. The shield in a combined or would be laughable if applied to a man. arms and in other later representations of marshaled arms would have been impaled 19. There is other independent corroboration with the husband’s or baron’s arms on the of Edward de Vere’s links to Elizabeth and the new Oxford arms where even more dexter and the wife’s father’s arms on the the Tudors aside from the heraldry. Two extensive changes have been made. It can- sinister side. In this combination on the examples are the “crown signature” and the not again be coincidence that one of the painting the Trentham family shield is personal name Edward. Oxford signed his Seymour supporters is a unicorn and in surmounted by Edward de Vere’s eagle name with the “crown signature” -a two other later representations of de Vere’s crest. It is the author’s contention that the “crown” above and a line below with 7 changed arms the Oxford boar supporter arms were added to the painting after slashes (denoting Edward VII)—from Edward de Vere’s death by his widow. November 1569 until the Queen’s burial has been replaced by one with a unicorn Inaccuracies in heraldry on paintings is a and the end of the Tudor line on the body with added unique allusive features common occurrence due to patron or artist throne. Afterward he abruptly stopped relating to Oxford and to Shake-speare’s ignorance. using this form of signature though he works. These peculiar features are not found 3. In previous articles we have provided remained 17th Earl of Oxford until his in any other heraldic representation of a evidence of alterations to the coat of arms death. Another curious fact is that before unicorn. In one of the renditions no boar while in the Folger’s possession, both Edward, 17th Earl of Oxford, there were no Edwards (the name of Elizabeth’s beloved remains from the original Oxford coat of before and after their X-rays were made in 1948. half brother, Edward VI) in the Oxford line arms in either crest or supporters. This 4. Ruth Loyd Miller, Shakespeare Identified in and no Henry’s (both Tudor names), only change to a unicorn supporter bolsters the Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, Vol. Roberts, Johns and Aubreys. Also, when interpretation of the phoenix crest. How II. (Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, the 16th Earl died, his daughter contested likely is it that Edward de Vere’s changed 1975), 51. Note: Miller displays the eagle Edward de Vere’s legitimacy and right to heraldry would incorporate both a very crest achievement from the 1599 Farmer inherit. The Queen quashed the Court proceedings. direct allusion to the Seymour phoenix book, but there is an earlier use of this changed achievement in The English 20. There is not space here to explore other crest and the Seymour unicorn sup- Secretary in 1586. She mis-identified the heraldry changes to the shield and porter? eagle as a falcon in the crest. supporters in other sources that confirm Furthermore the Oxford shield depicted 5. Presumably these changes are on the 1599 the Seymour and Queen connections to de in the 1574 Dr. Baker book shows eight reprint also, but the copy on microfilm at Vere’s changed coat, as well as links in quarterings of the Oxford arms. But none of the University of Michigan library did not these changes to Shake-speare through Ovid and the Actaeon myth. the 13 additional quarterings that de Vere show this page. 6. A.C. Fox-Davies, A Complete Guide to 21. It appears that at least one of the thirteen added to these eight in the changed coat of Heraldry, revised and annotated by J.P. added arms relates to the royal arms and is arms—as depicted in The English Secre- Brooke-Little, Richmond Herald of Arms, not connected to the Oxford line. tary—appear in a previous major version, (Melbourne, Australia: Thomas Nelson 22. Fox-Davies, op. cit., 390. the 13th Earl of Oxford’s great shield of the Ltd., 1969), pp. 17-18. 23. Ibid., 401. Oxford line. 7. John Gardner, The Life and Times of 24. Punning on names and corresponding arms Yet, investigation of some of these added Chaucer (New York: Barnes & Noble was common in ancient heraldry. Allusion Books, 1977), 158. was also made in arms. The Duke of arms again shows connections to the 8. Ibid, 158. Richmond, bastard son of Henry VIII, made Seymour arms and to royal arms. In some of 9. Ibid, 158. allusion to his mother’s arms in his Coat. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 24 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003 Book Reviews Chasing Shakespeares. By Sarah eral colleges. She is the webmaster of the happens, co-founder Lincoln Schuster was Smith. New York: Simon & Schuster Mystery Writers of America, and a member an Oxfordian.) Bookstores across the na- (Atria imprint), 2003. of the board of the Shakespeare Fellow- tion are sponsoring book signings for her. ship, publisher of this newsletter. In her novel, the detective chasing the By Richard F. Whalen Adept at scholarly research papers as Shakespeares is a graduate student at North- well as historical mystery novels, she pub- eastern University who hopes to write a lished a paper in last year’s Oxfordian biography of the dramatist. Cataloguing a ake heart, Oxfordians. This collection of old documents, in- may be the novel on the Shake- “I Don’t Believe in Oxford” cluding many obvious forgeries, he Tspeare authorship question comes across a letter from Will that captures the imagination of the Joe Roper, the grad student and narrator Shakspere of Stratford that seems general reading public and wins a of Sarah Smith’s Chasing Shakespeares, and to be authentic. But, to his dismay, place on the best-seller lists. Posy Gould, a glamorous new friend, are it indicates that he was not the au- Sarah Smith is the author of three looking at a letter signed by William of Strat- thor of the plays and poems. Com- highly acclaimed historical novels ford that seems to say he was not the drama- plications arrive in the person of a that reached bestseller status. Two tist. Joe thinks it must be a forgery although rich, California “valley girl” who is of them were named “Notable Books it looks authentic. He says, “I don’t believe in researching William Cecil, Lord of the Year” by The New York Times. Oxford.” Posy replies: Burghley, at Harvard. She takes him They have also been published in “You are such a —” She looked up at me, to London first class to have a manu- England and in 12 languages. Her long, appraisingly, but almost vulnerably, script expert verify the letter’s au- publisher calls her a “literary star on too. “Are you just trying to lose this letter? thenticity and appraise its value. the rise” and compares Chasing You’re supposed to be smart, I can’t believe Torn by the possible loss of his be- Shakespeares to a best-selling novel you’re being this stupid. We just found Shake- loved Stratford man, running into by A.S. Byatt. speare. I knew Shakespeare knew Cecil, Oxford at every turn, he suffers an So did the Boston Globe in its knew Shakespeare went to Italy, a lot of agonizing reappraisal of what he lengthy review on June 9, which called people think Shakespeare didn’t write the believes, who he is and what it all it “a smart, sexy, modern-day mystery plays, and now we have proof, and I want to means for his career and his image reminiscent of A.S. Byatt’s Posses- know all about this letter. Why did Shake- of the man who wrote Shakespeare’s sion.” Opening with the question: speare write it to Fulke Greville, and did works. “Who really wrote Shake-speare’s Greville know Elizabeth Vere, and–I can’t It’s a first-rate literary detective plays?”, the reviewer says the “debate believe you don’t want to know about this.” story with a struggling graduate stu- has raged (albeit quietly) in the halls “Read the anti-Oxford site and just calm dent, a glamorous seductress, a beau- of academia for decades. Now, it down. Oxford can’t be Shakespeare.” tiful would-be nun, deceptive villains comes to life in the able hands of “Why not?” and a suspenseful plot line with all the Brookline-based Sarah Smith.” “Oxford died in 1604.” I was paging requisite twists and turns. Professors More recently, The New York down the anti-Oxford site. “Shakespeare kept Marjorie Garber and Helen Vendler Times Book Review gave Smith’s writing plays until 1613.” of Harvard make cameo appearances, book major play, but its reviewer, “You’d have to redate the plays,” Posy as do brothers Charles and William Jeff Turrentine, “a writer living in mused. Boyle of the Shakespeare Fellowship. Los Angeles,” was looking for a dif- One scene takes place at an Oxfordian ferent book. Instead of reviewing Smith’s, journal on “The Paine of Pleasure,” a long, conference, and a few prominent Oxfordians he wishes she had written “a nimble satire” anonymous poem ascribed to Anthony are pseudonymously limned among the sup- or a non-fiction book “framing the debate Munday, which she came across while re- porting cast. for lay readers” or a memoir on her conver- searching her novel. She demonstrates that Sarah Smith was a devoted Stratfordian sion or a novel set in the Elizabethan era. it is impossible that Munday wrote it and until she met Joanna Wexler, also of Not very helpful for the reader of the re- that the likely author was Edward de Vere, Brookline, a Boston suburb. Wexler loaned view. At least, the reviewer did not reject seventeenth earl of Oxford. In April, she her books and urged her to write about the Oxfordian proposition, nor did he even delivered a paper on Angel Day’s The En- Oxford. (Wexler, a woman of infectious en- scorn it. glish Secretarie at the seventh annual Ed- thusiasm, also introduced Derek Jacobi to Sarah Smith is not only an accom- ward de Vere Studies Conference at Con- the case for Oxford, and Jacobi is now a plished novelist, she is also an archival cordia University in Portland, Oregon. confirmed Oxfordian.) researcher with outstanding academic Chasing Shakespeares is a literary de- Smith’s three historical mysteries are credentials. She is a graduate of Harvard tective story set in Boston, London, Strat- The Vanished Child (1992), The Knowl- College, where she studied Shakespeare ford and Hedingham. It’s driven by strongly edge of Water (1996)–both New York Times with the poet Robert Lowell and Marjorie motivated characters and should appeal to notable books–and A Citizen of the Coun- Garber, a leading Shakespeare professor. a wide range of readers but especially try (2000). She is currently working on a Harvard University awarded her a Ph.D. in those in academia. It has the PR power- novel about the survivors of the Titanic English literature. She has taught at sev- house of Simon & Schuster behind it. (As it sinking in 1912. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 25

The Dark Side of Shakespeare: An that the private homes3 of those in the Sussex’s assistant, had authority for decades Iron-fisted Romantic in England’s alliance were where the ‘Shakespeare’ plays over the censorship of plays, along with Most Perilous Times. Vol. 1 of III. each were’originated.’” control of the stage companies through By W. Ron Hess (iUniverse, 2002) The alliance used stage plays as a public their underling, the Master of the Revels. relations part of its efforts for promoting These three, along with their ally, the Earl By Richard Desper its desired goals, both in the earlier period of Oxford (a.k.a. the “Lord Great when the author was anonymous and later Chamberlain”), held sway over the stage hen delving into the life of the on when the pseudonym “Shakespeare” in its Elizabethan heyday through their putative poet and playwright was introduced. The core of this alliance sponsorship and control of various acting W“William Shakespeare,” it may was formed, according to Hess, as early as companies: the Chamberlain’s Men (in well be said (irony intended) that there is various incarnations), the Admiral’s Men less to the man than meets the eye. Neither (Effingham became Lord Admiral and, the background, qualifications, nor the incidentally, commanded the fleet which historical record, seem to support the “The ‘Shakespeare turned back the Spanish Armada in 1588), historical William Shakspere as the Bard. enterprise’ is a key the combined Oxford’s/Worcester’s Men, Ron Hess, in the first book of his planned and St. Paul’s Boys, under the tutelage of trilogy1 has undertaken an analogous if concept in Hess’s book... Oxford’s secretary, John Lyly. According somewhat opposite task—he has examined to Hess, the alliance later enlisted the 6th the facts about the 17th Earl of Oxford, [he] sees the written Earl of Derby, Oxford’s son-in-law, who most likely the actual identity of the author was sponsor of “Derby’s Men,” then “William Shakespeare,” and shows that works as only part of continued even beyond the death of Oxford there is much more to the man than meets with the Herbert brothers, the Earls of the eye. Indeed, it would seem, if we are to a larger undertaking, Pembroke and Montgomery, the latter another Oxford son-in-law. The Herberts believe Mr. Hess, that there is much more with Oxford playing to the “Shakespeare enterprise” than we eventually became the “incomparable had ever imagined. an international role paire” who published the First Folio in The “Shakespeare enterprise” is a key 1623. concept in Hess’s book. In his own words, embodying a mythical What of Oxford’s role in history? It has “... The real question of importance should been said on the subject “People want first be, ‘WHAT was Shake-spear?’” In the hero, the ‘Paladin clear-cut answers, but history’s really First Folio, Ben Jonson calls Shakespeare messy”4: to a great extent though which we “Soule of the Age! ... Thou art a moniment of England...’” view the past “through a glass darkly,” with [sic] without a tomb!” suggesting less evidence than one would like. However, Shakespeare’s purpose, that of defining history affords us some level of the character and tone of an age. Hess sees 1569-70: “Effingham and Hunsdon, along contemporary documentation of Oxford the written works as only part of a larger with Oxford, had served under Sussex in in a role of the gathering of intelligence, a undertaking, with Oxford playing an the military campaigns of 1569-70 to put concept pursued (if not originated) by Hess. international role embodying a mythical down the Northern Rebellion . . . Sussex’s In his landmark book, for instance, hero, the “Paladin of England,” identified core team were brothers in combat, and Charlton Ogburn Jr. tells us: “We have a (through Greek etymology) with Pallas they watched an ungrateful government strong indication from Gabriel Harvey ... Athena as the “Spear-Shaker.” Whatever almost destroy Sussex in the midst of his that Oxford served as the eyes of the crown other role he may have had beyond that of command. . . . Sussex literally lived on a on his travels when he [Harvey] wrote in a writer, he was prominent, as a writer, in knife-edge, and more important than Speculum Tuscanismi ‘not like the lynx to molding opinion first at Court, then in the Oxford’s honor and safety was the welfare spy out secrets and privities of state.’”5 world at large. That in itself is no small of his allies.” This “band of brothers,” men Hess further notes the testimony in Thomas matter, for perception, image, whatever who had shared the rigors and perils of Churchyard’s book Discourse of a voyage one might call it, counted a great deal in both battle and court intrigue, were bonded by Oxford and Churchyard in 1567 bearing those days, even as it does today. together as only companions-at-arms may messages to the Prince of Orange in the According to Hess, the enterprise bond among men, pursuing a common Netherlands. involved a long-term alliance among a agenda for themselves and for their nation, Hess remarks extensively on Oxford’s core group composed of Earls of Sussex, of which the “Shakespeare Enterprise” was possible role in international intrigue, Oxford, and Pembroke, along with Lords a part. The members of the alliance held juxtaposed in the 1570s against Don Juan Hunsdon and Effingham, all with key roles key roles in shaping the cultural destiny of of Austria, natural half-brother to the King at Court and in the London stage. Beginning England. Sussex and Hunsdon, as of Spain and the great military leader of the in the 1570s,2 “the alliance controlled the successive Lord Chamberlains of the day, a role perhaps not as far-fetched as it public and semi-public stages, but I argue Household, along with Effingham as (Continued on page 26) Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 26 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003

Book reviews (continued from page 26) References: London, 1928, p. 102. might seem at first glance. Oxfordians 10. Hess poses questions and offers his 6 7 opinions, an essential difference from such as Holland and Clark have long 1. Volume I of the trilogy was printed in many orthodox scholars who often offer softcover in 2002, 620 pgs. $34.95, ISBN noted that the “Shakespeare” plays abound their opinions as though they were facts. 0-595-24777-6 (www.iUniverse.com). In Aristotelian logic, this is known as a with topical references dated to that decade, Volumes II and III, coming out in softcover including allusions to this Don Juan. fallacious argument from authority”. In a later in 2003, were reviewed from court of law, a qualified expert in his field Indeed, much of Volume I is devoted to preprints. —e.g. a forensic scientist or a physician— Hess’s identification of historical 2. Hess, Vol. II, preprint p. 12.5. Chapter 12 is allowed to offer his opinions in his field in this volume delineates Hess’s proposals of expertise as though they were fact. This personages with characters in the about the nature, composition, and extent is the only carefully limited situation in “Shakespeare” plays, identifying the of what he calls “the Shakespeare which testimony of opinion, rather than playwright as an intimate observer on the Enterprise.” witnessing to fact, is allowed in Anglo- stage of international realpolitique, if not American jurisprudence. The “fallacy” an active participant. occurs when one misuses such a claim for As Enoch Powell puts it, the Shake- authority, arguing solely from authority “And while some may take without facts to support one’s position. speare plays “were the works of someone Oxfordians are well acquainted with such who had been ‘in the kitchen’ . . . it comes issue with Hess’s proposal abuses among orthodox scholars. straight from experience.”8 And while 11. See Hess’ Appendix B in Volume II regarding the controversy over dating of some may take issue with Hess’s proposal that Oxford made a voyage plays. that Oxford made a voyage from Venice to

Turkey in 1575, there is some evidence from Venice to Turkey Advertisement supporting this. Oxford’s whereabouts are unaccounted for during several months of in 1575, there is some Shakespeare and the summer of 1575, and he had earlier the Tudor Rose indicated in a letter: “the king [of France] evidence supporting this. by Elisabeth Sears has given me letters of recommendation to New edition his ambassador in the Turk’s Court . . . Oxford’s whereabouts are perhaps I shall bestow two or three months (Meadow Geese Press, 2003) to see Constantinople, and some part of The legend is that Elizabeth I of England unaccounted for during was the Virgin Queen, remaining childless Greece.”9 While Hess’s proposal is and therefore leaving no issue of her body somewhat speculative, it is clearly labeled several months of the to succeed her.This big lie of history gave as such, has foundation in fact, and is worth rise to the big lie of “William Shakespeare.” bringing forth. summer of 1575...” Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose, Hess’s book abounds with notes, published by Meadow Geese Press, is appendices, references, an index, and a available online or at local book stores. For more information: bibliography which attest to the extensive 3. Many Elizabethan gentlemen and nobles www.MeadowGeesePress.com. research involved in its preparation, a level had private stages for plays in their homes; of research unmatched by orthodox one survives today at Otley Hall in Advertisement Suffolk, the ancestral home of the Gosnold The one novel that tells the true Shakespeare scholars. He speaks with logic family. and clarity, as when he debunks the 4. Don Carleton, University of Texas, Austin, History, Mystery and Romance orthodox “voice of authority”10 in such in U.S. News & World Report, 07/24/2000, of Edward deVere 11 pg. 331, quote by Hess at the beginning of matters as the dating of the plays. He Volume I. deftly skewers their inconsistent logic, for 5. Charlton Ogburn Jr., The Mysterious instance, as to what standards are to be William Shakespeare: the Myth and the Shakespeare’s Ghost accepted or disdained as it suits their Reality, EPM Publications, McLean, VA, by James Webster Sherwood 1984, p. 530. purposes in one instance vs. another. His 6. Adm. H. H. Holland, Shakespeare, Oxford, writing style exudes candor, freshness, and and Elizabethan Times, Archer, London, “A work of poetry ... funny, openness—presenting the evidence, 1933. heartbreaking, magnificent.” offering alternate interpretations 7. Eva Turner Clark, Hidden Allusions in Shakespeare’s Plays, 3rd Ed., Kennikat (including his own, of course), and inviting Press, New York, 1974. 384 pages / $25.00 readers to draw their own conclusions. 8. Enoch Powell, former British cabinet OPUS books For those who have found his speaking member, in the Frontline television order: www.opusbook.com style entertaining, it has translated into program tape, “The Shakespeare Mystery,” WGBH, Boston, 1991. fax: 516-365-8331 his written work as well, resulting in a 9. Katherine Chiljan, Letters and Poems of check by mail: 5 Central Drive, colorful presentation, which abounds in Edward, Earl of Oxford, 1998, p. 17; Plandome, NY 11030-1408 Hess’s rich personal literary images. Ogburn Jr., p. 542; B.M. Ward, The ISBN 0-9661961-1-2 Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, John Murray, Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 27

A year in the life By Hank Whittemore 1586: “Buy a thousand pound, buy a rope”

s the year 1586 dawned upon En- Flanders a month later. William Cecil, Lord But that the tennis-court keeper gland, government leaders increas- Burghley wrote to inform the earl he had knows better than I, for it is a low ebb of ingly feared attempts on Queen been appointed Master of the Horse, but linen with thee when thou keepest not A racket there; as thou hast not done a Elizabeth’s life while preparing for potential by mid-October he was returning home great while, because the rest of thy low civil war. The best they could do to protect while his adversary Robert Dudley, Earl of countries have made a shift to eat up thy her from assassination was to maintain “a holland. 2 Henry IV, 2.2.18-22 powerful household guard,” Joel Hurstfield writes, and “an elaborate counter-espionage “Elizabeth in 1585 “Poins has not played tennis recently system to root out the plotters before their because he has no spare shirt to change plans were ripe.” The Queen’s ministers had had concluded a treaty after exercising,” explains the Riverside already made clear that any such plot would Shakespeare, adding that the “low coun- result in the execution of still- captive Mary with the Netherlands tries” or brothels had contrived to strip him Stuart, Queen of Scots, and the exclusion of naked of his “holland” or fine linen.4 Tradi- her son, James of Scotland, from ever wear- tional editors also duly observe the pun on ing the English crown. and promised an Holland suggested by low countries, but “It is a chilling thought,” Hurstfield adds, they necessarily miss the great fun Oxford “to call to mind that these eminent statesmen expensive army of was having with Sidney’s “low ebb” or would prefer to plunge England into a period lower rank and self-imposed exile from the of bloody warfare rather than see a second assistance ... royal tennis court, not to mention his more Catholic Mary sit on the throne of England.” recent government commission. Meanwhile a reluctant Elizabeth had also If we are looking for While de Vere might have written the accepted that she must now strike against scene with Poins before Sidney’s departure Spain in the Netherlands before King Philip’s a turning point in in November 1585, he would not have penned buildup for an invasion was complete. Span- it later than September 1586, when Sir Philip ish forces under Alexander of Parma were Elizabeth’s reign, was mortally wounded at Zutphen and be- pushing the Dutch from one line of defense came, in death, a national hero. These few to another, while the Catholic League in this is surely it.” lines help uncover the dating of 2 Henry IV France had become openly allied with Spain, and reinforce Eva Turner Clark’s observa- creating the propitious moment for an all-out tion that this play, ostensibly recreating attack on England. Having slowly and un- Leicester was set to take full command of England’s past, also reflects the treason- willingly accepted war as inevitable, Eliza- the English presence in Holland. Whether able actions of the Babington plotters, who beth in 1585 had concluded a treaty with the it was the Queen or Oxford himself who cut aimed to murder Elizabeth and replace her Netherlands and promised an expensive army short his mission is unknown, but getting with Mary Stuart on behalf of Spain and the of assistance. Hurstfield notes: set to replace him in charge of the Horse Pope—a scheme brought to the brink of “If we are looking for a turning point in was Leicester’s nephew Philip Sidney, fruition during 1586 by the crafty manipula- Elizabeth’s reign, this is surely it. She was whom Elizabeth also made Governor of tions of Francis Walsingham, Secretary of now fifty-two years of age, and, although Flushing.2 State, with the help of his state-sponsored she had 18 years left to live and reign, she With these events in mind we may espionage network, and fully exposed that would never know peace again. Her hopes notice a humorous portrait of Sidney in 2 August. of maintaining stability and security by dip- Henry IV as the comic character Poins.3 “The year 1586 was an important one in lomatic means had turned to ashes.” Now Prince Hal pokes fun at the “many pair of the life of the Earl of Oxford,” Ms. Clark the Queen must “stretch and strain her re- silk stockings” owned by Poins-as-Sidney, writes. “He had been disappointed in his sources almost to the breaking-point, live on including “thy peach-colored ones” along hope for a military career when he was her capital” and “scrape around for all man- with “the inventory of thy shirts, as one for recalled a few months earlier from his post ner of revenue” to save her life while pre- superfluity, and another for use!” Then in the Low Countries. What filled his time venting her country’s destruction.1 the future King Henry V makes obvious during the first half of 1586 is not clear, Five days after Antwerp had fallen to reference to the 1579 Oxford-Sidney tennis although it is a reasonable conjecture that Parma on August 19, 1585, Colonel John court quarrel (after which Elizabeth had he was busy arranging plays for the stage, Norris left for Holland in charge of 4,000 supported Oxford by citing the lower rank even if not writing them himself, plays which soldiers; and following along with 2,000 of Sidney, who thereupon sulked off in a would have a definite influence on the mind additional men had been 35-year old Edward huff), and to Sir Philip’s later commission of the public and prepare it for the coming de Vere, Earl of Oxford, who arrived at to the Low Countries: (Continued on page 28) Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 28 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003

Year in the Life (Continued from p. 27) June 25: Oxford, writing to Burghley Majesty performeth her promise”—a previ- of the Spanish Armada, which in 1586 was for a temporary loan of £200, provides more ous pledge, it would seem, that Elizabeth so obviously imminent.”5 evidence that Robert Cecil, 23, is rising had been extremely slow in fulfilling.10 June 21: Lord Burghley, writing to Sec- within the Government; and he confirms The only discernible services Oxford retary Walsingham about money matters that Secretary Walsingham has been pay- had rendered, Clark notes, involved litera- concerning the war against Spain in the ing close attention to his needs by interced- ture, writing for the stage and maintaining Netherlands, pauses to urge him to con- ing with the Queen at Court on his behalf. his acting companies. In the decade since front the Queen about impending financial “My very good Lord,” the earl writes, Oxford had returned from his Continental relief for his son-in-law, requesting the busy “as I have been beholding unto you divers tour in 1576, she contends, he had been spymaster to convey any news to his son times & of late by my brother R. Cecil, churning out the first versions of nearly all Robert Cecil on behalf of Anne Cecil: “I pray whereby I have been the better able to the immortal comedies, tragedies and you send me word if you had any commod- chronicle histories which he would revise ity to speak with Her Majesty to speak for and publish later: “The 10-year delay in the my Lord of Oxford and what hope there is, “In what relation to coming of the Spanish soldier and sailor and if you have any, to let Robert Cecil made possible to England and to the world understand it to relieve his sister, who is the Elizabethan the production of the world’s greatest dra- more troubled for her husband’s lack than mas,” writes Clark, adding that by the end he himself.”6 government—if any— of 1586 the earl “had almost completed the Oxford’s financial position had been series of plays known since 1598 under the steadily declining. Of the 56 separate sales did Oxford help name of William Shakespeare.”11 of land during his lifetime, B. M. Ward generate and galva- By this reckoning de Vere had already reports, no fewer than 32 had been made created the foundational texts that he could between 1580 and 1585, a crucial time in the nize the renaissance revise at will, deleting or adding allusions as rise of dramatic entertainment at the private contemporary situations warranted. Now Blackfriars playhouse, at Court and in pub- of literature and he was also free to accept new challenges, lic theaters. “On the face of it there is little just when Her Majesty along with Cecil and to show for such a high expenditure,” Ward drama from the Walsingham needed his services most—to notes, adding that de Vere’s life in this help rouse national unity amid potential period had been “remarkable for its lack of 1560s through struggles around the throne and promote ostentation” while he had never been called patriotic fervor against Spain. upon, at least not officially, “to undertake the 1580s...” June 26: Queen Elizabeth signs the any of those duties that so often impover- Warrant commanding the Treasurer of the ished Elizabethan courtiers.”7 Exchequer to pay Oxford an annual allow- Yet just when events at home and abroad follow my suit, wherein I have some comfort ance of £1,000 with no accounting required. were intensifying, the Lord Treasurer was at this time from Master Secretary His grant comes via the same channels, by pointedly reminding the Secretary of State Walsingham, so am I now bold to crave the same formula, as the one first issued to of his role as go-between for news from your Lordship’s help at this present. For, Walsingham in July 1582 for activities of his Elizabeth in regard to Oxford’s purse strings. being now almost at a point to taste that Secret Service, when her spymaster was According to Burghley’s letter, however, good which Her Majesty shall determine, authorized to receive £750 per year from the the earl himself was far less concerned yet am I one that hath long besieged a fort Exchequer in quarterly installments. By now about his dire financial straits than anyone and not able to compass the end or reap the the Secretary’s annual grant has risen to else, including his wife. fruit of his travail, being forced to levy his £2,000, but that is as far as Elizabeth will go, June 23: The Government makes its most siege for want of munition.” even for her spymaster during the Armada sweeping attempt of the reign to exercise Until recently Oxfordians have errone- year of 1588. At this juncture, desperately severe control over publications. A Decree of ously assumed this letter was written on needing all available cash to secure her own the Star Chamber orders all books henceforth June 25, 1585; but within the context of 1586 safety and the survival of her realm, while to be printed only in London, Oxford or Cam- it falls one day before the Queen will sign funding an entire network of espionage bridge; Archbishop John Whitgift of Canter- the order for a Privy Seal Warrant, granting requiring continual payments to foreign bury and the Bishop of London must see and Oxford a £1,000 annual allowance from the and domestic spies, the Queen also decides approve all written material beforehand; and Exchequer of the Treasury to be paid regu- to support Edward de Vere in the same any literature that contradicts “the form and larly in quarterly installments.9 His use of manner.12 meaning of any Restraint or Ordinance” is- military language reflects the current war- The singular grant raises a major ques- sued by the Queen or her Privy Council will time atmosphere, while his self-portrait as tion: In what relation to the Elizabethan result “upon pain to have all such presses, one unable to “reap the fruit of his travail” government—if any— did Oxford help gen- letters, and instruments” taken away “to be suggests he has been rendering services to erate and galvanize the renaissance of lit- defaced and made unserviceable for imprint- the Queen, and paying expenses himself, erature and drama from the 1560s through ing forever.” From now on England’s writers for a long time without compensation. He the 1580s, culminating in the works of the will live under the strictest censorship.8 goes on to ask Burghley for the loan “till Her 1590s and beyond that were attributed to Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 29

Shakespeare? Was he working primarily by ate. Plays constituted a “rare exercise of ber.”16 Performing at Court on Jan. 1, 1584, himself, for private ends? Or was he playing virtue” because “the subject of them (for were Oxford’s Men, with Lyly as payee, but an invisible role within the government’s the most part) is borrowed out of our En- both Oxford’s and the Queen’s companies structure, in service to the Queen and glish Chronicles, wherein our forefathers’ performed at Court on March 3, 1584, with Burghley? Was Oxford a lone wolf or a team valiant acts are revived.”15 Lyly again handling business—strong evi- player? Nashe referred specifically to “brave dence that the two acting companies had This column argues that all evidence Talbot” in 1 Henry VI by way of pointing to been amalgamated, with Oxford’s secretary points to a blend of extremes, revealing the stage works recreating the nation’s royal serving as manager and even as rehearsal Lord Great Chamberlain as both “insider” history; but these would also have included coach. In other words, soon after the head and “outsider” – responding directly to the The Famous Victories of Henry Fifth, 2 of the Secret Service had spawned Her challenges faced by his country, in accord Henry VI, 3 Henry VI, Richard III, The Majesty’s own acting company, Edward de with the policies of its leaders, while follow- Vere had rushed to contribute to its suc- ing the dictates of his individual talent and cess.17 conscience. Seen through this lens, a sin- “I serve Her Majesty,” Oxford wrote to gular genius was prompted to fulfill his “...in 1594 [Oxford] Burghley several months later, in October greatness by extraordinary pressures, 1584, “and I am that I am”—a thundering namely the twin threats of civil war and would write to Cecil protest in God’s own words, reminding the outright war itself, during a unique time in most powerful man in England that he was his nation’s history. In this view the “per- to complain about no mere spectator at Court, much as his sonal” and “political” motives of Oxford autobiographical Prince would leap from joined to produce a result far greater than ‘sundry abuses, self-imposed anonymity in the graveyard the sum of their parts. to declare, “This is I, Hamlet the Dane!” In practical terms the argument is that And an equally accurate version of Edward he aligned himself with Elizabeth and whereby both Her de Vere’s life, which he kept from public Burghley, along with Walsingham, to help perception, would come from Iago: “I am defend the Queen against assassination, Majesty and myself, not that I am.”18 secure political-religious unity and survive Oxford held no known office beyond his the attempt by Spain, sanctioned by the were in mine office hereditary title, so most contemporaries Pope, to conquer England. Oxford is envi- may have lacked any knowledge of his sioned playing a multi-faceted role behind greatly hindered.’” service; yet a decade later, in 1594, he would the scenes that included, but was not lim- write to Cecil to complain about “sundry ited to, the issuance of his own works for the abuses, whereby both Her Majesty and stage, as he gathered about him and patron- myself, were in mine office greatly hin- ized a number of literary men whom he Troublesome Reign of King John, King dered”—a word deliberately chosen by the provided with working space, inspiration, John, Richard II, I Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, man who would have Hamlet include the guidance and freedom from the wartime Harry of Cornwall, Henry V, Edward I, insolence of “office” among the pitfalls of suppression of written words and speech. Edward II and Edward III—plays that in a “weary life,” as Oxford himself told Some of the writers—e.g., Anthony large and small ways evoked the invincibil- Burghley in 1591 that he was “weary of an Munday, Thomas Watson and Christopher ity of English arms, encouraged patriotism, unsettled life.”19 Marlowe—operated as Secret Service depicted the fate of disloyalty, promoted In that letter of May 18, 1591, he won- agents while using their artistic activities as unity, advocated support for the reigning dered if the Queen might commute his entire public cover.13 Oxford would later extend house, showed the consequences of rebel- annual pension of £1,000 in return for a his veiled efforts for the Government to lion and held up the Pope and Spain to single payment of £5,000, to purchase “some- arenas such as the “Marprelate” pamphlet mockery and contempt. Additional works thing that were mine own and that I might wars on behalf of Archbishop Whitgift, with political agendas were Coriolanus, possess” so “my children be provided for” with help from his private secretary John Julius Caesar, Othello and Troilus and as well as “myself at length settled in quiet.” Lyly along with Robert Greene and Thomas Cressida, not to mention Tamburlane by Oxford was looking ahead to remarriage and Nashe, who each expressed Oxford’s own Marlowe as well as others, many no longer withdrawing further from Court; and though ideas and even had his own words pub- extant. he became a virtual recluse, the Queen lished under their names.14 Back in 1583 the Queen’s Men had been continued his payments and King James Nashe would inform readers in Pierce formed at the suggestion of Walsingham renewed them until the earl’s death in 1604, Pennilesse (1592) that “the policy of Plays himself. The Secretary had just received his adding up to £18,000 in 18 years. is very necessary, howsoever some shal- first regular allowance for espionage, fol- Six decades later the Rev. John Ward, low-brained censurers (not the deepest lowing years of having to finance it from his vicar of Stratford Parish in Warwickshire, searchers into the secrets of government) own pocket; and now at his request, the 12 recorded local rumors in his diary of 1661- mightily oppugne them,” referring to the best actors from existing companies were 1663 that “Shakespeare” had “supplied the Crown’s deliberate “policy” that the censo- “sworn the Queen’s servants and allowed stage with two plays every year and for that rious, zealous Puritans refused to appreci- wages and liveries as Grooms of the Cham- (Continued on page 30) Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 30 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003

Year in the Life (Continued from p. 29) The reality of “Shakespeare” turned out tion from 1928 onward faced some daunting had an allowance so large that he spent at to be even more significant than the truth perceptual challenges: “Shakespeare” had the rate of £1,000 a year, as I have heard.”20 retained by the legend. Not only had Edward been operating not on the sidelines of po- Even if the vicar failed to wonder how a de Vere received an “allowance” of Treasury litical history but from the very center of dramatist had received an “allowance” rather money while England was at war with Spain policy; Oxford was no mere substitute for than an income, surely he marveled at its from 1586 to 1604, he had served England the great dramatist but, rather, the diametri- amount, especially since William Shaksper’s through an unnamed “office”—a term he cal opposite of the grain dealer, money- entire cash estate had not exceeded £350. repeated in his letter of 1594, admonishing lender and property owner from Ward’s diary remained unpublished Burghley “not to neglect, as heretofore, such Warwickshire. until 1839 and J. T. Looney pulled Edward occasions as to amend the same may arise Pioneers building evidence for Edward de Vere from the shadows in 1920; but only from mine office.” Far from the writer having de Vere might have announced: when B. M. Ward delved further into the record did he and other Oxfordians realize “We have found that the phenomenon of the earl himself had received “an allow- Shakespeare was produced not only by an “Oxfordians assimilating individual genius as everyone has sup- ance” of “£1,000 a year,” as the vicar had posed, but simultaneously by an earl whose heard. Clearly the legend drifting into efforts were authorized by the Cecilian gov- Stratford retained, as legends often do, this information ernment of Elizabeth the First, which se- some essential elements of long-buried re- cretly helped to finance his literary and ality; and in this instance such kernels of ... faced some daunting theatrical activities. We have discovered gossip about “Shakespeare” conflated with that Shakespeare was a creature of ‘policy’ the life of Shakspere were finally discov- perceptual challenges: working within an unacknowledged ‘office’ of varied functions. He wrote independently ered, within the personal history of Oxford, ‘Shakespeare’ had as an artist who chose his own subjects and to have been precisely the case. While Rev. themes, which coincided generally with the Ward of Stratford was hardly an authority been operating not on aims of the Tudor dynasty and the Protestant on the Elizabethan stage, oral tradition itself Reformation led by William and Robert Cecil. has a way of intertwining fact with fiction the sidelines of political The Queen tolerated his often stinging wit until, after some filtering process, a few and merciless humor and compulsion to polished diamonds of truth remain. hold the mirror up to members of her Court, history but from the including herself; but because this Hamlet- like earl told more truth than could be A crucial turning point very center of policy...” tolerated by the Cecils, whose tenure sur- vived beyond Elizabeth’s life, this true When B. M. Ward reported the annual ‘Shakespeare’ was almost totally obliter- grant in his 1928 biography of Oxford, he ated from history by the same English gov- and others of the Oxfordian movement stood been a commoner earning his way at the box ernment he had expended his monumental talent, wisdom and energy to serve.” at a crucial turning point in deciding how to office, he had been a highborn earl engaged present their conclusions. The man whom in work so valuable to the state he knew Cecil, In addition to the preserved record, in Looney had found to fulfill the qualifica- the master architect of the reign, would recog- which Oxford had emerged only as a spend- tions of Shakespeare was no ordinary writer nize the most casual passing reference to it. thrift lord who wasted his patrimony and but the highest-ranking earl of Elizabeth’s July 10: Just a few weeks after Elizabeth required a welfare pension to maintain the reign; he had been Her Majesty’s first royal signs the Warrant for Oxford’s grant, the dignity of his earldom, promoters of his ward and had enjoyed her favor through the Venetian ambassador in Spain writes back to authorship confronted obstacles such as: 1570s, regardless of her disregard for his his Senate and Doge that King Philip is furious military ambitions and personal finances. over reports he has been ridiculed in England • Usual charges of snobbery against Now, on June 26, 1586, just as Elizabeth’s by theatrical entertainments; and, he makes those advocating an earl as Shake- purse strings were being stretched by the clear, Her Majesty and her Government are speare. • needs of national survival, this otherwise sanctioning these stage works: “What has Popular notions of “propaganda” parsimonious monarch granted him a large enraged him more than all else, and has caused as antithetical to the creation of great art. annual pension from the same source as the him to show a resentment such as he has never • Inescapable revisions of funds used by Walsingham for his unoffi- before displayed in all his life, is the account England’s half-century history of cial Secret Service: of the masquerades and comedies which the Cecilian power. Queen of England orders to be acted as his • Inevitable skepticism about mat- And so to be continued unto him during expense. His Majesty has received a summary ters of “conspiracy” and “secret” ser- Our pleasure, or until such time as he shall of one of these which was recently repre- vice. • Orthodox teachings of Shake- be by Us otherwise provided for to be in sented, in which all sorts of evil is spoken of some manner relieved … and for the same or speare as having been uninterested in the Pope, the Catholic religion, and the politics. any part thereof … neither the said Earl nor 20A his assigns … shall by way of account, King.” Obviously, Elizabeth is using the imprest, or any other way whatsoever be stage for political propaganda. Given these existing attitudes, Oxford- charged towards Us...21 Oxfordians assimilating this informa- ians therefore presented their case—in part Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 31 unconsciously—within a framework that usually spoken of collectively as the ‘Uni- had practically admitted Cecil was the guilty was less radical and therefore significantly versity wits’ … Play after play flowed from man.”26 This complaint, remarkably similar weaker than what the evidence showed. their pens … mostly calculated to keep to the report of the Venetian ambassador While Edward de Vere’s lifelong connec- people at a high pitch of excitement during nearly three decades later (July 10, 1586), tion to the Queen and the Cecils was re- war time.”24 provides solid evidence that both the Queen ported as factually important, it was not When Ruth Loyd Miller reprinted the and her chief minister were deliberating seen as intrinsic to the works he produced, Ward article in 1975, she included a stunning using the stage for political purposes from and so he was seen as less of an insider or footnote running below the main text of a the very outset and continually thereafter. team player and more of an outsider or lone dozen pages in barely readable typeface: Historian Kevin Sharpe recounted the wolf—just as William Shakspere had al- earlier incident in 1999: ways been. The distinction between this Cecil’s role in establishing the office of retailed image of de Vere and the reality of Patronized by courtiers and under the his life may have appeared innocuous, but control of city magistrates, the theatre was it produced a cumulative effect enabling from its inception closely connected with orthodox opponents to argue that Oxford- “Ward argued in an the government … Henry VIII and Thomas ians were merely replacing the name of a Cromwell saw the potential value of theatre commoner with that of an eccentric aristo- obscure publication of as a forum of propaganda and recruited John crat. Bale and Richard Moryson to write antipa- In a letter dated February 2, 1601, how- 1929 that ‘war-propa- pal, and later Protestant, plays. Though ever, Oxford testified in his own behalf by after Cromwell’s death Henry showed little reminding Robert Cecil of his past services ganda dramas’ by interest in the stage, other government min- to the Queen, who had encouraged him to isters continued to use theatre for direct finance activities for which (she led him to Oxford and others had political ends: in 1559 the Spanish ambas- believe) he would be compensated. “But if sador even accused William Cecil of provid- it shall please Her Majesty in regard of my been ‘initiated by Queen ing playwrights with material to mock Phillip youth, time and fortune spent in her Court, II of Spain … The Privy Council clearly adding thereto Her Majesty’s favors and recognized the importance of plays in shap- promises, which drew me on without any Elizabeth as a deliberate ing public opinion.27 mistrust the more to presume in mine own expenses”—a recollection showing he had piece of policy.’” “Bale’s plays were performed almost been willing to give up his inherited riches exclusively in promotion of the ‘New Learn- to pursue a higher calling whose values ing’ by the companies of John de Vere and were not only artistic and spiritual, but, Thomas Cromwell,” Miller continues, not- 22 propaganda, and placing his son-in-law over inextricably, political. it, has been sadly neglected by historians. ing that commentators on King John have “IT’S THE POLITICS, ...!” Oxfordians Yet it would be entirely out of character for decided that Shakespeare could not have might have announced with all the bold- Cecil, whose “hand is seen” in everything, seen the unpublished manuscript of Bale’s ness of a tabloid headline, but instead they everywhere, during Elizabeth’s reign, not to play Kynge John, written and revised dur- downplayed this central dynamic or have had his hands on the reins of public ing Henry VIII’s reign. “It is no mystery at relegated it to the less prominent pages of opinion. It would be entirely in accord with all, however, when Cecil, Oxford and ‘Shake- their works. what is known of Cecilian ratiocination for speare’ are brought together,” writes Miller, Cecil to feign disapproval of stage plays, “lewd” actors, and dramatists while, behind noting with Edmund Malone that upon The history plays and propaganda the scenes, manipulating them for political Elizabeth’s accession Bale again rewrote purposes. the play (which may well have been the Ward argued in an obscure publication The vitae of virtually every Elizabethan work angering de Feria in 1559) and that in of 1929 that “war-propaganda dramas” by writer in DNB shows Cecil lurking in their August 1561 the players of John de Vere, Oxford and others had been “initiated by shadows. Lyly and Munday, the mainstays 16th Earl of Oxford, performed it for the Queen Elizabeth as a deliberate piece of of Oxford’s dramatic staff, were both placed Queen at Ipswich. on that staff by Cecil. Lyly acknowledges policy.” The last of the Tudor monarchs Cecil “as a father.” Munday was rendering “Elizabeth spent a week that same Au- had “created a secret service Department of service to the Cecil-Walsingham camp as a gust at Castle Hedingham, where she was State to carry this policy into effect” and spy, infiltrating the Roman school, before again entertained by Earl John’s players, had “placed the Earl of Oxford at the head he entered Oxford’s service.25 performing the plays of Bale … A year later of this Department.”23 … when Cecil gathered twelve-year-old Earl Clark in 1930 concluded the earl had Miller notes that in 1559, the first year of Edward into the fold of wardship, he took received his grant for work already accom- the Queen’s reign, Spanish ambassador possession of all the young noble’s assets. plished as well as for continuing services Count de Feria had protested against “com- Cecil, who had standing orders for his agents that “we would today call ‘political propa- edies in London” deriding his King and on the continent to supply him with copies ganda,’ the medium then being the stage,” claimed Cecil “had supplied the authors of of books and publications of interest, would resulting in “the group of dramatic writers them with their themes and that Elizabeth (Continued on page 32) Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 32 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003

Year in the Life (Continued from p. 31) or until Oxford can be otherwise provided speare works in relation to the pressing not have failed to appreciate the Earl of for to be in some manner relieved,” Green political issues of his time, we are necessar- Oxford’s collection of Bale’s dramatic works emphasizes, adding this indicates “it is for ily transported to the personal and particu- and move them to safekeeping … Undoubt- Oxford’s financial relief, not for secret ser- lar world of a great man responding to great edly ‘Shakespeare’ saw Bale’s manuscript vice work.”30 events (from the vantage point of his role plays, and undoubtedly he saw them The argument of this column, however, within the Government itself) and penetrat- through the eyes of Edward de Vere, who is precisely that a major reason Oxford had ing through their intertwining layers to the owned many of them, in the Library at Cecil fallen into financial ruin was that he (as in essential meaning of his experience. Along House.” the case of Secretary Walsingham himself) the way, the irrepressible Edward de Vere We might add that the later-written had financed his work on behalf of the may have inserted some pertinent com- anonymous play The Troublesome Reign Crown for at least a decade before the ments to help us comprehend him: of King John, undoubtedly the immediate Queen, needing his services more than ever, Allowance (Twelfth Night): “There is forerunner of King John by Shakespeare finally came to the rescue. In that respect no slander in an allowed fool.” (despite silly arguing by Stratfordians over the wording of the grant was true, but what Protection (Hamlet): “Tell him his pranks which text came first), was presented ini- else lay behind it? If indeed Elizabeth gave have been too broad to bear with and that tially by none other than the Queen’s Men, Oxford his annuity to compensate him for your Grace hath screen’d and stood be- the company established for Her Majesty in past and future services not to be publicly tween much heat and him.” 1583 by Walsingham with Oxford’s assis- acknowledged, then neither she nor Control (Comedy of Errors): “I buy a tance. We might also add that Edward de Burghley would have enumerated them in thousand pound a year, I buy a rope!”33 Vere must have been inspired as a young- writing. ster by Bale’s Kynge John and gone on to Although most orthodox scholars of Note: Because of the importance of 1586 in the write Troublesome Reign followed by King the twentieth century have been unable to life of Edward de Vere and England, this column John, as a way of using distant English view “Shakespeare” as an author with will explore the year further in the next issue of Shakespeare Matters. history to mirror Elizabeth’s current crises partisan political motives, much less as one related to bastardry, the Pope and Mary with an official mission to perform, a few Endnotes: Queen of Scots.28 have stared at the evidence without blink- ing: 1 Hurstfield, Joel, Elizabeth I and the Unity The grant’s significance Lily B. Campbell, 1947: “Each of the of England (London: English Universities Press Ltd., 1960), 123-132 Shakespeare histories serves a special pur- 2 The conclusions made by Ward, Clark pose in elucidating a political problem of Ward, B. M., The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford (London: John Murray, 1928), 252; and Miller about Oxford’s grant from the Elizabeth’s day and in bringing to bear reprint by Ruth Loyd Miller, Jennings, LA. Government failed to capture wide public upon this problem the accepted political 3 “Poins” happens to begin and end with attention. When Charlton Ogburn Jr. pub- philosophy of the Tudors … Shakespeare, “P.S.”, the initials of Philip Sidney. lished The Mysterious William Shake- like all other writers who used history to 4 The Riverside Shakespeare (Boston: speare in 1984, making the authorship case teach politics to the present, cut his cloth to Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 938. 5 for de Vere far more accessible than before, fit the pattern, and the approach to the Clark, Eva Turner, Hidden Allusions in Shakespeare’s Plays (Jennings, LA: Minos he waited for 688 pages before probing study of his purposes in choosing subjects Publishing, 1974; first published in England in implications of the £1,000 annuity. Even and incidents from history as well as in his 1930), 796. then Ogburn was reluctant to expound in altering the historical fact is best made with 6 Transcript of the June 21, 1586 letter sent any detail, much less to shout POLITICS: current (Elizabethan) political situations in to the columnist courtesy of Robert Detobel. “It seems to me reasonable,” he summed up, mind.”31 7 Ward, op. cit., 256. 8 “to believe that Oxford received the grant as Alvin B. Kernan, 1981: “Of all the major Chambers, E. K., The Elizabethan Stage (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), “Documents Shakespeare, to finance his activities in the writers in the Western literary tradition, of Control,” 303. 29 theatre.” there is none who deals so consistently and 9 Alan Nelson’s Home Page, http:// Given this ethereal treatment of the so profoundly with political matters as socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/PERSONAL/ grant, it is perhaps no wonder that Shakespeare. He wrote almost exclusively 86025.html; heretofore the letter appeared to Oxfordians today still appear tentative in of courts and aristocratic life; and matters of make perfect sense as dated June 25, 1585, in the coming to grips with its full significance. At state, of law, of kingship and of dynastic context that Oxford was awaiting military appointment to the Netherlands; but Nelson one extreme is the view expressed on the succession are always prominent parts of corrects it to 1586, explaining that the top half website of Nina Green, moderator of the his dramatic matter. This is true even in of the “6” had been cut off. This letter of 1586 private Phaeton discussion group on the comedies … but it is even more obviously stands alone between those of Oct. 30, 1584, Internet, that it is a “myth”—or “Oxmyth” true in Shakespeare’s history plays and in and Aug. 5, 1590, among the surviving as a list on the site puts it—that the pension his tragedies, where the political issues are correspondence of Oxford, but surely he had written many more letters. was given to Edward de Vere for any reason the very substance of the plays and where 10 beyond the need to refurbish his pocket- Fowler, William Plumer, Shakespeare crucial matters of state are explored with Revealed in Oxford’s Letters (Portsmouth, NH: 32 book: remarkable precision and in great depth.” Peter E. Randall, 1986), text of the letter, 342. “The wording of the grant states that it When such observations are coupled 11 Clark, op. cit., 799. is to continue during the Queen’s pleasure with a view of Oxford writing the Shake- 12 Read, Conyers, Mr. Secretary Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 33

Walsingham and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth postscript in his hand, Oct. 30, 1584 (Fowler, Bastard, was cited by Meres in 1598 but printed (New York: AMS Press, 1978), vol. 2, 370-371, op. cit., 321); “This is I” – the Prince in Hamlet, first only in the Folio of 1623. I would argue that citing Warrants of Issue under the Privy Seal, 5.1.217; “I am not that I am” – Iago in Oxford had developed Troublesome Reign in Elizabeth, Bundle 124. Othello,1.l.65. the 1560s or 1570s and that he first set forth 13 Among the accounts of writer-agents is 19 Oxford to Burghley, May 18, 1591 and King John by 1582. A traditional dating marker The Reckoning by Charles Nicholl about July 7, 1594 in Fowler, op. cit., 393, 484. has been Holinshed’s Chronicles of 1587 as a Marlowe; (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 20 Campbell, op. cit., 936. source of King John, but I argue in this case that, 1995 edition); on Munday, 173-176; on Watson, 20A Clark, op. cit., 796, citing Calendar of to the contrary, it was Oxford who influenced 177-184. State Papers, Venetian, VIII, 182. Holinshed. 14 Campbell, O. J., The Reader’s 21 Text of the grant in Ward, op. cit., 257. 29 Ogburn Jr., Charlton, The Mysterious Encyclopedia of Shakespeare (New York: MJF 22 The letter of Feb 2, 1601, in Fowler, op. William Shakespeare (McLean, VA: EPM Books, 1966): “In desperation the bishops cit., 558. Publications, 1984, 1992 revised edition), 688 . turned to professional writers, including Thomas 23 Miller, Ruth Loyd, “Oxfordian Vistas” in 30 The Oxford Authorship Site, by Nina Nashe, John Lyly, and Robert Greene … Shakespeare Identified (Port Washington, NY: Green, http://www3.telus.net/oxford/ Archbishop Whitgift employed Nashe and John Kennikat Press, 1975), 454-482; reprints of 31 Campbell, Lily B., Shakespeare’s Lyly to answer the attacks” – 502, 580, articles by Ward, Capt. B. M., “Shakespeare ‘Histories’: Mirrors of Elizabethan Policy (San demonstrating that orthodox scholars have no and the Anglo-Spanish War 1585-1604” in Revue Marino, CA: The Huntington Library, 1965, trouble envisioning collaboration by the Anglo-American, Dec. 1929; and Ward, Col. copyright 1947), 125; Riverside, op. cit., 805, Government and writers, not to mention Bernard R., “Shakespeare and Elizabethan War agrees that King John, “suggests the tangled “employment” of writers by the Archbishop Propaganda” in The Royal Engineers Journal, relationships between Elizabeth, her cousin who serves the Queen, Burghley and Privy Dec. 1928. Mary Stuart, and the King of Spain.” Council; but once Oxford is inserted into the 24 Clark, op. cit., 803. 32 Kernan, Alvin B., “Shakespeare and the puzzle, we may conclude he was the chief writer 25 Miller, op. cit., extended footnote 469- Rhetoric of Politics” in Politics, Power, and and liaison as well as the paymaster. 481. Shakespeare (Arlington: University of Texas at 15 McKerrow, Ronald B., The Works of 26 Miller, op. cit., 472-73, citing Cal. S. P. Arlington, 1981), 47. Thomas Nashe (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958, Spanish, 1558-67.62. 33 Twelfth Night, 1.5.90-91; Hamlet, 3.5.2- from the first edition of 1904), vol. III, 211-12. 27 Sharpe, Kevin, “Representations and 4; Comedy of Errors, 4.1.21. It appears that Dr. 16 Chambers, op. cit., “The Adult Negotiations, etc.,” The Historical Journal Roger Stritmatter first noted the significance of Companies,” 104. (Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press, “I buy a thousand pound a year, I buy a rope”; 17 The play performed on the night of Jan. 1999), 42.3.858-59. The Marginalia of Edward de Vere’s Geneva 1, 1584, at Court was Campaspe, attributed to 28 Bale first wrote his two-part play Kynge Bible (Northampton, MA: Oxenford Press, Lyly; it was rehearsed at Blackfriars (Oxford John by 1536; under Cromwell’s patronage for February 2001), 39. He points out that Dromio had given him the lease of the hall in summer Henry VIII he formed an acting company to of Syracuse in Errors also refers to “both mine 1583) and performed for the Queen by Her perform plays in favor of the Reformation; he office and my name” (3.1.44) leading to his Majesty’s Children and the Children of Paul’s: revised Kynge John in 1538 and later under comment about “a rope” or leash. Editor Bill Adams, J. Q., Chief Pre-Shakespearean Dramas Edward VI; then upon Elizabeth’s accession of Boyle independently cited the “rope” comment (Cambridge, MA: The Riverside Press, 1924), 1558 he made more revisions; the two-part when suggesting in a Phaeton group discussion 609-610; the play at Court on March 3, 1584, Troublesome Reign of King John was performed that the “Shakespeare” plays could provide was probably Sapho and Phao: Ward, op. cit., by the Queen’s Men in the 1580s and published appropriate commentary on Oxford’s compli- 271, citing Chambers, op. cit., vol. 3, 414-15. with no author cited in 1591; and King John by cated role as a playwright—Allowance, Protec- 18 Oxford to Burghley: “I am that I am” – Shakespeare, introducing the fictitious hero the tion, Control—in Elizabeth’s England.

Wilmot did not (cont’d from page 7) he wishes to conduct include examina- corded antiquity might “jump start” to a more conclusive end, Professor Wright tions by expert paleographers of the hand Bacon’s fading candidacy. Attention, the will be conducting more research at the in which the Cowell address was written in forger may have reasoned, might be de- British Society of Genealogists in London order to compare it to handwriting of the flected from the rising anti-Stratfordian later this summer to ascertain if there are age and the handwriting of candidates who star, Edward de Vere, and Bacon might any records yet unexamined that might might be considered leading suspects in thereby regain the foothold among anti- establish the existence of James Corton advancing this likely forgery. Stratfordians that, in 1932, he was rapidly Cowell and Arthur Cobbold as late-18th/ When asked why this probably-forged losing as a candidate for the authorship of early 19th-century men in East Anglia. document might have been created—and Shakespeare’s works. Professor Wright is also hopeful that under such peculiar circumstances—Pro- We await with excitement the work, the University of London will allow him to fessor Wright answered that, in his ap- insights and discoveries of Drs. Wright, engage experts to test the age of the paper praisal, the document probably was in- Rollett and Rubinstein in their continuing on which the manuscript was written (the tended to steal the thunder of the Oxfordian inquiries into this likely Baconian fraud, University of London has yet to confer juggernaut that had been launched by John and we look forward to Professor Wright’s permission for such a test). He reported Thomas Looney’s 1920 publication of planned transcription and publication of that such a test is vital, for if the paper can “Shakespeare” Identified in Edward de this document with a revelation—if a rev- be established to be of later manufacture Vere the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. If, elation is possible—of who may have writ- than the late 18th/early 19th century, the Professor Wright declared, Bacon could ten the mysterious manuscript that fantas- assumption of fraud in its composition be shown to have had thoughtful, educated tically appeared without any provenance will be proven correct, and the need to supporters as early as 150 years after the in the Edwin Durning-Lawrence library at contend for a forgery on the basis of absent death of the Stratford man, new attention the University of London in 1932. principals will be obviated. Other tests that and the conventional British respect ac- Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 34 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003

Confidential Video Bard Taming of the Shrew: Zeffirelli and Miller By Chuck Berney

he Taming of the Shrew (1967) was the way to Verona, or the wedding itself, socially accepted means to continue to stage director Franco Zeffirelli’s first which occurs offstage in the original. And beat up on Bianca. Petruchio again says Tfilm. Starring what was then the I have come to appreciate the final 20 “Kiss me, Kate,” and she responds with world’s most famous couple, Richard Bur- minutes of the film, which documents the genuine intensity. ton and Elizabeth Taylor, it came on the last stage of Kate’s conversion. As Kate and In my last column I castigated BBC heels of their disastrous (but well-publi- director Jonathan Miller for giving Michael cized) version of Cleopatra. Hordern the title role in his production of The first 10 minutes of the film are a “The film is always Lear. In this column I offer enthusiastic delight. We follow Lucentio (Michael York, praise for his decision to cast Monty Python in his film debut) and Tranio (Alfred Lynch) marvelous to look at— alumnus John Cleese as Petruchio in his through the hills of Lombardy into Padua, production of Shrew (1980). Cleese has which is bursting with medieval life. Zeffirelli has a fine mastered the art of making the dialog Zeffirelli displays the talent for suffusing sound like he just thought of it, so his the film with the look and feel of the Italian eye for integrating Petruchio is natural, immediate, and con- setting that he used to such good effect in vincing—as intelligent as Cleese himself, his version of Romeo and Juliet, released architecture, fabrics, and surprisingly gentle. Sarah Badel’s Kate the following year. But after the first 10 costumes and lighting...” is a worthy opponent; their wooing scene minutes, the overacting begins. Michael (2.1.182) is hilarious. In this exchange, the Hordern, as Baptista, bumbles and * * * * * * * * * * * playwright achieves a bawd rate approach- stumbles, rolls his eyes and purses his lips ing unity—that is, almost every line con- (attentive readers will recall that Hordern I believe that tains a salacious double entendre (the cor- was not my favorite Lear). Victor Spinetti, responding scene in the Zeffirelli produc- who was droll as the neurotic technician in [Miller’s] treatment tion falls flat because most of the lines have the Beatles movies A Hard Day’s Night and been cut, and what remains is overwhelmed Help, plays Hortensio with a mincing man- of the final third of by slapstick struggles). ner and a Doris Day wig, calling so much Miller has written that his approach to attention to his efforts to be funny that he Shrew was inspired by a production is sometimes determined by isn’t. I have the feeling that Zeffirelli, draw- a single line of text, in the same way that a ing on his stage experience, encouraged Vincentio’s reference paleontologist reconstructs the entire body everyone to play broadly, with the result to Kate as ‘my of an extinct animal from an isolated frag- that Hordern and Spinetti gave stage per- to Kate as ‘my ment. I believe that his treatment of the formances, while York and Lynch miracu- merry mistress.’” final third of Shrew was inspired by lously escaped. As did Cyril Cusack, whose Vincentio’s reference to Kate as “my merry sly Grumio is always amusing. mistress” (4.5.53). Petruchio and Kate are Richard Burton’s characterization of Petruchio are about to enter Lucentio’s traveling back to Padua, and he has got her Petruchio is opaque to me. In half the house for the wedding feast, he stops her reluctantly to agree that the object shining scenes he is a brawling, drunken lout, and says “Kiss me, Kate.” She says “What, in the sky is the “moon, or sun, or what you while in the other half he seems to be a here in the street?” He asks if she is ashamed please.” An old man (Vincentio) approaches reasonable man using rational methods of him; she replies, “No, God forbid, but them on the road; Petruchio addresses him to pursue achievable goals. I can’t connect ashamed to kiss.” Finally, she relents and as “fair lovely maid” and bids Kate “em- the dots, so ultimately I don’t find the gives him a platonic peck on the nose. brace her for her beauty’s sake.” By now performance satisfying. As Kate, Elizabeth Petruchio looks disgruntled, but they pro- Kate has gotten into to spirit of the thing Taylor just exists—she’s an icon rather ceed to the banquet. The turning point and goes over the top: “Young budding than an actress. comes when Kate, watching children virgin, fair, fresh, and sweet . . . Happy the The film is always marvelous to look roughhousing between the tables, melts parents of so fair a child! Happier the man at—Zeffirelli has a fine eye for integrating perceptibly (maybe Taylor is an actress whom favorable stars allot thee for his architecture, fabrics, costumes and light- after all). Apparently she at last sees herself lovely bedfellow!” Then when Petruchio, ing so that every frame is visually satisfy- in a domestic union ruled by cooperation deadpan, corrects her—“Why, how now, ing. The screenwriters have trimmed about rather than confrontation, and so is able to Kate, I hope thou art not mad. This is a man, half the dialog, sometimes replacing it rise to the challenge of the obedience wa- old, wrinkled, faded, withered”—the ab- with interpolated scenes not in the original ger, and during her speech to the froward surdity of the scene overwhelms her, and text, such as Kate’s tumble into the river on wives she discovers the pleasure of using she collapses, shrieking with laughter. It’s Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Summer 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 35 a wonderful moment, and it’s the turning point for this Kate—hanging out with Michael York on Shrew Petruchio is a lot more fun than throwing stools at Bianca. So when he asks for a kiss Fellowship member Michael York has gra- sensational new comet Rudolf Nureyev. before they enter the banquet, she responds ciously given Shakespeare Matters per- Our host could have been relaxing on holi- passionately, and he murmurs “Is this not mission to reprint material from his auto- day rather than about to embark on his first well?” biography Accidentally on Purpose (Simon multimillion-dollar film. I continued to & Schuster, New York, 1991). Chapter 10 wait with mounting anxiety. Then, as day- Stephen Moorer’s Pacific Repertory describes preparations for his film debut light faded, he took me aside and briefly Theatre will be performing its version of in Franco Zeffirelli’s Taming of the Shrew outlined his intentions for the role. His Shrew during the Shakespeare Fellow- (1967). approach was essentially pragmatic yet ship’s fall conference in Carmel, 9-12 Oc- obviously grounded on thorough prepara- tober 2003. We have seen that the arc of In Rome I tion—one that I share and try to emulate. Kate’s metamorphosis varies from pro- was plunged Above all I valued his implicit trust. duction to production; it will be interest- into a plethora After a fitful sleep, I was driven out to ing to see how Moorer stages it. of preparations. the de Laurentiis Studios in the predawn Several years ago I was in a production There were ward- quiet. To see the great cities of the world of Kiss Me, Kate, the great Cole Porter robe fittings and before they have come fully awake is one musical which opened on Broadway in makeup tests. At of the unexpected treats that cinema af- 1948. The most effective scenes in the a ladies’ hair sa- fords. The view of the Colosseum rising show were the ones lifted directly from lon, alongside dreamlike against a purple pink sky was no Shrew—they had a zest and sparkle that some amused exception. far outshone the by-the-numbers foolery matrons, my The brightness of the busy makeup Michael York in Taming hair was bleach- room came as a shock. I was sat down in a of the scenes forming the contemporary of the Shrew. plot. But now when I watch Shrew as a ed and permed, chair and with a Borgia malevolence my straight play, certain lines (“I’ve come to and at a stable, alongside some indifferent sleepy face was shocked awake with a coat- wive it wealthily in Padua,” “Where is the horses, I was taught the rudiments of riding. ing of strong-smelling spirit gum. To this, life that late I led?”) seem flat and empty I waited anxiously for Zeffirelli’s call, ex- a beard was laboriously fixed, glued on when spoken, as if crying out to be sung. pecting that he would want to rehearse. hair by hair, protracting the torment. Hot, Why not do a show that combines the best Finally, on the Sunday before the first day smoking tongs then curled the appended of shooting, I was invited to lunch at his of both worlds: a stripped-down version of fuzz as well as my unnaturally blonded comfy, old-fashioned apartment in the via head. To this day the merest whiff of spirit Shrew that incorporates Porter’s wonder- Due Macelli. gum awakens memories of those hours ful songs? Ever convivial, Franco presided over a spent squirming and gagging in that If there’s anybody out there with a lot of large round table of family and friends that torturer’s chair, and the revulsion revives. money, please contact me, and I’ll start included Edward Albee as well as that pole On that first morning I was in the very work on the script right away. The working star of the ballet world, Eric Bruhn, and its (Continued on page 36) title is Kiss Me, Shrew. 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) ______Three years ($170/$215 os) ______Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____ Patron ($75/year or over): ______Name on card:______Special offer for new subscribers: Card number:______Exp. date:______Bible dissertation ($45) ______P&H for Bible ($5) ______

Signature:______Total: ______Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478 Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 36 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2003

Video Bard/York (cont’d from page 35) poured out my enthusiasm with the A few weeks later the Burtons started first shot of the film. There was an electric celebratory Chianti, totally intoxicated by work and I was moved to learn that some of air of expectancy. Time was now a measure the day’s adventures. their initial footage was later reshot. Real- not of minutes but of dollars. Bundled into I seemed to adjust quickly to the de- izing that even these consummately expe- doublet and tights, the last of my innumer- mands of the camera, never finding its rienced actors could experience unease, I able bows and laces were being tied as I was presence intrusive or disturbing. I didn’t felt pangs of nerves. For our stars, the escorted to a set that swarmed with activ- mind the frequent repetition, although it fantasies and pageantry of the set were ity. Speedily hatted and cloaked, I was surprised me at first to see how much matched by their life off it. Chauffeured to thrust onto my horse. “Silenzio!” The coverage was required for even a relatively work by Rolls Royce, they were there min- hubbub abated. “Motore!” The camera simple sequence. Franco was constantly istered to by maids, secretaries and butlers started to whir and my horse quivered with inventive, cleverly suiting the action to the as well as hairdressers and makeup artists. a contained excitement. Conspicuously actor’s intrinsic nature so that his direc- Their suite of dressing rooms was palatial, more experienced than I was, at “Azzione!” tion seemed unforced. For fun he would replete with kitchen and office and car- it moved off and, utterly contemptuous of ask for one take to be filmed in a restrained peted throughout with virgin whiteness. I all my energetic spurring, went at its own “English” style, and the next in a flamboy- was happy to have my own modest dressing pace precisely to its marks. ant “Italian” manner with gestured, extro- room where, between takes, I taught my- I was grateful for such assured profes- vert behavior. His best effects were achieved self to speak Italian, learning as with all sionalism for the shot required me to ride through a synthesis of the two. I could languages the rude words first. down a steeply raked street into Padua understand why he liked working with The Burtons also held court to legions while quoting a sizable passage of English actors; their cool sang-froid neu- of visitors and journalists including the Shakespearean verse. Fortunately, reality tralized his slightly operatic excesses. legendary Sheilah Graham who, flatter- assisted illusion. I was meant to be over- He was a visual perfectionist. Renzo ingly, found time to chat to me too. They whelmed with excitement and anticipa- Mongiardino had re-created medieval gave a lavish party at their rented villa on tion and that is exactly how I felt. So much Padua within the giant enclosed space. Its the Appia Antica and it was good to experi- so, in fact, that Zeffirelli had to keep direct- patinaed walls, courtyards and cobbled ence at firsthand the exotic dolce vita hith- ing me to look less pop-eyed! By nine streets were lit day-bright by batteries of erto but glimpsed at in the films of Fellini o’clock he had ordered “Print” and my overhead lights, creating an out-of-season and Antonioni. Both Elizabeth and Rich- screen baptism was over. There had simply summer and much thirsting and fanning. ard were enormously kind and I am forever been no time to be nervous. Extras were handpicked, Franco even us- indebted to them for agreeing, as produc- That whole day I felt supremely alive. ing some light-skinned blond people from ers, to have me in their film. My love at first sight for Bianca was matched a nearby village, formerly imported by by my own for this new medium. I knew Mussolini from the north to work in the instinctively that I belonged to its world of rice fields, for his Lombards. The youthful Visit the Shakespeare lenses and lights just as surely as my name hordes of long-haired “Capelloni” haunt- Fellowship website: belonged on the canvas chair to which it ing the Spanish Steps were also rounded www.shakespearefellowship.org was now proudly affixed. Everything de- up and, along with others, including his lighted and the work flowed with an intui- own dear aunt and the young Burton chil- Discussion Boards, The Virtual tive ease. Dining that evening with Alfred dren, were costumed and co-opted to his Classroom and much more! Lynch, who played my servant Tranio, I lively creation.

Inside this issue: Shakespeare Matters The Voice of the Shakespeare Fellowship Edward de Vere Studies Conference - page 1 P. O. Box 263 Somerville MA 02143 Authorship debate Address correction requested at Smithsonian - page 1 A new Shakespeare reference found - page 16 Oxford’s 1586 changes to his heraldry - page 20 Book reviews - page 24 Year in the Life: 1586 - page 27 Video Bard: Taming of the Shrew - page 34 Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent)