DOCSLIB.ORG

New Book Documents Connections of the Poems of Edward De Vere to the Works of Shakespeare

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
New Book Documents Connections of the Poems of Edward De Vere to the Works of Shakespeare www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org NEWS April 22, 2019 Additional Information Contact: Steven Sabel (951)532-6803 [email protected] FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE New book documents connections of the poems of Edward de Vere to the works of Shakespeare NATIONAL – A new publication of collected lyric and narrative poetry of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford includes documented connections between particular phraseology in Oxford’s early poems and derivative forms found in the works of Shakespeare. “The Poems of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford . and the Shakespeare Question: He that Takes the Pain to Pen the Book,” edited by Roger Stritmatter, PhD, is now available through Amazon. “Often an idea, figure of speech, or particular phraseology that originates in de Vere’s poems gets recycled multiple times with slight variations over time in the Shakespeare plays and poems,” said Stritmatter, professor of humanities at Coppin State University. Stritmatter led a team of more than a dozen researchers and collaborators through more than three years of research and writing to assemble thousands of linguistic parallelisms between the de Vere poems, and the plays and poems of Shakespeare. The range and variety of these parallelisms are sampled in detailed notes that walk the reader through this collection of 21 poems attributed to de Vere, and another 11 poems possibly written by de Vere. “Over and again we discovered elements that occur first in de Vere and later in derivative forms in Shakespeare. It is clear that the book represents a significant breakthrough for the Oxfordian hypothesis,” Stritmatter said. “He that Takes the Pain to Pen the Book” is the first volume in a series of “Brief Chronicles” books under the general editorship of Stritmatter for the Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship, a non- profit organization dedicated to supporting research and discussion of the Shakespeare Authorship Question. “A comparative study of Oxford’s place in the development of Elizabethan poetics in these volumes makes it apparent that by a very early date, the young Earl was anticipating what “Shakespeare” would later do,” said Tom Regnier, immediate past president of SOF, and coordinator of publishing the “Brief Chronicles” series. - more - PR/Page 2. The next two projected volumes in the series are a second volume of de Vere poems due out in May, and a book on the pedagogy of the authorship question scheduled to publish in October. “The foremost 19th century British literary scholar, Alexander Grosart, referring to Oxford in 1872, declared that an ‘unlifted shadow…lies over his memory.’ The series aims to uplift the shadow to restore a man whose reputation has long been eclipsed by error, envy, and obfuscation,” Regnier said. Key contributors to the project included Gary Goldstein, editor of “The Oxfordian,” an annual peer reviewed journal of the Early Modern Period and Shakespeare’s works; Robert R. Prechter, CMT, president of Elliott Wave International; and Bryan H. Wildenthal, JD, professor of law emeritus, Thomas Jefferson School of Law. “Perhaps the most gratifying aspect of writing this book has been to follow the neurolinguistic pathways of the bard’s imagination as revealed by systematic study,” said Stritmatter. “It was also exciting to work with so many volunteers to assemble the book’s intricate documentation of the close cognitive and emotional connections between the young de Vere and the mature works of Shakespeare.” Stritmatter says the book contests the popular misconception of de Vere as an “intellectual lightweight,” “monstrous adversary,” and “rotten poet.” “On the contrary, closely examined through and in his poetry, de Vere emerges as a deeply studied and original poetic voice,” Stritmatter said. “In a piece of scholarly disruption, the book transforms what has been widely conjectured as a weakness of the Oxfordian case into one of its strongest planks. De Vere’s poems constitute essential missing elements of evidence in the Shakespearean question.” Stritmatter has studied Shakespeare authorship for more than 25 years. He is included in more than 100 publications listed in the “Index to Oxfordian Publications.” In 2001 he completed his University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation on the de Vere Geneva Bible, owned by the Folger Shakespeare Library. His most recent work on a lost-and-found Herman Melville manuscript appeared in the Baltimore Sun. At a time of year when the Stratfordian establishment is often commemorating the life of the man from Stratford-upon-Avon, Stritmatter’s new book furthers growing implications that history has identified the wrong man as the author of the works of Shakespeare. “Publication of this copiously documented study explodes a central myth of the Stratfordian ideology by documenting a series of profound linguistic connections between the poetry of the 17th Earl of Oxford and the works of Shakespeare. The implications of these findings for the study of the authorship question and Shakespeare generally, are difficult to overestimate. ### Roger Stritmatter, PhD, is a professor of humanities and literature at Coppin State University with numerous publications in peer reviewed journals of literary studies, psychoanalysis, anthropology, and forensic studies. His 2001 University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation on the de Vere Geneva Bible, owned by the Folger Shakespeare library, was featured in a February 10, 2002 NYT article. The 2017 fourth edition of the “Index to Oxfordian Publications” identifies 116 articles by him, more than 20 in peer reviewed academic journals, including “The Shakespeare Yearbook,” “Review of English Studies,” “Notes and Queries,” and the “Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review.” He is the author, with award-winning young adult novelist, Lynne Kositsky, of “On the Date, Sources, and Design of Shakespeare’s ‘The Tempest’” (McFarland 2013) and, with Alexander Waugh, “A New Shakespeare Allusion Book: Literary Allusions to Shakespeare, 1584-1786 from Historical Principles.” He has appeared in two Shakespeare authorship documentaries, “Last Will. and Testament” (2012) and “Nothing Truer than the Truth” (2018). .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Summary of the Known Historical Records
    Records for WS Section A Distribution Strat Stratford Record (including marriage licence issued in Worcester). Section A below. Lon London Record (including references in records of playing companies). Sections B & C. PR Publication Record (title pages & Stationers’ Register). Section E. LA Literary Allusion (mainly printed, some handwritten). Sections C & D Strat / Lon PR / LA 1564 Strat 65 66 67 68 69 1570 The lost years of Childhood, 71 Education, and Youth 72 73 After his baptism in 1564, there is no record of William Shakspere until the issue of a marriage 74 licence in Worcester in 1582. 75 76 77 78 79 1580 81 82 Strat Marriage licence 83 Strat Named as father of Susanna 84 85 Strat 2 Feb. Named as father of Hamnet & Judeth 86 The lost years of early manhood 87 88 (Lon) William Shakspere is mentioned only once – in a legal document as heir to a disputed portion of 89 land. This record does not say where he was or 1590 what he was doing. 91 1 Strat / Lon PR / LA (LA) The cryptic allusion in Groatsworth might refer to William 1592 Shakespeare, or it might not 93 PR Named in dedication of Venus & Adonis 94 PR Named in dedication of Lucrece 95 Lon LA Strat Lon Named in Stratford as the father of Hamnet, deceased. 96 Bound over in London to keep the peace (Langley writ). 97 Strat 98 Strat Lon PR LA Lon PR LA Eight records only: Cited as author on four title pages; 99 mentioned twice as tax defaulter; twice elsewhere. 1600 PR 01 02 Strat PR 03 Lon PR 04 Lon PR LA 05 Strat Lon PR 06 The lost London years of middle-age.
    [Show full text]
  • Redating Pericles: a Re-Examination of Shakespeare’S
    REDATING PERICLES: A RE-EXAMINATION OF SHAKESPEARE’S PERICLES AS AN ELIZABETHAN PLAY A THESIS IN Theatre Presented to the Faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS by Michelle Elaine Stelting University of Missouri Kansas City December 2015 © 2015 MICHELLE ELAINE STELTING ALL RIGHTS RESERVED REDATING PERICLES: A RE-EXAMINATION OF SHAKESPEARE’S PERICLES AS AN ELIZABETHAN PLAY Michelle Elaine Stelting, Candidate for the Master of Arts Degree University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2015 ABSTRACT Pericles's apparent inferiority to Shakespeare’s mature works raises many questions for scholars. Was Shakespeare collaborating with an inferior playwright or playwrights? Did he allow so many corrupt printed versions of his works after 1604 out of indifference? Re-dating Pericles from the Jacobean to the Elizabethan era answers these questions and reveals previously unexamined connections between topical references in Pericles and events and personalities in the court of Elizabeth I: John Dee, Philip Sidney, Edward de Vere, and many others. The tournament impresas, alchemical symbolism of the story, and its lunar and astronomical imagery suggest Pericles was written long before 1608. Finally, Shakespeare’s focus on father-daughter relationships, and the importance of Marina, the daughter, as the heroine of the story, point to Pericles as written for a young girl. This thesis uses topical references, Shakespeare’s anachronisms, Shakespeare’s sources, stylometry and textual analysis, as well as Henslowe’s diary, the Stationers' Register, and other contemporary documentary evidence to determine whether there may have been versions of Pericles circulating before the accepted date of 1608.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Fhe Shakespeare :7Vewsletter
    'fhe Shakespeare :7Vewsletter Vo 1.35:no.4 "L et me study so, to know the thing I am fo rbid to know" Winter 2000 Shakespeare's Society opens its library, "Bad Law" establishes an EndowlTIent A journey through Two long-standing goals becon1e realities the history of through the generosity of our supporters the argUl1'lents notiler major step has been taken in the Shakespeare Oxford Society's By MarkAndreAlexander Aadvancement of Oxfordian author­ n Shakespeare, IN FA CT (1994), Irvin ship research. Leigh Matus attempts to dispose of any With several significant grantsand do­ notions that Shakespeare had a fo rmal nations already received this year, we have legalI education and used legal terms accu­ been able to take major steps within the past several months in fulfillmentof several long­ rately: standing goals of the Society: a permanent Shakespeare Oxford Society Endowment The question of his legal knowledge has Fund has been established, and the Society been most recently [sic] tackled by O. Hood has rented (in Malden, MA) space to house Phillips, aj urist, legal scholar and educator, in its library, archives and office. The library Shakespeare and the Lawyers. In the chapter, consists of book collections donated to the "Did Shakespeare have a Legal Training?" he Society over the years, with the gathered and summarized the varying opin­ CheJyle Sims, one of the Directors of the centerpiece being the Victor Crichton ions that have been handed down. The most Gertrude C. Ford Foundation, addressed Collection. reliable assessment oftheplay wright' s knowl­ For many years it had been a goal ofthe the Conference at the Saturday luncheon, edge of law, in his opinion, is that of P.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief Chronicles Vol
    Brief Chronicles Vol. I (2009) i Brief Chronicles: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Authorship Studies General Editor: Roger Stritmatter Managing Editor: Gary Goldstein Editorial Board: Carole Chaski PhD, Institute for Linguistic Evidence, United States Michael Delahoyde PhD, Washington State University, United States Ren Draya, PhD, Blackburn College, United States Sky Gilbert, PhD, University of Guelph, Canada Geoffrey M. Hodgson, PhD, University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom Warren Hope, PhD, Montgomery County Community College, United States Mike Hyde, PhD, English, Tufts University, United States Felicia Hardison Londré, PhD University of Missouri, Kansas City, United States Donald Ostrowski, PhD, Harvard University, United States Tom Regnier, JD, LLM, University of Miami School of Law, United States Sarah Smith, PhD Richard Waugaman, MD, Georgetown University School of Medicine and Washing- ton Psychoanalytic Institute, United States Copy Editors: Wenonah Sharpe Alex McNeil Kathryn M Sharpe Brief Chronicles Vol. I (2009) ii The editors wish to thank Richard Paul Roe for his generosity in making possible this printed version of Brief Chronicles’ inaugural issue. Copyright 2009 The Shakespeare Fellowship ISSN Pending Brief Chronicles Vol. I (2009) iii Vol 1 (2009) Inaugural Issue Table of Contents Articles Welcome to Brief Chronicles Roger A. Stritmatter, Gary Goldstein 1-7 Censorship in the Strange Case of William Shakespeare Winifred L. Frazer 9-28 The Psychology of the Authorship Question Richard Waugaman 29-39 The Fall of the
    [Show full text]
  • How Shakespeare Got His Tempest That Is by Now Wearing Intellectually Threadbare
    Brief Chronicles Vol. I (2009) 205 !"#$%&'()*+)',)$-".$!/*$!"#$"%&0$ 12".&),$345*.$%"6$%.",7 Roger Stritmatter and Lynne Kositsky Abstract !e one-hundred-year tradition identifying William Strachey’s True Reportory (TR)* as a paramount Tempest source and in"uence is rooted in a history of critical error and omission and contradicted by a host of stubborn facts about TR’s genesis and textuality. Alden Vaughan’s recent critique of our Review of English Studies article perpetuates this tradition of error, failing to provide a substantive critique of the theory that TR, as subsequently published in 1625, was not completed until at least 1612, far too late for it to have been a Tempest source. !e recent discovery in Bermuda of an early draft of the Strachey manuscript, lacking in plausible ties to !e Tempest, compounds the crisis of the orthodox paradigm by supplying a textual exemplar con#rming our argument: !at if any version of Strachey’s text returned on the July 1610 Gates’ voyage, it would have been a much abbreviated draft lacking the literary and rhetorical "ourishes of the published document. Neither Vaughan nor the sources on which he depends (Kathman, Cawley, etc.) have established evidence “from sign” of TR’s in"uence on Tempest; a far more persuasive source of Shakespeare’s New World imagery and ethos is Richard Eden’s 1555 translation of Iberian travel narratives, Decades of the Newe Worlde. * Abbreviations used in this article: TR=True Reportory; TD=True Declaration of the Estate of the Colony in Virginia (S122265); B=Hume manuscript of early TR draft; Discovery=Jourdain’s Discovery of the Barmudas (S109240); PP=Purchas His Pilgrimes (S111862); H of T= History of Travail in Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford by the Numbers: What Are the Odds That the Earl of Oxford Could Have Written Shakespeare’S Poems and Plays?
    OXFORD BY THE NUMBERS: WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT THE EARL OF OXFORD COULD HAVE WRITTEN SHAKESPEARE’S POEMS AND PLAYS? WARD E.Y. ELLIOTT AND ROBERT J. VALENZA* Alan Nelson and Steven May, the two leading Oxford documents scholars in the world, have shown that, although many documents connect William Shakspere of Stratford to Shakespeare’s poems and plays, no documents make a similar connection for Oxford. The documents, they say, support Shakespeare, not Oxford. Our internal- evidence stylometric tests provide no support for Oxford. In terms of quantifiable stylistic attributes, Oxford’s verse and Shakespeare’s verse are light years apart. The odds that either could have written the other’s work are much lower than the odds of getting hit by lightning. Several of Shakespeare’s stylistic habits did change during his writing lifetime and continued to change years after Oxford’s death. Oxfordian efforts to fix this problem by conjecturally re-dating the plays twelve years earlier have not helped his case. The re-datings are likewise ill- documented or undocumented, and even if they were substantiated, they would only make Oxford’s stylistic mismatches with early Shakespeare more glaring. Some Oxfordians now concede that Oxford differs from Shakespeare but argue that the differences are developmental, like those between a caterpillar and a butterfly. This argument is neither documented nor plausible. It asks us to believe, without supporting evidence, that at age forty-three, Oxford abruptly changed seven to nine of his previously constant writing habits to match those of Shakespeare and then froze all but four habits again into Shakespeare’s likeness for the rest of his writing days.
    [Show full text]
  • Dudley Pragmatechnic.Pdf (181.9Kb)
    Brief Chronicles VI (2015) 187 Insularity, Omission and Exclusion at Cambridge University Press A Review Essay on Shakespeare and the Digital World: Rede!ning Scholarship and Practice (Cambridge, 2015) Michael Dudley ecently, in the process of moving some !le boxes of papers from our home to my o"ce at the university, I was pleasantly surprised to !nd among them documents from the early 1990s—old Shakespeare Oxford Society newsletters, photocopied articles and chapters on the Shakespeare Authorship Question obtained via interlibrary loan, as well as correspondence with other Oxfordians. It was a reminder of those (now almost unimaginable) days before the arrival of the World Wide Web, when authorship research and the means of engaging with others interested in it was comparatively slow and di"cult, was con!ned to paper, micro!lm, email and listservs, and, if not entirely invisible to the mainstream, then very easily excluded and dismissed. A quarter century on, scholarship and pedagogy across the disciplines have been radically enhanced and transformed by digital resources, online publishing and social media. In the case of the SAQ, these tools have granted new audiences access to resources long available only to in-person scholars, while enabling the discourse on Shakespeare’s identity to become increasingly heated and to penetrate ever closer to —and actually in#uence —the mainstream.1 $is in#uence is clearly evident (if deliberately muted) in Christie Carson’s and Peter Kirwan’s new edited collection, Shakespeare and the Digital World: Rede!ning Scholarship and Practice, a useful but compromised e%ort to chart the digital future of Shakespeare studies, teaching and performance.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsweek Thread 5Mb
    1,452 comments Add a comment Tom Regnier · Follow · President at Shakespeare Oxford Fellowship In order to believe that the Stratford man was Shakespeare, it is necessary to suppose that the son of illiterate parents, for whom there is no evidence that he ever went to school, ever wrote a letter, or ever owned a book, somehow attained a world-class education that included fluency in several languages, a deep understanding of law, medicine, classical mythology, aristocratic sports, science, philosophy, Greek drama, heraldry, the military, and Italy, among other subjects, thereby becoming one of the most literate people of the Elizabethan Age, and gained all this knowledge without leaving a clue as to how he did it. Yes, the author of the plays had native genius, but he also had tremendous book learning. I have taught a law school course on Shakespeare's knowledge of the law. There wouldn't be enough material to do that with any other Elizabethan playwright. Reply · Like · 47 · Follow Post · January 1 at 2:37am Roger Stritmatter · Follow · Top Commenter · Associate Professor at Coppin State University As usual, an elegant synopsis from Tom Regnier. In other words, the whole is more than the sum of its parts. All these problems, and many more, afflict the orthodox account and help to explain why it is now in decline. Further details are available here: http://www.shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/ Reply · Like · 25 · Edited · January 1 at 4:18am Mark Johnson · Top Commenter In order to believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote Shakespeare it is only necessary to examine and accept the direct and circumstantial evidence provided by the extant historical record.
    [Show full text]
  • “Publish We This Peace…”: a Note on the Design of the Shakespeare First Folio and the Spanish Marriage Crisis
    Stritmatter - Publish We this Peace 111 “Publish We This Peace…”: A Note on the Design of the Shakespeare First Folio and the Spanish Marriage Crisis Roger Stritmatter alph Waldo Emerson, writing long before J.T. Looney, observed that R“Shakespeare is a voice merely: who and what he was that sang, that sings, we know not.” Emerson’s recognition of the futility of the orthodox Shakespeare biography was not without precedent. Ben Jonson warns his his 1623 Folio encomium of “seeliest ignorance” misconstruing the contents of the book. Yet, the folio to which Jonson prefixed this sober warning is one which which has for a long time now been acquiring the reputation of an a “ancient and very fishlike smell,” partly for the reasons indicated in greater detail elsewhere in this volume. Early 20th century scholars such as George Greenwood or Gerald Rendall thought they knew the reason for the smell. If you want to hide the writer, what better way than to pin someone else’s face to the cover of his work? When Sidney Lee finally threw down the gauntlet of folio editor Ben Jonson’s authority as the first “Stratfordian,” Greenwood smiled and replied, without missing a beat, “we of the heretical persuasion can afford to smile. For we see no reason to suppose that Jonson might not have taken the course we attribute to him [i.e. participate in a conspiratorial hoax] and considered himself quite justified in doing so….” (27). To Gerald H. Rendall, an early Oxfordian known primarily for the influence his two books on The Sonnets exercised on Sigmund Freud, proposed Jonson as the “skilled and most effective agent of anonymity” (7).
    [Show full text]
  • The Virginia Company's Role in the Tempest Barry R. Clarke
    Barry R. Clarke, ‘The Virginia Company’s role in The Tempest’ in Petar Penda, editor, The Whirlwind of Passion: New Critical Perspectives on William Shakespeare (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016). The Virginia Company’s role in The Tempest Barry R. Clarke In December 1606, the London Virginia Council succeeded in persuading several merchant companies and noblemen to finance a new settlement in Virginia.1 Assured of a share in the gold that the Spanish had earlier reported, 2 the adventurers committed enough money to despatch three ships and 144 planters from Blackwall stairs on the Thames across the Atlantic.3 After being delayed for six weeks by strong winds, Captain James Newport found a long passage past the Canaries and the West Indies, and although his navigation eventually failed him, a storm fortuitously delivered him to the Virginia coastline. As the first wave of colonists sailed into Cape Henry on 26 April 1607, the tide of expectation was high, and after sailing forty miles down the River James they pitched a three- sided fort on the north side. Unfortunately, the marshy ground proved to be unwholesome, and typhoid and dysentery soon struck down the new settlers.4 Disease, native attacks, a divided governing body, but mainly famine, eventually brought them to desperation, and only Captain John Smith’s ingenuity and persistence in trading for corn with the Indian chief Powhaton saved the colony from extinction. 1 The voyages sent to Virginia were partly funded by merchant companies such as the Clothworkers Company, the Fishmongers Company, and the Stationer's Company. 2 Alexander Brown, Genesis of the United States, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Narcissus (1595) and the Affair at Blackfriars
    Winter 2007 Shakespeare Matters page 1 6:2 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments..." Winter 2007 “Tilting Under Frieries”: Narcissus (1595) and the Affair At Blackfriars ver since the printing of W.E. Buckley’s 1882 Roxburghe Club limited edition1 of Thomas Edwardes’ Cephalus & EProcris and Narcissus,2 printed from the unique Peterborough copy of the 1595 quarto, the Narcissus L’envoy has posed an enigma for literary historians. Although convoluted syntax complicates analysis, the L’envoy unambiguously functions as an honorific catalogue of major Elizabethan poets: Spenser, Daniel, and Marlowe are all implicated under their respective sobri-quets, as Collyn Clout (v.1), Rosamond (vii.1), and Leander (vii.3).3 The Shakspere Allusion Book4 identifies the passage “Adon 5 6 7 Dr. Robin Fox, Professor of Social Theory at Rutgers University and deafly masking thro,/stately troupes rich conceited” (ix.1-2) as former director of the Guggenheim Foundation headlined the 2006 a reference to the 1593 satiric epyllion Venus and Adonis and, by Joint Conference of the Shakespeare Fellowship and the synecdoche, to Shakespeare himself, an identification followed by Shakespeare Oxford Society Katherine Duncan-Jones among others.8 Stanzas immediately following the Adonis passage have, however, puzzled scholars by reference to an unidentified poet-dramatist whose “golden art” and nd “bewitching pen” should have made him “of our rime/The only 2 Annual Joint Conference object and the star” (x.5-6). Ingleby includes these stanzas in his in Ann Arbor a Success excerpt but remarks that the poet “has not been identified”: 9 Eke in purple roabes distaind, Amid’st the Center of this clime, wo distinguished visitors — Brigham Young University I have heard saie doth remaine, Scholar-in-residence Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • A Law Case in Verse: Venus and Adonis and the Authorship Question
    A LAW CASE IN VERSE: VENUS AND ADONIS AND THE AUTHORSHIP QUESTION ROGER STRITMATTER* This Article analyzes the history of scholarship on Venus and Adonis to highlight outstanding contradictions which cast doubt on orthodox premises of authorship. Although this Article suggests that orthodox literary critics have failed to contextualize the poem, in either a psychological or a cultural sense, the alternative theory that Edward de Vere was the poem’s true author also raises significant interpretative questions. The Venus and Adonis dedicatory epistle conspicuously honors Henry Wriosthesley, Third Earl of Southampton, in a public communication subscribed “William Shakespeare.” Why would the true author, if he were someone other than the apparent signatory to the epistle, have gone to such lengths to conceal himself? This Article answers this question by examining three types of literary evidence: the cultural and political context of the poem’s composition and publication, the language and figures of the text itself, and finally, the many imitations and parodies which the poem inspired during several decades (1593-1649) following its initial publication. When read as an element in this larger cultural gestalt, the poem itself yields a provocative and convincing justification for the alleged concealment policy. Superficially, Venus and Adonis provides compelling evidence for the orthodox view of Shakespearean authorship, which attributes the works to William Shakspere1 of Stratford-upon-Avon. As shown in Figure One, the dedicatory epistle to Henry Wriothesley, Third Earl of Southampton, is * Roger Stritmatter holds a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature from the University of Massachusetts. He has published articles in a variety of academic and non-academic publications, including Notes and Queries, Dialectical Anthropology, The Elizabethan Review, and The Oxfordian.
    [Show full text]