'The Shakes

]Vews[etter

Vol.34:no.4 "Let me study so, to !OlOW the thing 1 am forbid to know" Winter 1999 22nd Annual Conference Report Teaching the next generation San Francisco hosts record that Oxford was Shakespeare Oxfordian turnout How educator Robert Barrett is shaking up The Society's 22nd Annual Conference the status quo in the state of Washington in San Francisco last November set several by Roger Stritmatter records. There were about 145 attendees overall, including many complimentary Robert Barrett Jr. 's essay, guests, and the entertainment was eye-catch­ "Shakespeare Meets Robert ing, as was the famous, glamorous Clift Frost" seems destined to remain Hotel. But as members have recently leamed an underground classic. The es­ in a letter from new Society President Aaron say recounts Barrett's experience Tatum there was a price to be paid for some teaching the de Vel'e story to eager of this glamour, as a serious deficit resulted students at Central Kitsap Junior (see page 20 for some further discussion of High in Silverdale, Washington. this matter and Aaron Tatum's presidency). "Something there is," writes Nonetheless, for those attending it was Barrett-quoting Frost-in that an eventful, fulfilling three days in the Bay essay, "that doesn't love a wall. area, with Oxfordians from around the US and "Hollywood's the thing ... " When I finished reading The Mys­ England on the scene, and, as usual, some terious William Shakespeare, by interesting, provocative papers presented, Cate Blanchet (left) in Elizabeth and Judi DencJI Charlton Ogburn Jr., something and, on the final day, an eye-opening panel (right) in Shakespeare In Love have treated movie­ there was within me that didn't discussion on the ever-elusive goal of a goers to two portrayals of Queen Elizabeth in two love the wall that hid the true "Unified Authorship Theory." movies that take modern audiences back to the Shakespeare. " Another major event during the weekend Elizabethan era. Can such films be ofhelp to those Afterreading Ogburn in 1990, was the premier of Alan Hovey's play Aye, of us engaged in the Shakespeare authorship de­ Barrett brought his iconoclasm Shakespeare! at the Palace of Fine Arts bate? Well, yes. See pages 4-5. into the classroom and soon found Theatre in San Francisco. The Marin Shake­ that his students were as inspired speare Company was contracted to produce by the Shakespeare inquiry as he the play, a one-man show in which Edward de had been when first reading Vere speaks of his life and his times. Noted British actor Rob Clare starred, and his per­ Ogburn. fonnance received a standing ovation. "As a layman, newly intro­ The play was followed by a public dis­ duced to a difficult subject, I re­ cussion on Shakespeare and the authorship sponded to my reading in a way issue, led by moderator Peter Robinson, with that was undoubtedly visceral­ panelists Lord Charles Burford, Katherine just in pati, though, a small part. Chiljan and Randall Sherman (all trustees of The larger part-I submit-was the Shakespeare Oxford Society) alsopartici­ intellectual. I looked for reason, pating. plausibility, evidence, and con­ The Marin production followed an "out­ viction in Ogbum's words, and I of-town" tlyout earlier in the week at the found those qualities much more Eclectic Theatre Festival in Petaluma. Two often present in the book than staged readings of the play preceded the San absent." (Contillued all page 6) (Continued on page 10) page 2 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Shakespeare Everywhere It's been hard to miss these past few stream media coverage, indicating perhaps a 18) and screenwriter Tom Stoppard (Shake­ months. Shakespeare has become fashion­ strong awareness of the authorship issue speare III Love) appeared on the Charlie able, and-of much greater importance­ just beneath the surface, and perhaps also a Rose TV interview show in the same week newswOlihy and saleable. Two mainstream readiness to "pounce" on anything that last December, talking about their respec­ Hollywood movies about Shakespeare tive projects. And naturally there were and about Elizabeth (see our story, questions about the authorship asked pages 4-5) are reaching millions. ofboth ofthem (though, unfOliunately, In the print media Shakespeare sto­ both were quite dismissive of it). ries are also popping up more fi'equently, But amidst it all, we are happy to propelled in part by these recent mov­ report-despite the likes of a Bloom or ies, and also certainly by the numerous a Stoppard-the Shakespeare author­ film adaptions of the plays (with eight ship story seems to be attracting more more to come in the next 1-2 years!). The and more attention, and is perhaps also films have brought forth such Shakes­ taking off into the same stratosphere. pearean luminaries as Prof. Stephen Of primary interest was the one­ Greenblatt writing in The New York two punch of major authorship stories Times op-ed pages (February 6th)­ that appeared in The Washington Post confessing that SIL co-screenwriter on Janumy 24th, followed three weeks Marc Norman once approached him for later by a two-page spread in the Feb­ ideas about how to tell the story of rualY 15th Time magazine (with a small Shakespeare's life when so little is box on the front page asking, "Who known. Yes, indeed, a tough problem. Wrote Shakespeare?") By the time The heightened media attention on both might constitute new, decisive evidence in members have received this issue of the Shakespeare and the authorship really be­ resolving the authorship debate. newsletter, the biggest story ofthem all will gan in earnest last November with the pub­ Then in December Shakespeare was be on the newsstands, a major treatment of lication in Science magazine of Dr. Eric voted "Man of the Millennium" in a BBC the issue by Harper's Magazine (see box Altschuler's "Searching for Shakespeare in Radio 4 poll in Great Britain. This prompted below). the Stars." Dr. Altschuler presented his Richard Malim to write "They haven't got In all three instances, it is the Oxfordian thesis-that there are no references to any the Will" in the Spectator, letting his readers thesis that is being promoted as the most post-1604 astronomical discoveries in the know the true identity of the Briton of the viable alternative to the Stratford story. Shakespeare Canon-at the Society's San Millennium-Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of The Post story was about Peter Dickson Francisco Conference (see page seven). Oxford. and his recent research, much of which has The 1604 date, of course, is a perfect fit for Also in December personalities such as been presented to our readers in the last two postulating Oxford as Shakespeare. The academic HaroldBloom (Shakespeare: The newsletters. Dickson tells us that the re­ aJiicle did generate a fair amount of main- Invention a/the Human-reviewed on page sponse to the article has been overwhelm-

ard F, Whalen, society past president and author PBS Frontline "The Shakespeare Mystery," Harper s Up Next of Shakespeare: Who Was He? broadcast three times since 1989 in prime time, The Stratfordians are Professor Jonathan and now the recent Time magazine article are all Harper's Magazine has undertaken a major Bate of Liverpool University, author of The part of a continuing process over the past ten review of the Shakespeare authorship question. Genius a/Shakespeare (reviewed in the Fall 1998 years to give the case for Oxford as the true Five Oxfordians and five Stratfordians have newsletter); Professor Harold Bloom ofYaleand author the broadest national cOlllUlunication written articles for a "folio," as Harper's calls it, New York University, author of Shakespeare: since Looney identified Oxford as Shakespeare to be featured on the cover oftheupcoming April the Invention 0/ the Human; Professor Marjorie in 1920. The Harper's folio, totaling more than issue. Four ofthe Oxfordians are contributors to Garber of Harvard, author of several books on 20,000words written by ten contributors, should the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter. Shakespeare; IrvinMatus, author ofShakespeare, stimulate even more interest in the subject. The Oxfordian writers are Mark Anderson, InFact; andProfessorGailKernPasterofGeorge Nearly sixty years ago Halper's carried an journalist and columnist for the society newslet­ Washington University, editor of Shakespeare article claiming to refute the case for Oxford. ter; Tom Bethell, Washington cOlTespondentfor Quarterly, the leading Shakespeare journal. Prof. Oscar James Campbell ofColumbia wrote The American Spectator and author of several Bethell and Matus are makingrepeatappear­ the 1940 article, which was largely a response to .books; Joe Sobran, syndicated columnist and ances in a debate fonnat in a literary magazine. Charles Wisner Barrell's Ashboume portrait author of Alias Shakespeare; Professor Daniel They squared offeight years ago in a cover spread article in the Scientific American. At the time Wright ofConcordia University, organizer ofthe in TheAtlallticMonthrycalled "Looking for Shake­ Harper's refused to give any Oxfordian writers Edward de Vere Studies Conference and the speare." an opportunity to reply. So the times and editors author of The Anglican Shakespeare; and Rich- The Atlantic Monthly articles of 1991, the have changed, and now the balance is redressed. Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 3 ingly positive (after tallying phone calls and Journal Review letters that he and Post writer Don Oldenburg have received to date, plus the letters to the Yes, But, is Authorship Dead? editor). The Time article was, in part, a direct The Folger reports on George Greenwood vs. Mark Twain result of the exposure resulting from the by Richard F. Whalen Post article. While the article took no posi­ tion, most readers could detect a clear pro­ Mark Twain's marginalia in a book by right law by lifting a whole chapter from authorship, pro-Oxford subtext in it. What­ Sir George Greenwood on the authorship Greenwood's book and putting it in his own. ever the response to the Time article, we question and Greenwood's marginalia in a He cited the book's title but not Greenwood's must note that just the fact that Time would book by Twain on the same subject are the name. The style of the text is clearly not put this story on its cover and delve into occasion for some post-modernist rumina­ Twain's, but the casual reader might not details ofthe debate is news. (However, it is tions in the Winter 1998 issue ofthe Shake­ notice that, nor the fact that Greenwood's also of some note that the intemational speare Quarterly ('Sir George Greenwood's chapter is set in slightly smaller type. edition of the magazine did not earlY the Marginalia in the Folger Copy of Mark Greenwood got a copy of Twain's book authorship story, although it is available Twain 'sIs ShakespeareDead?"by Michael and noted in its margins that Twain did not worldwide on the Time website.) D. Bristol). get pelmission to reprint his chapter. "And F or comparison, in the same week The ruminations by Professor Michael without mentioning my name!" Greenwood Newsweek also ran a major Shakespeare D. Bristol ofMcGill University are meant to exclaims. He threatened to sue, and in a later story, built on the success of Shakespeare be amusing, mostly at Twain's expense. printing the publisher added at the end of in Love, but this newsweekly took the more Carelessly, Twain and his publisher printed Twain's book two full- page advertisements conventional path of trashing the author­ a whole chapter from Greenwood's book for two ofGreenwood' s books, the one Twain ship in one dismissive sentence (" ... [the lack without adequate attribution in Twain's Is had seemingly plagiarized and In re Shake­ offacts about the Bard] has allowed wackos Shakespeare Dead? Curiously, along the speare Problem. Each ad included many and worthies to develop elaborate theo­ way, Professor Bristol gets a number ofkey laudatory "press opinions." Thus ended a ries-such as the notion that Shakespeare facts wrong in this case of the criss-cross­ curious if minor contretemps between an didn't write Shakespeare's plays.") ing marginalia. anti-Stratfordian who was America's great­ Back to Time, the manner in which they The facts of the matter, which are of est writer and one ofEngland 's greatest anti­ handled Letters to the Editor about the article (March 8th issue) seemed almost at continuing interest to Oxfordians, are as Stratfordians. odds with their original decision to publish follows. Mark Twain in his later years re­ Professor Bristol makes several elTors in an article on something so controversial, for sumed writing and dictating his autobiog­ his ultra-arch attempt to make fun of Mark they chose to print not a single letter, but raphy, which are really more random remi­ Twain, elTors especially strange for one try­ instead opted for a highlighted box in the niscences. He needed money and expected ing to understand what Twain was up to. In midst of the letters section in which they to sell them as articles. In 1909, the year the first paragraph he accuses Twain of report there were a number of letters, but before he died, he published his last book, being misleading when he sub-titled the only tell their readers of several. Letters Is Shakespeare Dead? It was subtitled book "From My Autobiography." He says touting Marlowe and Bacon as the author "From My Autobiography." The slim vol­ that "no such text exists." But it does exist. are mentioned, and a concluding letter is ume argues that Will Shakspere of Stratford Editions were published in 1924 and 1959, cited stating that, since Oxfordians had lost was not the author of Shakespeare 's works. and a third, partial edition in 1998. Much of in two mock comis (the judges supposedly The core of Twain' s argument is drawn Bristol's article derives from this apparent finding Shakespeare the "unquestioned au­ on his own experience as a riverboat pilot ignorance of Twain's lengthy autobiogra­ thor" [ !]) then the only conclusion must be and his reading ofGreenwood's The Shake­ phy. (according to that letter writer); "De Vere' s speare Problem Restated, which had just He finds it "very strange" that Twain claim just doesn't hold up under scrutiny." been published. Greenwood, a British law­ would make the authorship question the In other words, letter writers were not yer and member of Parliament, cited central topic of his "autobiography." But allowed to speak for themselves-pro or Shakespeare's accurate knowledge of the Twain's text in Is Shakespeare Dead? was con-about the authorship debate, but in­ law and noted that Will Shakspere did not drawn from his manuscript autobiography, stead a clear anti-Oxfordian statement (i.e. study law, therefore he could not be the which took up two volumes in the 1924 "editorial statement?") was made in lieu of poet/dramatist Shakespeare. Twain agreed. edition. printing letters. And of course, no mention He cited his experience that no one who had He apparently does not know that ofhow many letters all told came in, let alone not been a riverboat pilot could write about Twain's publisher added the two full-page how many were anti-Stratfordian. Maybe someone at Newsweek gave them a call. that experience accurately and convinc­ advertisements for Greenwood's books in a In any event, it promises to be an inter­ ingly. later printing. He never mentions them. esting year in authorship studies. The Spring Twain admired Greenwood and marked Bristol also misreads part of Twain's Newsletter will carry an expanded report on up his copy of Greenwood's book. But main argument. Twain's skepticism, he says, all these media happenings. -W. Boyle carelessly or inadvertently he violated copy- was prompted by Shakespeare's "uncon­ (Continued on page 23) page 4 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Hollywood's the thing ... Public s Elizabethan consciousness piqued by new films by Gedt Quealy Hooray for Hollywood. Or, more accu­ becoming an Oxfordian). One ofthe themes sprinkled liberallythroughoutthe film when rately, independent filmmakers. And who this muliti-faceted play covers is huth over questions of "how" and "why" arise. Per­ better to support, albeit unwittingly, inde­ time and, in that ever-widening gulf, the haps pointing up the fact that a mystery pendent thinkers such as Oxfordians, than mistakes and misinterpretations that are its does exist? independent movers and shakers operating pitfalls. If this is a prevailing concern, can What is a bit of a mystery is the genesis outside the conventional system. To wit, we the impact of authorship questions lurk ofthe film. The original stOlY, reports screen­ have been treated in recent months to two somewhere in the recesses of his cantile­ writer Marc Nonnan, was suggested to him films in wide release that cover our favorite vered mind? by his son. One can only sympathize with topic and time period, namely Elizabeth and the boy's frustration at the traditional stOlY Shakespeare in Love. given in school that apparently led him to On the surface, an Oxfordian, being in­ ask his father to fill in the gaps. Obviously fonned oftwo largely Stratfordian offerings any story is better than no StOlY at all. of this topic, may be his usual disgruntled And this is celiainly resoundingly ech­ self. Why should we bother with or even oed in the applause Shakespeare in Love endorse stories that further the Stratfordian has garnered from audiences. Fully 400 years myth? But I aver that this situation requires later, the public is still hungry for an expla­ a closer and more perspicacious look. nation of how all this came about-how these plays came to be written. In Love with Shakespeare The Virgin Queen? Of the two films, it is Shakespeare in Love that has reached the widest audience While Shakespeare in Love uses fiction and level of popular appeal. Scripted by to fill in the most famous blank spot in Marc Nonnan and Tom Stoppard, the latter literary history-Shakespeare's life­ a leading contemporary playwright and mas­ Shekhar Kapur's Elizabeth uses historical ter of double and triple entendres himself, a drama to look beneath the surface of an wonderfully romantic and adventurous yarn existing life story. regales us with how Shakespeare came to Elizabeth tells the story of Elizabeth I's write Romeo & Juliet. Imagine! Positing a early reign, from the events that immediately story where Shakespeare was inspired to led up to her ascension to the throne to the write his plays based on events in his life! With Joseph Fiennes appearing in both films, initial tunnoil and political intrigue she faced as our hero Will Shakespeare (top) in Shake­ Complete with historic backdrop, practiced speare in Love, and as the Virgin Queen's in trying to establish a respected and stable signatures, Marlovian contribution and yet lover Sir Robert Dudley in Elizabeth (below, monarchy. It is based upon historical fact, another Elizabeth, this time older, wiser and opposite Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth), the but as the medium of film is wont to do, in the person of the inimitable Judi Dench, two movies call play into theories of "our" timelines are compressed, personalities are the film introduces many ofthe players and writer possibly being one of her lovers. altered, events are fiddled with or fabricated theories of the Oxfordian argument in an altogether for dramatic impact and clarity as entertaining and non-threatening forum (see One critic called Mr. Stoppard an the story is folded into two hours traffic on the box on page 5 for some examples of autodidact and, on the surface, his lack of the screen. Although strict historians­ "authorship" talking points). fonnal education could lead one to believe especially Oxfordians-may take umbrage With Shakespeare in Love we are af­ he'd champion the conventional Stratford­ with such liberties, we have more cause for forded numerous opportunities for Oxford­ ian story. But his is not a conventional mind celebration than derision. ian exposition. Supposedly Stratfordian and knowing, as he must, the amount oftime Of special note is how Elizabeth spares screenwriter Tom Stoppard denies being and effort expended to amass his wealth of us the accusation of tearing down yet an­ compelled by the authorship debate, al­ knowledge, it is difficult to imagine him other cultural icon when the filmmakers de­ though he does admit to having perused No supporting such an incomprehensible tale. pict her making love with Robert Dudley, Bed for Bacon, and earlier days when he Certainly one aspect of Arcadia is giving Earl of Leicester. Thus, the myth of the pondered the alternative theories of Bacon credit where credit is due. Could this have Virgin Queen as an actual physical descrip­ and Marlowe, before dismissing it as ground­ led Mr. Stoppard, in his Golden Globe accep­ tion is ignored altogether. In addition to less. Presumably this was around the time he tance speech, to thank" the onlie begetter, this, we have Lord Burghley demanding to wrote the witty Rosencrantz and Gilden­ Mr. W. H."? Like Shakespeare, Mr. Stoppard see her sheets each morning, right out of stern are Dead. But one wonders how thor­ seems to choose his words velY carefully Troilus & Cressida! He even intimates that oughly these theories were dismissed when and deliberately, so why did he say THAT? there are rumors afoot that she is with child considering his more recent and brilliant It's a mystely. (giving rise to the theory of a child with Sir play, Arcadia (instrumental in this writer In fact, that line, "It's a mystelY" is Robert, Arthur Dudley, touted by the Span- Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 5

ish in 1587-88 as a putative replacement TheDebate parture points of discussion with the open­ monarch after deposing Elizabeth). ing of the forthcoming Midsul11l11er 's Night For Oxfordians ofthe Prince Tudor per­ Many-probably most-of us have Dream with Michelle Pfeifer, Kevin Kline, suasion, this is propitious outside corrobo­ had occasion to butt heads with Stratford­ and Calista Flockhart, as well as Ethan Hawke ration. To further augment this theory, the ians over the evidence in the authorship asHamlet, with Bill Muuay as Polonius. On filnunakers present a stliking visual image of debate and the quality ofeach side's schol­ offer also is Titlls Andron icus with Anthony the genesis ofthe Virgin Queen as a delib­ arship (i.e., Oxfordian "amateurs" vs. Strat­ Hopkins and Jessica Lange, "10 Things I erate political act by Elizabeth to create a fordian "professionals"). With these two Hate About You" (Taming of the Shrew), parallel iconography to the Virgin Maty. films focused on the era, new opportunities "0" (Othello), and "Near in Blood" In fact, the film's StOlY line ofthe Catho­ are at hand to get the public asking ques­ (MacBeth). Kenneth Branagh has formed lic issue and Catholic plotting against Eliza­ tions about these times and then thinking the Shakespeare Film Company which plans beth are fairly accurate history lessons that about whose answers "ring true." on three films per year, beginning with a play well for Oxfordian revisionists. The film Taken together, these films provide musical version of Love's Labour's Lost, opens with scenes between the Catholic many cogent reference points to engage followed by MacBeth and As You Like It. Malyand Elizabeth-who Mary says is not the public on such questions as "Who was So, the challenge ahead for us is to present her sister as she begs her to keep England Shakespeare?" or "Who was Elizabeth?" our rival poet as more adventurous and ro­ Catholic-and later we see the Pope de­ With numerous Academy Award and mantic than the current popularization. We manding the heretic Elizabeth's death. Golden Globe nominations for both films­ certainly have the material. But will the pub­ This dramatically underscores the po­ and already Golden Globe wins for Shake­ lic, so intrigued by the topic at the moment, litical and religious hotbed that was the speare in Love, its original screenplay and prefer the fictionalized version as they have prevailing undercurrent of her reign. It also lead actress, Gwyneth Paltrow, as well as for the past 400 years? supports speculation that she would do Elizabeth's Cate Blanchett-they have Historical odds are not in our favor, but anything, including undercutting an insider made an indelible impression on the public if indeed public curiosity is piqued enough to court playwright-or at least his name-to consciousness. So much so that many look fmiher, they may just have to look to preserve the careful cultivation ofher public more films are being added to Hollywood's Edward de Vere. And then they truly can be persona and the stability of her throne. Shakespeare canon. Look for further de- in love-with the real Shakespeare.

Shakespeare in Love has opened wide for Oxfordians larger doors of public interest in Shakespeare's real life, and-more importantly­ speculation about his life and about the key question, "Just how did he come to write those timeless plays?" The fictional story touches upon many issues that resonate within the authorship debate and are ripe for discussion. To cite just a few examples .. ~ Basing bis writing on events in his life: tery, certainly, hut Oxfordians have a plethora The signature: An early scene in the film has NotonlyisthebasiclovestoryofRomeo&Juliet, of theories, none of which resort to "it was a Shakespeare practicing his signature. This is a according to tlte film, based on Shakespeare's writing exercise." nmlti-Ievel joke on, 1) writers write what they experiences, but many ofthe lines that end up in Moth: Here he's Shakespeat'e's analyst, know-well, he knows his name, 2) there was no the play (and others later) are absorbed from but it further underscores the possibility of standardized spelling yet - hence, they were all events and speech in his daily life. With no people that Shakespeare knew showing up as speUed differently, and 3) actors constantly prac­ suggestion that this denigrated his genius. Since characters in his plays. Moth is a character in ticing their autograph. But it also points up the so much of what we know of Oxford's life was Love's Labor's Lost as well as Jvlidsll1Jlmer facttltat the ONLY extant sample ofhis handwrit­ woven into tlte tapestry of the plays, tltis fihn Night's Dream. We certainly have many ex­ ing are the six signatures. adroitly points up the fact that true genius amples of people Oxford knew showing up in Poet Playwright: At one point, when Shake­ absorbs all the material at hand and transmutes it the Shakespeare canon. speare is visiting Viola's house, he identifies into Art. Queen Elizabeth: We first see her here himself as poet and playwright (not actor!) in the The play Romeo & Juliet: One acquain­ having Two Gentlemen of Verona being per­ same breath, illustrating tlte Oxfordian thesis on tance asked me ifR & J was in fact written at this formed for her at Comi. This brings into ques­ the name William (pastoral traditional name for time. Ofcourse I had to reply that that depended tion the dating ofthe plays and records of court poet at that time) and Shake-speare (alluding to solely upon who you assumed to be'the author. perfoIDlances. And she, in effect, commissions the spear-shaker goddessPallasAtltena, patron of But it is an oppOliunity to make note of the Twelfth Night, inviting Shakespeare to write a the arts in Athens, home ofthe theatre). A perfect family feud that erupted between the de Veres play about the story we've just watched him n0111 de plume if EVer there was one. and the Vavasours as a result ofEdward de Vere live. This can lead to a discussion ofher involve­ Philip Henslowe: This is perhaps one ofthe impregnatingAtme Vavasour (and to extrapolate ment with tlte writing of the plays, either as a most strategic coups for Oxfordians. To the further, if given the opportunity, to refer to plot character herself, orfor entertainll1entpurposes layman Shakespeare enthusiast, Henslowe is points in other plays where this fact is relevant, or even political propaganda. And did she pay largely an lmknown figure. Thanks to the ftlm, such as Measlirefor Measure, where Claudio is Shakespeare?Well,shepaidOxford-£l,OOOa Henslowe, played by Oscar winner Geoffrey imprisoned for impregnating Juliet, as was de year, beginning in 1586. For what? Rush (also nominated for tltis pelformance) be­ Vere, in the Tower). Marlowe: A ripe example for authorship comes a memorable and significant figure in the Sonnet XVIII: In the film, Shakespeare discussion. The film has an amusing scene with story. This opens tlte door to discussions of writes a sonnet to Viola de Lessups. Again, tlte Marlowe contributing ideas to Shakespeare's Henslowe's diaries-records of payments to ac­ subject arises of personal relationship to the play. This alludes to those who believe Mar­ tors and playwrights, but NOWHERE any men­ writing. The Sonnets are the most personal ac­ lowe wrote some of Shakespeare's works. The tion of Shakespeare. How can this be? count we have of Shakespeare's writing. To character even acknowledges Marlowe's influ­ -GQ whom were tltey written, and why? It's a mys- ence on Titus Andronicus and Henry VI. page 6 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Conference (Continuedfi'om page 1) theolY. Those numbers are something Francisco outing-first in Seattle at last that need to be considered whenever year's conference, and in Washington talking about achieving a unified posi­ DC by the Far Off-Broadway players. tion on the authorship question. Randall Shennan commented about As author and researcher Hank the play, "I believe that Aye, Shake­ Whittemore commented later, "For Ox­ speare! can make the authorship story fordians, there are two quests-one accessible to a wider audience. I hope within the group, and one where the Oxfordians around the country will bring group presents itself to the world. Cer­ this play to the attention of their local tainly, we do not want to present our­ theatres and Shakespeare festivals." selves to the world as squabbling among There were several local reviews of ourselves, but researchers must be al­ the production, both quite positive. lowed to research and to disagree with "As the crowning achievement of each other as they do. Disagreement the weekend, Marin Shakespeare Com­ should not be seen as negative." pany presented Shakespearean scholar Rob Clare at the Palace of Fine Arts, in a Elizabethan Banquet one-man show entitled Aye, Shake­ speare! in which Clare played the spir­ Another featured event was the Eliza­ ited de Vere ... Hovey's script is very bethan Banquet, with the actors of As convincing, citing innumberable paral­ You Like It Productions on hand as Eliza­ lels between de Vere' s and Shakespeare's beth I and her Court. Some guests also characters," wrote Chrisanne Beckner of participated as Lords and Ladies of the the Commuter Times. Court, using costumes which were avail­ Among the attendees were veteran Oxfordians such able for rental from A YLI. A Unified Position on Authorship? as Gordon Cyr, aformer Society trustee and newslet­ Throughout the meal there was mu­ ter editor (top), and Carole Sue Lipman (bottom), sic and dancing, plus the Court enacted Another event of note was the panel founder ofthe Shakespeare Authorship Roundtable a brief story, and such figures as Leices­ discussion "Toward Establishing a Uni­ in Los Angeles. (Photos James Liu) ter, Burghley, and Elizabeth herself fied Public Position on the Authorship walked among the tables and interacted Debate." Panel participants were Mark the audience. While some panelists, most with the guests. The evening ended with an Alexander, manager of the Shakespeare notably Dr. Wright, spoke forcefully against appearance by the merchant of War­ Authorship SOURCEBOOK web site, au­ the theory, other panelists, such as Charles wickshire, who couldn't adequately explain thor Joe Sobran (Alias Shakespeare), and Burford, were strongly in favor ofthe oppo­ himself to Her Majesty, resulting in her Society trustees Charles Burford, Katherine site view. There was some general agree­ taking his quill and wandering among the Chiljan, Randall Shennan and Dr. Daniel ment that this theory (or perhaps any con­ tables to find the rightful "possessor," who Wright. troversial and/or complicated theory) should turned out to be a velY surprised Lord This was the last event of the confer­ probably not be the centerpiece of any Charles Burford. ence, and the room was packed to hear what public presentations designed to attract At the conclusion of the Banquet many panelists had to say about this provocative newcomers to the authorship issue. It's guests stayed on in the French Room to issue. It was no secret to anyone what is enough just to get folks to question the enjoy continuing conversations with their really meant when talk tums to seeking a Stratford StOlY and begin learning out Ed­ fellow Oxfordians, or went outside for a "unified" public position, for evelyone ward de Vere. photo session with the Queen and her Court. knows how little unity there is over the so­ However, it was also noted that as people It was an entertaining and memorable called royal heir theory (also called the Prince get more deeply involved in the authorship evening. Tudor theory), i.e. that Southampton was debate it is inevitable that this theOlY is the child of Oxford/Shakespeare and the encountered as one explanation of why the The Papers Virgin Queen, and hence the true heir to the cover-up, and therefore-as controversial Tudor throne. That, as proponents say, as it is, and though based on circumstantial There were a number ofinteresting, pro­ would explain a lot about the Shakespeare evidence-it is also simply unavoidable. vocative papers this year, touching on aU authorship problem. Or that, as detractors The Society cannot afford to censor anyone aspects of the myriad authorship debate. In say, would be the ruination of the author­ point to view. four instances presenters were delivering ship movement under a banage of ridicule Also of significance in this discussion papers that had already been published from the mainstream of academe and the was a straw vote taken toward the end of the somewhere earlier in the year (Altschuler, media. question and answer period. In a show of Sobran, Dickson, RoUett). It will probably surprise no one to learn hands for who accepted or rejected the Dr. Eric Altschuler's "Searching for that no breakthroughs occuned during the theOlY, itwas at least 50-50, with any benefit Shakespeare in the Stars" was a feature discussion and follow-up questions from of the doubt going to those who accept the article in the November issue of Science Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 7

magazine, and generated some stories in fordians try to advance a "Catholic" Shake­ Shakespeare's deepest obsession, and per­ the mainsh'eam media (when ABC News speare in the next round of the authorship haps also being at the heart of the author­ used the story on their website, with a link battle. Such a scenario, Peter believes, ship controversy (for talk of deep, dark, to the Society Home Page, daily traffic simply cannot co-exist with the Spanish shameful secrets that are also life-and more than doubled for the next 30 days). Maniage Crisis and the Protestant/Catholic possibly state-threatening .. .incest has it In brief, what Altschuler postulates is battle being fought then. all). Pericles is the one play where incest is that a number of astronomical references in Among other papers this years were central, the one play that has the sh'angest Hamlet and other plays all reflect the state several that stined a bit of controversy: textual history, and the one play that was not of knowledge through the end of the 16th Roger Stritmatter on identifying "Oxford in included in the First Folio, and was not century, while significant events that be­ the Digby Canopy Portrait," and Charles included in the "official" Canon until early in came known after 1604 (Oxford's death) are Boyle on "Why Pericles is not in the First the 18th centuly. nowhere to be found. Dr. Altschuler's con­ Folio." Another paper of some note was that of clusion £I'om this is thatthe playwright clearly Stritrnatter's presentation was a reprise RobeliDetebol ofFrankfuli, Gelmany. Denan demonsh'ated knowledge ofand use of "the of the one he gave at the Edward de Vere Charlton of England read Detebol's paper, stars" throughout his works. Therefore, if Studies Conference last April, where at­ "Oxford's authorship in the Stationers' Reg­ he had been alive past 1604, new discoveries tendees were all impressed with Roger's ister," which makes an interesting case that (such as the orbit of Mars ) would be present analysis. They were no less so this time, the Merchant a/Venice, by having its pub­ somewhere in the plays. although some other Oxfordians have now lication opposed by the Lord Chamberlain, Dr. John Rollett (ofIpswich, England) challenged this analysis. In brief, Stritmatter may actually reveal evidence that the Lord was attending a Society Conference for the claims-based on records of other proces­ Chamberlain was the author. And by this first time. His presentation was based upon sions and marching orders by degree and Detebol means not Lord Chamberlain the Sonnets dedication decipherments which rank-that Oxford must be the smallish man Hunsdon, but rather the Lord High Cham­ have already been published earlier this in the center with the extremely thin left leg. berlain Edward de Vere. There are instances year in The Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter In the months since the conference there where the LHC is refened to in the abbrevi­ and The Elizabethan Review. Nonetheless have been further challenges to this identi­ ated fashion as "Lord Chamberlain," in ad­ the room was packed to hear firsthand fication, and we hope to provide complete dition to the fact that, in Detebol's estima­ Rollett's work and some of his newer re­ coverage of both sides in the near future. tion, intervention to block publication of search on the sonnets and the dedication. Boyle's presentation was the first since Merchant by the actual Lord Chamberlain Joe Sobran's presentation was also on his stroke two years ago. True to form, he (Lord Hunsdon) makes no sense in any the Sonnets, in a manner of speaking. Sob­ took on the controversy within the contro­ Stratford ian scenario. So, asks Detebol,just ran believes he has discovered a cache of versy, and gave a paper that takes the royal who did oppose the publication of The new Shakespeare Sonnets that have been heir theOlY one step further. Merchant a/Venice, and why? on the record for years. These are the In short, Boyle presented a case for There were three papers presented that "Emaricdulfe" sonnets, first published (as incest being the centerpiece of (Continued 011 page 8) by "E.c., Esquire") in1595, butlittlenoticed by scholars since. Sobran believes, based on his analysis of these sonnets compared 23rd Annual Conference in Boston, with "Shake-speare's," that there can be little doubt that they are Shakespeare's. November 11th to 14th A fuller version of Sobran's paper was The 1999 Conference is scheduled for Members who wish to book rooms now published in his newsletter Sobran 's, and November 11 th to 14th in Newton, Massa­ can call the Maniott: 1-617-969-1000 can also be found on the Sobran 's web site. chusetts, just 5 miles outside the Boston Peter Dickson's presentation was a sum­ city limits. The Conference Hotel will be the ming up of all he has leamed in the one and Call for Papers Boston Newton Maniott, located at 2345 23rd Annual Conference one-half year he has been studying the Commonwealth Avenue, near the intersec­ political circumstances sunounding the tions of the Mass Tumpike and I 93/95. Individuals wishing to present publication of the First Folio. Some of his Conference room rates (for the three papers at the Conference should presentation our members have already nights from November II th to November send them to: leamed about through the article in the 13th)willbe$119,single/double. Summer 1998 newsletter ("Shakespeare's Dr. Charles Bemey Preliminary planning by the Conference 91 Standish Road Son on Death Row"), but there was much Committee already calls for having at least WatertownMA 02472-1235 new material also, particularly about the one major conference event on the campus Tel:( 617)926-4552 other half of Dickson 's thesis-the issue of of Boston College, the site of a highly suc­ the suspected Catholicism of the Stratford Papers should be delivered typed cessful authorship debate in October 1997. double-spaced, or all disk ill ASCII, man. There will be more details in the next Word Pelfect 5.1 or Word 6.0 format. Dickson believes that his contextu­ newsletter about the Conference, and a alization ofthe folio publication spells death Lellgth should be based all a presellta­ mailing to the whole membership in June/ tioll time of approximately 30 mill lites. for the Stratford theory, especially ifStrat- July with fuller details. page 8 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Conference (Col1til1uedji'olll page 7) and a musical demonstration on Renais­ all touched on the personal life and fortunes sance Music by Owain Phyfe and Professor of Edward de Vere, and helped to fill in some Sasha Raykov. of the blanks spots. John Foelster spoke on "Reevaluating the Financial Decline ofthe Ogburn Memorial de Veres," Daphne Wilson on, "Oxford's Gentry Servants," and Verily Anderson on On Saturday night fonner trustee and "Sixty Five Years of the De Veres." newsletter editor Gordon Cyr helped pay F oelster was especially illuminating on tribute to Charlton Ogburn, and spoke also just how the de Vere family slowly lost its on the histOlY of the Society. Even though vast land holdings, while Wilson filled in the he spoke ofthe 1960s and 70s, it seemed as gaps about Oxford's servants. Anderson, if a far different world was being described author of The De Veres of Castle Heding­ to us. Such vignettes as Ogburn bicycling ham, gave her audience a wonderful one into Washington DC every day lent a sense hour tour (with slides) ofthe history ofthis oftimeand place, and reminded us ofhow far illustrious family. this movement has come in the years since. Rounding out the papers were three Derran Charlton, from England, was Following Cyrthere was an open micro­ others that broke new ground about plays, on hand to read Robert Detebol's phone for anyone who wished to say a few manuscripts and holographs that could (Frankfurt, Germany) paper, in ad­ words about Ogburn, their experiences with possibly be connected to Oxford. dition to presenting his own work. him or with the authorship issue itself. Derran Charl ton spoke on several differ­ Twelve people stepped up to the mike over ent topics, including, "A Twelfth Night letter de Vere holographs known to have the next 45 minutes and spoke movingly of Manuscript in Belvoir Castle," (a subject survived. The book is in a Secret31Y hand, their personal experiences with Ogburn and that he had first spoken on at the 1993 and includes recipes, spells, some poems of their engagement with the authorship Conference in Boston), Roger Stritmatter and some Latin exercises. issue and what his life-long work on this spoke on, "The Earl of Oxford's Common­ Chiljan's paper made an interesting case issue had meant to them place Book?" and Katherine Chiljan on, that the play Palomon and Arcite might be Lisa Wilson was the first to speak and "Oxford and the 1566 play Palamon and an earlier version of Two Noble Kinsman, told of her many contacts with Ogburn Arcite." In all three presentations Oxford written when Oxford was just sixteen. The during and since the September 1997 video­ was being linked to material that was either play is presently attributed to Richard taped interview project with him. Lisa prom­ unattributed or attributed to someone else Edwards, but, as Chiljan points out, his ised that the final version of the interview, (e.g., Palamon and Arcite). schedule was so busy in 1566 one can due for completion later this year, would do In the case of Charlton and Stritmatter, reasonably question whether he really had justice to a man she had grown to admire if their theses prove out, there would be the time-in just a month or two-to write tremendously in the past two years. significant additions to the known holo­ this play also. Roger Stritmatter, the interviewer for the graphs connected to Oxford. This is espe­ Wilson project, also spoke briefly. Roger cially tme of the so-called Twelfth Night Other Speakers recalled that, after all the on-again, off-again manuscript (with its passages eerily similar nature of getting the project in place­ to portions of Shakespeare's play), first Peter Beauclerk spoke at Friday's lun­ Ogburn having stated often that he reported in Peter Porohovshikov's Shake­ cheon on the long history ofthe Cecil and de shouldn't be the story, Oxford should­ speare Unmasked (wherein he claims the Vere families, using some anecdotes from how surprised he was just before leaving for handwriting is the Earl of Rutland's, and his own family's contact with the Cecils in Beaufort when Charlton phoned and asked Rutland is Shakespeare). Charlton makes a modern England. simply, "Are you coming?" good case that the handwriting is not Lawyer Jim Murray and author Joe So­ Bill Boyle spoke ofhis frequent contacts Rutland's, leaving open whose, then, it is. bran shared the microphone at the Saturday with him as newsletter editor, and also of His comparisons of the handwriting in luncheon to talk of their experiences at the Charles Boyle's long relationship with him, the manuscript with the famous "I am that I May 1998 Mock Trial in Washington DC. complete with the famous "Ogburn" post­ am" postscript from Oxford's 15 84 letter to Murray emphasized how the trial experience cards-first the one blasting away at the Burghley stmck most observers as interest­ does demonstrate the weaknesses in the affront of the moment, and then the "all is ing, but far from decisive. It is also of some Stratfordian documentaty case, weaknesses well" follow-up a few weeks later. interest that the manuscript's present that should always be exploited in any de­ Boyle also reminded evetyone that owner-the Duke of Rutland-refuses to bate or trial situation. Ogburn was much more than just an advo­ allow any researchers access to it. Other events that took place over the cate ofthe authorship issue, and had written Stritmatter's presentation on the com­ three days included the showing by Lisa extensively on many subjects in a rich and monplace book may have broken some new and Laura Wilson ofthe Ogburn Interview colorful life. In fact, he said, it was the ground in authorship research, since-if (they expect to have a final version ready for coincidence of their both being veterans of the book did once belong to Edward de distribution and sale later this year), a taped war in South East Asia and both having Vere-it would join the small circle of non- showing of the Mock Trial from last May come to similar views about "expert tmth" Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 9 out of that experience that helped in their became acquainted with Ogburn in the past once-long ago-advised him, "You'll later Oxfordian relationship. one to two years, commented how "sharp catch more flies with honey." As Boyle was finishing his comments and engaged he always was," and how Playwright Alan Hovey said it was com­ the irrepressible Verily Anderson rushed to thorough and analytical his letters were forting that Ogburn did live long enough to the microphone to pay her homage to that when he wanted to take Dickson to task over see the ever-increasing interest in the issue "sweet fellow" Charlton, a spontaneous some fine point of fact or interpretation. and that an Oxfordian victory is undoubt­ moment that delighted everyone. Elliott Stone reminded evelyone that edly on its way. Writer Tom Goffspokeofhis Many comments emphasized how en­ before Ogburn's 1984 book there had been graciousness and of the "southern elo­ gaged Ogburn had remained with the au­ his famous 1974articleintheHarvardAIumni quence in his writing." thorship issue and with friends and ac­ Magazine, a landmark event in its own right, The final speaker was Derran Chariton, quaintances right up to the end. Katherine whereupon "all hell broke loose" in the who confessed that he had first picked up W odehouse remembered how she once magazine's offices. It was that article that Ogburn's book because the name "Charl­ wrote just to thank him for writing The brought Stone into the Oxfordian fold. ton" caught his eye. Charlton concluded on Mysteriolls William Shakespeare, and how Mrs. Betty Drayton Taylor spoke of a fitting note of how saddened he was that surprised she was that he wrote back so how her parents and Charlton's parents had "that dear, darling man is no longer with us." quickly, in a letter full ofinsight and obser­ been lifelong friends, and how she had The memorial then concluded with a vations. "He always wrote back," she noted. known Charlton for years. Taylor broke the toast to Ogburn. Researcher Peter Dickson, who only audience up when she recalled how she had -W.Boyle Authorship and Orthodoxy Ogburn s legacy can be found in how institutions such as the Folger now treat authorship Charlton Ogburn was not one to shrink from the most congenial of men." He described as Shakespeare biographer. His review ofOgburn 's a debate over authorship issues, especially when "invigorating" the intellectual wars that Ogburn book in the New York Review ofBook v was fair he thought his opponents were uninfonned or fought: "It isa tribute to Ogburn's character that and friendly. "Perhaps," he wrote, "we have all being unfair. He often fOlmdhimselfduelingwith his intellectual polelllics are of a much higher been wrong together, Stratfordians and anti­ leading scholars in the Shakespeare establish­ order than those ofmost of his critics .... He has Stratfordians, about the elusive, unknowable ment. Invariably, however, the Stratfordians given.anaccuratepictureofanintellectual contro­ dramatist." Thenfollowed an amicable exchange found themselves engaged with someone better versy in which his antagonists would not deign of letters to the editor. illfonued and more skilled in intellectual thrusts to face hlin .... Hehas shownahigh degree ofgood Ogburn even effected a tentative rapproche­ and parries. This combative verbal fencmggained humor and wit." Strong words to publish ill the mentwith thelateProfessorS. Schoenbaum, the someprominenceinbooksandmagazmesandon journal of the officially Stratfordian Folger. dean ofShakespeare, i.e. Shakspere, biographers. television; evelyone loves a good fight over ideas. Indeed, with the retirement ofLouis Wright The two men were in touch during their final Less well known to many readers was tl~eFolgerhadmodifiedits reaction to the author­ years, when both were contending with chronic Ogburn's winning personality and his skill in ship controversy. The new director, O.B. ailments. Schoenbaum, in fact, may have had his making friends with those Stratfordian scholars Hardison,a highly respected scholar who once doubts about the Stratford man. Although he who were willing to engage in open and civil appeared on the cover of Time, wanted a recon­ heaped scorn on anti-Stratfordians in his book discussion of the authorship question. Admit­ ciliation with Ogburn. Crinkley was his emis­ Shakespeare's Lives, he concluded on the last tedly they were few, but one instance is particu­ sary. Crinkley says their· goal was to make page: "Perhaps we should despair of ever bridg­ larly significant. amends and to establish a "dispassionate attitude ing the vertiginous expanse between the sublliu­ The year after publication of Ogburn's The about a·contentious SUbject." Although he dis­ ity ofthe subject and themundane inconsequence Mysterious William Shakespeare: The Myth and claimed credit for effecting a reconciliation, he of the documentary record." This documentary the Reality (1984) an article appeared in the says "that would come in time." And it did. record that Schoenbaum disparages is the record Shakespeare Quarterly thatsurprismgly took to Ogbum'swife, Vera, who worked with her he spent much of his career analyzing. task those in the Shakespeare establishment who husband, confinns that Hardison and Crinkley Charlton Ogburn was unyielding in his de­ dismissed or derided non-Stratfordian writers. were most friendly and welcoming and that the fense of the 17th Earl of Oxford as the true The author was Richmond Crinkley, programs Folger staffwas most helpful. Since then, many author of the works of Shakespeare. And he director oftlle Folger Shakespeare Library. other Oxfordian researchers have worked at the could be very blunt about his critics. Sometimes The Folger, which publishes the Shake­ Folger and experienced the same welcome and he despaired that the academic establishment speare Quarterly, had been for several decades help. Althoughnotpersuaded by Ogburn's argu­ would ever examine the internal evidence and the vocal adversary ofthe Oxfordians and anyone ments, Crinkley did see benefits in the contro­ documentary record in fair, unbiased intellectual else who questioned the credentials of the man versy. "Stratfordians and anti-Stratfordians inquily. At the same time, however, he found a from Stratford. The most-vocal of them was the should begin talking," he says. "The t\vo have few professors who would engage in reasonable, late Louis B. Wright, former dil'ector of the much to leamfi:omeach other." And he concludes friendly discussion. They admired his intellec­ Folger. Ina blunt appraisal Crillkley said Wright his article in the Stratfordian journal with a tual rigor, his fairness, the depth ofhis knowledge had "a contempt for dissenters that was as mean­ striking statem.ent:· "Shakespeare scllolarship and his genial good nature and wit. He was the spirited as it was loudly trumpeted." owes an enonnous debt to Charlton Ogburn." greatest Oxfordian ofour time, and he remains a Crinkley admired Ogburn and the intellec­ Ogburn also got a sympathetic reading from model for all Oxfordian scholars to emulate. tual rigor in his book. He found Ogburn"among E.A.J. Honigmal1l1, a British professor and RFW page 10 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Teaching Shakespeare (Continuedjrol1l page 1) Junior High students to investigate the au­ to care strongly about the person who was In Spring 1997, after several years of thorship question and carry forward their Shakespeare and, by extension, the won­ drous texts themselves. There was connec­ testing the water and guiding students enthusiasm into the local high schools in tion! through their questions about authorship, Central Kitsap County, Washington. Barrett floated a proposal to teach an after­ In 1997, Barrett took his Shakespeare Despite this emphasis on treating the hours Shakespeare course. A huge over­ experience to the Shakespeare Oxford Soci­ authorship question as a means to the higher flow of students rushed to sign up for ety Conference (in Seattle, Washington), at goal ofteaching the values of tolerance, free Barrett's course. On only twenty-four hour which he joined Cleveland State University inquilY, and infolmed debate, Barrett's suc­ notice, twenty-five of one-hundred and Professor David Richardson (a renowned cess soon boomeranged when one of his twenty-five eligible Central Kitsap ninth­ expert on the Elizabethan poet Edmund students got into a contretemps with a local graders signed up for fifteen slots of a Spenser) to co-chair a seminar on teaching high school teacher offended by inquiring course devoted to two hours of after-school minds. Soon Kitsap County administrators study ofthe Bard twice a week. "What is the "His students, having were subjected to complaints aboutBarrett's world coming to?" wondered BalTett in a subversive pedagogy. Rumors originating letter to parents explaining his own-and by learned a hard lesson in local high school English departments extension his students' -enthusiasm for charged that Barrett's students were noto­ the after-school Shakespeare project. "How about the dangers of rious "trouble makers." They refused to do we explain the excitement of the kids?" thinking for silently endorse the official myth of Shake­ Easy. Barrett's seminar was not just speare and sometimes openly expressed another dreaty exercise in memorizing the yourself in high school, their own frush-ation at what they perceived words of an incomprehensible genius. It as stonewalling responses on the part of was billed as a course in historicalliteralY continue to pursue their other teachers. One such teacher, appar­ detection. Like Al Pacino "looking for Rich­ interest in the ently not a student of history , told students ard" in the film ofthe same name, Barrett's that "there is no such person as Edward de students were searching for the truth about authorship question Vere." Shakespeare. The text came alive with po­ One week of sometimes heated email tential clues to the author's identity - they after leaving Barrett's exchanges took place between Banett and read with a motive for comprehension. popular classes. " one local high school teacher. Barrett, "The authorship question is highly con­ frazzled and frustrated, was being taned troversial," admitted Barrett in his letter to with the old ad hominem of being a teacher parents of the enthused students, "but it the authorship question in the classroom. whose students subverted the dominant has persisted for two hundred years. We're Barrett's letter to his Washington State paradigm by asking difficult questions for not going to solve it in our seminar, but it Second81Y school teaching colleagues, in­ which other teachers did not have canned provides a wonderful enh'ance into the Eliza­ viting them to attend the Seattle Confer­ answers. bethan world and an incentive to study the ence, spells out the potential for authorship Although the email exchanges ended text and, perhaps, identify a personality studies in the classroom more eloquently amicably, the rumors were less easily si­ behind the text. than any other document we have read: lenced, and Banett felt the damage was "As I type this letter, I hear in the back­ done. To clear the air, he wrote to the English ground a PBS telecast ofRebecca, a StOlY by Do you, as an educator, yearn to fire Department chairs of Central Kitsap High: Daphne Du Maurier, who purportedly be­ your students with the same love for Shake­ speare that you have, to thrill to his name the lieved that Shakespeare's works were writ­ During the past week, I engaged in a letter same way you do? When I began to discuss exchange [via] e-mail with a member ofyour ten by Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl the Shakespeare authorship question with faculty. It partially touched on the Shake­ of Oxford. Your child will be hearing that my students, I found I was tapping [into] speare authorship question. You possibly name often in the seminar, and there have something almost reflexive in its immediacy. are aware of the argument, which has ended been indications during the past ten years or Theirnatural iconoclasm and vague curiosity amicably and is no longer an issue. However, so that it could soon become a household about the world around them quickly grew to focused interest in how it was possible that in the exchange I was infonned of "horror name. " the Stratford man was credited with great stories" told by your teachers involving my Since reading Ogburn's TheMysterious works. I was pleased to see students' eager­ former students who have come to the high William Shakespeare, Barrett has not made ness to engage figurative language as they school with a "looking for a fight' attitude." any secret that he agrees with Supreme looked for clues to confirm or reject the ideas This revelation is the converse of what I've Court Justices Blackmun and Stevens that that were arising in our discussions. Critical been told by other former students who have come back to me complaining that they have the Oxfordians have got the best argument. thinking skills sharpened. Frequently, we stumbled into teachable moments involving been curtly cutoffwhen they tried to discuss His enthusiasm for the authorship question, such issues as academic integrity, ad hom­ the authorship issue in their classes. Appar­ in his regular English classes and now in the inem arguments, skepticism, professional ently, I have come in for castigation, one of after-school Venture Program, has inspired tolerance, research methodology, and the your faculty members informing me that several sllccessive COhOlis of Central Kitsap concept of the university. And they learned another faculty member said I should be Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 11

fired. I don't know how accurate any of this is, since it is mostly hearsay. Obviously, though, something is going on, and I am in the Interview with Bob Barrett middle ofit. I'm tempted to believe that since Washington teacher talks candidly about bringing the not a single member ofyour faculty has been disturbed enough to contact me to find out authorship question into secondary school classrooms exactly what it is I'm saying to my ninth What did you wantto accomplish when the question. There's the accretion of facts graders, there is no real problem. My intu­ you introduced the Oxfordian viewpointto that need to be weighed and assembled into ition, however, tells me that that is naive. your kids? a meaningful whole. There's the appositive Please allow me to make this point CIYS­ learning in history, culture and biography. tal clear: I don't care if someone, student or teacher, is an Oxfordian or a Stratfordian or It's easier to say what I didn't want to There's the interpretation oftexts, academic an Agnostic or a Baconian or an Anything accomplish: I didn't want to convince my integrity, research methods, tolerance, fair- Else in the authorship question. Ijust want ninth-grade students that de ness. There's the wonder of to continue firing up the imagination of kids Verewas Shakespeare. From it all, the reflection on possi­ with the fun and beauty and worth of Shake­ a teacher's standpoint, the bilities. The topic is so rich speare, and I have chosen Shakespeare au­ nature of the authorship de­ with learning opportunities! thorship as my approach to that goal, which bate itself was more interest­ And it's fueled by teacher is still my perogative-and which has been remarkably successful. Surely your faculty ing than my own, personal enthusiasm and the natural, can respect that and find a way to come to conviction of who the true almost proprietary predispo­ terms with it. For example, why not become Shakespeare was. Most kids sitions of teenagers: their familiar with the topic and argue the ortho­ read Shakespeare for the first iconoclasm and love of mys­ dox view. What better debate topic can there time in the ninth grade. It's tery. ?" b e. part of their transition from So, when I stood in front young-adult literature to adult of the class a few years ago, As we go to press in winter 1999, Barrett literature. For some of them, still excited with having read infonns the Shakespeare Oxford Newslet­ it's a daunting prospect, so Ogburn's The Mysterious Robert Barrett ter that the situation has stabilized and that teachers must prepare stu­ William Shakespeare­ de Vere's flag flies high in the region. His dents for the transition, guide them through twice, in the span of a couple of weeks-I new web site (www.hurricane.netl it, and instill in them a love--or at least a was aware that I was doing what I had done ~rbarrett/index.html) features pedagogi­ healthy acceptance--ofthe new literahlre. many times before. I was sharing something cal materials on authorship and discusses In pedagogic tenns, teachers try to address with my kids, and the unfeigned and authen­ his enthusiasm for the potential for author­ the affective domain oftheir students. In the tic enthusiasm of my interest in this new ship courses at the junior high school level. ninth grade, that can be even more important topic, a topic of some intellectual scope, His students, having learned a hard lesson than addressing the cognitive domain. The which had the potential of being interesting aboutthe dangers ofthinking foryourselfin goal, after all, is to develop lifelong, inde­ to them, too. I really didn't give much high school, continue to pursue their inter­ pendent learners who can gather facts and thoughtto it. I certainly didn't have a lesson est in the authorship question after leaving experiences and think about them when no plan or something I consciously "wanted to Barrett's popular classes. teacher is around to help--and are eager to accomplish." I just wanted to talk to them Some of Barrett's local colleagues have do it. spontaneously. even-slowly-started to come around to The other side of the coin, of course, is the validity of the authorship question and the cognitive domain. It's not really a choice What was the response? incorporate the issue into their Shakespeare for a teacher; that is, affective or cognitive. pedagogy. I want my kids to become enthusiastic, I underestimated the topic the response One of Barrett's former students, confident readers of challenging literature was explosive. They asked question after Samantha Harvell, summarized the lessons such as Shakespeare, but I also want them question, many of them of the "Yeah, but learned by students who had been shocked to think about it, and to think about it well. what about?" ilk. They weren't just asking at the amount of heat generated by their The buzz tenn in the jargon of educators is me about what I believed. They wanted to investigation of the authorship question: "critical thinking," and what better topic know about the topic itself, to satisfy their than the authorship question for introduc­ own aroused curiosity. They pushed me for I guess if you have spent your entire life ing and exercising critical thinking skills! clarification and more details. They asked believing something, and possibly based your career on it, then I can see how you would For example, there's the cognitive dis­ me to repeat certain things I'd already said resist the fact that it may be a lie. You'd be sonance of knowing securely and even minutes before. They wanted to know why surprised, Bob, how many minds you have unquestioningly to the core of one's young, no one opened Shaksper' s tomb to check for changed regarding the subject. Pretty much fifteen-year-old being that Shakespeare is clues, why people get angry aboutthe topic, everyone who has had your class believes Shakespeare, and then someone comes why de Vere couldn't sign his name on the that de Vere was the tme talent behind the along and suggests there's a problem with plays. Did Shaksper know de Vere? Where writings. (Continued on page J 2) page 12 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Teaching Shakespeare (COl1t'dji-OIll page 11) didn't write Shakespeare is preposterous, delusions, stains the profession and causes are the handwritten plays de Vere wrote? ludicrous! It defies simple logic and a guilt by association. It's shameful; it's irre­ When the tempo of questions and answers four-hundred-year-old historical record. sponsible. And it's infuriating! slowed down, I'd throw out another tidbit, Shakespeare's biography takes at least 300 ... to many Stratfordians, particularly at such as the Gad's Hill parallel, and the race pages of fully-documented text to do it the public school level, anyanti-Stratford­ was on again. I'd never seen anything like justice. It's a matter ofrecord that Shake­ ian thesis is so patently absurd, it's reflex­ it. speare was born at Stratford-on-Avon, and ively rejected with nary a second of reflec­ to this day one can find his school and tion. There's no real possibility to activate What obstacles did you run into? monument there. Scholars at every college an initial curiosity, because the reflex instan­ and university in the world study his life and taneously blocks it. The comfort and secu­ The part about my being "right" was work. If proof were to be found that Shake- rity of collegial support, the acute discom­ disconcerting. I didn't want to be right. I fort of belonging to a diminished profes­ wanted to make them curious, to question, sion, the resentment of an increased to discuss, to argue, to disagree, to chal­ "... to many Stratfordians, workload-such things just serve to justify lenge, to think, to look forward to reading particularly at the the unthinking, hostile Stratfordian re­ Romeo & Juliet, but I didn'twantto be right. sponse. Again, I emphasize that what I am I wasn't even entirely sure myself, and the public school level, any interpreting here is the psychology at the very idea ofpresenting myselfas having the anti-Stratfordian thesis public school level, where teachers are nor­ answer that brilliant scholars for two hun­ mally much more occupied in the classroom dred years had been searching for was arro­ is so patently absurd, than in the research library, much more gant and presumptuous. I want my kids to it's reflectively rejected involved in presenting what they already think critically, but some ofthem were agree­ know than what they are discovering. ing uncritically. Being right was ending a with nary a second thinking process I wanted to begin. It was ofreflection. " What can other Oxfordians, readers of tossing them just one more "fact" they this newsletter who may not be involved in would receive in school that day to ignore, secondary education, do to support efforts store, and forget. ***** such as your own to introduce an informed I haven't yet gotten a grip on how to discussion of authorship into the schools? handle that dilemma. Enthusiasm is a two­ "/ emphasize what / edged sword in this case. It helps instill an The target of "secondary schools" is interest in Shakespeare and the reading of am interpreting here ... much too broad for what we might want to Romeo and Juliet, but it also sells the side is at the public school consider doing through the good offices of of the authorship debate I strongly support Shakespeare Oxford Society. In junior high and find difficult to hide. I saw during the level, where teachers school, it's normally quite all we can do just past year that the more neutral I was in my are normally much to introduce the controversy! presentation of authorship, the less inter­ In the broadest terms, that means­ ested the kids were and the less effectively more occupied ... in first---creating a little cognitive dissonance I was addressing their affective domain presenting what with the suggestions that Shaksper might where it touched on the reading of Shake­ not be Shakespeare, but de Vere most likely speare. Itwas a trade-off. I reduced the kids' they already know... " is. The specific objectives here are to spark uncritical acceptance of my position on de interest and intellectual involvement in the Vere, but instead ofmore critical thinking, I authorship controversy, to raise doubt about seemed to gain less interest in the whole the traditional attribution ofthe works to the topic-and in the reading of Romeo and speare didn 'twrite Shakespeare, it would be Stratford man, and to introduce Edward de Juliet! front-page news, but [since] there's never Vere. been any fl:ont-page news, [therefore] there's Once in high school, students can probe Why do you suppose some ofyour sec­ never been any proof. What can be found much more independently and use much ondary school coUeagues in Silverdale have are countless conspiracists and lunatics more effective intellectual tools. My point reacted to the authorship question not, as who attack whatever is good and hue and here is that there is a distinct and consider­ you have, as an educational oppOliunity, but divert decent people from their proper pur­ able difference between the abilities ofjun­ instead recoiled in fear, to the extent of suits to counter them. The very idea that an ior high school and high school shldents, so questioning your professional integrity for educator would poison young, defenseless the Shakespeare Oxford Society does not raising the subject in your classroom? minds and shift the burden to others to have one, but two targets, two age levels to reconstitute them, namely teachers who are support with materials, services, or what­ Simple. The notion that Shakespeare already over-worked teaching facts, not ever its involvement might become. Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 13

My teaching of authorship is largely ety, no one-but efforts such as these could why, exactly. Sometimes-rarely- inter­ unplanned, much like an extemporaneous possibly build the foundation for future necine battles simply exhaust themselves speech. I have an idea of what I want to Oxfordian growth. Costly conventions and when cooler heads prevail, and perhaps that cover, so from the very beginning of the current publications and planned libraries explains, in part, what's happened here. school year, I look for 'teachable moments.' largely cater to present members. There I've tried to tone down my authorship With wall posters ofCastle Hedingham, and needs to be a sea change from the insular rhetoric in the classroom, although there's the Droeshout engraving, and a plaque read­ applications of scarce present resources, a perverse streak in me that surfaces spo­ ing 'De Vere Lives!' over the front chalk which seem to do little more than maintain radically, such as when I casually substitute board, I carefully lead my kids over time to status quo, to applications that work through the name Edward de Vere for Shakespeare ask me about authorship, and in answering public schools into the institutions ofhigher when reading out loud, talking to the class, their questions, I allow class discussions to learning. or writing notes in the margins of student develop. In a way, they gradually and compositions! I've also cautioned the kids unsuspectingly take ownership of the topic. and instructed them how to handle author­ By the time we arrive at the fourth-quarter "There can be little ship situations with their "gaining" teach­ Shakespeare block, we're ready to draw in ers at the high school. the loose ties of all our talks and address the doubt, I think, I still hear from my former students that topic of authorship a little more coherently, that there is a softening discussion of authorship is not welcome in and we begin looking for de Vere clues in our many of the English classrooms, but appar­ .reading of ROlli eo alld Juliet. ofStraifordian resistance... ently that is velY gradually changing. At A possible Shakespeare Oxford Society [coming] from the constant two of the three high schools, there is at least role in my teaching? Again, I'm not sure, but one teacher who h'eats students who raise I wonder what I could do with the following: pressure Oxfordians have the subject with restraint and circumspec­ 1) A video documentary biography of exerted over the past tion bordering on passive interest. One of Edward de Vere, along the lines ofthe one for them, in fact, was an advisor to one of my William Shakespeare that's widely available nearly 50 years. " past students who was selected as a Distin­ from cable television's A&E Biography guished Graduate, based partially on her series. Like it or not, video is an important research paper that argued the Oxfordian teaching tool for this generation of kids. ***** case. An indicator of at least a tacit truce on 2) A separate web site for research by the part ofthe more mi I i tant S tratfordians is students (and curious faculty). It would "... relentless pressure and their continuing silence and avoidance of contain such pages as topics-cum-recom­ contact with me. There can be little doubt, I mended research sources; links to impor­ the variegated nature think, that there is a softening of Stratford­ tant internet authorship sources, such as [oD iconoclastic attacks ian resistance, and it came not directly and Mark Alexander's wonderful The Shake­ exclusively from any bestselling books speareAuthorshllJ SOURCEBOOK; practi­ on the Straifordian (Ogburn, Whalen, Sobran) or research find­ cal advice for writing reports; current au­ religion have brought ing, but from the constant pressure Oxford­ thorship news; essay contests with publi­ ians have exerted over the past nearly-50 cation of winning entries; school spotlights, a shift from Straifordian years. etc. hostility ... to all uneasy A whole series ofevents, fi-om the Ameri­ 3) A separate web site for teachers. This can Bar Association's series of journal ar­ one would contain curriculum blocks, les­ respectability. " ticles in the 1950s, to the SOS Home Page son plans, teaching strategies, issues in­ and the Supreme COUlt' s invol vement in the volving facul ty and adminish·ation relations, current debates, have helped to bring about professional development announcements Wouldn't the SOS recover some of the this change. Each ofthese things was scorned (annual conventions), lending libraty, ros­ costs in increased membership? Wouldn't at the time-and continues to be scorned­ ter of available speakers, etc. Stratfordian bastions atthe University even­ but the total relentless pressure and varie­ 4) Oxfordian texts and reading guides for tually be forced to respond to the increasing gated nature of these iconoclastic attacks the plays most often read at the secondalY pressure of the Oxfordian influx? I think on the Stratfordian religion have brought a schools (for example, ROllleo and Juliet, perhaps so. shift from Sh'atfordian hostility and unthink­ Macbeth, Hamlet, Julius Caesar, The Mer­ ing lemming mentality to, ifnot acceptance chant of Venice and Midsullllller Night's How is your current situation at of the Oxford theOlY, then an uneasy re­ Drealll). Central Kitsap Junior High? spectability for the theory, or at the very Who would create these things? Who least a numb, passive acceptance of the would pay for them? Who would administer The situation today seems better than it existence of an honest controversy. Time is them? Ifnot the Shakespeare Oxford Soci- was two years ago, although I can't say on our side. page 14 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter The Jaggard-Herbert-de Vere Connections (1619-1623) Was the dedicatory letter to Philip Herbert and his wife Susan de Vere related to Lord Chamberlain William Herbert's 1619 edict on play publishing rights? by Peter W. Dickson Even though Charlton Hinman proved Printing and ProofReading of the First response to the alleged illegal nature of the conclusively that the actual printing of the Folio ofShakespeare (1963) to believe that Pavier-laggard quartos of 1619. First Folio did not get started until the first the actual folio project was about to begin in Furthermore, some Oxfordians such as quarter of 1622 (at the earliest), and hence 1619 or shortly thereafter. But we now know Charlton Ogbum have argued that William after the political-religious turmoil associ­ from the folio evidence and Hinman's tech­ Herbert's edict was designed to discourage ated with the Spanish Crisis had reached nical analysis that this is not what hap­ others from trying to interfere or pre-empt an major proportions, we must carefully eval u­ pened. ongoing First Folio project. But this must ate Roger Stritmatter's discovery of strong Moreover, as Hinman originally ob­ now be seen as impossible, since the folio evidence thatthe folio printer (William Jag­ served in 1963, the sudden registration in project did not get underway for at least gard) had approached Susan de Vere as early October 1621 of athello (thefirsthith- another two years. early as 1619 in the hope of obtaining some So, what was the edict about? And what important literary manuscripts to publish. impact, ifany, did it have on J aggard and his The evidence in question is the close "When did Jaggard prepare pitch to Susan de Vere? parallel between the dedication page to the the dedication to Susan In the inset box on page 15 is the text of Herbert brothers ("The Most Noble and de Vere-before or after the edict from Lord Chamberlain William Incomparable Paire ... ") in the First Folio Susan's brother-in-law Herbeli, Earl of Pembroke, dated May 3rd, (1623) and that to Philip Herbert and Susan (William Herbert, Lord 1619, and also a later note of explanation de Vere ("The Most Noble and Twin-Like (letter dated June 10th, 1637) about his Paire ... ") for a massive folio-size anthology Chamberlain) issued brother's action from the then Lord Cham­ entitled Arxaio-Ploutos Concerning Ten his edict ofMay 3, 1619?" berlain Philip Herbert, Earl ofMontgomery Following Books in the Former Treasurie (Susan de Vere's husband). ofAuncient and Model'l1e Times (1619). erto unpublished Shakespearean drama to We believe that close analysis of the This evidence-which Stritmatter pre­ appear in print since 1609) for publication as edict and the historical context supports the sented in his recent article "Bestow how, a qumio seems highly improbable for sound conclusion of Alfred Pollard in 1909 (in and when you list" (Shakespeare Oxford commercial reasons ifa comprehensive folio Shakespeare Folios and Quartos), and re­ Newsletter, Fall 1998)-is powerful in that project was underway and/or near comple­ stated by Irvin Matus in Shakespeare, In it clearly indicates that laggard was looking tion at that time. 1 Fact (1994), that the edict was not a royal in the direction of Susan de Vere and not the However, this later start to the folio prohibition against legal reprints. Instead, actors in the King's Company, such as project in 1622 (which was also after the it was a clear warning to anyone actually Condell and Hemminge, for some fruits from imprisonments of Henry de Vere and thinking about stealing or pirating the a "literary" orchard-flUits which Jaggard Southampton in the midst of the Spanish unpublished playhouse manuscripts still might then supposedly publish, although it MalTiage Crisis) does not detract from the owned by and in the possession of the cmIDot be determined in what form he would bottom-line significance of the dedication King's Company of actors. have published such bestowed flUits from to Arxaio-Ploutos in 1619. It still shows Although the Lord Chamberlain hadsig­ her hand. Perhaps just more quartos-such conclusively that Jaggard coveted impor­ nificant power, we believe that he could not as he and Pavier were already publishing in tant literary material in the possession of prohibit reprints of old plays which the 1619-and not a comprehensive folio. Susan de Vere, which in her case points to actors had sold legally to publishers long We do know that laggard had already her father's works. ago, which is precisely what the situation printed for Thomas Pavier ten quartos of A clUcial question still remains to be was with regard to the Pavier-Jaggard re­ Shakespearean or pseudo-Shakespearean answered: When exactly in 1619 didArxaio­ prints in 1619. The bizarre back-dating of plays in 1619, but these quartos were not Ploutos appear in book stores? More pre­ some ofthese reprints to 1600 and 1608 and bound together in a set order or sequence, cisely, did laggard make the pitch to Susan the curious absence of laggard's name as and they were only reprints of old plays. de Vere before or after her brother-in-law the printer on the title pages did not rise to This was, ofcourse, in sharp contrast to the (William Herbert, the Lord Chamberlain) is­ the level of a criminal offense. First Folio, which contained 18 plays never sued an edict waming publishers not to Therefore, as Pollard and Matus main­ before seen in print. print plays owned by the King's Company tain, Pavier and Jaggard strictly speaking The sudden emergence of the Pavier of actors without their consent? had done nothing wrong and there is no quartos in 1619 had encouraged some schol­ This question is important because some evidence that they were planning to steal! ars prior to Hinman's landmark work The scholars believed this edict was a direct pirate unpublished playhouse manuscripts Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 15 in the possession of the actors. Further­ more, we know fromArxaio-Ploutos that in The Edict ofM~y 3,1619 .. < 1619 Jaggard was in fact looking towards Susan de Vere for any additional material. Uponalett~rfromtheI{ight:H:9n{)rllbl~LQnJG~ai,ll~~rJ~W;.IHsihoughtfital1dso ~l1tl';refoul papers) and not from toward the Herbert -de Vere family for some­ had a lot more than half of Arxaio-Ploutos playhouse manuscripts. thing of great literary value strongly sug­ (perhaps the entire book!) still ahead of him Therefore, all the evidence suggests gests that Jaggard was not content to deal to type set and print. Compared to the First that Jaggard ultimately dealt with non-ac­ only with the actors-either because they Folio which took more than one year, this tors (i.e., the "grand possessors" mentioned did not at the time own or have anything that 1000- page folio project had to be far more in the "Never Writer to an Ever Reader" he wanted or, if they did, he was not quite tedious given the double-columns of much preface in one of the two versions of the satisfied because it was still not in the form smaller size type. 2 These factors and the Troilus and Cress ida quatioS of 1609) who he desired, most likely Oliginal drafts. (Continued on page 23) page 16 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Oxfordian News Oxfordian Londre to speak in San Francisco and Portland; authorship talks, classes, events scheduled around the country California already!" The course's "textbook" will be The Shakespeare Association the April edition ofHarper 's maga­ ofAmerica will convene in San Fran­ zine which will feature ten scholars, cisco the first weekend in April, and debating two sides of this issue Oxfordians will be making theil'pres­ (five Stratfordians and five Oxford­ ence felt. ians). The Horatio Society plans sev­ And some people, of course, eral events for the same weekend, will blithely remark, "Who cares who taking advantage ofthe large Shake­ wrote Shakespeare?" We're not speare oriented crowds that will be expecting any ofthem to attend the in town. On the actual SAA agenda course. is OxfordianF elicia Londre, who will The course will also include dra­ be presenting papers at both the matic readings, video interview (Lisa SAA and then a week later at the De Even before Hollywood gave us two Elizabeths last fall, Wilson and Roger Stritmatter with Vere Studies Conference in Port­ Oxfordians at the San Francisco conference ,vere treated to Charlton Ogburn) and debate land, Oregon. Londre is professor their own Gloriana. And when she toured the Banquet room, (FrontLine), and a discussion of of theatre and drama at the Univer- British author Verily Anderson (left) knew all the right proto­ cols when greeting her monarch. the Guthrie's production of Julius sity of Missouri-Kansas City. Caesar with a prominent dramatist. Londre's most recent book received a nual Conference also taking place in Massa­ For course registration, contact ELI at positive review in The New York Times. Co­ chusetts' and the Harpel' 's magazine au­ (612)624-7847. authored with Daniel 1. Watenneier, The thorship article still on the newsstands, HistOlY of North American Theater is the there should be much to talk about. Tickets Oregon first comprehensive history ofNOlihAmeri­ are $40 each. F orfUliher information, phone can theater. WilliamBoyle(6l7-628-3411). The3rdAnnualEdward de Vere Stud­ Her SAA paper ("Where the words go: Also in eastern Massachusetts, Chuck ies Conference convenes on the campus of Shakespeare into Verdi, Gounod, et al")­ Berney will talk April 15th on "Hamlet and Concordia University in Portland, Oregon, slated for the plenary session-is author­ the Earl ofOxford" at the First Parish Unitar­ fromApri18th-11 tho ship neutral, while at Portland she will de­ ian Church, 35 Church St., in Watertown. Events at this year's Conference will liver the keynote address, taking on Oxford The talk is intended for newcomers to the include a lecture by Sally Mosher entitled, and his relationships with Munday, Lyly, authorship question, and will associate char­ "William Byrd and Edward de Vere: The Nashe, et al. acters in the play with proposed real-life Musical Connection." Sally will follow her Londremostrecently spoke at the Shake­ counterparts in the Elizabethan Court. For lecture at the University Lutheran Church of speare Theatre Association of America, further information call Chuck Berney at: Saint Michael with a harpsichord perfor­ where her paper on Oxford as Shakespeare (617)926-4552. mance of Byrd's "The March Before the was well received and piqued the interest of Trustee Elliott Stone will again be offer­ Battle." a number of directors and producers in ing his authorship class at the Harvard The Keynote Address of the Confer­ attendance. Academy Club in downtown Boston, begin­ ence, "Edward de Vere: By His Friends You Massachusetts ning April 20th. The classes will continue Shall Know Him: The Faithful, the Fickle, from the introduction to the authorship and the French," will be presented by Dr. The 12th Annual Oxford Day Banquet question covered last fall. For fUliher infor­ Felicia Londre, Curators' Professor of The­ is scheduled for Friday, April 23rd, at the mation, callElIiottStoneat(617)742-8785. atre, University ofMissouri at Kansas City. Harvard Faculty Club in Cambridge, Mas­ Edward de Vere's famous tragedy, sachusetts. Dr. Daniel Wright, Director of Minnesota Romeo and Juliet, will be enacted by the the Edward de Vere Studies Conference, will George Anderson will coordinate a six Concordia University Players under the di­ be the featured speaker. week ShOli-course on the "true author of rection of Professor Canne1a Lanza-Weil Society members from around the coun­ Shakespeare's works," beginning March and will be presented for Conference regis­ try are invited to attend. In addition to the 29th. Organized through the Elder Learning trants in the University Theatre on the open­ featured talk, the floor will be open to one Institute (ELI) at the University ofMinne­ ing night of the Conference. Prior to the and all for reports and news of authorship sota, it will address the 150yearold nagging pelformance, Professor Lanza-Wei! will activities around New England and around question: "Why hasn't the Shakespeare present a dramatic reading of a paper by the country. With the Society's 23rd An- authorship question beenresolved? Enough Stephanie Hughes entitled, "The REAL Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 17

Shakespeare in Love." England Research Notes This year's Awards Banquet will confer distinction on British author Verily Ander­ Theater-goers at the Globe in London Did Shakespeare stop son. Dr. John Rollett will also read selec­ can get the Oxfordian view of Shakespeare' s writing in 1604? tions from the Earl ofOxford 's letters at the plays performed there. Mark Rylance, actor, banquet. artistic director of the Globe and non-Strat­ In the Shake-spearean authorship de­ A panel discussion on "The Pedagogi­ fordian, has arranged for the theater to sell bate, no single point is more hotly contested cal Value of Introducing the Authorship a booklet that gives the Oxfordian perspec­ than the chronology of the plays. Oxford­ Question to the Classroom" will feature four tives. Papers on two plays sold out last year, ians asseli that the author worked on what eventually became the Shake-speare canon educators: Dr. Frances Rippy of Ball State and the De Vere Society Newsletter reports from the 1570s through till his death in 1604. University, Mr. Robert Barrett of Central that Rylance has asked for a booklet on the Stratfordians counter that in 1604, the au­ Kitsap Junior High School, Dr. Ren Draya of three Shakespeare plays scheduled for this thor was only getting warmed up. Blackburn College, and Dr. Daniel Wright of year. So evidence that suppOlis the 1604 Concordia University. The panel will be Rylance, a patron ofthe De Vere Society, Shake-speare tenninus is especially valu­ chaired by University of Massachusetts has also agreed to be a trustee of the Shake­ able to the heterodoxy today. As it happens, graduate student Roger Stritrnatter. speare Authorship Trust. The trust owns a the history of the Shake-speare quarto pub­ collection of350 books at Otley Hall, near Washington DC lications suggest that something drastic Ipswich, where the Society's own libr31Y is happened around the time of the Earl of Oxfordians lost their strongest suppOlier also located. Oxford's death, since no new quartos ap­ among the active and retired justices of the Verily Anderson ofNorfolk UK, author peared fi-om 1604-1622-with the exception Supreme Court of the United States when of The de Vere's ofCastle Hedingham and of a brief spate during 1608-09, the same rustice Hany A. Blackmun died on March a frequent speaker at U.S. conferences, re­ period when the dowager Countess of Ox­ Hh. ported that Warner Bros. has extended its ford sold King's Place at Hackney, where Justice B lackmun was one ofthree judges option on her 1993 book for a possible the late 17th Earl spent his final years. It a moot cOUli in 1987 in Washington DC on movie. She says a producer at Warner Bros. In addition, a document I discovered he authorship issue. They ruled against the is raising money and believes that the suc­ several years ago also suppOlis the Oxfor­ )xfordian challenge to the man from Strat­ cess of two recent movies, Shakespeare in dian position on Shake-speare chronology: ford. Later, however, Justice Blackmun re­ Love and Elizabeth, has given the public a In W.R. Chetwood's Memoirs of the Life versed himself. He wrote to Charlton Ogburn taste for Elizabethan scandal. and Writings ofBen Jonson, Esq. (Dublin, that on the evidence presented he would Finally, Christopher Dams, the De Vere 1756), one observation bears our consider­ "rule in favor ofthe Oxfordians." Society's newsletter editor and secret31Y, ation. That is, more than a centulY and a half before J. T. Looney's rediscovery ofthe man Supreme Court Justice JolmPaul Stevens reviewed the society's project to document who was Shake-speare, Chetwood claimed has also written about his serious doubts proposed Oxfordian dates of composition that Shake-speare-whom he presumably that the Stratford man was the author, most for the plays, especially those that Stratfor­ takes to have been the Stratford player­ recently last year at another moot court in dians tly to date after Edward de Vere died ceased writing sometime in late 1603 or early Washington DC (Nervsletter, SUlmner 1998 in 1604. He has set up a standard fOlmat, and 1604. and Fall 1998). he provided two examples, Othello (1594 vs. In his section on Sejanlls, Chetwood Justice Blackmun's reversal upon fur­ Stratfordian 1604) and Two Noble Kinsmen writes, "Our inimitable Shakespear [sic] ther examination ofthe evidence was very (also 1594revisedby Fletcher 1608 vs. Strat­ acted a part in this play, judged to be the last much in character. The New York Times in its fordian 1613). He stressed that these are he performed, since his name is not men­ editorial on his death said that he "never initial best estimates based on an Oxfordian tioned in a drama after the year 1603; for, at outgrew his passion or capacity for change." reading of the evidence, much of which has the end of that year, or the beginning of the He was best known for writing the majority been overlooked or dismissed by Stratford­ next, 'tis supposed he took his farewell of decision in the Roe vs. Wade opinion on the ians. the stage, both as author and actor." [Spell­ right to abOliion. He retired five years ago. The major article in the latest De Vere ing, punctuation modernized.] Many U. S. Supreme Court justices have Society Newsletter was also on the dating This piece ofevidence may not, by itself, long taken an interest in the authorship issue. Eddi Jolly reviewed at length the shiftthe burden ofproofto the Stratfordians controversy, strong testimony to the valid­ evidence for Hamlet and proposed 1589, -i.e. requiring them to prove the dates of ity of the Oxfordian challenge. Justices around the time of the infamous "Ur-Ham­ any plays that they now assume were post- Brennan, Breyer, Ginsberg, Kennedy and let" as fantasized by Stratfordians. She cred­ 1604. But with both the chronology ofquarto Souter have all indicated their interest. In its Lilian Winstanley'S book, Hamlet and publications and Chetwood's expert testi­ 1997 Justice Breyer mentioned at a moot the Scottish Succession, published in 1920, mony on the docket, a good lawyer could court on Richard III that he had accepted with describing "the most significant topi­ easily establish reasonable doubt for the Stratfordian case and perhaps even win an Shakespeare's version of history until he cal reference," the execution ofM31Y Queen appeal to tly the Earl ofOxford for the crime discovered that "Shakespeare was really of Scots in 1587. Ms. Jolly is scheduled to his advocates have long wanted him on the the earl ofOxford. "Those who argue against speak on the subject at this year's Edward stand for: writing the "Shake-speare" works the validity of the authorship controversy De Vere Studies Conference at Concordia £i'om the 1570s through till his death in 1604. would lose in the U.S. Supreme Court. University, Portland, Oregon. -Mark K. Anderson page 18 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Book eVlews: Shakespeare: The Invention of the Not explained was how the uneducated, and that has been lost. Bloom does note the Human. By HaroldBloom (New York: bit-part actor from Stratford came by that exh'eme youth ofShakespeare of Stratford in Riverhead Books, 1998) "aristocratic sense of culture." those years. He would have been "twenty­ In contrast, other themes from his ear­ five or so (at most)" when he wrote what By Richard F. Whalen lier books are repeated, sometimes several "could only have been a crude cartoon." He times over. He deplores current trends in dates the composition of the Ur-Hamlet in Super-enthusiastic, bombastic, prolix, litermy criticism as The School of Resent­ 1587 or 1588. That would make the author Professor Harold Bloom of Yale and New ment-criticism based on race, gender and even younger-twenty -three or twenty-four. York University charges through Shake­ class. He refers to ideas in his books on the Bloom evidently could not bring himself to speare's plays firing off sundlY opinions, authorship ofthe Bible and on The Anxiety mention his author's age in those earlier confessing his prejudices and inadequa­ of Influence-Shakespeare, for example, years. (Oxford would have been in his late cies, and shouting unbridled admiration for wonying about Marlowe's influence on thirties. ) Shakespeare's intelligence. him. Bloom also has his man perhaps helping "His intelligence is more comprehen­ In failing to mention, however, his ear­ "in 1587 or so" to "botch" The Famolls sive and profound than that of any other lier idea ofShakespeare' s "alistocratic sense Victories ofHe my V, which scholars usually writer we know," insists Bloom, still waving of culture," Bloom has perhaps now real­ assume to be a circa-1586 source for Hem), his arms with enthusiasm at the end of his ized how that earlier insight pointed to the Fourth, Part 1. In those years the Strat­ 745-page book. He is frankly in awe ofShake­ Oxford as the more probable author. Per­ ford man was twenty-two and twenty-three­ speare whom he calls an "inso lub Ie enigma." haps he found the idea too dangerous. dangerously early for Bloom's Stratfordian He says we will never know what Shake­ True, he may simply have forgotten about chronology. speare was like: "Essentially we know abso­ it, but that does not seem likely since in this Bloom does not dwell on biography. He lutely nothing." Nevertheless he offers a book he does put Shakespeare-as be­ is simply in awe ofShakespeare and wants to few ideas about the author's biography, fore-"at the center of the Western canon." tell you about it. He has taught Shakespeare mostly based on what he finds in the plays He just drops the word "aristocrat." for twenty years, and his discussion of each and poems. Shakespeare "most certainly Bloom knows about Oxford, mentions of thirty-eight plays sounds like a quick re­ was unhappily married "" did not like law­ him three times briefly, but leaves the reader working of his lecture notes. The chapters yers, preferred drinking to eating and lusted uninformed. He chides Freud for suppOli­ are conversational, somewhat rambling and after both genders .... He sensibly was afraid ing the argument that "the low-born 'man usually quite entertaining with quirky in­ of mobs and of uprisings, yet he was afraid from Stratford' had stolen all his plays from sights. Bloom speaks to a general audience of authority also. He aspired after gentility the mighty Earl of Oxford." Later, with ap­ and does not bother with footnotes, bibliog­ [and] rued having been an actor." It is clear parent irony, he calls Oxford "that de­ raphy or even an index. enough, Bloom says, that "Shakespeare frauded genius." Even in these brief men­ One has to wonder why his editor did not had an intensely personal relation to his tions Bloom seems not a little anxious about cut some of the many repetitions, which Hamlet." Unknowingly, but quite astutely, the influence on academia of the claims for almost all reviewers have noted (e.g., the Bloom has described Edward de V ere, the Oxford as the highly intelligent, cultured word "uncanny"-overused throughout 17th Earl ofOxford, who many contend was aristocrat who is supposed to have written academia-should have been bmmed by the hue author of Shakespeare's works. the works of Shakespeare. Bloom's editor). One reviewer suggested Biography is not Bloom's game in this Bloom dates the composition of the that the book could have been a third shOlier; book, and the few mentions are far from plays in a way that should give him some another generously called it "capacious and factual. Shakespeare, he says, "presumably" anxiety. Shakespeare, he says, accomplished beneficent." named his son Hamnet after Amleth of the "the supreme feat of producing King Lear, The central argument ofthe book, Bloom old Danish tale. We Imow "for certain" that Macbeth and Antony and Cleopatra injust says, is that Shakespeare "invented us," he played the Ghost in Hamlet and Adam in fourteen consecutive months." Dazzled by hence the book's title. By claiming for Shake­ As YOli Like It. Those alleged acting assign­ this burst of rapid, polished writing but not speare "the invention of the human" he ments are, of course, later legends. stopping to question it (indeed he repeats means Shakespeare invented personality, He makes no mention of his view of it incessantly), Bloom plunges ahead. characterized by a preoccupation with the Shakespeare as essentially aristocratic, a He insists over and over that the "Ur­ inner self and that in doing so Shakespeare view he presented in his 1994 book, The Hamlet" was written by Shakespeare. Most created more "separate selves" than any Western Canon. He said then that he found scholars posh!late an "Ur-Hamlet" as a writer before or since. His characters are "free "an aristocratic sense of culture" at the source for Hamlet because Thomas Nashe artists ofthemselves," in the words ofHegel, origins of Shakespeare 's art. He put Shake­ alluded to "whole Hamlets of tragical which Bloom also repeats regularly. speare "at the pinnacle of the long Aristo­ speeches" in 1589. They say Nashe was Among those "separate selves" Hamlet .cratic Age ". going from Dante to Goethe." referring to a play thatKyd probably wrote (Continued on page 24) Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 19

COIUIllIl The Paradigm Shift MarkK. Anderson Revisiting "Apis Lapis" In October 1944, Charles Wisner Barrell ians have made a marginal- if obtuse and Considering his reading of Apis and his first showed that the Earl of Oxford was historically implausible- counter-case. objective to make Apis Lapis mean "sacred called "William" by at least one contempo­ And that's essentially where we've been ox," Barrell must ultimately translate Lapis ralY. In the Shakespeare Fellowship Quar­ stuck for the past half-centUlY. Sitting on a as "de-stoned" or "without stones" (i.e. terly, Banell published a study of the intro­ testicles). That translation, however, is sim­ duction to Thomas Nashe's 1592 satire Strange Newes~ ply wrong. To castrate is to remove "stones," Strange News. Nashe dedicates Strange Of the intercept- and the mere mention of one stone does not News to a mysterious Elizabethan figure ing certaino Letters, and a Con~ imply its removal. fJoyofVcnc.," t1lty were golngPriNI/;, t. whom he only identifies as "Gentle Master If'iOuall CNLow COUlluie.s ... So what does Apis Lapis mean? William." Does it mean, as Alexander Grosalt and A number ofNashe's allusions to "Wil­ Ronald Brunlees McKerrow advocated liam" point directly to the Earl of Oxford. nearly a centulY ago, that it's simply a word To wit, he describes "William" as the "most substitution of apis="bee" and /apis= copious" poet in England. The mystelY "stone"? If so, the Stratfordians have a man, he says, wields a "round cap" and diversion ready: One uncorroborated state­ "dudgeon dagger" -irreverent epithets for ment has been found that the Elizabethan ceremonial talismans wielded by Oxford. actor Christopher Beeston had a brother (A nobleman's cap and the sword of state, named William. As Ban'ell points out, "Jolm respectively.) Nashe also alludes to the Payne Collier seems to be responsible for the heraldic blue boar of the Earls of Oxford Printed J S $1 1. statement that William Beeston was 'a man when he says "By whatsoever thy visage ofsome authority on matters ofpoehy.' But holdeth most precious, I beseech thee by treasure chest, albeit one that few outside as verification of this claim is lacking, it can John Davies' soul and the blue boar in the the Oxfordian movement have been will­ be ignored as one of Collier's many fic­ spittle ... [i .e., hospital, possibly associated ing to recognize, in part, because of a tech­ tions." with the children players?]." nicality. Taken in the larger context of Barrell's On the face of it, Barrell's discovelY Here's the paragraph in question from overwhelming evidence from the whole of should be more valuable. After all, how Nashe's dedication: Nashe's dedication that "Gentle Master better to mark Edward de Vere as the author William" is the Earl ofOxford, theApis Lapis "William Shake-speare" than to find his To the most copious Carminist [poet] of = William Beeston argument is patently ab­ colleagues referring to him by the first of our time, and famous persecutor ofPriscian surd. But, given Ban'ell's bungling of Apis these two names? However, as it's played [i.e. enemy of pedantly], his verie friend Lapis, it's no wonder that pedants the world Master Apis Lapis: Tho. Nashe wi sheth lIew out over the past 50 years-for reasons that over have refused to give up the ghost on strillgs to his old tawllie Purse, and all we'll come to in a moment-Barrell's dis­ honourable ill crease ofacquailltance ill the their Gentle Master Beeston. covety has remained an obscure point that Cellar. The problem, we've discovered, stems Oxfordians rarely address. from the first word. That is, the only allusion ofNashe's that Barrell points out that "tawnie" is a After several centuries ofEgyptological scholars have quibbled with is that Nashe direct reference to Oxford-in fact, it's one work, we know today that Apis, as Barrell also refers to "William" with the Latin sobri­ of the two heraldic tinctures ofthe House of claims, is the "sacred bull of Egypt." How­ quet "Master Apis Lapis." This column will, Vere (Reading tawny and Oxford blue). ever, 16th centulY Latinists weren't working 55 years after Barrell's otherwise masterful However, Barrell's reading ofApis Lapis is from the mountains of evidence and recent attribution study, finally give Oxford his not nearly as persuasive: discoveries that the present age has access due as the true Apis Lapis ofNashe's cagey to. Rather, renaissance archaeological dedication. Apis here means the sacred bull ofEgypt, sources consisted primarily of what ancient When Barrell published his original frequently mentioned by Greek and Roman writers had to say about Apis. writers," Barrell writes. "Lapis can be noth­ study in 1944, he assembled 40 footnotes to This is where it pays to consider the ing else but stolle or stalled. And as a stalled Nashe's dedication that demonstrate to any actual words that 16th centulY readers had or castrated bull becomes an ox, so Master patient reader how "Gentle Master William" Apis Lapis in Nashe's ribald pun becomes to work with in understanding who Apis can be no one but the 17th Earl of Oxford. Master Sacred Ox, or the disabled and frus­ was. (Incidentally, apis meaning "bee" is Barrell made one crucial mistake, though. He trated Earl of Ox ford in professional mufti. pronounced with a short "a," which would fumbled on the one point where Stratford- (p. 56) (Colltinued on page 24) page 20 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter From the Editor: Published quarterly by the Are We Having Fun Yet? Shakespeare Oxford Society P.O. Box 263 These would have to be described as The manner in which Timemagazinehandled Somerville, MA. 02143 "heady" times for we happy few involved letters to the editor following its own break­ in any way with the great Shakespeare through cover-story on the authorship is Editor: William Boyle authorship story. It has been an issue illustrative. Many letters received, so they Editorial Board: outside the mainstream for eons, yet ca­ choose to publish none of them, quoting Mark Anderson, Charles Boyle, pable ofsummoning up strong emotions in only from one Stratford ian letter, with a Stephanie Hughes, Elisabeth Sears an instant. barely disguised sub-text of, "Well, let's be Phone: (617) 628-3411 So who would have thought even six sure not to ever, ever talk about that again Phone/Fax: (617) 628-4258 months ago that we'd be seeing Shake­ ... after all, there is no case for Oxford!" email: [email protected] speare's name blazoned evelywhere, and Makes one wonder just how many letters even more incredibly, that the authorship were received, and whatthepro-Oxford ratio All contents copyright © 1999 Shakespeare Oxford Society question would be getting some of the may have been. same mainstream treatment. The cover of In any event, the more publicity the The newsletter welcomes articles, essays, commentary, Time? Twenty-thousand plus words and better, since we do have faith that the more book reviews, letters and news items. Contributions should be reasonably concise and, when appropriate, the cover of Hmper's? Strange days, in­ people who are introduced to the authorship validated by peer review. The views expressed by contributors do not nccessnrily reflect those of deed. question and begin to look into it, the more the Society as a literary and educational organization. What this may actually auger for the who will find that there is something to it, future remains to be seen however. For and conclude that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl even as we enjoy this recent wave of expo­ of Oxford, fits the role of author head and sure, the forces of resistance stand film. shoulders above anyone else. Aaron Tatum, 1999 Society President The new President of the Shakespeare to reach an amicable,just conclusion. Tatum Oxford Society is Aaron Tatum, who moved is determined to see this matter resolved into that position from First Vice President with the responsible parties ultimately ac­ after the resignation of Randall Sherman cepting their responsibilities. from the Board of Trustees on December Aaron Tatum is an insurance executive 24th, 1998. Shermanresignedafteravoteof from Memphis, Tennessee, who has been a no confidence following his mid-December Society member for 12 years, a Board mem­ report to the Board that in hosting the San ber for three years, and an occasional con­ Francisco conference he had incurred ex­ tributor to the newsletter. He has also writ­ penses significantly in excess of the regis­ ten short stories and features-sometimes tration fees and otherreceipts which he had on Oxford--during his tenure as a newspa­ collected. per columnist for ten years. He formerly At the conference he had reported to served former Tennessee Governor Lamar the Board that the revenues collected had Alexander as Jobs Conference Aide and is met the expenses incurred, but in any event himselfa former candidate for the U.S. House he would cover any possible shortfall, which of Representatives. He received a BA from in a worst case would be approximately the University of Tennessee and an MA $2,000. However, in mid-December he re­ from the University of Colorado. ported to the Board that his shortfall was in Tatum has recently stated to us that, "I excess of$20,000 and that he would not be welcome this opportunity to serve the Soci­ responsible for it. ety and our common cause, and am de­ Pro bono lawyers assisting the Society lighted the Society is receiving so much are ably and carefully reviewing and nego­ recent positive printed press attention. tiating this matter. In theselast four months, Thanks to all of you who have so capably Shem1an has suggested that he would at­ contributed over the years and helped bring tempt to raise funds for the purpose of us to this propitious moment. retiring these obligations. However, to date "And finally, I can speak with confi­ he has failed to produce any funds, and has dence when I maintain that our financial also declined to participate in any ofseveral house will remain in order and steps have suggested reasonable alternatives. been taken to assure no future abuses will Nonetheless, the Board is proceeding occur. I thank you for your attention in this with business as usual, and is working hard space on these matters." Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter page 21

Shakespeare, a name he must by now have The idea that Cymbeline concludes the Letters: become thoroughly familiar with. Folio for reasons similar to those for which To the Editor: Notuntilthe fOUlih edition ofl661 (when The Tempest opens it seems to me to be preparations for the Third Folio would have something that makes perfect sense Peter Dickson has drawn attention been underway) was any addition made to ButI wonder ifRoger--or anyone else­ (Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, Fa111998) the chapter on Poehy in the CG, and then has considered yet another reason that this to a fine mystery. Briefly, Henry Peacham's only a few lines in praise of Homer. This play would be a fitting commentary on the list of Elizabethan poets in The Compleat edition was printed by E. Tyler for Richard political crisis ofthe moment. I am thinking, Gentleman, published in 1622, starts off Till'ale, at the sign of the Cross-Keys at St. of course, ofKing Cymbeline' s stolen sons, with "Edward Earle of Oxford," and omits Paul's Gate, so again it is unlikely that the about whom it is commented at one point, Shakespeare. This was despite the fact that name Shakespeare would have escaped the "How hard it is to hide the sparks of nature! his publisher, Francis Constable, had pre­ notice of the reviser. / These boys know little they are sons to the mises in St. Paul's Churchyard (The White Thus we have the following time-lines of King ... / ... theirthoughts do hit/Theroofof Lion) only four doors away from those of books masterminded from almost adjacent palaces, and nature prompts them/ In simple William Aspley (The PalTot), and six away bookshops in St. Paul's Churchyard: and low things to prince it much / Beyond from Edward Blount (The BlackBeare), two the trick of others." (III, iii,79-86), and later, of the four members of the syndicate which Compleat Gent: Sh. Folios:. "Great men / That had a comino bigger than was at that very time preparing the publica­ 1622 1623 this cave '" / ... Could not out-peer these tion of the First Folio, which appeared the 1627 1632 twain." (III, iv, 82-87) next year. Each must surely have known 1634 The point being that these two boys­ what the others were doing. 1661 1663/4 born of royal blood-just seemed to "natu­ The mystery of Peacham's omission rally" live and act as those of royal blood deepens when one considers later editions Yet the name of Shakespeare, the author should (in the author's opinion?) live and of The Compleat Gentleman and of the of the Folios (not to mention three quartos act. Now I dare not say these lines prove Shakespeare folio. The second edition of of poems), never made its way on to anything about either Southampton or Ox­ CG was published in 1627 by Constable, Peacham's list of Elizabethan poets. It does ford, but they would certainly be an apt who had now moved to "his shoope in pauls indeed seem odd, and lends weight to Peter comment about how these "Two most noble Church yeard atye crane," right next door to Dickson's suggestion that perhaps Henries" rose to the occasion at a time of Blount's and three away from Aspley's. Is Shakespeare's name was already on crisis, out-peering their peers. it possible that the name Shakespeare never Peacham's list, in the form of"Edward Earle came up in conversation? ofOxford. " Charles Boyle Meanwhile a new syndicate was fOlTlled Harwich, Massachusetts to publish the Second Folio, which was John Rollett 21 F eblUary 1999 issued in 1632, William Aspley being the Ipswich, England only member from the First Folio syndicate. 10 March 1999 To the Editor: One member of the new syndicate, Robert Allot, has now taken over Edward Blount's To the Editor: I am indebted to Mark K. Anderson, in shop at The Black Beare. Then in 1634, two the Summer 1998 Shakespeare Oxford News­ years after the publishing of the Second Roger Stritmatter is to be congratulated letter, for drawing my attention to the quo­ Folio, Francis Constable, next-door on what I think is a brilliant piece of thinking tationfrom Ovid'sAmorul11 (1.15,35-36) on neighbour of one of that syndicate and near ("Publish we this peace," Shakespeare Ox­ the title page of Shakespeare's Venus & neighbour of another, brings out the third ford Newsletter, Fa111998) about the First Adonis. However, I do not agree with his edition ofthe CG, again with no inclusion of Folio. interpretation that the second line of the quotation is an ironic answer to the first line, although I do believe that the quotation has a significance. On reading Mr. Anderson's article I thought that I should read the quotation in the context of"Elegy 15" and I immediately realized that the reason why the quotation is on the title page of Venus & Adonis is to direct the reader to the entire "Elegy 15." Edward de Vere must have empathized with Ovid because he could, quite easily, have written this elegy himself. I quote the opening lines:

Envy, why carp'st thou my time is spent so ill, And term' st my works fmits of an idle quill? (Continued on page 22) page 22 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Letters (Col1til1uedji'ompage 21) it is a mock dedication? does not connect Shakespeare to the theme Or that unlike the line from whence I spmng, The Ovid quotation in Venus & Adonis of "Elegy IS" (and therefore that Shake­ War's dusty honours are refused, being shows that in 1593 Shakespeare believed speare did not hold this view in 1593), be­ young? that his verse would be immortal. Therefore cause the theme of"Elegy 15"-the immor­ if William Shakspere of Stratford was the tality of verse-is also one ofthe impOliant ... which could have been drawn from de author of Venus & Adonis, he believed-at themes of Shakespeare's Sonnets . Vere'sownlife. the age of29, before his name had ever been seen in print and before he had even pre­ Dennis Baron Nor that I study not the brawling laws, sentedhis poem to the Earl ofSouthampton­ Low Moor, Clitheroe, Nor set my voice to sale in every cause? that his verse would be immortal! Lancs. England Thy scope is mortal, mine eternal fame, Stratfordians cannot say that the Ovid 22 October 1998 That all the world may ever chant my name. quotation on the Venus & Adonis title page

The middle lines of the "Elegy" are an embellishment of the theme that poets and The Blue Boar their verses are immortal, and the "Elegy" Books and Publications Ogburn, Jr. (94-pp summary of The Mysteriolls then closes: William Shakespeare) Item SP5 $5.95 Alias Shakespeare: Solving the Greatest Liter- The Mysteriolls William Shakespeare: The Myth and the Reality. Revised 2nd Edition. By Charlton To verse let kings give place, and kingly 0/)' Mystery of All Time. By Joseph Sobran. Item shows, SP7. $25.00 Ogburn, Jr. Item 121 $37.50 The Anglican Shakespeare: Elizabethan Or­ Oxford and Byron. By Stephanie Hopkins And banks 0' er which gold-bearing Tagus thodoxy in the Great Histories. By Prof. Daniel L. Hughes. Item SP20. $8.00 flows. Wright. Item SPII $19.95 The Relevance of Robert Greene to the Oxford­ Let base conceited wits admire vile things, The De Veres of Castle Hedingham. By Verily ian Thesis. By Stephanie Hopkins Hughes. Item Fair Phoebus lead me to the Muses' springs. Anderson. Item 122. $35.00 SP21. $10.00 About my head be quivering myrtle wound, The Elizabethan Review. A Scholarly Oxford­ "Shakespeare" Identified in Edward de Vere, And in sad lovers' heads let me be found. ian Journal. Editor: Gary Goldstein. Two issues per Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. By J. Thomas Looney. Paperback facsimile reprint of the 1920 edition. The living, not the dead, can envy bite, year. Item 125 $35.00 (individuals); $45.00 (insti­ Item SP4. $20.00 For after death all men receive their right. tutional, US); $55 (overseas). Freeing Shakespeare's Voice. The Actor's Shakespeare: Who Was He? The Oxford Chal­ Then though death rakes my bones in funeral Guide to Talking the Text. By Kristen Linklater. Of lenge to the Bard of Avon. By Richard Whalen. Item fire, special interest is the last chapter, "Whose Voice?", 123 $19.95 I'll live, and as he pulls me down mount in which Linklater acknowledges her Oxfordian To Catch the Conscience of the King. Leslie higher. beliefs. Item SP8 $12.50 Howard and the 17th Earl of Oxford. By Charles A Hawk fi'om a Handsaw. A Student's Guide Boyle. Item SPI6 $5.00 The "Elegy" is an answer to Envy, to to the Authorship Debate. By Rollin De Vere. Item Who Were Shakespeare? The ultimate who-dllu- SP13 $12.00 it. By Ron Allen. Item SPI5 $14.95 those who criticize the poet for wasting his Letters and Poems of Edward, Earl of Oxford. time. Compact Disc Edited by Katherine Chiljan. A new edition that In his Tears o/the Muses, which was brings together the poems and the letters with Her Infinite Variety. Irene Worth and the Women of written in 1590, Edmund Spenser wrote that updated notes about original sources, provenance, Shakespeare. Readings of Selected Passages (with "Our pleasant Willy ... doth rather choose to etc. Item SP22. $24.00 music by Arif Mardin). 70 minutes. Item SPIO sit in idle cell than to himself to mockery to The Man Who Was Shakespeare. By Charlton $10.00 sell." It would seem that de Vere was tired of being mocked and criticized for being a literary Earl and so he legitimized the name Item Price he had invented, and by which he was Name:. ______known among his literary friends, by pub­ lishing a work under the name of William Address: ______Shakespeare, "That all the world may ever chant my name." City:. ______State: __ ZIP:. ____ In his dedication to the Earl of Southampton Shakespeare modestly offers Check enc1osed:__ Credit Card: MC Visa Subtotal: the "unpolished lines" of Venus & Adonis. 10% member However, the implication of the quotation Cardnumber: ______discount: from the Ovid elegy is that the lines will be immortal. Here, surely, is a contradiction. Exp. date: _____ Subtotal: Are the lines unpolished, or are they immor­ P&H, books tal? If the dedication is genuine, what is the Signature:. ______($LOOeach): reason for including the quotation? Alter­ P&H (per order): $ 2.50 natively, could it be that the quotation is a Mail to: message, to those who knew Ovid, that the Shakespeare Oxford Society, Blue Boar, Grand Total: dedication is not to be taken seriously, that PO Box 263, Somerville MA 02143 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter pagc 23

Dickson (C0l1til111edfi'olll page 15) Salmiento de Acuna or Count Gondomar, the Is Authorship Dead? (COI1 tin lIedfi'olll page 3) This analysis would explain the dedica­ Spanish Ambassador. vincing" treatment of the technical aspects tion directed towards Susan de Vere right 2. One indication of the tedious printing of seamanship but his demonstrated exper­ process is the fact that Arxaio-Plolltos was the after her own brother-in-law's edict, and second volume of this anthology. The first vol­ tise in the vocabulaty oflaw. But Twain was also the later preponderance of foul papers ume had appeared six years earl ier in 1613. This not disparaging Shakespeare's knowledge utilized in 1622-23 for the plays not previ­ significant time gap suggests that haste was ofseaman ship; he was making a point about ously published prior to the First Folio. unlikely in producing another volume. Jaggard the way seamanship and other skill vocabu­ This analysis, coupled with the strong par­ could have taken almost all of 1619 and perhaps laries change over time. Legal language, he even the first months of 1620 (which were con­ allel between the dedication page of the sidered to be 1619 in the old-style calendar) to says, is "documented all the way back." First Folio and that of Arxaio-Ploutos, finish the project. While ruminating about Twain's "egre­ powerfully reinforces the Oxfordian theory. 3.William A. Jackson ed., Records of gious discourtesy" or "lapse in authorial It best explains how the First Folio came to the COllrt of Stationers' Company 1602-1640, candor" or "blatant copyright infringement" be published once the Spanish Maniage (London: The Bibliographic Society, 1957). or his being "just plain sneaky," Bristol 4. Edmund KercheverChambers, "Dramatic Crisis and the Tyranny of Buckingham in Records: The Lord Chamberlain's Office," Malone gives credit to Greenwood for "attracting 1621-22 convinced the relatives and friends Society Collections, vol. 2. part 3, W. W. Greg, support and legitimacy for his own skepti­ ofthe real Bard that itwas now-urgently­ general editor (Oxford: Malone Society, 1931), cism" ofthe Stratfordian attribution. the time to release his unpublished plays page 384. Notice the plural "authors" in this letter In true post-modernistic fashion Profes­ (the fruit from Susan de Vere's Garden) for which suggests that the edict was a response to sor Bristol concludes that the irony is that a situation involving the works of more than one publication by Jaggard. author. Twain stole from Greenwood just as in On pages 113-115 in his work, Shakespeare Twain's view the Stratford man stole from Footnotes In Fact, Irvin Matus speculates that it was the the true author. "If evelY work is a form of questionable or illegal printing of two plays unacknowledged borrowing or theft, then 1. Splitting off this one extraordinary play written by Beaumont and Fletcher still owned by every author is an evil twin (Twain) of a the King's Company which caused the actors to so late in the game made no commercial sense rightful claimant (Clemens). Or maybe it's because it would take something away from the complain to the Lord Chamberlain. However, the the other way around." folio project, which needed to include Othello. I analysis is still conjectural. We may never lmow believe the decision to publish Othello, with its in greater detail the factors which triggered the Whatever. In any case, despite Bristol's villain Iago (the Spanish diminutive for Diego or edict of May 3, 1619. lapses, Stratfordian readers of the Shake­ James), was a subtle political statement by the Copyright © 1999 Peter W. Dickson speare Quarterly have been reminded once Herbert-de Vere-Southampton clique in its again that eminent writers and thinkers have struggle against King James, his lover (Bucking­ ham) and the dark Machiavellian figure, Diego become convinced that the Stratford man was not the author. Join the Shakespeare Oxford Society If this newsletter has found its way into your hands, and you're not already a member of our Society, why not consider joining us in this intriguing, exciting adventure in search of the true story behind the Shakespeare mystery? While the Shakespeare Oxford Society is certainly committed to the proposition that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, is the hue Shakespeare, there is much that remains to be learned about the whole secretive world of Elizabethan politics and about how the Shakespeare authorship lUse came into being, and even more importantly, what it means for us today in the 20th Centmy as we complete our fourth centmy of living in a Western World that was created during the Elizabethan era. Memberships in the US and Cauada are: Students ($15/$25 overseas); Regular ($35/$45 overseas); Family/Sustaining ($50/$60 overseas). Members receive the quarterly Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter and discounts on books and other merchandise sold through The Blue Boar. Members can also subscribe to our annual journal of research papers, The Oxfordian. for just $1O/year ($20/year overseas). Non-member SUbscriptions to 1I1e O,jol'dian are $20/year ($30/year overseas). Our Home Page on the World Wide Web is located at: http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com We can accept payment by MasterCard or Visa in addition to checks. The Society is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization. Donations and memberships are tax-deductible (IRS no. 13-6105314; New Membersbip: New__ Renewal__ York no. 07182). Clip or xerox this form and mail to: The Shakespeare Oxford Society, PO Box 263, Somerville MA 02143 Phone: (617)628-3411 Fax: (617)628-4258 Category:

Name: Student ($15/$25 overseas) (School: )

Regular ($3 5/$45 overseas) City: State: ZIP: Sustaining ($501$60 overseas) Check enclosed or: Credit Card: American Express__ MasterCard__ Visa__ --- Family ($50/$60 overseas)

Name exactly as it appears on Subtotal:

Card No.: Exp. date: The Oxfordian ($10/$20 overseas) Total: Signature page 24 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter

Anderson (Continliedfi"Ol1l page 19) mous bovine? What does Lapis add to literal reading, one that would probably be then rhyme with Lapis. However, Apis the qualify our dumb beast? preferred by the Christopher Robins of the Egyptian God has a long "a"-so an Eliza­ According to Elyot, lapis means world: "silly old ox." bethan would rhyme the first syllable with "stone," but it also means "a negligent (This Paradigm column written with the "ape," not "ap.") persone that bestyrreth hym not in dooyng input and assistance ofTekastiaks - MKA) The Latin word used to describe Apis in a thyng [ ... does not bestir himself in doing the classical sources on Egyptian mythol­ anything]." (These secondary, metaphori­ Whalen (Continuedfi'ol/1 page 18) ogy was bos, which typically means "ox," cal meanings of lapis carry through to the and Sir John Falstaff are Bloom's heroes. He since a bull or a cow could respectively be present day, where we find contemporary even sees himself as a parody of Falstaff, denoted taurus or vacca. However, bos is definitions of lapis such as "Trope for dull­ namely, Sir John Bloomstaff. And, altema­ also the generic term for any of these bo­ ness, stupidity, want of feeling, etc.") tively, "Bloom Brontosaurus Bardolator." vines, so the actual virility of Apis (i. e. Nashe is, in short, roasting the swan of Would that Bloom could shake off his whether "bull" or "ox") is ambiguous. Avon. In a dedication that is already full of Bardolatly, follow his instincts and see that It turns out that the past two centuries of irreverence and collegial ribbing, Nashe adds William Shakespeare was indeed a writer of scholarship have confim1ed that Apis was to his playful jousting a Latin tag-using the highest intelligence, a Renaissance man, indeed a "sacred bull." But Elizabethans Elyot's 16th century definition-that calls a mighty genius, a cultured aristocrat-just such as Thomas Nashe-and the Latin dic­ his colleague and pseudonymous poet, es­ like 17th Earl of Oxford. tionary editors of the day-only had the sentially, "a do-nothing sacred ox." classical sources to work with. So Apis the He's paying homage to "William's" god­ bos becomes Apis the "sacred ox." like countenance, yet also commenting about Correction Thus, for instance, in Thomas Elyot's him in a manner reminiscent of Spenser's Latin dictionaries (such as the 1548 remark that, "Our pleasant Willy, ah! is In the article "Henry Peacham on Ox­ Bibliotheca Eliotae, ed. by Thomas Coo­ dead oflate." (Tew'es ofthe Muses, 1590). ford and Shakespeare" in our last newsletter there was a typographical per) the definition for Apis reads "an oxe, So to translate Apis lapis as simply error involving the anagram on the whome they [the Egyptians] woorshypped." "sacred ox" is to miss both the joke and­ cover of lvIinerva Britanna. The in­ No "stoning," "de-stoning" or any other more importantly-a perhaps significant scription should read "Videbori," not form of "stones" required. piece of corroborating information about "Vidibori," and the latin verb is What, then, is Lapis doing if Nashe Oxford's activities in the early 1590s. "videbor," not "vidibor." wasn't using it to emasculate the epony- Either that, or one could go with a less

U.S. Postage Shakespeare Oxford PAID Newsletter Boston MA Permit No. 53235 P. O. Box 263 Bulk Rate Somerville MA 02143 Address correction requested

Inside this issue:

Conference Report: pages 1,6-9 Teaching the authorship: pages 1, 10-13 Hollywood's the thing... : pages 4-5 Jaggard and the Herberts: pages 14-15 Oxfordian News: pages 16-17 Book Reviews: page 18