Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 1

5:1 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments..." Fall 2005 Falstaff in the Low Countries

By Robert Detobel

n his book Monstrous Adversary1 Prof. Alan Nelson has Oxford boast of his par ticipation in the battle of Bommel dur- ingI his visit to the Low Countries in the summer 1574. Nelson’s statement, my article shows, results from a double error. First he has failed to note the basic difference which existed between a battle and a siege in the Low Countries since 1573; second, and more James Newcomb, Fellowship member and Oregon Shakespeare Festival leading man, importantly, Nelson did not perceive (per- with Mark Anderson (right), winner of the 2005 Oxfordian of the Year Award. Newcomb haps because he did not want to) that Oxford’s stars this OSF season as a wickedly energetic Richard III. tale about his great feats was a Baron Münchhausen’s tall tale and was clearly so intended. More properly spoken it was a OSF, SF, and SOS Join Forces in “Falstaffiade, ” as will appear in the second part in which we observe the similarities between Oxford’s tale and Falstaff’s tales. Historic Conference (Continued on page 4) By Howard Schumann

he first ever jointly sponsored conference of The Shakespeare Fellowship and The Shakespeare Oxford Society was a “breakthrough” and an important step in piercing the “bastion of orthodoxy” regarding the Shakespeare authorshipT issue, according to James Newcomb, the Oregon ShakespeareFestival (OSF) actor who portrayed the villainous King Richard in the OSF’s magnificent production of Richard III. “The Ashland Conference reunited friends in a gorgeous Shakespearean setting,” said SOS President James Sherwood. “Both Shakespeare Fellowship President Lynne Kositsky and I enjoyed affirming a spirit of good will which found universal support in more Oxfordians attending a longer conference than any in previous memory. Together we look forward to next year.” The conference took place from September 29th to October 2nd at the historic Ashland Springs Hotel in Ashland, Oregon, home of the largest repertory theater group in the United States, and featured presentations by prominent Oxfordians, members of the OSF artistic staff, and renowned scholars and educators. Included as part of the four- day conference was a backstage tour, a First Folio viewing, and two plays, Richard III and Twelfth Night, Or What You Will. (Continued on page 10) The truth is, Sir John, you live in great infamy He that buckles him in my belt cannot live in less --II Henry IV, 1.2 page 2 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005 Letters

Dear Editor: Dear Editor:

Shakespeare by Another Name, Mark It is presumptuous of Dr. Altrocchi to the existence of a prior son he was not Anderson’s recently published book on the write a one-sided article on “The Origins allowed to acknowledge.” The editor Shakespeare authorship question, signals and History of the Prince Tudor Theory” — considered this point sufficiently important the dawn of a new day in the authorship an article which either ignores, or gives that it is printed separately on the page in controversy. With forthright command of short shrift, to virtually all contrary bold. There is a much simpler explanation. well organized and well documented evidence and arguments — and expect that Oxford was a Christian. To be a Christian information and logic, Anderson has put the result will be to reduce the level of means to think of God as someone who had the world of orthodox academia on notice “contentious debate among Oxfordians.” a son. Is it not obvious that the other “son” of just how high the bar is set. Those, like myself, who have examined the Oxford is referring to is God’s son, Jesus? SBAN fulfills the requirements set out PT theory and found it wanting, will not be Are PT theorists so used to taking by United States Supreme Court Justice convinced by an endless stream of articles Christianity with a grain of salt that they John Paul Stevens in the moot court debate which repeat the same, tired old arguments cannot imagine someone like Oxford held in Washington DC in the fall of 1987. which have taking his religion so seriously that its In a review of the watershed event by the been thoroughly discredited. Ideological tenets would be reflected in his personal New Yorker, the Justice’s subsequent fervor is no substitute for rigorous writings? remarks were recalled: “If Oxfordians were scholarship, including a willingness to This is not the first time that this rather ever going to make further progress with consider alternative explanations, rather obvious alternative explanation has been their argument they would have to put than jumping immediately to the PT pointed out. Nor, probably, will it be the together a concise, coherent theory of how conclusion and then staying put. last. and why Oxford came to write the plays An obvious example: Dr. Altrocchi points without owning up to them, and how the out that upon learning that his wife was Sincerely, subterfuge was continued after his death.” pregnant in 1575, Oxford wrote in a letter John M. Shahan Anderson has done precisely that. that “. . . it hath pleased God to give me a Glendale, California Although each and every Oxfordian will son of my own . . . “ According to Altrocchi, not agree with Anderson across the board, “‘Son of my own’ is an odd way to express there is no denying his grasp of the news of his wife’s pregnancy, suggesting multitudinous data laboriously extracted from verifiable research, “put together” in Shakespeare Matters Subscriptions to Shakespeare Matters are a presentation that is both “concise” and Published quarterly by the $40 per year ($20 for online issues only). “coherent.” No mean feat in and of itself. The Shakespeare Fellowship Family or institution subscriptions are $45 per Please address correspondence to: year. Patrons of the Fellowship are $75 and up. The added beauty of his writing style is Please send subscription requests to: sheer serendipity, to wit: “The outlines of Editorial Offices Hamlet are so pronounced within de Vere’s P.O. Box 65335 The Shakespeare Fellowship life that one invariably illuminates the Baltimore, MD 21209 PO Box 421 other.” Hudson, MA 01749 Salutations Mr. Anderson; may the Force Editor: Roger Stritmatter, PhD The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowship Oxfordian be with you. is to promote public awareness and acceptance Contributing Editors: of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by Bonner Miller Cutting Mark Anderson, K.C. Ligon, Lynne Kositsky, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550- Howard Schumann, Dr. Charles Berney, 1604), and further to encourage a high level of Houston, Texas Charles Boyle, Dr. Felicia Londre, scholarly research and publication into all 17 October 2005 Alex McNeil, aspects of Shakespeare studies, and also into Dr. Anne Pluto, Elisabeth Sears, the history and culture of the Elizabethan era. William Boyle, Richard Whalen, The Society was founded and incorporated Hank Whittemore, Dr. Daniel L. Wright in 2001 in the State of Massachusetts and is chartered under the membership corporation Photo credits for this issue: Julie Phone (Baltimore, MD): (410) 764-9202 laws of that state. It is a recognized 501(c)(3) Young, Ted Story. email: [email protected] nonprofit (Fed ID 04-3578550). All contents copyright ©2005 Dues, grants and contributions are tax- The Shakespeare Fellowship deductible to the extent allowed by law.

Shakespeare Matters welcomes articles, essays, commentary, book reviews, letters and news items. Contributions should be reasonably concise and, when appropriate, validated by peer review. The views expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the Fellowship as a literary and educational organization. Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 3

Literary scholars almost always attempt Oxford wrote the works, not Shakespeare. to excavate the details of an author’s life to But this is demonstrated to be absurd by inform the reading of his works. Almost the long-standing and indisputable precept always. With Shakespeare we have forborne that anything that challenges orthodox Oxford’s Torment: to do this. Embarrassingly, the life of our Shakespearean scholarship is absurd. immortal poet is... embarrassing. Taking account of every factual evidence we have Taking account that we know almost The Last Chapter of his comings and goings, he seems to nothing of how Shakespeare spent his days, have been an ignorant, rough-hewn knave. there is nothing to stop us from positing in the Authorship Not Iago, surely, but not Jack Falstaff either. that he spent a great deal of his time in Not a Pistol, to be sure, but not that far from research. Positing, which is not— Controversy Nym. emphatically not—making things up, is If the details of Shakespeare’s life lend again a long-standing precept of us any clues to the quality of his literary Shakespearean scholarship. Since we By Greg Swann output, we should excavate at once in search already have the Bard researching in a of misspelled dirty jokes and forged general way everything he would have Editor’s Note: normally this space is invoices. Wisely, orthodox Shakespearean known if he were the Seventeenth Earl of reserved for commentary from your editor, but sometimes lightening strikes: “gee whizz, I couldn’t have said that better if I had written it myself!” Gregg Swann’s We now have in our We need only posit that internet parody of orthodox bardology, posted in its original format at Greg’s possession the long Shakespeare spent some Presence of Mind website, is such an hypothesized ‘lost particularly huge amount of time essay. works’ of Edward de researching Edward de Vere he enduring mystery of William Vere, Seventeenth Earl himself! This must be so, since Shakepeare has become a little less there is no other non-heretical Tmysterious. of Oxford. Oxford has It may be that we can never fully plumb been regarded by way to explain the inexplicable the genius of our ever-living Bard, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t muck around heretics and assorted parallels between Shakespeare’s in the basement. You never know what lunatics as the true works and Oxford’s life. you’ll find down there. Witness: we now have in our possession author of the works of the long hypothesized ‘lost works’ of Shakespeare. This myth Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of can finally be laid to Oxford, it takes only one posit more to Oxford. Oxford has been regarded by close the gap entirely on the Oxfordians. heretics and assorted lunatics as the true rest. Thus: We need only posit that Shakespeare author of the works of Shakespeare. This spent some particularly huge amount of myth can finally be laid to rest. time researching Edward de Vere himself! Marvel at the genius of Shakespeare! This must be so, since there is no other non- Defenders of the Swan of Avon have always scholars have elected to conjecture that heretical way to explain the inexplicable been hard put to explain how a glove- Shakespeare is the one exception to their parallels between Shakespeare’s works and maker’s son from a provincial back- theory, the only serious writer in the Oxford’s life. How did Hamlet come to be water—a man who may not even have Western canon who was able to keep his captured and held for ransom by pirates, known how to read—could have written life experiences out of his work. just as was done to de Vere? Research. How the sublime corpus we know as The Works But the advent of the Oxfordian claim could Shakespeare set so many works in of William Shakespeare. What life has only made matters more difficult. For Italy, when it was de Vere who had toured experiences led the glove-maker’s son to while Shakespeare’s work does not parallel that peninsula? Research. How came his subject matter? What intensive the events of his own life, education, Shakespeare to know so much of the law, education lent him his deep erudition? upbringing and presumed concerns, it which Oxford had studied? Research. How How can the paired and parallel sonnet does—again embarrassingly—match could the Bard write characters who are cycles be reconciled with his seemingly Oxford’s life point for point. The Oxfordians clearly parodies of Oxford’s friends and mundane life history? seek to argue that this is evidence that (Continued on page 29) page 4 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005

Falstaffe (cont. from p. 1) besiegers by piercing the dykes during a high water period. This is what happened at about the same time in Leiden and Sieges and Battles Zaltbommel (or Bommel). Bommel, a town in the Bommelerwaard, an isle between the rivers Meuse and Waal, was After October 1573 the Spaniards changed their strategy in the a strategic locality, the most southern fortified town of the Low Low Countries. The Duke of Alva resigned his command in Countries under the control of the patriots. The siege of Bommel December 1573 and was succeeded by Luis de Requesens. The lasted from June till October 1574. In Leiden the defenders of change of strategy was not due to the change of governor. Alva the town tried one sally, in Bommel there were some skirmishes himself defined the new strategy as a consequence of the last two mainly to the purpose of ensuring the food supply from the disastrous sieges. On 11 December 1572 the siege had been laid surrounding lands. on the town of Haarlem. Despite repeated assaults it was not until The only battle in the Low Countries in 1574 was the battle 12 July 1573 that Haarlem surrendered. For Spain it was a Pyrrhic of Mook Heath on 14 April, between the first and second phase victory. The staunch defence of the citizens of Haarlem had led to of the siege of Leiden. It was precisely to bind the Spanish forces a heavy death toll. Another ruinous siege was soon to follow. From elsewhere and so to compel them to terminate the siege of 23 August to 8 October 1573 Spanish troops tried to take the town Leiden that Count Louis of Nassau, William of Orange’s brother, of Alkmaar by assault, again paying a high price in casualties and had levied a considerable army of mercenaries in Germany. At this time without success. The siege had to be broken off. least this goal was realized. As seen, Don Francisco de Valdez, From then on the strategy was radically changed. “No the commander of the siege, had to interrupt the siege in March. longer sieges after the old system with cannonades and assaults, Twenty-five companies under captain Gonzalvo de Braccamonte but encircling of the towns through occupation of the surrounding were sent from Leiden to Maastricht where Count Louis hoped terrain with a number of entrenchments in order to overcome the to cross the river Meuse. Further troops were called in from other rebels by starvation or perhaps to surprise them in a dark winter Dutch provinces. From Zealand came the aged Christophoro night by an assault on the ice.”2 The first town to be besieged in this Mondragón3. Also involved with some companies was Don manner was Leiden. The siege commenced on 31 October 1573, Bernardino de Mendoza, the future Spanish ambassador in was raised on 21 March 1574, it was resumed on 25/26 May 1574 England. and lasted till 3 October 1574. Finally, it was unsuccessful. The Three of these names occur in the charges leveled by Charles Dutch, too, developed a new strategy, flooding the camp of the Arundel against Oxford in 1580: “At his [Oxford’s] being in (continued on page 7 )

Shakespeare Fellowship members Merilee Karr, Ian Haste, and Mark Anderson puzzle over the correct answer to a round of Alex McNeil’s Oxfordian JEOpardy. Anderson, with the advantage of having spent eight years researching and writing Shakespeare By Another Name, won the round handily. Note the strategic product placement.. Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 5 From a Never Writer....News

Washington DC’s written them. To this day some believe that Sir Francis Bacon was the real Shakespeare Theatre author of the plays; others argue that Promotes Authorship Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, was the man. Still others contend that Dialogue Sir Walter Raleigh or Christopher

Program notes for Shakespeare plays almost always include a biography of the dramatist that is routinely Stratfordian, reinforcing the false notion about his Flawed as it is, a identity for millions of theatergoers biography so skeptical of browsing their programs before the curtain rises. the conventional view of the Not, however, at the Shakespeare great poet-dramatist’s Theater in Washington D.C., home of one of the world’s most acclaimed identity goes a long way Shakespearean acting companies. toward changing how many In its new program, the opening and the closing words of the biographical sketch theatergoers think . If more New Book Identifies Sir cast grave doubt on the belief that Will Shakespeare theater Shakspere of Stratford was the dramatist. Henry Neville as the True The one-page biography opens with these companies and festivals Bard words: were to do the same in their No man’s life has been the subject of programs, the skepticism “A small academic industry has more speculation than William could put the Stratford Shakespeare’s. While Shakespearean developed to prove that William scholars have dedicated their lives to man’s claim to fame in Shakespeare, a provincial lad from Stratford-upon-Avon, could not have search for evidence, the truth is that serious jeopardy. no one really knows what the truth is. written the much-loved plays that bear his Scholars agree that a William name,” reports an October 19 AP story. The Shakespeare was baptized at occasion for the story, picked up by CNN Stratford-upon-Avon...” (Emphasis Marlowe penned the lines attributed among other major news outlets, is the added) to Shakespeare. Whether the plays October 2005 Pearson Longman release, were written by Shakespeare the man by Brenda James and William Rubinstein, The biography then mentions his or Shakespeare the myth, it is clear The Truth Will Out: Unmasking the Real marriage, his career as an actor, that no other playwright has made Shakespeare, which promotes Sir Henry Groatsworth of Witte, the two narrative such a significant and lasting Neville (1564-1616) as the true author. poems, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men contribution to the English language. Oxfordians have awaited the book’s and the theaters. publication since Rubinstein, a history It closes with these words: Flawed as it is, a biography so skeptical professor at the University of Wales, of the conventional view of the great poet- Aberystwyth, and Shakespeare Fellowship member, first mentioned the project at the In the years since Shakespeare’s death, dramatist’s identity goes a long way toward 2003 De Vere Studies Conference, but he has fallen to the depths of obscurity changing how many theatergoers think. If concealed the identity of the candidate. only to be resurrected as the greatest more Shakespeare theater companies and However, participants in the Fellowship’s writer of English literature and festivals were to do the same in their online discussion forum had predicted drama. In the 1800s, his plays were so programs, the skepticism could put the Neville’s identity as early as January 2005. popular that many refused to believe Stratford man’s claim to fame in serious Perhaps the most striking aspect of the that an actor from Stratford had jeopardy. --Contributed by Richard Whalen press coverage of the new book is the page 6 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005 (News cont. from p. 5) The course will also explore such legal gullibility of major media outlets. “His editions of Looney, Clark, and both Wards issues as law vs. equity in Merchant of life has been found to mirror the evolution (bound in purple covers and brimming Venice, marriage “pre-contract” law in of The Bard’s works so precisely that the with illustrations and lavish color portraits), Measure for Measure, the law of fraudulent authors believe that it cannot be dismissed are her most enduring legacy, for not only conveyance in Merry Wives of Windsor, as coincidence,” gushes Dalya Alberge, did she maintain the worldwide availability and inheritance law in Hamlet. Other works Arts correspondent for the London Times of these seminal works but she also provided online. her own copius research and brilliant Coincidence never ceases. Around the annotations, and her aptly named time of the book’s release, the Shakespeare companion volume, Oxfordian Vistas. As Fellowship’s online forum was frequented many here know from personal experience, by an English enthusiast of the new theory, Ruth Miller answered all queries about the posting under the handle Bookman1974, authorship with boundless enthusiasm, who appears to have been an employee of generously bringing her years of study into the publisher but posed as an independent play, sharing it all with a sublimely ironic wit and humor in an ever-courtly researcher. When asked to deny that s/he Mississippi Delta drawl. For Ruth the voice was an employee of Pearson, Bookman on the other end of the telephone line could disappeared. Perhaps not surprisingly belong to one whose unique contribution given such creative marketing techniques, would ultimately trigger the great sea- The Truth is apparently selling well in change in the world’s view of the man who England, but has not been released in the was Shakespeare, thus she always treated U.S. and is difficult to obtain here. Stay you as if you might be that one. It is with a tuned. keen sense of her profound contribution to Tom Regnier at the 2005 SF Conference Ruth Loyd Miller, all of us present, and to all those who will embark on this journey of discovery, that Oxfordian Pioneer, we pause in silence to honor our beloved to be studied include Othello, Richard III, Honored friend and mentor Ruth Loyd Miller. and the sonnets. The course will approach Ms. Miller’s article, “The Crown the plays as literature and as keys to the Signature: An Enigma Awaiting Time’s English legal system, and will consider Solution,” appears in this issue of “how the Magna Carta, the Statute of Uses, Shakespeare Matters. the Statute of Wills, and cases like Hales v. --Contributed by Lynne Kositsky --Contributed by KC Ligon

University of Miami to Offer Course in Shakespeare’s Law

Mrs. Miller would be gratified, we are sure, to know that the beat marches on. Shakespeare Fellowship member and recipient of the 2004 Fellowship Award for Ruth Loyd Miller, 1922-2005 excellence in authorship studies Tom Regnier (LLD), a faculty member at the In recognition of the passing of Ruth University of Miami School of Law, will be Loyd Miller, the following tribute, written teaching a new UMSL on “Shakespeare’s by Fellowship Trustee K.C. Ligon, was Law” during Spring 2006. The seminar read by Dr. Stritmatter to the attendees: course, capped at 15 students, will focus on legal terms and issues in Shakespeare’s The world of Shakespearean authorship works, but will, of course, “have to address studies lost one of its greatest champions the issue of where Shakespeare acquired this past September 15th, the legendary all that legal knowledge.” Ruth Loyd Miller. For many of us, Ruth’s Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 7

Falstaff (cont. from p. 4) ford could have visited the battlefield of no bridges and having no straits, things Flanders, the Duke of Alva will constantly Mook Heath but writes: “he must have vis- Nelson needed because they are mentioned affirm, grew so much to affect him for the ited the Spanish lines outside Bommel in in Arundel’s reproduction of Oxford’s several parts he saw in him, as he made him July.”7 That is: the Spanish camp around fanfaronade. Moreover, so zealously ob- his Lieutenant General over all the army Bommel. It should be repeated that histo- sessed is Nelson with not missing anything then in the Low Countries, and employed rians do not speak of a battle of Bommel in further disparaging to Oxford’s character him further in a notable piece of service, 1574 for the good reason there never was that there is no place in his head for a where according to his place he com- one! Nor would historians speak of the simple question which contains its own manded and directed the Ambassador of battle of Mook Heath as the battle of answer: why should the Spaniards lay siege Spain that is now here [Mendoza], Bommel for the good reason that the two on a small, unimportant, unfortified place Mondragon, Santio d’Avila, and the rest of places are at a linear distance of about 22 like Bouwel in that part of the Low Coun- the captains; but these who I have named, miles!! tries which they controlled perfectly? But as he will say of all others, were most glad Not only does Nelson confuse places, let us first return to the only historical to be commanded by him. And so valiantly he also confuses dates. The second stage of battle in the Low Countries in 1574, the he behaved himself as he gained great love the siege of Leiden lasted from May to battle of Mook. of all the soldiers, and in less admiration October 1574. “June to October 1574” is Oxford’s tale is a mixture of the battle of his valour of all sorts.”4 One would have the period given by B.M. Ward, but for the of Mook and the siege of Bommel. We have liked Arundel tell us which other captains siege of Bommel, not Leiden. In his desper- already seen that a great number of Span- were named. It would be no great surprise ate quest for locating “Oxford’s battle” ish generals and captains were placed by if Oxford had also named the Spanish Nelson seems to have lost any orientation, Alva under the command of commanders Tarragon, Cinnamon, and no longer knowing where he is: in Bommel, “generalissiomo” Oxford , who apparently Oregano. Then, clearly, what Oxford had Leiden, or Mook, and, to boot, he seems no became something of a legend in his own in mind was not bragging of his famous longer to know where Bommel is situated right during his campaign in the Low Coun- deeds but setting the table in a roar, as tries. However, these generals had nothing Arundel himself confirms: “which hath to do with the siege of Bommel. Here the made such sport as often have I bin driven commander was the Sieur de Hierges who to rise from his table laugheinge...”5 As others would rather lose was also one of the commanders at the It is fairly clear from the beginning a good friend than a good battle of Mook to which we shall now that Oxford’s tale was meant for entertain- jest, so Nelson preferred to return. ment: the Duke of Alva who would have lose a good jest rather than In February 1574 Count Louis of Nassau came from Germany with an army, placed him in command had left the Low a “monstrous” enemy. Countries seven months before Oxford trying to cross the river Meuse at the city of arrived there. But as others would rather Charles Arundel, the man Maastricht. He was prevented from it by lose a good friend than a good jest, so who provided Nelson with d’Avila and forced to move the north. Avila Nelson preferred to lose a good jest rather the title of his book, had to followed him on the opposite bank of the than a “monstrous” enemy. be honorable and serious. river. On 13 April Count Louis reached the Charles Arundel, the man who pro- Correspondingly, Nelson village of Mook. The same day General d’Avila built a bridge of boats over the vided Nelson with the title of his book, had had to find some place to to be honorable and serious. Correspond- Meuse and attacked on a narrow plain ingly, Nelson had to find some place to locate Oxford’s fictitious between the rivers Meuse and Waal. Louis’ locate Oxford’s fictitious battle. He writes: battle. army of mercenaries, of whom a great deal “Oxford would later boast that he had had deserted several weeks before, was taken part in the battle of Bommel, known crushed. Count Louis of Nassau and his two to historians as the battle of Mook and brothers Henry and John were killed. dated 14 April 1574. Protestant troops (perhaps because the town is often men- Oxford’s tale partly refers to this battle under Count Louis of Nassau were routed tioned with its full name Zaltbommel). Of on the bank of the river Meuse, partly to the by the combined forces of three Spanish course, there is Arundel’s statement that siege of Bommel: “And in this journey he generals. Though Ward (98) imagines that Oxford pretended he would have taken passed many straits and divers bridges Oxford may have gone to have a look, he Bommel by surprise had Thomas kept by the enemy, which he let them from missed the battle by some three months. Bedingfield not called him back. But in the with the loss of many a man’s life. But still Conceivably Oxford witnessed the siege of endnote to this passage Nelson considers he forced them to retire, till at the last he Leiden, which lasted from June to October the possibility that the place might be approached the place that he went to be- 1574.”6 “Bouwel, about 15 miles E.S.E. of Antwerp, siege; and using no delay the cannon was 8 Nearly everything in this paragraph is and separated from it by four rivers.” planted and the battery continued the space wrong! Ward does not “imagine” that Ox- These rivers are very small rivers, needing (Continued on page 11) Damon and Pithias: paranoia and rage-aholism. Despite the good courtiership of Aristippus, who recognizes Carisophus for the parasite he is, and despite the good advice of the councelor Ebulus, Dionisius believes Oxford Juvenalia? that Damon is a spy and condemns him to death. Damon asks for a rain check — he must get his affairs in order — and Pithias agrees by Michael Delahoyde, Ph.D. to serve as human collateral. After some comic business with the courtiers’ lackeys, Will and Jacke, and with a few other mechanicals urely there were Elizabethan plays written by people other such as Grimme the collier, the due date brings no sign of Damon. than the Earl of Oxford, and this may indeed be one of those. Gronno the king’s executioner gleefully anticipates another SBut at the very least, the play Damon and Pithias reveals the professional accomplishment, but Pithias remains stalwart. Damon kind of theater a young Oxford would have relished and several key bursts onto the scene at the very last moment, at which time the two themes instantly recognizable to Shakespeareans that must have friends vie for the right to die for each other. Dionisius is awestruck: taken hold in the mind of Edward de Vere from very early on. “Ebulus, my spirites are sodenly appauled, my limes waxe weake, Three copies of the 1571 quarto are extant, but ample evidence / This straunge friendship amaseth me so, that I can scarse speake” points to Damon and Pithias being performed before Queen (1651-1652); “Before this day I never knew what perfect friendship Elizabeth at Whitehall during the Christmas season of 1564 (White ment, / My cruell mind to blouddy deedes, was full and wholy 6), shortly after her severe bout with fever. The quarto edition bente” (1671-1672). The joyful ending includes Carisophus being somewhat ambiguously attributes the work to Richard Edwards beaten out of the court and taking a final stand like a more (1524-1566), for his five last years Master of the Children of the loquacious version of Malvolio:

Why whyp ye me alone? a plague take Damon and Pithias, since they come hither I am driven to seke releef abrod alas I know not whither, Yet Ebulus, though I be gone, here after time shall trie, There shall be found even in this Court as great flatterers as I: Well for a while I wyll forgo the Court, though to my great payne, I doubt not but to spie a time when I may creepe in againe. (1729-1734)

Last words are reserved for good counselor Ebulus: “True friendship, and true friendes full fraught with constant faith, / The gever of friends, the Lord, grant her, most noble Queene Elizabeth” (1759- 1760), a sentiment repeated in “The last songe”:

True frindes for their tru Prince, refuseth not their death: The Lorde graunt her such frindes most noble Queene Elizabeth. Longe may she governe in honour and wealth, Voyde of all sickenesse, in most perfect health: Which health to prolonge, as true friends require, God graunt she may have her owne hartes desire: Which friendes wyll defend her most stedfast faith, The Lorde graunt her such friendes most noble Queene Elizabeth. (1767-1774)

Title Page of the 2nd Quarto (1583) of These tributes to Elizabeth remind us of who was the primary Damon and Pithias. audience member for the Shakespeare plays, but their blatancy is stylistically unfamiliar. Perhaps a bit subtler is a moment much Chapel Royal. An elegy from a lost play, Palamon and Arcite (the earlier in the play, when Pithias comments extraneously, and Chaucerian story behind The Two Noble Kinsmen) and 26 poems therefore still somewhat awkwardly, on Dionisius’ tyranny: “As and songs (some in poulter’s measure) are the only other pieces thynges by their contraryes are alwayes best prooved, / How happie that survive from, or are attributed to, Edwards (White 4). are then mercifull Princes of their people beloved? / Havyng sure Damon and Pithias, considered the first tragicomedy in friends everie wheare, no feare doth touch them” (310-312). English, recounts the classical story of sworn friendship put to the Elizabeth, as we know, cultivated and cherished the title Prince. most severe test. The two title characters, travelling with their The importance of male friendship, though prominent in servant Stephano, have the misfortune of touring the kingdom of plays such as The Two Gentlemen of Verona, The Merchant of a tyrant king, Dionisius, just when a sycophantic courtier, Venice, Twelfth Night, and The Two Noble Kinsmen, is an Carisophus, seeks to curry royal favor by preying upon the king’s Elizabethan-era commonplace but one that would have impressed (Continued on page 12) The Crown Signature: An Enigma Awaiting Time’s Solution

by Ruth Loyd Miller

Editor’s Note: Ironically, the present article, written in 1988, has become an article awaiting time’s solution. Never published, it circulated only in mansucript within the Oxfordian community and became a subject for controversy, known to many only through the writings of either advocates or critics of the so-called “Tudor heir” hypothesis identifying Henry Wriostheley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, as the changeling child of Edward de Vere and Queen Elizabeth I. Although Mrs. Miller, who died this past September, was never an advocate of the theory, her discovery of the “crown signature” seemed to Figure One: The “Curlicue” Signature many to imply a dynastic problem of significant dimensions. Although it must be conceded at the outset that critics of Mrs. the first appearance of the signature he spelled his name “Edward Miller’s work raised a reasonable objection by arguing that Oxenford” though he varied it occasionally in years to come as the alleged crown might merely be a coronet, the chronological “Edward Oxeford.” argument, clearly supported by the extant evidence — that de The earliest extant signature (figure One) is found signed to Vere dropped the signature after James I came to the throne — a 1563 letter written in French by Oxford to his guardian, Sir definitely supports Mrs. Miller’s view and has not been William Cecil3. He was thirteen when he wrote this letter. His countered by her critics. signature consisted of his name “Edward Oxinford” underlined with a single horizontal loop flourish. Note the space between the Some four dozen letters in the holograph of Edward de two words “Edward” and “Oxeford” with a line drawn across the Vere, seventeenth Earl of Oxford, and bearing his signature, are space from the top of the terminal -d” to the top of the initial “O” extant. These date from 1563, when he was thirteen years old, to 1603, a few months before his death in 1604. A few of these signatures have been reproduced in facsimiles of Lord Oxford’s letters printed in various books and biographies. Some of his letters have been quoted at length in books by Looney, Clark, Ward, and others. More recently, thirty-seven letters have been accurately transcribed and published by William Plumer Fowler in his 1986 book, Shakespeare Revealed in Oxford’s Letters.1 Nevertheless, one must return to the original letters, or photocopies and facsimiles, arranged chronologically and Figure Two: A Crown, or a Coronet? sequentially, to find Oxford left us — among the many mysteries in “Oxeford.” This line is, in turn, crossed b four short, linked, of his life2 — an interesting and fascinating riddle to solve. vertical lines topped with dots, resembling four lower case letters The riddle: to find the meaning of and the reason for the “i.” Underneath the “Edward Oxeford,” connecting the two words, diagrammed signature which he used for the greater part of is a longer line beginning at the bottom of the medial “d” in his adult life (figure one). The mystery extends not only to “Edward” extending to the bottom of the final “d” in Oxeford.” why he used it, but why he abandoned it in 1603. Was Seven separate vertical slash marks are grouped toward the center the abandonment connected with Queen Elizabeth’s death? of this line and actually cross the line The next extant holograph letter is dated in 1569, when the earl The appearance of this distinctive, personalized signature is was nineteen years old. This letter was also addressed to Sir much like a coronet or crown. Did it have special significance? Did William Cecil. It was signed with a new, distinctive, personalized it have significance to someone besides Oxford himself? If so to signature which he was to use for the next thirty-four years. In this whom? (Continued on page 28) page 10 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005

Ashland Authorship Conference coordinator and Shakespeare Fellowship Trustee Earl Showerman (right) with Shakespeare Fellowship Honorary Member and OSF Executive Director Paul Nicholson (left).

Historic Conference (cont. from p. 1) Desper. Other speakers included John Hamill, Dr. Frank Davis, Dr. The conference was coordinated by Dr. Earl Showerman, a Michael Hays, Dr. Peter Austin-Zacharias, Dr. Earl Showerman, Fellowship trustee and prominent physician from Southern Prof. Ernest Rehder, Prof. Marilynn Loveless, Katherine Chiljan, Oregon, who was awarded by the conference as the “Earl of Ramon Jimenez, Mary Berkowitz, Prof. Lew Tate, Derran Charlton, Ashland.” Showerman was assisted by a joint committee of and Dr. Thomas Hunter. Talks focused on the literary, historical, Shakespeare Fellowship and Shakespeare Oxford Society members political, and religious significance of the works of Shakespeare Lynne Kositsky, John Hammill, Roger Stritmatter, Virginia Hyde, and the mystery of the authorship question. Sue Sybersma, and Matthew Cossollotto. Dr. Showerman said that Production Stage Manager Kimberley Jean Barry, who has been he was very grateful to those who came to Ashland, many from with OSF for nearly 20 years serving as the backstage tour manager across the country, to join the faculty and audience for a memorable and stage manager for the annual Daedalus Project AIDS Benefit conference and theatric experience. “The support we received Shows, led off the conference with a history of the OSF. She related from the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in broadening our program how the Festival grew from three performances staged in the old was superb,” said Showerman, “ and there could not have been a Chattaqua Theater in Ashland to become the largest regional better program of scholarship, entertainments, victuals, and theater company in the country with 800 performances a year. She felicitous sharing than what we experienced.”. Oxfordian Elizabeth cited the leadership of Agnus Bowmer, a local teacher whose vision Sears stated, “the conference was an incredibly important melding was to bring the works of Shakespeare to the general public. of the SOS, the Fellowship and Dan’s (Professor Dan Wright) Oxfordian Paul Nicholson, OSF’s Executive Director since Concordia attendees. It accomplished so much healing and showed 1995, told the more than 100 Fellowship and SOS members, how important it is for us all to work together.” scholars and theatre-lovers who attended the conference that the There were many highlights as the conference welcomed back Festival’s mission is to “create fresh and bold interpretations of Shakespeare Fellowship regulars Lynne Kositsky, Roger classical and contemporary plays shaped by the diversity of Stritmatter, Hank Whittemore, Dan Wright, Mark Anderson, Paul American culture”. With three different theaters, the Festival runs Altrocchi, Thomas Regnier, Elizabeth Sears, and Dr. Richard from around May to October each year and employs over eighty Equity actors, 30% of which are of color, the largest percentage (Continued on page 26) Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 11

Falstaff (cont. from p. 7) “misbegotten” master Bedingfield not the same which deprives of ten days, by which time he had made such a breach as by a general Sir John Falstaff of his booty and glory at Gad’s Hill? “But, as the consent of all his captains he gave an assault, and to encourage his devil would have it, three misbegotten knaves in Kendal green soldiers this valiant prince led them thereto, and through the force came at my back and let drive at me; for it was so dark, Hal, that of his murdering arm many were sore wounded, but more killed.” thou couldst not see thy hand.”12 The tale closes in pure euphuistic The passing of straits and bridges and the presence of “reiters” narrative style: “And now the question is whether this noble (German cavalry) are features belonging to the battle of Mook and general were more troubled with his calling home, or Beningefeld the attempts of the Protestant army to cross the river Meuse and the more moved with pity and compassion to behold this slaughter, crossing of the same by means of a bridge of boats by Sancho or his horse more afeared when he passed the bridges at the sight d’Avila. These military operations have no connection with the of the dead bodies – whereat he started and flung in such sort as siege of the town of Bommel or any other town. On the other hand, Beningefeld could hardly keep his back.”13 the shelling of a town during ten days consecutively are alien to Compare Lyly: “Euphues having sojourned by the space of two the battle of Mook and specific for the siege of a fortified town. If months in Naples, whether he were moved by the courtesie of a not already at the point of stating that all illustrious Spanish young gentleman named Philautus, or enforced by destiny: whether captains were glad to serve under him, the satirical and literary his pregnant wit, or his pleasant conceits wrought the greater character of Oxford’s tale should at least transpire here (it becomes liking in the minde of Euphues I know not for certainty...”14 fully clear in the next passages). But even here, even in Arundel’s The same style, of which the carefully balanced sentence, is reproduction, the euphuistic style is recognizable in the phrase one of the characteristics, is found in Robert Greene: “Samela was “many were sore wounded, but more killed.” 10 so desirous to end her life with her friend, that she would not reveal either unto Democles or Melicertus what she was; and Melicertus rather chose to die with his Samela, then once to name himself Maximius.”15 If we added to Greene’s sentence a third constituent (“and the bell-wether shook his neck, signifying by the ring of the bells that The Arundel libels supply us with a humorous rather would he lead the whole flock to the slaughter than to live out their master”), the sentence and with it the euphuistic style portrait of Oxford telling a fantastical story would be turned to parody. This is precisely the effect of the final closing with a parody on euphuistic style clause in the example from Oxford’s tale as reproduced by Arundel: “or his horse more afeared when he passed the bridges at the sight through a comic anti-climax. We see Sir John of the dead bodies.” Falstaff doing the same in 1 and 2 Henry IV. The Arundel libels supply us with a humorous portrait of Oxford telling a fantastical story closing with a parody on euphuistic In act II, scene i of that play Falstaff and his style through a comic anti-climax. We see Sir John Falstaff doing three companions first rob travellers at Gad’s the same in 1 and 2 Henry IV. In act II, scene i of that play Falstaff and his three companions first rob travellers at Gad’s Hill and are Hill and are subsequently robbed themselves subsequently robbed themselves by Prince Hal and Poins in by Prince Hal and Poins in disguise. disguise. At the Boar’s Head Falstaff his adventures to Hal in the brightest colors, piling it on incessantly: “I have scap’d by miracle. I am eight times thrust through the doublet, four through the hose; my buckler cut through and through; my sword hack’d like a handsaw... (l. 164-6)... but if I fought not with fifty of them I am a The Falstaffiade bunch of radish... (l. 182-3). Even when Hal reveals he has been robbed by himself and Poins and saw him run away like coward, But the dramatic climax is followed by a true Falstaffian Falstaff does not lose his ready tongue: “Why, hear you, my masters. comic anti-climax. Just before accomplishing the great feat and Was it for me to kill the heir apparent? Should I turn upon the true reaching the top of military glory the “generalissimo” Oxford is prince? Why, thou knowest I am as valiant as Hercules; but beware fetched away from the field of honor and glory like a post package instinct. The lion will not touch the true prince. Instinct is a great by the very unmilitary master Bedingfield, Alexander the Great matter. I was now a coward on instinct” (l. 265-9). called home by an obscure clerk: “Notwithstanding being not well Falstaff’s fanfaronade is followed by a mock-dialogue be- followed by the reiters and others, he was repulsed, but determin- tween Hal and his father, in which Falstaff takes the role first of the ing to give a fresh and general assault the next day Master king, then of Hal himself with Hal now as father. “I will do it in King Beningefeld, as the devil would have it, came in upon his swift post- Cambyses’ vein,” Falstaff says (l. 381) Commentators have recog- horse, and called him from this service by Her Majesty’s letters, nized in this scene parodies on the style of Thomas Kyd, Robert being the greatest disgrace that any such general received.”11 Greene and John Lyly. “Among the euphuistic traits Falstaffe “As the devil would have it”... Was this devil who had sent the (Continued on page 12) page 12 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005

Falstaffe (cont. from page 11) parodies are the use of similes from natu- Descent of Euphues, edited by James Winny. ral history, the affectation of recondite Cambridge: At the University Press, 1957, learning, trite quotations, rhetorical ques- p. 19: “Certes how much the more the tions, and verbal antitheses and allitera- mynde is to be preferred before the body, tions16: “For though the camomile, the by so much more the graces of the one are Players: The more it is trodden on, the faster it grows, to be preferred before the gifts of the other.” yet youth, the more it is wasted, the sooner 11 Ward, p. 99; Nelson, p. 206. Mysterious it wears. That thou art my son I have partly 12 1 Henry IV, II.iv.216-9. thy mother’s word, partly my own opinion, 13 Ward, p. 100. but chiefly a villanous trick of thine eye 14 Lyly, Euphues – The Anatomy of Wit, Identity of and a foolish hanging of thy nether lip that doth warrant me” (l. 394-400).17 William Or in 2 Henry IV: “For the box of the ear that the Prince gave you- he gave it like Damon and Pithias (cont. from p. 9) a rude prince, and you took it like a Shakespeare sensible lord” (I.ii.193-5). itself on a young, (officially) 14-year-old Even the truncated account of Charles de Vere (just as the Damon and Pythias Arundel reveals how Oxford’s tale with his story did on the younger title character in parody on the euphuistic style is mirrored a memorable episode of Leave It To Beaver). by Bertram Fields in the characterization of Falstaff. Accord- More interesting is Aristippus’ reference ing to Harold Bloom, Shakespeare por- to a dramatic mood alteration in Dionisius trayed himself not only as Hamlet but also as “a sodayne chaunge in deede, a strange Reviewed by K.C. Ligon as Falstaff. As we have seen, one of his Metamorphosis” (646) — metamorphosis inspirations was Oxford. The creator of being an obsession of Shakespeare’s (see In this new book by high profile Falstaff had no need for Robert Greene, as Two Gentlemen I.i.66, The Taming of the entertainment attorney Bertram Fields, the Stephen Greenblatt argues in his recent Shrew, etc.) and the obvious theme of Ovid’s Shakespearean Authorship question is, not Shakespeare biography, to inspire his famous anthology of classical legends surprisingly, treated as a case history and comedy of the cowardly knight, full of tall translated into English by Oxford’s uncle in some respects a brief for the anti- tales about his military misadventures. Arthur Golding, or by Oxford under his Stratfordian view. However, being an astute uncle’s tutelage. lawyer, Fields does not attempt to prove Footnotes An exchange between Eubulus — “A what he has said is an unprovable case, but cruell kyng the people hateth” — and instead sets out to establish that reasonable 1 Nelson, Alan H. Monstrous Adversary. Dionisius — “Let them hate me, so they doubt exists about the traditional attribution. Liverpool University Press. 2003 feare mee” (728-729) — indicates that the He begins with this basic premise, familiar 2 Blok, Pieter J. Geschiedenis der playwright knows his basic Machiavelli, to all who study the Authorship: Nederlanden, Vol. III, Gotha: Friedrich something Shakespeare will explore with Andreas Perthes, 1907, p. 169. more sophistication in the History plays For centuries, scholars, other 3 Whom Nelson gives the first name and works such as Macbeth. professionals, and amateurs have Cristobal. Most noticeable, though, is the debated the true identity of the 4 Ward, B.M. The Seventeenth Earl of following musing by Damon: “Pithagoras author of the magnificent body of Oxford – 1550-1604. London: John Murray, said, that this world was like a Stage, / poems and plays attributed to 1928, p. 99; Nelson, pp. 205-6. Wheron many play their partes” (348-349). William Shakespeare. Most of the 5 Moore, Peter R. “The Lame Story- Shakespeare editors assure us that the literate world thinks of the author as teller, Poor and Despised” in The Elizabe- famous conceit was well-worn by the time the bearded, balding man from than Review, Vol. 3, No.2, Autumn 1995, p. Shakespeare trotted it out for As You Like Stratford-upon-Avon,” and yet, 5. Interestingly, Nelson does not quote this Bibliography Fields affirms, “some very passage in his book. competent and credible people have 6 White, D. Jerry. Richard Edwards’ Damon Nelson, p. 111. and Pithias: A Critical Old-Spelling questioned this… 7 Ward, p.98. Edition. NY: Garland Publishing, 8 Nelson, endnote 2 to chapter 39, p. And of course the author of Players is 467. The Tragical History of Romeus and Juliet, or one of them. With respect to the present 9 Ward, p. 99; Nelson, p.205-6. the playwright responsible for The work, he offers this caveat: 10 Compare for instance John Lyly, Taming of A Shrew or The Damon and Pithias: A Critical Old-Spelling Edition. “Euphues – The Anatomy of Wit” in The NY: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1980. If you’re cowed by ‘authority,’ this Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 13

Fields especially encourages the reader with argument advanced by defendant’s counsel analysis will be disturbing” (a nod no previous experience of the question to in the case of Hales v. Petit,” noting that to Sonnet 66’s ‘art made tongue- absorb the cumulative effect and implication Plowden’s report of it was in legal French tied by authority’)”...most of significant anomalies, and to (though if he comments anywhere on the authorities insist there is no openmindedly examine the likelihood of the likelihood of the Stratford man’s fluency in authorship question at all. My own traditional scenario accepted for centuries, that argot I missed it). guide in approaching a subject of in light of these mysteries. He also cites the difference between this nature is Jeremy Bentham, who One critical area of debate in which we Shakespeare’s legal usage and Jonson’s: said: ‘Let us not judge on authority, would expect attorney Fields to express a “Shakespeare used legal terms naturally let us seek reason.’” After an strong opinion is the law and use of legal and in proper context...By contrast, Jonson evaluation of each of the principal terms in the canon, and indeed he does tended to interlard his character’s speeches candidates, the author continues, devote a portion of his chapter ‘What with legal terms that were not necessarily “we will consider what might have Shakespeare Knew’ to the subject. Here, given their proper meaning but were used to happened.” despite traditionalist claims that 1)”in the make the character appear foolish or perhaps Elizabethan Age, many ordinary people had to show off the playwright’s erudition and Thus Fields, invoking the empirical knowledge of legal terms...that the Stratford versatility.” One wonders when he says method of Bentham, English philosopher man would have gained an even greater that Shakespeare uses legal terms and advocate of legal reform, (especially of ‘naturally,’ if he means metaphorically; at legal ‘fictions’) , clearly aware that even in any rate it is the closest he comes to making 2005 merely questioning the man from the distinction between a legal term’s correct Stratford’s authorship of Shakespeare’s If Stanley Wells or usage and abstracting a character’s works opens the doubter to ridicule, poses Stephen Greenblatt were thoughts or actions in legal terms. the question against a backdrop of his In any event, Fields’ overall style of status and authority as a major player in ever invited to one of presenting evidence has undoubtedly Hollywood. His primary aim seems to be to Fields’ famous dinner raised hackles on both sides of the debate, get the question squarely on the table for since many speculative items are entered those who have never given it any thought, parties in Malibu they without the context that would and who may hold the perception that only would likely accept in a unambigiously demarcate them as crazies and conspiracy theorists are speculation or opinion (though he does at engaged in it. heartbeat, not only to times cite authorities for support, there are Herein lies one of the book’s secret mingle with the “A-List” no notes or bibliography). Thus, unless weapons. Bert Fields is simply too you’re already familiar with the case it would successful to be labelled a loony or a guests, but also to banter be difficult to ascertain what is fact, or fantasist. The worst he will be called is an about Shakespeare with the simply probable, or likely a mere fable, and eccentric or dabbler in off-beat theories. perhaps more important, what the missing The top brass traditionalists can’t famous attorney while pertinent information is (that the author effectively discredit him (his livelihood and sipping vintage Pinot Noir seems unaware of). It is therefore satisfying prestige hardly depend upon their opinion). to report that Fields does acknowledge our In fact, if Stanley Wells or Stephen as the Pacific waves roll esteemed editor Dr. Roger Stritmatter (in his Greenblatt were ever invited to one of Fields’ and tumble outside. 2001 Phd dissertation), by stating that the famous dinner parties in Malibu they would professor has made a “compelling case for likely accept in a heartbeat, not only to the proposition that the passages noted in mingle with the A-List guests, but also to Oxford’s Bible show that in many areas his banter about Shakespeare with the famous familiarity with such terms through his own interests and views paralleled attorney while sipping vintage Pinot Noir legal proceedings and that of his father,” Shakespeare’s” (though, counseller, one as the Pacific waves roll and tumble outside. and 2) that he “may have worked as a law note: Stritmatter’s name is spelled with three Reading the book, which Fields has clerk,” Fields observes that the poet t’s not four). composed in a relaxed and amiable style, Shakespeare’s legal references are But who would ask for notes at a party? one imagines listening to him hold forth in “consistent with the legal knowledge of a Were one of the guests to say, ‘now Bert, such a setting, posing many lawyerly nobleman who studied law at the Inns of is that really true’ or ‘how do you know,’ questions as he assiduously postpones Court but never actually practiced as a one feels that he would reply, ‘no-one is definite conclusions, deftly sidestepping lawyer.” He also points to the relation really sure, it can’t be proved, but some the endorsement of any single theory, gently between the Gravediggers’ discussion of well-informed people think so.’ stimulating one’s consideration of the Ophelia’s right to Christian burial though Thus for roughly three quarters of its possibilties. In avoiding pronouncements, she was a suicide, and the “identical (Continued on page 25) page 14 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005

21-23, 1574. Sonnet 153, according to Shakespeare” the poem Venus and Adonis Whittemore (29-35), discusses how the with its dedication to the young earl. This newborn son of Elizabeth was spirited The Monument has naturally led scholars, whether of away to remove all trace of his royal heritage, by Hank Whittemore, 843 pages, orthodoxy or of the Oxfordian bent, to and was likely written in 1574, after the presumed birth of the child, and near the Meadow Geese Press, identify Southampton with the “Fair Youth” of the Sonnets. But orthodoxy has reined time of Oxford’s visit with the Queen at Marshfield Hills, Massachusetts, in its curiosity as to the possible subject Bath. In Whittemore’s view, Sonnet 154 2005. matter in The Sonnets. As reported by the ( 36-41) is retrospective, written many Oxfordian scholar Peter Moore, years later about the situation. Whittemore “Shakespeare’s autobiographical Sonnets sees the two, the final sonnets of the set, in terms of an epilogue/prologue Reviewed by Richard Desper pose such problems for the Stratfordian theory that since around 1960 the story encapsulating the central message for the reader. I first met Hank Whittemore at the Palm behind them has been declared off-limits 3 The major premise of The Monument is Beach conference of the Shakespeare by the orthodox authorities.” that there is a basic, meaningful structure Oxford Society in 1981, the first conference Not that Peter is in any way a proponent to the sonnet set. A quotation from Alastair I attended on the authorship question. At of “Prince Tudor.” He sees The Sonnets as Fowler4 appears on the back cover: “It is that memorable conference Whittemore a problem for interpretation in terms of Stratfordian authorship: the “Shakespeare” hardly to be expected that the sonnet delivered a paper on The Phoenix Nest, a sequence of a poet so intellectually brilliant collection of poems printed in 1593,1 the who wrote the Sonnets was (evidently) as Shakespeare should lack the structural year the name “William Shakespeare” first art and finesse valued in his age. And in fact appeared as that of an author. I remember his sequence abounds with the intricate Whittemore as a speaker: he was vivid, formal devices requisite to its genre. The witty, endearing, and spoke with a most “Shakespeare’s spatial arrangement of Shakespeare’s persuasive tongue. He spoke not only of autobiographical Sonnets sequence leaves little room for The Phoenix Nest, but of Venus and Adonis, pose such problems for permutations: its form asserts a design far of Narcissus, and of Cephalus and Procris. too positive for us to be free to change it at Whittemore has now completed2 his Stratfordian theory that will. The pyramidal numbers imply, most massive writing project, The Monument, since around 1960 the story obviously, that Shakespeare designed the an exegesis of the content of Shake-speare’s behind them has been sequence to function as a monument.” Sonnets, an interpretation involving, at its declared off limits by Whittemore delineates his proposed heart, the “Prince Tudor” theory, one which orthodox authorities.” pyramidal structure on p. xxvii. The central has a goodly number of both supporters foundation is a hundred sonnet sequence, and detractors among Oxfordians. This nos. 27-126, flanked by two twenty-six theory views Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl deceased by 1609, and both old and lame sonnet sets, nos. 1-26, the “Fair Youth” set of Southampton, as the child of Queen when they were written, none of which fits and 127-152, the “Dark Lady” set, by Elizabeth and Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of William Shakspere of Stratford. As for the Whittemore’s reckoning. As for the other Oxford, and finds numerous allusions to “Prince Tudor” theory, Peter’s attitude is well-known “personage” of the sonnets, this relationship in the Sonnets as well as that it should be presented for proper the “Rival Poet”, Whittemore sees him as elsewhere in the Shakespeare canon. The historical scrutiny, an attitude that the poet’s alter ego, the paper identity matter is one of great controversy among approximates that of the present reviewer. “William Shakespeare” created to conceal Oxfordians. While proponents of “Prince Having said that, let’s take a look at what the true poet’s name. Tudor” see their position as central to the Whittemore has to say. To demonstrate the methodology of authorship question, a large number of The book begins with an extensive Whittemore’s approach, let us consider his Oxfordians view it as an unproven theory, Introduction and Prologue section, discussion of Sonnet 18, “Shall I compare thus not one suitable for use in promoting culminating in a dateline of historical thee to a Summer’s day? “ on pp. 133 ff. the Oxfordian cause. Hank is unabashed as material running from Elizabeth’s Whittemore is always alert for code words, a partisan on the “Prince Tudor” side, and accession in 1558 to 1589. Hank suggests, for hidden meanings, and sees great has been for many years. The Monument is as have other proponents of “Prince Tudor”, significance in these words addressed to his defining opus. the birth of a royal child to Elizabeth, Southampton as the Fair Youth. His The association of Southampton’s name somewhere in the time frame May-June translation: “Shall I compare you to a royal with the poet of The Sonnets begins in 1574 (see 22-23). Within this sequence, he prince?” For in his estimation “Summer’s 1593 when that author (whoever he was) relates Sonnets 153-154 to the visit of day” signifies a king, a symbolism seen first published under the name “William Queen Elizabeth to the town of Bath, August elsewhere in Shakespeare: in Richard II (1.3.145-146), in Richard III (1.1.1-2, Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 15

1.3.18, 3.4.3, 1.2.133-134), and in Lucrece for just two strands of hair, one from each (1013). The poet continues with a promise good case for Oxford as the true identity of of the tombs of Queen Elizabeth and the the author “William Shakespeare” without to commemorate the youth in his verse. 3rd Earl of Southampton, for DNA analysis6 Thus the lines: “Nor shall death brag thou reference to “Prince Tudor”, so there is no to lay to rest these issues, with a definitive need, in my estimation, to have the out- wandr’st in his shade, / When in eternal “Yea” or a “Nay.” The Bard had a phrase for lines to time thou grow’st,” interpreted by come of the former hinge upon the resolu- this situation, wanting to know what to tion of the latter. The “Prince Tudor” ques- Whittemore as “Nor will Elizabeth’s death believe, but not seeing a sufficiency to the conquer it, / When it grows in these eternal tion is a subset of the Shakespeare author- evidence: “imputation and strong ship question with its own independent lines of my diary.” circumstances / Which lead directly to the solution. The inevitable question is whether the door of truth /”.7 That’s the problem – are allusions seen in The Sonnets are specific we merely led to the door of truth, or are we There is sometimes a basic problem in enough to encourage confidence that they led through it? evidence, and in our evaluation of evidence: were put there intentionally, and that the sometimes we don’t have everything we Whittemore continues with his exege- interpretations are on the mark. At this need to come to a definitive conclusion. point the matter can become subjective: sis of the hundred sonnet central sequence, My final conclusion is that I don’t know different individuals can come to different Sonnets 27-126, which he sees8 as a chro- everything, perhaps a healthy attitude. I conclusions. Does the phrase “all one, ever nology of the poet’s reflections on find solace in the words of Hamlet: “There the same” deliberately invoke the mottos are more things in heaven and earth, of Lord Southampton and Queen Horatio, than are dreamt of in your Elizabeth: “One for All, All for One” and philosophy.”11 “Ever the Same?” Other code phrases are One is haunted by the identified (p. lxxiv): “Rose” for the Tudor Notes dynasty; “Eclipse” for the end of Queen possibility of being beguiled 1 Like Shake-speare’s Sonnets, The Elizabeth’s reign, “Desire”, “Pleasure”, and into seeing things that Phoenix Nest was unaccountably not “Will” for the Queen’s royal will. reprinted for a long time after it original One is haunted by the possibility of weren’t really intended by printing, despite the excellence of its poetic content. It may be found on the internet at being beguiled into seeing things that the poet. However, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~rbear/ weren’t really intended by the poet. phoenix.html. However, consider this: Leslie Hotson, an consider this: Leslie 2 For information about The Monument, 5 orthodox scholar, declared in 1964 that Hotson, an orthodox see the poet was addressing the younger man http://www.shakespearesmonument.com literally as his sovereign: “… What he sets scholar, declared in 1964 3 Peter Moore’s paper, “Recent before us is not the powers of a peer, but that the poet was Developments in the case for Oxford as those peculiar to a king: power to grant Shakespeare,” is available online at charters of privilege and letters patent, addressing the younger http://www.webcom.com/wboyle/ progres1.htm. power to pardon crimes – in short, the man literally as his 4 Alastair Fowler, Triumphal Forms,1970. exclusively royal prerogative …” This type 5 See p. xix in Whittemore; from Leslie Hotson, of material begins to show the kind of sovereign... Mr. W. H. 1964, pp. 26-36. specificity one would like to find to grant 6 The reviewer sees little chance of that validity to a set of allusions as being happening in the foreseeable future. intended by the poet. 7 Othello, 3.3.406-7. Southampton’s arrest for treason as part of 8 The space available here is far too Hank Whittemore, “Authorize thy trespass the failed Essex Rebellion, his imprison- limited to delineate in a comprehensive with compare”, in Shakespeare Matters, Vol. ment, his trial, his death sentence, its manner the numerous code words and 3 No. 4, Summer 2004, p. 1 ff. commu-tation, and finally his release. This 9 William Boyle, “With the Sonnets now interpretations set forth in Whittemore’s newsletter has printed articles from a “Yea”- solved,” in Shakespeare Matters, Vol. 3 No. book. The Fair Youth sonnets take on sayer, William Boyle,9 and from “Nay”- 4, Summer 2004, pp. 1 ff. added urgency with the interpretation that 10 sayers, Lynne Kositsky and Roger Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter, it is not just Southampton’s blood line that “A critique of the “Monument theory”, in 10 needs continuation, but also the Tudor Stritmatter. There seems little point to Shakespeare Matters, Vol. 4 No. 1, Fall blood line of Queen Elizabeth. The message going over that ground again. The matter 2004, pp. 1 ff. is most coherent, most beguiling, but what is at an impasse – on the one side, even with do a dozen such insinuations add up to? Whittemore’s epic efforts, I do not see Indeed your reviewer has beguiled himself “Prince Tudor” as having been proved; nor by contemplation of such thoughts over do I see it as having been disproved. the years, and, as a trained scientist, has In this regard, I find it important to separate developed a yearning in response: oh, but the Authorship Question from the “Prince Tudor” Question. One can make a very page 16 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005

Apart from the fact that it gets us nowhere, stuck at a point we should have passed long Beyond the biggest drawback to this lack of ago. Too much time and energy is being certainty is that it leaves us open to ridicule. spent arguing which one (or ones) wrote Who hasn’t heard the standard opening the Shakespeare canon. Since it seems Shakespeare: line from journalists and other impossible at this point to reduce the size commentators, that anti-Stratfordians of this group, to which new names are Expanding the attribute the authorship to anyone and being added all the time, the better path everyone from Bacon to Queen Elizabeth? may be to open up the question in a way that Ha ha ha! We must be fools if after all this will admit all of them. We should stop Authorship time we still can’t agree on a viable focusing on the candidacy of Shakespeare, candidate! Oh how ridiculous, Queen stop fighting over who should be Theory Elizabeth! When would she have the time? eliminated, and embrace a more Luckily they don’t know that someone has comprehensive authorship thesis, one that actually suggested Cervantes! includes all the writers of the period, and By Stephanie Hopkins Hughes What most of them also don’t know, all the works. thank goodness, is that there is a whole This does not, however, mean endorsing other layer to this problem of too many the idea that there were co-authors of the hands, namely, too many works. Once you Shakespeare canon, not, at least, in the he question of who actually wrote begin reading the works of other writers of sense that Brian Vickers advocates, whereby the Shakespeare canon is the period, you realize that there are quite Shakespeare and some other sat down Tone that goes back many years, a few plays and poems that sound too much together and decided who would write decades, possiblyeven centuries. Some like early Shakespeare to be ignored. which act of the so-called “late plays,” a think, not without reason, that the question Confronted with the possibility that process he describes in his recent book, is as old as the canon itself, that originally Shakespeare, whoever he was, wrote a great Shakespeare Co-author, a process that, there was––there had to have been––a deal more than the 38 plays and 200 poems according to Dean Keith Simonton, community of writers, theater devotees attributed to him, plays and poems that professor of psychology at the University and patrons who knew for a fact the identity either have no known author or are of California at Davis, is most unlikely. of the true author, and who therefore must attributed to various otherwise unknown Simonton, the leading force behind the have handed down their certain knowledge individuals, one is forced to come up with newly-developing branch of psychology from one generation to the next, to close an explanation, and not surprisingly the known as the psychology of creativity, has friends and intimate family members, first explanations have been as various, and spent much of his career studying the nature as a secret, later as the kind of knowledge often as ridiculous, as the theories of who of genius. With facts derived from scientific that couldn’t be allowed to enter the public wrote the accepted canon. methods and clinical studies, he assures us record (for reasons of politics or class Forced by our rejection of the untenable (as if our own experience and common solidarity), until what began as certain Stratford biography we are left with sense did not) that creating art by knowledge faded over time to uncertainty, something––one can hardly call it a theory– committee just doesn’t work. According then to rumor, and finally to silence. –that on the one hand gives us no certifiable to Simonton: “Experimental research has candidate and on the other, gives us no actually demonstrated rather conclusively Too Many Candidates? certifiable canon. After a century and a half that group problem-solving using more of study, we are not only still without an egalitarian “brainstorming” techniques When it rose to the surface, whether author, we have added an immense new usually yields dismal results in comparison again or for the first time, in the nineteenth problem, that the canon itself may be a with more solitary forms of problem century, it took the form in which we have good deal larger and more diverse than solving. Individuals working alone will it today, namely, that Shakespeare must what we had thought. No wonder that at a generate more and better ideas than will have been one candidate or another, first conference of the orthodox Shakespeare the same individuals working in a group” Francis Bacon, then, with the failure of Association of America some years ago, (91-2). Bacon, others, chief among them the Earl when the authorship question arose, one of This should explain why those plays of Oxford. At some point the need for a the conferees termed it a “can of worms.” that, as Vickers demonstrates, were “co- single candidate was matched by the so- Oxfordians may disagree with orthodox authored” by lesser writers, are among the called group theory that attempts to resolve adherence to the Stratford biography, but weakest in the Shakespeare canon. Nor the problems posed by this plethora of we can hardly condemn traditional does Vickers, for all his grasp of things theories by imagining that some or all of skepticism for the present chaos of literary, pause to consider why in the world the candidates worked together to create alternatives. Shakespeare––unlike every other artistic the canon we label Shakespeare’s. Because too many candidates have genius under the sun––would stoop to accumulated, the discourse has become sharing a work with a poor fish like George Wilkins. Did the world’s greatest writer, at Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 17

So for now we’ll leave aside Two Groups of Writers the peak of his career, lose interest in Shakespeare’s problems, such as the fact writing? Surely this would make him that, like many of his comic characters, his This community can be roughly divided unique among the great creative writers of name is a pun on his function––”Will shake into two groups. We’ll call one group the world. spear!” How often does an author have Commoners and the other Court writers– We’re not looking for more than one such a name as a matter of sheer –an awkward division, not strictly accurate, Shakespeare, but we should look for the coincidence?––a name that not only but for now it will serve. For there are two other characters in his story. If we wish to provides a perfectly-tuned pun, but that distinct groups––and class identity is the find Shakespeare, we must seek him among also forms a sentence, complete with most obvious means of distinguishing his fellows, the actors, patrons, publishers subject (understood), verb in the future them. Within each of these groups there and (most important) the other writers tense, and object, one that describes the are certain problems that affect most or all who shared in the creation, not just of the intention of the author of some of the most of the members of that group, problems Shakespeare canon, but of all of English stirring battle scenes and sword fights ever different from those that affect the Renaissance literature. Were Shakespeare staged? Or that the biography of William members of the other group. the only authorship problem of the period, of Stratford shows no evidence of an The Commoners Group includes, in scholars would have solved it long ago. education of the sort that could produce somewhat chronological order: George If a doctor questions a patient suffering plays like Julius Caesar or Hamlet, or even Gascoigne, Barnabe Riche, George Pettie, from a mysterious disease, his diagnosis the ability to produce a legible signature? Thomas Lodge, Edmund Spenser, John for that patient must be affected when he Lyly, George Peele, Thomas Kyd, learns that the patient’s entire community Christopher Marlowe, Robert Greene, suffers from the same symptoms; Thomas Watson, Thomas Nashe, Gabriel diagnosing the patient will do little good Harvey, William Shakespeare––and, if the real problem lies with his Nor does Vickers, for all moving forward a bit into the reign of environment. In fact, it is not just the his grasp of things literary, James––Ben Jonson and John Webster. authorship of Shakespeare that is––or There are many more names than these, should be––in question, but the authorship pause to consider why in but these are the most prominent. of much written during the Elizabethan the world Shakespeare–– The Court writers group is much era that qualifies as literature. smaller. It consists (at the moment) of six By “literature” I mean literature of the unlike every other artistic names: the Earl of Oxford, Sir Philip Sidney, imagination, that is, poetry, plays, romance genius under the sun–– Sir Francis Bacon, Lady Mary Sidney (a.k.a. Mary Herbert and the Countess of tales, songs, and satires, for the authorship would stoop to sharing a of many of these is just as dubious as Pembroke), and Sir Walter Raleigh. Many Shakespeare! It is a fact that we do not work with a poor fish like Elizabethan courtiers wrote poetry, and some are quite good, but these are the ones know for certain who wrote, not just George Wilkins? Did the Shakespeare, but just about everything whose works have lasted, and whose that qualifies as imaginative literature that world’s greatest writer, at reputations as poets have survived the centuries. was written during the very period in the peak of his career, lose English history that saw the most ebulliant uprush of literary art ever produced in the interest in writing? The Commoner’s Group West! Most of this group shows the same The authorship question is not just about problems as Shakspere of Stratford: a Shakespeare; it’s about Shakespeare plus pressing need to put bread on the table, Bacon plus Philip Sidney plus Mary Sidney Or that no solid evidence has ever surfaced troubles deriving from a Catholic or plus Christopher Marlowe plus Ben Jonson to indicate that he––I mean the great otherwise problematic family plus Robert Greene plus Thomas Watson playwright––was personally known to background, an anomalous career pattern, plus George Gascoigne plus Richard anyone in what must have been his and no evidence of the kind of education Edwards plus a host of names that most community of writers––or to any required to support the erudition of the readers have never even heard of. The community at all, for that matter. works that bear their names. Not all of the problems that plague Shakespeare’s For now, let’s set Shakespeare (the Commoners have all of these problems, authorship plague every single member of writer) aside and look at the problems that but all have at least two of them and some his creative community to a greater or concern his entire community. have all of them. In any case, with every one lesser degree. Whatever the reasons for there is something seriously amiss with this, they go well beyond the problems of the record. What is most obviously true of Shakespeare alone. (Continued on page 17) page 18 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005

Beyond Shakespeare (cont. from p. 17) (but Sidney and Marlowe) have anomalous the poems of Robert Greene, Steven May is career paths, that is, all have writing careers free to hand over the credit for all all of them is that their biographies fail to that fail to follow what we would consider innovations in English versification during support the aristocratic nature of their to be the normal growth and decline curve this period to Sir Philip Sidney (185, 225, works. True, that is, of all but Marlowe. for writers capable of rising to the high 367). Marlowe is the exception that we must level of artistry that distinguishes the keep in mind along the way. He is the English literary Renaissance. But a full Consider also how limited are the classic case of the exception proving the examination of this complex problem will interactions we know about even among rule. have to wait. the tiny community of genuine Court One problem common to both groups writers, who not only must have known that we can consider here is the peculiar each other but known each other well and fact that, if we were to rely strictly on the who, like all true artists, would certainly The Court Writer’s Group record, these two groups of artists would have been watching each other’s seem to have had no interaction with each development like hawks. Apart from Philip Although some in this group show some other. Apart from Marlowe, whose and Mary Sidney, whose relationship is a of the same problems as the Commoners– biography shows evidence of, if not a given, all we have is the 1580 tennis court – anomalous career patterns for instance– presence at Court, at least a connection quarrelbetween Oxford and Sidney. We –for all but one the predominant problem can guess that their literary rivalry had is that their reputations as writers far exceed something to do with this, but where’s the the evidence of their published works, evidence? Both innovative poets,both leaving us (and their biographers) to assume There are two distinct considered at one time or another to be the that they wrote a good deal more than they best Court writers, both were more or less published––or, we should say, than they groups––and class identity permanently at Court from 1574 when published under their own names. is the most obvious means Sidney returned from his two-year tour of And we must note that, as with the the Continent, Sidney being twenty at the commoners, this is true of all but one, in of distinguishing them. time, and Oxford twenty-four. Earlier they this case Sir Philip Sidney, who died too Within each of these groups had both been at Cecil House for the young to have written much more than he Christmas holidays of 1568 when published, and whose work would probably there are certain problems eighteen. Bacon joined them at Court in not have survived had he not been that affect most or all of the 1579 at the age of eighteen, when Sidney assiduously promoted after his death by was twenty-five and Oxford twenty-nine. his friend Fulke Greville, and most members of that group, Raleigh became a permanent member assiduously by his sister Mary (in much the problems different from of the Court community in 1582 when same way that, 200 years later, Mary Shelley both he and Sidney were twenty-eight and would promote her dead husband, Percy those that affect the Oxford was thirty-two. The following year, Bysshe, to icon stature). Thus, each of these members of the other when Raleigh helped Oxford get back into groups has their great exception, Sidney the Queen’s graces after his two-year among the Court writers, Marlowe among group. banishment from Court, Raleigh’s the Commoners. Unlike the other Court reference to Aesop’s tale of the ungrateful writers, Sidney published only under his snake that bit his rescuer may refer to own name, while unlike the other Oxford’s (possible) tendency to lampoon Commoners, Marlowe gave voice to the with two leading Court patrons, (1) and his rivals onstage (or it may not). impulses and visions of his own class, not Edmund Spenser, who referred once or In 1588, when Mary Sidney came to the aristocracy. Sidney and Marlowe show twice in letters he wrote to Gabriel Harvey, Court to take her dead brother’s place as a us what we should expect to see in all another commoner, to associating with voice for her family’s interests, for the writers of their groups. It is what we do not Court writers Sir Philip Sidney and Sir Protestant cause on the Continent, and see that we should see in these biographies Edward Dyer, there’s no evidence for (possibly) to assume his place as a leading that drives our expanded inquiry. interrelations between the groups during the forty years of the Elizabethan era. patron of the arts, she and Bacon were So separated are these two groups in the twenty-seven, Raleigh was thirty-four, Oxford thirty-eight. Paltry Interactions academic mind that the author of a recent and mostly valuable book on the Are we to assume that these five young writers, all burdened with excessive leisure, Now let’s consider problems that affect, Elizabethan Courtier poets treats the all burning with Renaissance ambition not just one group, but the entire writing commoners as if they didn’t exist. By and bursting with talent, had nothing to do community. One such problem is that all ignoring such works as the first edition (1574) of A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres and with each other beyond a single argument Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 19 on a tennis court or an aspersion lightly one other artist––witness the behavior of (beyond that of employer or patron) and cast in a letter? Picasso and Matisse, who, late in life, seemed vice versa? Or even what members of the So far, the only evidence of a connection to be producing works for each other’s Court community were important to each between Oxford and Bacon is a single eyes alone. other, apart of course from the Sidneys? Or mention by Oxford of his “cousin Bacon” Sidney wrote The Arcadia for his sister, what members of the Commoners group in a 1595 business letter to Robert Cecil, “only for you, only to you . . . being done in were important to each other? while many years later Bacon passed on an loose sheets of paper, most of it in your In all but two instances, all we have to unsubstantiated rumor about the thirteenth presence, the rest by sheets sent unto you connect the so-called University Wits are a earl of Oxford in his history of Henry the as fast as they were done.” What about the handful of published dedications. Nor can Seventh. There’s also the rumor handed other works of the English Renaissance? we explain away these missing interactions down by the seventeenth-century gossip- For whom were they written? by attributing them solely to the losses of monger John Aubrey that, early in the During the 1950s in America, writers Time. We know more about the reign of James, Mary Sidney went to Wilton, Laurence Ferlinghetti, Jack Kerouac, and relationships among the writing by then her son’s estate, to beg the King for Alan Ginsburg, all as yet unpublished, were community of first-century Rome, or, even Raleigh’s life. But to what extent should we drawn across the country to find each other. further back, third century BC Athens. be trusting Aubrey’s testimony? All? None? Much of the history of this group consists Where other people might just talk or Some? And if some, where do we draw the think, writer’s write, and they don’t just line? write poems, pamphlets and books. Of all We’re not much better off with people writers are the most apt to write interactions among members of the letters to friends and to keep journals, Commoners group. Apart from a number Writers, publishers, letter books and diaries, records in which of dedications to each other in their printers and patrons would they rarely fail to comment on the other published works we know only that in writers of their time, both their 1592 Marlowe and Watson got into a brawl all have been well known to personalities and their work. Where are on Hog Lane near the Bishopsgate theaters each other. The small size the letters among this group? Or even in which a third man was killed and that letters to others that refer to members of Kyd and Marlowe once shared a room. of their community makes it these groups as writers? Marlowe and Matthew Royden have been a certainty. Yet it is a The only ones we have are the ones that frequently mentioned by historians as were published, which––until we know members of Raleigh’s “School of Night,” certainty without any for certain that they were originally written but where’s the evidence? And then there substantiating evidence. as private letters and that the names they are the various comments on Shakespeare carry are the names of their real authors– by Ben Jonson, almost every one of which Why should this be so? –are of no use as genuine evidence. Why is he managed to contradict somewhere else. there information for every similar period The community of writers in in literary history and not for this one? Shakespeare’s time was small, very small; Although the problem is most obvious compared with ours today, it was tiny. of trips taken together and to see each with Shakespeare, it’s true of every single There were only a handful of printers other. During a later supernova of English member of this writing community, available to publish their works, all located literature, we know what Keats was to commoners and courtiers alike. in London, and a handful of booksellers Shelley, what Shelley was to Byron, what who could sell their wares, only in Paul’s Wordsworth was to Coleridge. We know More Problems with the Commoner’s churchyard. Writers, publishers, printers what Byron was to Goethe and to several Group and patrons would all have been well generations of budding writers from known to each other. The small size of Tennyson to Carlyle to Walt Whitman. We With the Court writers it is their works their community makes it a certainty. Yet know what Carlyle was to John Stuart Mill, that are hidden––with the Commoners it is it is a certainty without any substantiating what Whitman was to Emerson, what their biographies that are hidden, or at evidence. Why should this be so? Robert Browning was to Elizabeth Barrett, least anything that might connect them to The history of art should assure us that what Sylvia Plath was to Ted Hughes, and the world of playwrights and audiences, all such arts communities gather together so forth throughout the entire history of novelists and readers. Why, if we’ve found as a matter of shared instinct. Most English literature. anything, has it been only the most banal innovative artists are drawn to each other Why then is there no solid record of notice of baptisms, marriages, deaths of by their common passion. For the genuine which members of the Elizabethan Court wives and children, and, for some, a family artist, there is no audience like an audience writers’ community were important to connection with some kind of business, of other artists. Some works of art have members of the Commoners’ community been conceived for the eyes or ears of just (Continued on page 20) page 20 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005

Beyond Shakespeare (cont. from p. 19) how much of it there actually is; second, Four Strange Biographies unrelated in most cases to anything literary what kinds of non-literary evidence we or theatrical? That so many of these have; and perhaps most important, what There’s no room here for a full commoners have this problem suggests kinds of non-literary evidence seem to be examination of all the anomalous that such connections have not been lost, in unreasonably short supply. Literary biographies of the Commoners’ group, that, in fact, they do not and never did exist. historians tend to lump the two sources of but let’s just look briefly at four of the Were it only one, or even two, out of a large information together: that deriving from strangest: group for whom we had sufficient evidence the writers themselves plus their publishers of their actual functions as writers (as is the Robert Greene, author of thirty-seven case in the early seventeenth century), we pamphlets written between 1581 and 1592, might shrug it off. But there are at least five was an innovative writer whose popularity of these Elizabethan commoners that I can sparked the evolution of the pamphlet, the think of right off the top of my head for So separate are these two first ever English periodical. Yet although Greene had the longest-documented career whom we have no evidence beyond their groups in the academic names on title pages that they ever wrote of any Elizabethan writer (over a decade), anything.(2) The writing community of mind that the author of a years of research by his biographers failed mid-to-late sixteenth century England is to turn up any solid evidence of his by no means large enough to sustain so recent and mostly valuable existence, until his name was discovered in many gross anomalies. the Earl of Leicester’s household account Certainly facts have been surpressed–– book on the Elizabethan book as having received payment for a Greene pamphlet (Adams). there can be no other explanation. These Courtier poets treats the writers knew each other. They had Until this discovery we had nothing relationships with each other, relationships commoners as if they didn’t that connected any one of the many Robert that affectedtheir work. The long history Greenes listed in various parish and of art requires it. exist. By ignoring such university records with the production of But the suppression of their these popular periodicals. Yet even this connections with each other has to be works as the first edition does nothing to quell suspicions that he was not their true author, suspicions based something voluntary, something that goes (1574) of A Hundreth beyond the possibility of a systematic on the fact that Greene’s favorite themes eradication of records by some third party. Sundrie Flowres and the reflect an aristocratic upbringing rather No one, not even the Queen or the Cecils, than that of the Yorkshire shoemaker(4) had the power required to eliminate poems of Robert Greene, (or was it the Norwich saddler?) that hopeful records on this scale. There may very well biographers have dug from the records. have been some eradication of records, but Steven May is free to hand Not that Greene lacks a biography; on it can’t explain the volume of this the contrary, Greene’s problem is that he over the credit for all has too much biography. No author of the thundering silence. innovations in English period has as fully developed an image as I need to make it clear that when I say does Robert Greene. Unfortunately it was there’s no solid proof of a particular thing, versification during this provided entirely by Greene himself, with I mean there’s no evidence of the sort that flourishes added by fellow pamphleteers comes from sixteenth-century sources period to Sir Philip Sidney Nashe and Harvey. Although he, and they, outside the realm of literature, from things claim that he was well-known to his readers, like unpublished letters, journals, diaries, (185, 225, 367). no corroboration from a non-literary letterbook entries, holograph marginalia source has ever surfaced. The suspicion in privately owned books, entries in the remains that the writer as he is described Stationers Register and in parish records in these pamphlets is as fictional as and the like. Because of the problems I’m everything else published in his name. His about to outline, I’m purposely not giving and printers, and that deriving from outside biographers know perfectly well that evidentiary weight to anything that was sources, private letters, etc. For purposes neither he nor his fellow pamphleteers are obviously, or even possibly, written of comparison, we must begin by separating to be trusted, yet they continue to repeat his primarily for publication. Not that poetry, these. self-portrait. Why? Because the page must romance tales and plays are lacking in be filled and they have nothing more important evidence, quite the contrary. substantial to offer. But we must begin with the non-literary Greene’s style, fluid, easy, rich in evidence, because we need to know, first, Shakespearean tropes and metaphors, was– Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 21

–according to the current wisdom––the Greek romances and Arthurian-type immensely popular novels, and with being model for the soon-to-be-popular Bard, legends that the Court community had the first real English novelist, and with who, according to the academics, kicked enjoyed for centuries, and the obvious if creating the most innovative and popular off his illustrious career by plagiarizing opaque references to Court gossip, there is prose style since Chaucer, and with seven poor impoverished Robert Greene. no record that he was ever so much as plays that entertained the Court throughout Greene’s death––as described in his introduced at Court. the 1580s, why, after losing his post at supposedly final pamphlet––while Why would a poet of Spenser’s stature, Court in 1590 at the age of thirty-six, did he entertaining, is utterly ridiculous as an one who produced a canon far greater in never, for the sixteen years left to him, account of a real death, which may say size than either his fellow commoners or publish another word? Why did this popular something about the generations of the Court poets, one whose books were writer, despite the fact that he seems to academics who have managed to swallow obviously aimed at a Court audience, why have been in great need of paying work, it whole without blinking. would such a one not be absorbed into the cease to write so early in his career? Court community by means of a small All of the Commoners Group show Thomas Nashe, pamphleteer, is equally sinecure (3) so that he could continue to similar problems. innovative, equally entertaining, and equally suspect. And like Greene he seems Why So Long? a purely literary being. Born fully formed, like Athena from the forehead of Zeus, The suppression of their You may ask why it’s taken so long to Nashe appears to have been inseminated realize that all these writers share the same by the unknown instigator of the Martin connections with each other kinds of authorship problems that until Mar-Prelate pamphlet war against the has to be something now have been seen as Shakespeare’s alone? bishops c. 1589-92. Unlike Greene, Most readers rarely read enough by or however, biographers have managed to voluntary, something that about one of these authors for such find a slightly more substantial Thomas goes beyond the possibility questions to arise. Those with no time for Nashe. The son of a provincial vicar, the the sort of in-depth studies required must real Nashe earned his BA at St. John’s by of a systematic eradication depend upon academics who have chosen washing dishes and peeling turnips, which of records by some third it as their life work. Unfortunately, since seems hardly sufficient to explain either university training nowadays is highly the depth of his erudition––he was, apart party. No one, not even the specialized, academics themselves often from Francis Bacon, the most obviously Queen or the Cecils, had don’t read widely enough to see the extent learned writer of his generation––or his of the problem. They tend to focus either sheer gall, astounding in a society where a the power required to on libel suit could cause a man to lose an ear eliminate records on this Shakespeare or on one of the other writers, or a hand. How on earth did this humble such as Sidney, Jonson or Marlowe, or they vicar’s son manage to escape any real scale. may concentrate on a group such as the reprisals while continuing to produce one University Wits or the Courtier poets. merciless satire after another? Although they are certainly aware of the anomalies in their own subject area, Edmund Spenser, whose Faerie Queene entertain his primary audience, the they may assume that their chap is the only was the great Court entertainment of his nobility, close at hand, as would have been one with problems. Read the biography of generation, is credited with the second the case had he been born in France or any one of these writers and––if the most conscious style development since Italy? Why instead was he allowed to suffer biographer is honest––you will find that Chaucer (Lyly’s euphuism was the first). the slings and arrows of the angry Irish for he or she is well aware of the anomalies The real Spenser is a shadowy figure who twenty years until they finally drove him peculiar to that writer, but when they’re got his degree at Cambridge by means of a back to England, where, at the age of forty- asked to write for the encyclopedias or to scholarship for poor boys. Following a few seven, he died a pauper’s death within introduce a new edition of the plays, they years “in obscurity,” he sailed for Ireland at weeks of his arrival? tend to smooth out the rough patches. Why age twenty-eight (as secretary to the fierce confuse the ordinary reader? No expert Lord Grey of Wilton). After two decades in John Lyly, who may (or may not) have will willingly display his or her confusion Ireland, where Spenser’s life would have been the grandson of the famous over some problem within their domain resembled that of the early English settlers grammarian, had a degree from Magdalen before an ignorant and unforgiving world. in America, he returned to England when College, Oxford, afterwards working for Shakespeare scholars are certainly his home was burned to the ground by Lord Burghley, then for Burghley’s son-in- aware of the authorship question, but they angry natives. Despite the baroque nature law, Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford. don’t want to open it for discussion, mostly of Faerie Queene, based on the kind of Although Lyly is credited with two (Continued on page 22) page 22 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005

Beyond Shakespeare (cont. from p. 21) watersheds in the development of English literature. because their primary interest––I might The new and expanded thesis might go Let us also consider the relentless drive something like this: say their sole interest––is the text. a group of genuinely gifted writers feels to Problems of provenance are no more than connect with as wide an audience as annoying distractions for these folks, so The English literary Renaissance was possible, a drive felt by all genuine writers, created by a small group of highly-educated they continue to cling to the names on title one comparable to that of a thirsty desert pages, refusing to take the question any and talented writers who, for the most part, traveller in search of water. like their European counterparts, were further. As for those who focus on the other Thus, matching the need of the authentic writers of the period, they simply accept born into Court society, and who bypassed Court writers to publish to the equally the social constraints of their class and the what the Shakespeare scholars choose to pressing need of the Commoners to survive tell them about the Great One. Should religious and political constraints of their during the uncertain economy of the mid- times by publishing over the names of questions arise, they trust their colleagues sixteenth century, and BINGO! we end up to be telling them the truth, and in any case, commoners who lent or sold them the use with the same scenario for the entire of their names in exchange for cash, do not want to make trouble, since Elizabethan writing community that we Shakespeare studies represents the elite of patronage or other benefits. the Humanities Division. Although this subterfuge operated on a Even problems arising from the text, fairly broad scale at the beginning, it continued in full force for a relatively brief such as why it is that one occasionally hears The English literary exactly the same tropes and phrasing in period of time, beginning at some point in Shakespeare as in Marlowe, or in Renaissance was created the 1560s and gradually diminishing in the seventeenth century as the commercial Shakespeare as in Robert Greene, or in by a small group of highly- Robert Greene as in John Lyly, though they stage and press became sufficiently may be noted in passing, are usually quickly educated and talented lucrative that members of the entrepreneurial classes, who had no need brushed aside in discussion because any writers who, for the most comment quickly leads to questions of to hide their identities, began to earn their who wrote what when, and whether these part, like their European livings as writers. Even so, for a variety of reasons, publishing under pseudonyms guys knew each other––questions for counterparts, were born which no one can give them an answer, would continue well into the nineteenth and––oops! here we are at that darned into Court society, and who century. It was not just Shakespeare the Poet who authorship question again! Run away! bypassed the social Run away! used a standin to publish during the constraints of their class. Elizabethan era, but all the court writers, that is, all but Sidney. And if we feel squeamish about taking the glory from An Expanded Thesis commoners Greene, Nashe, Watson, etc., let us not forget have for the poet Shakespeare and his Let’s not run away. Let’s come up with a Marlowe, the genuine working-class standin, the Stratford entrepreneur with genius, who was, in some ways, greater workable thesis that we can all embrace. the remarkably punnable name. First––let’s consider how small the than all the Court writers. All that is, but Here then is the expanded form of the one. English writing community was at that authorship thesis that I wish to present. It time, far too small for these two groups to is actually already well-established, the be as separate in fact as they appear to be only difference between the new and the Problems Solved from the records. old being the addition of a few dozen And let us also consider the nature of the names. The old authorship thesis goes Although admittedly this scenario raises works in question, most of which are based something like this: on the kinds of plots and themes long since new problems, let’s see what problems it The works of Shakespeare were written solves right off the bat. favored by the nobility, themes of no great by the Earl of Oxford (or Bacon or Marlowe interest to the intermediate classes, who or whoever), which, due to his desire for • it returns the Elizabethan would have known the reality of the privacy, were published under a pen name countryside well enough to be bored by the Renaissance to its expected source, the derived from the real name of the Court community, which, as with every kind of artificial pastoral fantasies that financially needy William Shakspere of pleased their so-called betters. other European nation, was the only Stratford (who apparently could barely group with enough education and Let us in addition consider the quality of write his own name). the works in question, many of them huge leisure to devote to the time- and mind- Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 23

consuming business of creating a permanently raised the artistic level of vernacular literature of the English dramaturgy, then settled into a • Why similarly there are no early works imagination. dull style that would have ensured his for the brilliant Francis Bacon, whose obscurity were it not for these two plays. long and impressive writing career • Shakespeare is no longer a wierd seemingly commenced only in his mid- anomaly, but simply one (though • Who wrote Greene’s Groatsworth and thirties, despite his obvious boredom possibly the first) of a number of similar why. Who was “Shake-scene,” and who at having nothing important to do writer/standin combinations. wrote the “posthumous” Greene throughout his twenties and early pamphlets and why. thirties. • it helps to explain why authors like William Shakespeare, Robert Greene, • What was the real cause of the Nashe- • Why, conversely, John Lyly, after Thomas Nashe, Thomas Watson and Harvey pamphlet war. blazing a literary trail with his Euphues John Webster, are so lacking in novels in his late twenties, fell silent biographical particulars, why they This expanded theory of authorship does just as he was reaching the apex of his show such peculiar career paths, and not, and probably never will, answer every career in his late thirties and, despite how it is that, at the end of their careers, single question that we have about this his apparent need for work and money rather than be accorded real funerals period, but it does offer solutions to some and notices in parish burial records, of the most perplexing, and for that alone they seem simply to vanish. it is worth our attention. At the same time, like every new thesis, it raises a number of • it explains why Court writers like the Unfortunately, since new questions, perhaps the most pressing Earl of Oxford and Mary Sidney lack University training being: Why were the English Court writers enough published works to support forced to use subterfuge in order to publish their reputations. nowadays is highly when those of the Continent were not? specialized, academics There are answers to this, some obvious, • it explains why so many of the early some that will require a good deal more greats of the English Renaissance, themselves often don’t read thought than has yet been given to them, unlike their European counterparts, widely enough to see the but here we have room only for the never appeared at Court. questions in their simplest form. extent of the • it helps to explain some strange problem.....Although they coincidences, such as the fact that the Conclusion two most anomalous writers of their are certainly aware of the time, Robert Greene and Thomas anomalies in their own Of course by expanding the authorship Watson (probably both covers for the question beyond Shakespeare to include same Court writer) supposedly died subject area, they may all the poets, playwrights and novelists of within days of each other––or, how the assume that their chap is the Elizabethan era we are also expanding development of euphuism seems to the nature of the problem. No longer is it: migrate from one writer to another, as the only one with problems. Why did Shakespeare hide his identity?–– it leaves one appearing in another, like the question now becomes: Why did they a thieving servant who goes from one hide their identities? And then: Who were master to another, leaving a trail of they? Above and beyond it all, of course, paltry thefts behind. as expressed in letters begging the comes the ultimate question: Who wrote Crown for a job, seems never to have what? And when? And why? For answers published another thing for the rest of to these we are going to have to buckle Other Problems Solved his life. down and examine the extra-literary records to see just what we know for certain The theory may in time also help to • How Thomas Kyd managed to write about these writers, and what we don’t explain a number of other problems, such one smash hit play when everything know that we should know. as: published under his name was mediocre We must also begin to do the kind of to poor, and why his one great success work on the works themselves that we see • Why there is no juvenilia for was never published under his name. demonstrated in Brian Vickers’s recent Shakespeare, who, like Nashe, appears book, Shakespeare Co-author. I urge to have emerged fully developed at the • How George Gascoigne managed to everyone who is genuinely interested in age of twenty-five. write, in a single year, two plays that (Continued on page 24) page 24 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005

Beyond Shakespeare (cont. from p. 23) by the author’s name and reputation them to the same kind of rigorous testing the authorship question to read this book. (particularly so great a name as that Vickers describes in his book. It is dense, it is difficult, particularly for Shakespeare). In the same way that the text Hopefully at some point Oxfordian those like myself who do not have training of the unpublished play Sir Thomas More scholars will begin to work together in statistics or much of a gift for numbers, has been broken down into its separate (possibly even, at some point, with but I believe that most will agree that this authors, or more likely, scribes, as Hand A, orthodox scholars of the stature of Vickers, is the way of all future attribution studies. Hand B, and so forth, we must label all May and Simonton) in a common effort to As Vickers so thoroughly proves, writers Elizabethan works of the imagination with assemble this seemingly immense and do reveal their identities through their similarly neutral identifiers. This will allow complex puzzle. styles when examined with processes us to examine them as though they were developed by generations of word study anonymous, with no identifying An Intellectual Frontier scholars. With these tools we have far more characteristics beyond what is offered by solid means of identifying Elizabethan the text and publication data. In other At the same time we may be venturing authors, I assure you, than the often words, until a particular work passes a set into an as-yet-unexplored and exciting new misleading names on title pages, because of dependable tests of its validity, all intellectual frontier. For by delving into we will be able to discern differences published works of the imagination, their the truth behind the production of these between voices based on something more title pages, the names of their authors, great works of the English Renaissance, we solid than tradition or our own subjective their introductory material including will be following in the footsteps of their responses. authors, their real authors––as they studied First, we must strive to ask the right the lives and works of the poets of ancient questions, and second, to consider all Greece and Rome, reading and translating possible conclusions. Where Vickers I urge everyone who is them into English, absorbing the inner assumes that Shakespeare is writing at the genuinely interested in the processes of their style and thought and same time as his Jacobean “co-authors,” it thereby laying the groundwork for a new does his conclusions no harm to propose authorship question to read literary language for themselves and that, in every almost every case they were Vickers’ book. It is dense, generations of future readers. It’s much adding to or amending work done many the same process by which those same years earlier by an author who was no it is difficult, particularly for predecessors, Dante, Petrarch, and longer alive (4). those like myself who do Boccaccio, created the modern literary Possible misinterpretations by Vickers language of Italy, as they rescued the and others are minor when compared with not have training in literature of ancient Greece and Rome the certainty that will come from using statistics or much of a gift from the dust and decay of monastery these techniques to nail down, not just who libraries, translating them into vernacular amended Shakespeare’s work after his for numbers, but I believe Italian and, in the process, evolving a new death, but further, who wrote the Greene that most will agree that way of thinking, speaking and behaving canon, the Nashe canon, the Spenser canon, that spread to all the nations of Europe via and a number of other works that (may) this is the way of all future their royal courts. And so may we, by have been attributed to the wrong authors, attribution studies. uncovering the truth, or at least by creating either purposely or by later guesswork. the most likely scenario, reclaim poetry What did Bacon write before he assumed and poetic language for our own creativity, the grave persona of his later years? What a thing sorely needed in this second, longest, did Mary Sidney write that she dared not and most deadly era of ultra “drab poetry.” publish under her own name? And how dedications, printer’s remarks, author’s We may also achieve a much truer vision about Raleigh? Or Sir John Harington, Jr. remarks, and authorship of dedicatory of what was really going on at the Court of Or even some new Court figure that so far verses, each must be considered open to Elizabeth and in the pubs and drawing we haven’t identified? (Sir Henry Neville interpretation until its evidentiary value rooms and bedrooms where these creative and Thomas Sackville, Lord Buckhurst, has been properly assessed. souls spent time together, all questions of have been suggested.) The truth is, we A big job, granted, but after almost religions and class division set aside by the cannot guess what we will find when we use twenty years of study of the authorship overarching needs of creative artists to these techniques to examine all the works problem, I believe this to be the only way know each other, work together, drive of Renaissance literature. we will ever totally resolve it to everyone’s each other crazy, and finally, some of them, Most important, we need to change our satisfaction: first, by expanding it to include ripen into full maturity. The clues are there. thinking about the works themselves. Until all the writers of imaginative literature; Once we know where to look we’ll find we can be certain who wrote what, we must then, by expanding it to include all the first divest them of the mystique lent them works of imaginative literature, subjecting Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 25 Fields (cont. from p. 13) them. And what a story it will be! Truly the then Ponsonby, and thereafter by a series of just under three hundred pages the book story of stories. individuals, some with no apparent relation ambles along like genial after-dinner to Spenser (Berry 254-9). The facts conversation about a fine whodunnit. Then surrounding his famous funeral at in the last quarter (after midnight at our The Process Westminster Abbey are equally gathering in Malibu) Fields begins unveiling questionable. his personal hypothesis of the manner in First, we should agree on an expanded which the Shakespearean canon came into authorship thesis, one that recognizes all 4 In the case of George Peele, it does no being. Since virtually anything is possible the problems, not just Shakespeare’s. We harm to consider that “Shakespeare” may (especially at the late hour and after several should also agree to work together and to have gotten tired of trying to make bottles of wine), and the case cannot be not allow our differences in interpretation something out of the glutinous story of conclusively proved, Fields now enters into to stop us. Second, we must separate the Titus Andronicus, and so passed it along to his personal reconstruction of the events literary evidence of authorship from the Peele, his colleague or secretary, to and actions of the major players, or what non-literary evidence. Third, we should complete. might have happened. remove the authors’ names from all Fields proposes that Edward de Vere, Bibliography th questionable works, identifying them 17 Earl of Oxford, was the poet and instead by genre, subject, personality, age playwright, and that William of Stratford Adams, Simon, ed. Household accounts was the canny theatre practitioner who and sex of protagonist, and available date and disbursement books of Robert marks, and then translating them (if Dudlley, Earl of Leicester, 1558- necessary) into modern English spelling. 1561, 1584-1586. London: Camden, Finally, we must subject them to a battery Series 5, vi, (1995). of stylometric tests as described by Brian Vickers in his book Shakespeare Co-author, Berry, Herbert and E.K. Timmings. Fields’s style of presenting providing a friendly statistician with the “Spenser’s Pension.” Review of evidence has undoubtedly results so he or she can run the numbers English Studies. NS. Vol 11. No 43. and give us sufficient data to compare to (1960) 254-9. raised hackles on both each other and to an agreed-upon control sides of the debate, since group. May, Steven W. The Elizabethan Courtier Poets. Ashville, NC: many speculative items are From this point on the steps should be Pegasus, 1999. entered without the context obvious. Nicholl, Charles. The Reckoning. New that would unambigiously Notes York: Harcourt, 1992. demarcate them as

1 Henry Percy, Earl of Northumberland, Simonton, Dean Keith. Origins of speculation or opinion... and Lord Strange, soon to be Earl of Derby Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on (Nicholl xx). Creativity. New York: OUP, 1999.

2 Thomas Nashe, Robert Greene, Thomas knew what the groundlings wanted, thus Watson and William Shakspere. serving as Oxford’s consulting associate producer. In his final chapter, “Summing 3 Spenser was granted an annuity of £50 by The preceeding is an expanded version of Up,” Fields fills in his treatment with what the Queen in 1591, but the history of this a lecture given April 10, 2005 at the he believes were the roles of William Stanley, annuity raises more questions than it Shakespeare Authorship Studies Earl of Derby, as well as Robert Greene, answers. It was granted during the period Conference in Portland, Oregon. Chettle, Bacon, Pembroke and Montgomery that the first three books of The Faerie et al, in a tantalizing scenario complete with Queene were published, supposedly at a imagined dialogue between the “hustling, time when Spenser was back in England, provincial actor named Shaksper” and the although there appears to be no other Earl who “yearns to try his hand at the evidence that he was in fact in England at public theatre,” as they grapple over the that time. It seems that Spenser himself style and presentation of Hamlet and The never collected the annuity, which was Merchant of Venice. Whether any of it collected at first by Edward Blount, really happened as he proposes, Fields, apprentice to Ponsonby (who printed TFQ), ever the ideal host, has given his guests a (Continued on page 31) page 26 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005

Earl Showerman receives the “1st Earl of Ashland” Award from SOS President James Sherwood and Shakespeare Fellowhip President Lynne Kositsky.

the fact that Shakespeare used history, not Newcomb suggests that the context of his Historic Conference (cont. from p. 10) as an accurate history lesson, but as a plays is consequently one of “profound of any theater group in the country. The device to warn people about the present. injustice.” He noted that de Vere must have diversity of its plays and the excellence of He talked about his process in approaching been an extremely lonely man whose grief its quality and production design Richard in terms of both his physicality and sense of loss was translated into the prompted Time magazine to list the OSF as and his psychology, telling the conference diverse characters of the plays, including one of the top five regeional theatres in the that his conception of Richard’s limp, the manic quality of his historical figures, country. withered hand, and hunchback was his fools such as Touchstone and Feste, and The room was charged with energy developed in order to show how his physical the artifice of Malvolio and Orsinio. when James Newcomb spoke to the group. duplicity enhanced his psychological The next day’s panel discussed the OSF He gave a talk on his craft as an actor and duplicity. With his emphasis on Richard’s production of Twelfth Night: Or What You also participated in a panel discussion on physical handicap, he wanted to Will. Reminiscent of other Shakespearean Richard III along with Professor Ren Draya, demonstrate the paradox of how someone cross-dressing comedies such as As You and actress Robin Goodrin-Nordli who on crutches could also be “quite agile and Like It, Twelfth Night is mostly about the played Margaret. In the panel discussion, adroit.” ins and outs of romantic love but it is also Ms. Goodrin-Nordli described here role as In discussing the events that shaped about pride, “overweening ambition”, that of an “an omnipresent spirit,” a device Richard’s character, Newcomb pointed to disguises, and mistaken identities. The play that represents a reflection on how the the death of Richard’s father at the Battle of contains some of Shakespeare’s most grief and pain of memory can haunt the St. Albans as a turning point as depicted in memorable characters: Sir Toby Belch, present. She said that her character was an Henry VI, Part Three. Richard idolized his Olivia’s drunken uncle, his friend Sir example of how Shakespeare saw the role father who had taught him how to fight and Andrew Aguecheek who is also trying to of women in a patriarchal society, how the believed in his father’s right to the crown. court Countess Olivia, Olivia’s men do the killing and get the glory while When his father was killed, he focused his gentlewoman Maria, Feste, the “knowing” the women are left to deal with the entire being on revenge and plotted to take fool, and Malvolio, the prudish steward. aftermath. the crown for himself even if it meant using The panel consisted of Michael Elich In a separate presentation, Newcomb deception. According to Newcomb, the (Orsinio), Linda K. Morris (Viola/Cesario), noted that Richard did not function in a seminal moment for Edward de Vere was, Professor Ren Draya, and Dr. Michael L. vacuum but reflected the atmosphere of like Richard, the loss of his father, whom Hays, a Shakespearean scholar and civic greed and mistrust present in the he believed to have been murdered and activist. The panel seemed to interpret the aristocratic society. He called attention to thus devoted his life to “righting a wrong.” meaning of the title as Shakespeare saying Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 27 to the audience “take of it what you will” deny what they believe to be true to serve connection to Gray’s Inn, his classical and to the actors “make of it what you will.” political ends.” education under the guidance of Thomas It is definitely a play that is open to Dr. Showerman spoke on the topic Smith, Lawrence Nowell, and Arthur interpretation. Elich said he finds Twelfth “Orestes, Horestes, Hamlet: Myth to Golding, and his documented access to the Night to be a “sad play” about lonely Masterpiece”. He pointed out how the numerous original classical sources cited individuals that cannot make contact with Oresteia of Aeschylus and other Greek and for both Horestes and Hamlet, make a each other and who are in love with the idea Roman sources including the epics, credible case for considering Oxford’s of love rather than its reality. Professor tragedies, and philosophies are intricately authorship claims to both dramas. Draya also pointed out that the joke on woven into the plot, characters, rhetoric, Earlier, English Professor Dan Wright Malvolio is rather cruel and Dr. Hays and allusions in Shakespeare’s Hamlet. of Concordia University in Portland, remarked that Feste is vindictive in Many of the sources, according to Dr. Oregon and Dr. Michael Hays discussed reminding everyone of Malvolio’s Showerman, that Shakespeare used were other aspects of Shakespeare’s plays. humiliation. untranslated at the time Hamlet was Professor Wright asserted that a central Though the OSF’s interpretation was published suggesting the author could read theme of Shakespeare’s plays is that of full of fun, the panel’s interpretation called legitimacy and the right of succession. He to mind James Newcomb’s earlier remarks cited King John as an example of a conflict that when Oxford’s authorship is widely over rightful succession but focuses not on accepted, the overall interpretation of the Edward de Vere’s the historical record but invents a royal plays will be subject to a different context connection to Gray’s Inn, bastard who becomes the fictional hero of (possibly one of “injustice”) and therefore the play. Prof. Wright raised the question viewed as considerably darker. It was also his classical education of what Shakespeare’s purpose might have noted that here is another example of the under the guidance of been in giving pre-eminence in a history impact of a father’s loss, as the twins Viola play to a character whose existence lay and Sebastian lost their father when they Thomas Smith, Lawrence only in his imagination. He stated that were only thirteen, another concurrence Nowell, and Arthur Shakespeare’s plays are “not disinterested with the life of Edward de Vere, who with objective plays but serve as mirrors that his sister Mary (b.d. unknown) lost his Golding, and his reflect Elizabethan policy.” Shakespeare, father at about that age. documented access to the according to Wright, was an “informed According to Dr. Richard Desper, a PhD commentator on the political scene and in Chemistry and specialist in polymer numerous original classical his work is about “the rulers who sowed the materials science, Twelfth Night, although sources cited for both wind and reaped the whirlwind.” ostensibly reflecting the twelfth day after Dr. Hays interpreted Shakespearean Christmas, a time for celebration in Horestes and Hamlet, make tragedies as chivalric romances. His thesis Elizabethan days, reveals an “element of a credible case for counters the conventional wisdom and its underlying darkness, images of sadness biases against romance, and questions and regret.” In the play, nothing is what it considering Oxford’s received opinion about literary genre and seems, that meanings are turned inside authorship claims to both cultural history. Echoing Professor out. Feste says “nothing that is so is so” and Wright’s analysis, Dr. Hays stated that his portrayal of the priest Sir Topas who dramas. Shakespeare exploited chivalric romance interrogates Malvolio in a darkened room to explore themes of governance, has overtones of the 1581 trial and legitimacy, and succession in his plays. execution of Edmund Campion, a Jesuit Subordinating tragedy to romance, Dr. priest who was executed by the English Hays argued that plays such as Macbeth, and had access to many Greek and Latin government. In his speech of less than fifty Othello, Hamlet, and King Lear articulate classics in the original. Showerman words, which appears to resemble mere an informed idealism and a tempered explored the 1567 play Horestes that was nonsense, there are no less than five phrases optimism about the outcome of contested first performed at Gray’s Inn and noted the that refer directly to Edmund Campion issues, citing Shakespeare’s use of “poetic remarkable similarities in plot and theme and his 1580-81 mission to England. Dr. justice” and the idea that “right makes between Horestes and Hamlet. Oxfordian Desper also pointed out that the mock trial might”. Elizabeth Sears was the first to suggest that scene works as a parody of the government Music in Shakespeare was discussed in a young Edward de Vere may have penned persecution of Catholic martyrs. “The two presentations, one by Elizabeth Sears, Horestes. playwright,” he says, “demonstrates for us musician and author of the book A close analysis of the plot, languages, a world turned upside down, with clowns Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose, and rhetorical devices, allusions, and topicality passing themselves off as men of learning, spokespersons for the ensemble group of this Tudor interlude suggests many while men of learning …are pressed to Mignarda, Ron Andrico and Donna Stewart similarities to Hamlet. Edward de Vere’s (Continued on page 28) page 28 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005

Historic Conference (cont. from p. 27) death of William Cecil, Francis Mere’s Crown Signature,( cont. from p. 9) Palladis Tarnia, Ben Jonson mentioning who also treated the audience to some This signature is found on all extant Shakespeare in his 1598 play, and the lovely renaissance songs. Andrico talked holograph signed letters from 1569 to writing, printing, publishing, registering, about how music was used in Shakespeare’s April 1603, a year before his death [two and performing of the Shakespeare canon. plays, who played the music and what it weeks following the death of Queen Artistic director of the theater program might have sounded like. According to Elizabeth]. Except for one letter after the at Walla Walla College since 1999, where Andrico, musicians were considered Queen’s death which bore the coronet or she recently directed a production of servants at the time and it was demeaning crown signature, those of 1603 onward Othello, Professor Marilynn Loveless gave to a person of noble rank to show their revert to a double loop horizontal flourish us a survey of how various scholars and musical skills as a performer. Musicians similar to the single loop flourish found in writers have interpreted Shakespeare’s final such as John Dowland required patronage the youthful letter of 1563. Here is a bequest to his wife of his second best bed. to support their talent. facsimile of that signature. Elizabeth Sears cited 32 references to The abandonment of the distinctive music in Shakespeare’s plays and 36 plays signature, following so closely on the death that included musical stage directions. Dickens told the group that of Queen Elizabeth, suggests the crown This point was underlined by her reference signature was adopted in the nature of a to Dr. Edward Naylor’s book written over Shakespeare was an device or emblem expressing some one hundred years ago that explored “unpainted SistineChapel aspiration, ambition, hope, desire or Shakespeare’s profound knowledge of reminder of a promise. With the death of music, both in the songs, stage directions, cieling, whitewashed and the Queen, did these aspirations and hopes and references to musical matters in the newly plastered, that die? text. She noted, however, that most of the On another issue, the time of music from Shakespeare’s plays seems to invites us to ascend the abandonment of the coronet or crown have been lost and what has survived is said scaffold and become signature and the switch to a double loop to be anonymous or traditional or credited flourish put5 to rest the question of when to well-known composers of the sixteenth Michelangelo.” Oxford became a member of the Privy century. She cited the possibility that and caused uproarious Council. Though Percival Golding [f. 1624] Oxford was the author of the song in Armes, Honours, Matches and Issues of Greensleeves and cited John Farmer’s laughter as he speculated the Ancient and Illustrious Family of Veer declaration to the Earl of Oxford in on what would happen if the [British Library, Harl. MSS. 4189] stated Farmer’s First Set of English Madrigals, Edward deVere was “... of ye privy Counsell “For without flattery be it spoke, that using village-born deity from to the Kings Matie [James I] that now is”, this science as aecreation, your Lordship Stratford-on-Avon were to some Oxfordians have insisted Oxford had have over-gone most of them that make it been appointed to the Privy Council in the a profession.” be dethroned by an time of Elizabeth. They cite an undated A speaker whose presentations have “arrogant, insubordinate Privy Council letter on which Oxford’s been heard at the 2004 De Vere Conference signature appears. Oxford’s signature on in Portland and the 2004 SF Conference, rebuffer of the Queen.” this letter bears the double loop flourish, Dr. Thomas Hunter, told the conference not the “crown.” It becomes conclusive that the key to full appreciation of that as Oxford did not revert to the looped Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice lies Some suggestions have been that the flourish signature until after Elizabeth’s in understanding the sources of Portia’s second best bed was: a treasured possession, death, thus supporting Percival Golding’s “mercy speech”. He called Merchant of a sweet and innocent gesture, the bequest placement of Oxford’s membership on the Venice, “a wonderfully human drama” of a businessman, and the best bed he Council to the time of James I. whose stereotyped anti-Semitic reputation owned after giving his best property to the is simply wrong and called Portia’s speech church. The truth is, according to Prof. Notes “the evidence that connects this play to 1 Loveless, we simply do not know what he Fowler did not include the extant tin Edward de Vere.” meant by this bequest. mining letters, some of which are part of Prof. Lewis Tate, who teaches English In a lighthearted vein, the conference the Huntington Library’s Ellesmere Literature and Shakespeare at the Savannah banquet received a surprise visit from none Manuscripts. College of Art and Design in Savannah, other than Mr. Charles Dickens who Georgia, as well as in England, spoke about 2 temporarily “borrowed” the body of well- Not the least of which is: why more of the confluence of events in the year 1598 known Shakespearean actor and his letters and papers have not been found and how it was a springboard for future Fellowship member Michael Dunn and in the public records. While many of occurrences. These events included the Oxford’s letters seem to have been lost or Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 29 destroyed, there might be hundreds waiting to be found. cajole Oxford into using—in his own will be presented when suitable facsimiles correspondence and anonymous and can be prepared, but for now we can discuss 3 As head of the Court of Wards, Sir pseudonymous plays and poetry—phrases these works at least in summary. William kept the young Lord’s wardship and turns of phrase which later turn up in And they are remarkable! Not only do the for himself. their refined and beautified form in the immortal works of the immortal Bard. works of Shakespeare curiously parallel Shakespeare caused de Vere to use the life of Oxford, but the lost works of locutions that did not appear in public Oxford seem to parallel the life of until long after the Earl’s death in 1604. Shakespeare! Remarkable! Oxford’s Torment, (cont. from page 3) Consider as an example the plot of Love’s relatives? Research. How was he able to do The Oxfordians are quick to seize upon Labour’s Foundlings: A churlish boy all this research without leaving any this, of course, but we ought not listen to impregnates the neighbor’s spinster evidence of ever having owned—nor even daughter—a chary maid who was prodigal having read—a book? Research. enough once she unmasked her posited beauty to the moon. The two are married But there is more. William Shakespeare is hastily, and they are in rapid succession commonly regarded as the proof of the The Oxfordians are quick to seize blessed with a daughter and then twins, a boy and a girl. Then the churlish boy, by democratic premise, a man who rose from upon this, of course, but we ought the mud to a place of highest esteem. Such now a churlish man, vanishes from their was his craft, such was his genius, that none not listen to them. Instead we lives, leaving them to starve. of his works celebrate the virtues of must answer them with our usual common people. To the contrary, ordinary Or take note of The Merchant of Stratford, people in Shakespeare are either thieves, fusillades of blistering flatulence, which concerns the banal and ultimately pointless machinations of a greasy- comic figures or repugnant social adhering to the long-standing and climbers. Courtiers fare no better in the fingered burgher who cheats his neighbors end, but they are better presented. It must indisputable precept that and defaults on his tax debt. He ends his life more beast than man, spacious in the be that the Bard was seeking to disguise anything said by Shakespearean himself as a nobleman disguised as a possession of dirt, and no one laments or commoner. This conjecture would also heretics is not only wrong, ipso even notices his passing. explain why a cipher of democracy would facto and Q.E.D., but necessarily There are others, including a play that pre- write so many plays buttressing the claim figures modern literary issues: At a legal of Elizabeth I to the throne of England. evil. deposition, a man presumed to have a fine This is the kind of toadying we would education and a prodigious memory is expect from a fawning courtier, a true son able to remember nothing. And there is a of the nobility, so it must be that Lear-like tragedy about a man who tries to Shakespeare’s curious patriotism was of a them. Instead we must answer them with divide his worldly goods among his heirs. piece with his disguise. our usual fusillades of blistering In the end, though, he is frustrated, first by flatulence, adhering to the long-standing And how all of this must have infuriated his monolithic ignorance and then by his and indisputable precept that anything Oxford! For the very apogee of unreasoning greed. He is buried under a said by Shakespearean heretics is not only Shakespeare’s research came about when piece of vile doggerel that is his life’s one wrong, ipso facto and Q.E.D., but he began to write hectoring, presumptuous literary accomplishment. necessarily evil. love poems to Edward de Vere’s secret As we can easily see, the matter is now homosexual lover, Henry Wriothesley, But they do ask a dangerous question: “If settled to the satisfaction of all who dare Third Earl of Southampton. These sweet Oxford was such a well-known anonymous not whisper a word of dissatisfaction. sonnets, whispered by lovers down unto or pseudonymous author, where are his Shakespeare wrote poems and plays that our day, read as though they were written works?” parallel the life of Oxford, and for his by Oxford himself. What a triumph for vengeance Oxford wrote plays that parallel Shakespeare! And this is a question we can answer at last! the life of Shakespeare. What could be clearer? But Shakespeare’s magnificent research Using the time-tested methods of posit and skills took him one step further still. By conjecture, we have recovered the ‘lost Without doubt the Oxfordians will raise methods about which we can only posit works’ of Edward de Vere, Seventeenth some new hue and cry, claiming perhaps conjectures, Shakespeare managed to Earl of Oxford. More tangible evidence (Continued on page 30) page 30 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005

Oxford’s Torment (cont. from p. 29) To read more by Greg Swann, visit him Players (cont. from p. 25) that the newly-discovered plays of Oxford online: www.presenceofmind.net/GSW/ rich mystery (with echoes of old Hollywood) are forgeries. But it is a long-standing and index.html. that they will surely continue to ponder indisputable precept that forgeries that while wending their way down the Pacific support the positions of orthodox Coast Highway to their respective abodes. Shakespearean scholars are, by virtue of There will be excited conversations long their high office, inherently and into the night, and hopefully beyond. automatically genuine. So much for that. Mission accomplished for Fields: reasonable doubt has been established. At bottom, there can be no doubt that the So taken for what it is—an invitation to argument that Edward de Vere, consider the Authorship mystery-- Players Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, is the author of is an enjoyable read: attractively produced, the works attributed to Shakespeare is the quality of paper, even the dustjacket entirely plausible. That is why it is false. (with its cover art by Raquel Jaramillo, a The claim that William Shaxsper of fanciful portrait of Will whose features and sensibility lie somewhere between the Chandos and the Ashbourne) pleasant to the touch, the burnished parchment color neatly evoking Shakespeare’s era. If you By methods about which we can take issue with the little volume’s only posit conjectures, scholarship, remember, you are probably not its target audience. Shakespeare managed to cajole And if Fields invites you to dinner, by all Oxford into using—in his own means, go. correspondence and anonymous and pseudonymous plays and poetry—phrases and turns of phrase which later turn up in their refined and beautified form in the immortal works of the immortal Bard. Shakespeare caused de Vere to use locutions that did not appear in public until long after the Earl’s death in 1604.

Stratford-Upon-Avon, to all evidences an illiterate, is the true creator of those works is not just implausible but preposterous. Therefore it is true.

Shakespeare tormented poor Oxford for the entire lifetime of that tormented lord. It is the solemn duty of all responsible Shakespearean scholars to continue the Shakespeare Fellowship Founding member Betty Sears with Mignarda members Ron torment of Oxford and his champions even Andronico and Donna Stewart at the 2005 Ashland Conference. to the edge of doom. Fall 2005 Shakespeare Matters page 31

“Shakespeare tormented poor Oxford for the entire lifetime of that tormented lord. It is the solemn duty of all responsible Shakespearean scholars to continue the torment of Oxford and his champions even to the edge of doom.”

Winking Bard designed for the Shakespeare Fellowship by Katherine Berney

Subscribe to Shakespeare Matters Regular member: Name:______e-member ($20/year)__ (Website; online newsletter) Address:______One year ($40/$50 overseas)__ Two year ($75/$105 overseas)___ City:______State:____ZIP:______Three year ($110/$155 overseas)___

Phone:______email:______Family/Institution: One year ($60/$75 overseas)___ Two year ($115/$145 overseas)___ Check enclosed____Or... Credit card___ MC___ Visa___ Three years ($170/$215 os)___

Name on card:______Patron ($75/year or over):___ Card number:______Exp. date:_____ Total: ____ Signature:______

Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 421, Hudson, MA 01749. page 32 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2005

Shakespeare Fellowship Members Earl Showerman (MD) and Ren Draya (Phd, English), with special panel- ists James Newcomb (Richard III) and Robin Goodrin-Nordli (Margerat) of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival Richard III cast at the Fellowship’s October Conference in Ashland, Oregon (Details Inside).

Shakespeare Matters Inside this issue: The Voice of the Shakespeare Fellowship Oxford’s Torment P. O. Box 65335 Baltimore, MD 21209 Address correction requested The Crown Signature Re- vealed

Falstaff in the Low Coun- tries

Authorship Beyond Shakespeare