Vol.3:no.1 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments..." Fall 2003 William Drive, they said Camden As the year winds down amid revised Shake- What did he say, and speare bios, authorship novels and anti-Oxford- when did he say it? ian tracts, is there any doubt who’s driving? By Paul H. Altrocchi, MD n the 20 years since Charlton Ogburn’s The Truth hath a quiet breast. (Richard II) IMysterious William Shakespeare reignited the he prolific William Camden is authorship debate there has recognized as England’s first been a steady progression of Tinfluential historian. Born in 1551 interest in the issue and a and buried in Westminster Abbey in 1623, regular appearance of it in his 72 years spanned all but the first year of both the major media (PBS’s Edward de Vere’s life and bridged the entire Frontline, Atlantic Monthly, life of William Shaksper of Stratford-on- Harpers, Time, US News and Avon. World Report, The New York Camden graduated from Oxford at age Times, etc.) and on the cam- puses of some academic in- 20, then toured Europe before joining the Two books published this summer have upped the ante stitutions. In addition, the faculty of Westminster School in 1575, on the centuries-old authorship debate. Michael Wood’s In emergence of the internet in becoming headmaster in 1593. One of his Search of Shakespeare (r) and Prof. Alan Nelson’s biography of the 1990s has undoubtedly pupils was Ben Jonson. As a hobby, Camden Oxford, Monstrous Adversary (l) are a one-two punch counter- offensive that belie the notion that there is no authorship debate. fostered even more interest traveled throughout the British Isles (Continued on page 6) collecting information on its cities and towns, including their worthy citizens and Book Review their contributions to English culture. Two generations of Oxfordians have known that Camden, in describing Nelson’s new Oxford biography noteworthy persons from Stratford-on- Avon in his Britannia, failed to mention One man’s interpretation of the record either William Shaksper or the playwright By Richard Whalen 1,1a William Shakespeare. The details of Monstrous Adversary: The Life of speare because of the scandalous incidents that important omission, not hitherto Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Ox- in his life and his allegedly poor spelling. described, are presented here and the ford. By Alan H. Nelson. Liverpool Nelson admits to a “harsh judgment” of significance for the authorship debate is University Press, 2003. Oxford’s character, a judgment that is reassessed. largely justifiable. Oxford did lead an ec- fter trolling for primary source docu- centric, tumultuous, sometimes scandal- Camden’s books ments in the archives for years, Alan ous life, but that does not preclude him ANelson has emerged with a flawed from having written the great plays and Camden’s major works were:2,2a biography of the 17th Earl of Oxford as an poems. To the contrary, it argues that like Elizabethan curiosity who, by the way, many other writers of genius who were (Continued on page 12) could not have written the works of Shake- (Continued on page 20) page 2 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003

Chamberlain’s Men or the King’s Men.” To the Editor: Letters: Wrong, Al! In 1947 the renowned Ox- fordian scholar A. Bronson Feldman found It occurs to me that your readers may To the Editor: the connection between Robert Armin be interested to learn of developments that (called “Shakespeare’s Jester” by T. W. followed my recent article concerning the As an attendee of the Smithsonian semi- Baldwin) and Oxford, whom Armin de- lost letter of Wilton, and the Shakespeare nar detailed so ably by Peter Rush in your scribes as his “Maister,” and whom he plans House(“We have the man Shakespeare,” last issue (Summer 2003), I enjoyed the to visit in Hackney. The only “Maister” Shakespeare Matters, Spring 2003, pp. 1, author’s popping of several Stratfordian Armin could have served who lived in Hack- 8-13). balloons. And I agree with Rush that future ney at the time he wrote (1599) was the In August I was approached by a jour- debates should be framed: “Resolved: 17th Earl of Oxford (see the Shakespeare nalist working for the German TV Com- Shakespeare of Stratford is the author of Oxford Society Newsletter, Autumn, 1973, pany, WDR, who asked me to give an inter- Shakespeare’s poems and plays.” Posed pp. 9-12). view at Wilton House. A film crew had been this way, Stratfordians are forced to pro- If the quality of the alleged “proofs” sent over to England to prepare a documen- vide positive evidence for a shaky hypoth- that Prof. Nelson promises in his forthcom- tary for their German audience concerning esis and our side has only to knock it down, ing book Monstrous Adversary are of the the connection between de Vere and Shake- plus have the last word. This letter is only to quality as his Smithsonian statements, Ox- speare. Filming took place in September at add my own two cents worth. fordians have little to fear. Wilton House in front of the Holbein Porch, Of all the comments made by panelists referred to in the past as Shakespeare’s on either side, the most bordering on ob- Gordon C. Cyr House. noxious were those of Prof. Alan Nelson Baltimore, Maryland I therefore had ample opportunity to (U.C. Berkeley). A single smug assertion of 7 August 2003 examine it, take photographs and make his (cited by Rush on page 13) is typical of further enquiries. In the course of doing so, the tone set by his arguments. In one breath, (For some initial reaction to Nelson’s just I was informed that the Porch had recently it contains at least two egregious abuses of published biography of Oxford (Monstrous been surveyed and it was then confirmed legitimate debating tactics: “I’ve been in Adversary), see Richard Whalen’s review begin- that it did indeed date back to the time of Sir this business [for years] [argumentum ex ning on page 1, and also Roger Stritmatter’s Philip Sidney’s sister, Lady Mary Herbert. cathedra], and I’ve never heard that sugges- commentary on pages 8-9, re: Nelson’s anti- At the top of the porch I observed the feudal tion, (see below) and it seems to me abso- Oxfordian agenda in publishing Monstrous. — coats of arms to which previous reference lutely impossible [hyperbole].” Ed.) has been made, although their detail is now Indeed, the professor’s overuse of the adverb “absolutely” drew frequent laugh- ter from the audience, especially after Jo- Shakespeare Matters Subscriptions to Shakespeare Matters are seph Sobran uttered an exasperated rejoin- Published quarterly by the $40 per year ($20 for online issues only). der to Nelson’s constant putdowns of The Shakespeare Fellowship Family or institution subscriptions are $60 per year. Patrons of the Fellowship are $75 and up. Oxford’s verse and prose: “I wish I were as Send subscription requests to: certain of anything as he [Nelson] is of Honorary Trustees: Sir Derek Jacobi, Michael York The Shakespeare Fellowship everything.” P.O. Box 561 If Alan Nelson really “never heard” that Editorial Offices Belmont MA 02478 plays were performed in private homes, P.O. Box 263 The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowship this statement in itself raises serious ques- Somerville, MA 02143 is to promote public awareness and acceptance tions about the professor’s qualifications of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by to lecture anti-Stratfordians on any aspect Editor: Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550- William Boyle 1604), and further to encourage a high level of of “this business” in which he claims such scholarly research and publication into all long experience. The contrary position that Contributing Editors: aspects of Shakespeare studies, and also into the Nelson favors—i.e. that Shakespeare only Mark Anderson, Dr. Charles Berney, history and culture of the Elizabethan era. Charles Boyle, Dr. Felicia Londre, The Society was founded and incorporated wrote plays for “his company,” the Lord Lynne Kositsky, Alex McNeil, in 2001 in the State of Massachusetts and is Chamberlain’s Men—was demolished 95 Dr. Anne Pluto, Elisabeth Sears, chartered under the membership corporation years ago by Sir George Greenwood in The Dr. Roger Stritmatter, Richard Whalen, laws of that state.It is a recognized 501(c)(3) Hank Whittemore, Dr. Daniel L. Wright non-profit (Fed ID 04-3578550). Shakespeare Problem Restated (London, Dues, grants and contributions are tax- 1908). Phone (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-3411 deductible to the extent allowed by law Fax (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-4258 All contents copyright ©2003 And speaking of Shakespeare’s alleged email: [email protected] The Shakespeare Fellowship company, Nelson misstates the facts when Shakespeare Matters welcomes articles, essays, he is quoted on page 14 as saying that commentary, book reviews, letters and news items. Contributions should be reasonably concise and, when “there is no connection whatsoever be- appropriate, validated by peer review. The views expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the tween Oxford and any aspect of the Lord Fellowship as a literary and educational organization. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 3 largely indistinct from a ground view. From the Editor There are also several portrait busts accompanying these emblems, but no at- Reality check tempt has been made by the House to iden- tify who they were intended to represent. As we begin our third year of publishing mines the realities of William of Stratford’s Shakespeare Matters there is no shortage family and life—along with the politics of Inside the Porch are pedestals standing in of news in the ongoing Shakespeare au- Elizabethan England—to make him more each corner. But the busts they once sup- thorship story. Our lead story, “Drive, they real than any previous biography had ever ported have since been removed. At the said,” plus book reviews and commentar- dared, thus filling—Wood hopes—the back of my mind I half remember reading ies from our regular contributors, all focus mundane void that drove Samuel a description in the County Record Office on the significant development that two Schoenbaum to despair, and, of course, at Trowbridge that the Porch had contained mainstream books were published over confirming that he is indeed Shakespeare. busts of classical figures. The inscription the summer that engage the Oxfordian Finally, enter Vickers, who, even as he taken from Macbeth, which Edward Rose movement headon—even though one book rakes unscholarly scholars over the coals reported he saw and then quoted, is no doesn’t mention Oxfordians at all, and the for letting their desire to prove a thesis longer there. other mentions them only long enough to “blind them,” then goes out of his way to The House manager confirmed that the dismiss them! remind his readers that Stratman was in- But make no mistake, engagement is deed Shakespeare, and that notions of Porch is not accessible to the public. How- the real story behind the story. And we “concealed autobiography” in the Sonnets ever, an accompanied tour can be orga- might add that our review of Brian Vickers’s is just a “silly form of reductivism.” nized by prior arrangement to include the 2002 book Counterfeiting Shakespeare While the phrase “reality check” is Porch. I was then taken into the House and (pages 18-19) should also be considered in somewhat of a cliche, it still seems to us to shown the courtyard where the Porch had evaluating the current state of the debate, be an apt description of what is going on once stood, and for added interest shown a circa 2003, for in it Vickers is taking to task here. In the broadest sense it means that portrait of Edward de Vere’s son, Henry, his fellow scholars over The Funeral Elegy Stratfordians are engaging Oxfordians on which hangs nearby. There was also talk fiasco in yet another authorship story driven our turf, i.e. that the reality of an author’s from the representative of WDR about link- by Oxfordians. life is inexorably embedded in his work. ing Wilton House with Burghley House and The common thread here is reality. For We are now witnessing Stratfordians the Globe Theatre, in order to provide plays some of us—perhaps even many of us or all going in three directions at once in these of us—the moment when we realized that most recent exchanges in the authorship with an Elizabethan theme for summer the Shakespeare authorship debate was for debate. Nelson claims the “reality” of audiences. Wilton House expressed inter- real, and that Oxford was the true Shake- Oxford’s life means he can’t be Shake- est in this idea since it would bring more speare, was the realization that the author speare (even as he deceitfully omits all visitors to the House. I shall be interested to was of course writing about himself and his parallels between Oxford’s life and Shake- see if anything further develops. world; the universal greatness of Shake- speare from his book), while Wood co-opts The German documentary is to be shown speare is built on the foundation of a life the reality/biography argument to make at a later date, still to be arranged, and lived, not a life imagined. This is why these real the Stratford man as Shakespeare the efforts are being made to have it shown at recent developments in the authorship author. And Vickers, meanwhile, even as he length on British TV. In this respect an debate are so intriguing. confronts the mismatch of Elegy and Shake- excerpt from it will be shown in a 15- With Prof. Alan Nelson’s book the real- speare, brings us back to the past as he minute slot on breakfast TV in England on ity of Oxford’s life is interpreted to con- argues the old saw that autobiography in demn him and declare him (implicitly) to poetry is “silly” and that a Stratford gram- November 28. I understand Mark Rylance, not be Shakespeare, while Michael Wood mar school education can explain all. director of the Globe theatre in London, and, I believe, Charles Beauclerk talking Congratulations, Dr. Stritmatter from Castle Hedingham, are also taking Of special interest to all our readers is colleagues and students. part in the documentary. Evidence from the news that Fellowship trustee and news- In fact, a special event has already been Burghley House is also to be included. letter editorial Board member Roger placed on the campus calendar, and Roger I was also informed that video record- Stritmatter has been hired as an Instructor will be speaking on November 20th on ings of the documentary, which of course at Coppin State College in Baltimore, Mary- “Much Ado about Something: Searching include the Porch, are to be made available, land. Dr. Stritmatter moved there at the for Shake-speare and the Shape of Intellec- although I assume these will be in the beginning of September and is now busily tual History.” As we go to press we already German language. engaged in a full schedule of classroom know of a number of Roger’s friends and I will keep Shakespeare Matters read- teaching and other special events at the his Fellowship members who will be on hand, ers apprised of any further developments as new home. in addition to some of Roger’s new neigh- I learn of them. His duties are teaching composition, bors in Baltimore, among whom are Dr. literary theory and literary history, but Gordon C. Cyr (Fellowship member and Shakespeare studies will always be part of contributor to the newsletter) and the ines- David Roper his focus. Roger reports to us that he has timable Terry Ross, who debated Roger at Elstead, United Kingdom found much interest and enthusiasm for our first Fellowship Conference in Cam- 17 October 2003 the Shakespeare question among his new bridge (MA) last fall. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 4 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003 Shakeyland “Roscius” annotation debated Dr. Paul Altrocchi’s discovery of a genu- Cook, moderator of the mainstream Shake- theme park ine new piece of information about Shake- speare discussion group SHAKSPER, de- speare—or more, correctly, Shaksper of clared the thread discussing the “Roscius” Stratford—has generated some interest- annotation over once discussion came too and food court ing reaction and commentary in Shake- close to such questions as, “Why not call the Once again, Stratford-upon-Avon gets speare circles since its publication in the Stratford man a writer instead of an actor?” a bad review for its crass commercial- Summer 2003 issue of Shakespeare ...What does that mean?” ism—but with a suggestion of what to do Matters. Meanwhile, Prof. Alan Nelson has per- about it. The “Roscius” annotation has already sonally inspected the Camden volume con- A dyspeptic essayist pans “Bardtown” been seized upon by some Stratfordians as taining the annotation (it’s owned by the in the Financial Times of July 19-20 and further proof that Shaksper was indeed an Huntington Library) and found that the suggests that if someone else wrote the actor, and therefore must also have been owner Richard Hunt, vicar of Itchington in Shakespeare the writer. But as Altrocchi Warwickshire county, had inscribed the works of Shakespeare the merchants might noted in his conclusions, calling him fa- title page. This means Hunt probably do something useful instead of just “sepa- mous for being an actor seems problem- wrote the annotation, and tends to confirm rating you from your money.” atic, in fact raising the question of whether that it was written in the early 17th century In a long article in the UK newspaper, anyone in Stratford actually thought of him by someone close to Stratford. Iain Aitch says the town should be renamed as a writer. Dr. Altrocchi has noted since the Another development in the story has “The Shakeyland Theme Park and Food article’s publication that, at the very least, been the doubts raised by some about the Court.” this annotation may mean that the Strat- authenticity of the annotation, i.e., could it He was surprised at “what a miserable ford man was, indeed, an actor, something be a Collier forgery? Only careful testing of experience Stratford turned out to be.” The that some Oxfordians have never embraced the ink could put aside such forgery con- Tudor beams were phony. The food was but perhaps now should. cerns. awful. The town is unwelcoming, over- That the annotation does involve the We will update the story in more detail authorship debate was born out when Hardy in our next issue (Winter 2004). priced, “down market...and downright snooty.” His solution: “Perhaps if genealogists Folger displays Ashbourne were to find conclusive proof that the Lon- don playwright was not the same man as the grain-dealing Shakespeare of Strat- portrait in exhibition on frauds ford, then the town would be forced to tear The Folger Shakespeare Library opened painting is that it was once thought to be down the fake beams and start to make an a new exhibit in August, “Fakes, Forgeries Shakespeare but now been proven to be an effort, rather than snatching your money and Facsimiles,” which is slated to run overpainting of someone else. The origi- and slamming the till.” through the end of this year. The exhibit nal sitter is still asserted by the Folger to be covers all manner of Shakespeareana, rang- Sir Hugh Hamersley, a claim that has been ing from fake documents of the Elizabethan disputed—if not disposed of—in Barbara Authorship talks era to fake First Folios and fake paintings. Burris’s series of articles in Shakespeare Most notable among the document forg- Matters over the past two years. No men- eries are those of William Henry Ireland tion is made of Burris’s work. in Vermont and John Payne Collier. Ireland in the late They do exhibit the 1940 Scientific For the fifth consecutive year Shake- 18th century and Collier in the 19th cen- American article by Charles Wisner Barrell claiming to have proved that the original speare authorship talks were one of the tury either fabricated from scratch docu- ments purportedly from Shakespeare’s sitter was the Earl of Oxford. The Folger events available to those in Killington, hand (Ireland) or doctored documents with says this claim has now been “discredited.” Vermont, for the Renaissance Festival. spurious annotations and/or additional Interestingly, Prof. Alan Nelson re- This year the talks, organized by Betty pages (Collier) that provided new refer- marked to this writer in November 2002 in Sears, were held Saturday morning at the ences to Shakespeare. The Collier forgeries Toronto at the seminar on the Sanders Sherbourne Public Library, where Shake- still confound scholars today, since no one Portrait (see Shakespeare Matters, Winter speare Matters editor Bill Boyle and col- knows for sure if all of his frauds have been 2003) that he thought the Folger should umnist Hank Whittemore spoke to their uncovered. drop the Hamersley attribution since the audience in a “fireside chat” format that Of most interest to Oxfordians in this case had not been made. We spoke with him proved quite engaging for all. The topic exhibition is the presentation of the again about this in October 2003, and he was Shakespeare and the Politics of Eliza- Ashbourne portrait. The x-ray analysis reaffirmed that this was his position— bethan Drama, and drew heavily on done last year on it by the Canadian Con- although he added that he was not an art Whittemore’s recent columns on Oxford’s servation Institute is displayed next to the expert. activities in the 1580s. painting, and the current story line for the —W. Boyle Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 5 Second Annual Oxfordian Seminar Convenes at Concordia University From August 17 – 23, the annual Oxfor- thorial copy of Shakespeare’s Henry the sure in providing an academic home for dian seminar sponsored by Concordia Uni- Fourth. As a concluding exercise, some of Oxfordian studies programs such as the versity convened on the university campus the seminar participants—Ian and Jo Haste, Oxfordian Studies Institute and the Ed- for an intense, week-long study of the top- John Varady, Patricia Urquhart, Dr. Merilee ward de Vere Studies Conference. ics, “Hamlet: Oxford’s Biography?” and Karr and University of Oregon doctoral Next year’s seminar topic will focus on “How Does One Recognize Autobiogra- student Dan Mackay—volunteered to take “Prince Tudor: Truth or Delusion?” Sec- phy?” Participants assembled for their roles and read sections of the play as it is tions of the week-long seminar will focus, deliberations each day around a vast marble written in the Dering Manuscript. All con- equally, on the cases for and against the seminar table in a sprawling seminar room cluded that it was a more lively and enter- controversial thesis. Arguments for the above the library, surrounded by floor-to- taining text than the edited version of the authority of the Prince Tudor thesis will be ceiling windows that looked out onto the play that appears in the First Folio. led by Hank Whittemore, actor and author; lush, green campus. There, they examined In addition to their week of studies on a case for the opposition to Prince Tudor and discussed readings assigned by Profes- Hamlet and autobiographical writing, will be made by retired statistician John sor Daniel Wright, the seminar director, participants enjoyed a luncheon cruise on Varady. Registrations for the August (15- and pondered insights offered by articles the Willamette River, a trip to Multnomah 20) 2004 seminar are being accepted now. submitted to the seminar for the group’s Falls and the Columbia River Gorge, a Tuition of $995 ($75 extra for single rooms) consideration by such contributors as shopping day at Powell’s Bookstore and a covers all instructional costs, books, a Christopher Paul, Carl Caruso and Dr. tour of Portland’s Chinese Gardens. They week’s comfortable lodgings on campus, Michael Delahoyde. also enjoyed opening day and midweek breakfasts (delivered to your room), The seminar also enjoyed a three-hour, dinners that lasted into the late hours of the lunches and tours. Checks should be made midweek presentation by Marlovian John night at the homes of Professor Wright and payable to the Edward de Vere Studies Baker, who expanded upon remarks that Patricia Urquhart. Conference and sent to Professor Wright at he delivered to the Edward de Vere Studies The seminar was visited during the Concordia University, 2811 NE Holman, Conference in April by drawing partici- week by Dr. Charles Kunert, the Dean of Portland, OR 97211-6099. For more in- pants’ attention to features of the Dering Concordia University’s College of Arts and formation, e-mail Professor Wright at Manuscript—a manuscript that many Sciences, who welcomed everyone to the [email protected]. scholars have conjectured may be an au- campus and expressed the university’s plea- New computer analysis technique for comparing texts and determining authorship unveiled In The Boston Globe for August 5, 2003, not rare ones in comparing bodies of text. have many applications beyond just medi- an article by staff writer Gareth Cook de- Cook explains that the [computer program] cine, as already demonstrated in their text scribed a new method of computer textual “constructs a list of all the words two plays analysis. analysis which has been developed by re- have in common, throwing out any word ... One outcome of their early tests using searchers at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medi- that appears in only one of the plays. Then the texts of Shakespeare plays, plus Jonson, cal Center, and is derived from a model of the computer ranks how often each word Marlowe and Fletcher plays, is that Edward computer analysis of cardiac problems. appears in each play.” III comes up as clearly not by Shakespeare The original program was designed to “Previous literary scholars have com- (it is grouped with Marlowe), and The Two measure patients’ heartbeats and track re- pared texts by picking out the unusual Noble Kinsmen lands closer to Fletcher peating patterns common to patients with words that one author is more likely to use than Shakespeare. known heart problems. These patterns than another,” Cook continues. “But the Cook concludes by noting that this new could then be used to identify patients with Beth Israel team found that they could find statistical approach may seem “soulless to similar patterns who might be at risk for the signature of a writer by looking at the some scholars.” heart attacks or other heart problems. most common words, such as ‘and’ or ‘as.’” One skeptical scholar quoted is Prof. What is different about this new tech- Their program will be explained in Alan Nelson, who remarks that “It is like nique as adapted to analyzing literary texts detail in an upcoming paper in the journal taking all the words and throwing them in is that it tracks the use of common words, Physica A. The researchers believe it will a blender.”

Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 6 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003

Drive, they said (cont’d from page 1) and fighting. in Stratford—has produced an unabash- than could ever have happened otherwise. It would be fair to say that neither book edly pro-Stratford work, In Search of And as this interest has grown, so has a would have been created except for the Shakespeare, which is both a four-hour concerted effort from the entrenched inter- Oxfordian movement. Certainly that is the television documentary and an accompa- ests of mainstream Stratfordians to fight case of Nelson’s biography of Edward de nying 352-page book. Wood’s efforts are back and prop up their story, even as they Vere, Monstrous Adversary (see Richard nothing short of a total reinvention of the denigrate Oxfordians and claim there is no Whalen’s review, beginning on page one). Stratfordian biography, and, like Nelson, debate. Two books have recently been pub- Would Nelson have ever tackled this sub- he makes documents from the era the lished which underscore this changing ject, save for Oxford’s candidacy as Shake- centerpiece of his presentation. In a regu- landscape, and represent the boldest coun- speare? No. And what Nelson does in Mon- lar leit-motif of the film we see Wood in an terattack yet on the Oxfordian movement. strous is to cite —and often reproduce in archive, an office or an estate library, wear- While these books do not at first appear to full—every known record and document ing protective white gloves, proudly show- be connected in any way, they really are— ing us the name “Shaksper” or “Shake- and not just because they were both pub- speare” or some variant (e.g. “Shake- lished in the United Kingdom, backed up “Indeed, if there is one shafte”) on a yellowed piece of parchment. by the prestige of universities and such Indeed, if there is one unifying theme establishment media as the BBC. unifying theme that that links Nelson and Wood it is their use Recently, longtime Oxfordian Gordon of—and reverence for—the documentary Cyr, an officer of the Shakespeare Oxford links Nelson and Wood evidence. But what is not so readily appar- Society in the 1970s and 1980s, recalled a ent on a first viewing or reading is that what it is their use of—and letter that Charlton Ogburn, Jr. had sent it is their use of—and they say about these documents is their him around the time he had decided to reverence for—the docu- interpretation of what the documents may embark on writing The Mysterious Will- mean and how they may fit into the story iam Shakespeare. “All I want,” he recalls mentary evidence. But they are telling. Ogburn writing, “is to get these [Stratfor- Of particular interest to Oxfordians in dians] to come out and fight.” The Nelson what .... they say about Wood’s efforts is how much he owes his and Wood books, more than anything else retelling of the Stratford tale to the published in the last 20 years, represent the these documents is influence of the authorship movement and fulfillment of Ogburn’s hopes. Since 1984 its core argument about how real art gets the more usual pattern has been for surro- their interpretation...” written—how real artists are influenced gate defenders of Stratford to tackle both by the world they live in (including family, the authorship debate and Oxfordians, rang- politics and religion). They draw upon ing from freelance scholar Irv Matus in his relating to Oxford, and then interpret them their lives for both their inspiration and 1994 Shakespeare, In Fact, to such non- consistently in pejorative terms. The anti- material. The Oxfordian movement has English Department warriors as David Oxfordian thesis that underlies his efforts been the strongest in this regard, since its Kathman and Terry Ross on the internet fairly flies off each page. story is of Hamlet himself trapped in a (while the debate is forbidden on the main- As Whalen’s review also shows—and as court and a court life he didn’t make, but stream ListServ discussion group others are quickly learning as they read which he now must set right. All his efforts SHAKSPER), and including all the lawyers Monstrous—Nelson is prone not to just revolve around “words, words, words,” and other non-establishment types who gross misinterpretations, but also to some including, of course, a provocative play have participated in various debates and incredible errors. At the recently concluded meant to catch the conscience of the king. moot courts over the years. One exception Shakespeare Fellowship Conference in And in the end he dies, asking someone else to this pattern was the appearance of Carmel, California, Christopher Paul pre- to tell his story to set right his “wounded Harvard’s Marjorie Garber, Yale’s Harold sented one such error on page 432, where name.” Bloom, and the Folger Shakespeare Nelson describes a letter signed by the Eighty years ago J. Thomas Looney Library’s Gail Kern Paster in the April 1999 young 18th Earl of Oxford as being about wrote in Shakespeare Identified that the Harpers magazine article on the author- “white herrings,” and written by an adult authorship problem was not a literary ship. But generally, major academic institu- for the boy’s “entertainment.” It turns out, problem, but an historical and political tions in both the US and the UK—and the as Paul clearly demonstrated, that the one. Many Oxfordians today would say Shakespeare Birthplace Trust—have really “wytheringes” spelling in the letter was how right he was. And what Wood is really responded by trying to stay above it all; “there meant to be a proper name: Wytherings doing here is stealing this persuasive is no debate” has been the standard party line. (possibly Anthony Wytherings, who held argument and making it Stratfordian. But with Liverpool University now on office related to overseeing forests, As we noted briefly in our last issue, the publishing UC-Berkeley English profes- which is the subject of the letter). With single most important element of Wood’s sor Nelson, and the BBC teaming up with mistakes like this one must wonder how story is the Catholicism of the Stratford the Birthplace Trust to publish Wood, that much there is to fear in Nelson’s book. man’s father John, along with the has changed. In both books the key play- Meanwhile, on the other side of town, involvement of other cousins and possible ers—academic English departments and Michael Wood—in collaboration with the Warwickshire acquaintances in the Stratford-on-Avon itself—are coming out BBC and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust recusant Catholic underground. While this Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 7 can be seen to give the Stratford story both a reason for secrecy and a reason for some of the religious and moral content of the Triumph of (the)Will? plays, it actually breaks down pretty quickly under closer examination, and a number New bio, new facts - same old propaganda of mainstream scholars perceive this and want little or nothing to do with Wood’s By Joe Eldredge retelling of the Stratford story (see the article by Prof. Daniel Wright beginning Last spring the BBC subjected its must-have-beens, the liberties of sequence on page ten for some further insights into viewers to four hours of TV financed by the (time-joints). Although it contains Catholicism and Shakespeare). real estate interests of the theme park on numerous passages which are evidently There are other important changes in the river Avon. The production, ironically responding to Oxfordian arguments found the traditional biography throughout the titled In Search of Shakespeare, and written in The Mysterious William Shakespeare film, but the one of most interest, especially and presented by Michael Wood in and other books, the authorship question to Oxfordians, is Wood’s treatment of the conjunction with the Royal Shakespeare as such is never mentioned. My cursory list 3rd Earl of Southampton—he is more or Company, will be shown in the US in of such covert “Ox-Blocs” will no doubt be less deleted from the Shakespeare/Stratford January. The film is a towering piece of doubled by the real scholars among us; but story. Without even acknowledging the cynical propaganda. But it is also a even the existing items on my initial list on significance of what he is doing, Wood generous gift to that growing number of the Shakespeare Fellowship website simply states that the Sonnets were written readers who simply do not believe the Discussion Forums are a testament to the to William Herbert in the 1590s. Having canon was written by a recusant Catholic compound intellectual dishonesty of the done this, when he comes to the 1601 Essex from Warwickshire. BBC production and the book. (Look for Rebellion and the use of Richard II by the No doubt we will be hearing much the “Michael Wood still ‘Searching for conspirators, Southampton is merely one of the others, not even mentioned as Essex’s about this religious swamp-on-Avon. Shakespeare,’” thread in the State of the chief partner, let alone also being Wood’s evidence supporting William of Debate Forum, www.shakespeare Shakespeare’s Fair Youth. So a key point in Stratford’s recusant background and fellowship.orgfellowship.org) the Oxfordian political interpretation of beliefs is impressive, if not conclusive; but The concept of circular reasoning the Sonnets is neutralized, and Sonnet the director is describing someone other probably never came up at BBC editorial/ 107, thought by many (Stratfordians and than the actual author of the plays. production conferences. But of the book’s Oxfordians) to refer to Southampton’s Nevertheless, the alleged Catholicism of 344 pages, 111 contain a total of 226 “confined doom,” need not even be the Shaksper family is useful to Wood: it instances of assigning material from the mentioned. helps to create a pseudo-excuse for the canon to the life of the author of choice. Yet the Sonnets are used throughout lingering mystery over authorship. And, of course, an even larger body of the film as commentary on the author’s But of course there is nothing “must-have-beens” enriches this fictional life, most notably in using Sonnet 145’s mysterious about Wood’s author; he is triumph of will. There at least 397 of these “hate away” to mean “Hathaway,” and thus always in full view. Was the film made with spread out over 151 pages. For instance: a comment on the Stratford man’s wife, literary mirrors? It is glaringly obvious “Shakespeare must have had,” “for boys in or having Sonnet 33’s “the sun was but one that the team producing this mediocre Stratford were given,” etc., etc. So, the hour mine” refer to the death of Hamnet fiction understands that there is very little underlying argument throughout is that Shaksper in 1596 (thus taking the sun/son in the canon to indicate the alleged Catholic we can just assume this or that—with idea cited by some Oxfordians and making convictions of its author(s). Wood, certainty no less. it Stratfordian). however, salivates onscreen when he An accurate list of Wood’s many In recent discussions about both books discovers that someone named “William confirmations that indeed “time is out of during the Fellowship’s Carmel Conference Shakeshaft”—obviously the poet!—has joint” must await detailed analysis, if it it was suggested that they are not really that documented connections to Lancashire ever becomes necessary to examine this big a deal, and certainly not designed as a recusants. catafalque further; but chances are, no coordinated counter-offensive. Well, true, we have no evidence that Nelson and Wood This film is a study in empty such critique will be required. Wood’s worked together, or that the publication of propaganda. There are no arguments in it. works will collapse under their own weight. these books virtually together was planned It is just a form of brainwashing for anyone With so delinquent a factual basis, can BBC in any way. who might (heaven forbid) have heard that defend these productions as part of a larger But come out together they did, giving there was some other guy— like what’s his commitment to its national and world all the appearances of a coordinated name? public? I think not. Is it willing to allow counter-offensive. And if this is the Wood’s book follows the TV series equal time and funds for a rebuttal? establishment’s best shot at defending closely enough to allow us to understand Probably not. The BBC has, at least at this Stratford, then Stratford may soon be its structure. It is a sparkling collection of point in time, placed its very considerable ending—not with bang, but a whimper. every Stratford gambit since the work of resources on the line to defend the —W. Boyle John Aubrey: the circular reasoning, the disintegrating myth of Stratford. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 8 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003

Commentary “Monstrous Animosity” How Nelson’s Oxford bio distorts both Oxford and Oxfordians By Roger Stritmatter t is difficult to know where to begin to “specious plausibility” of the Oxfordian case for Oxford’s authorship in 1920. place Dr. Alan Nelson’s Monstrous Ad- case. Indeed, the alarming circumstance Iversary in historical perspective. One The result is a work of laborious schol- documented on the dust jacket of Nelson’s recent reviewer describes the book as “a book (see “Who’s an Amateur?” on page 23 plethora of archival transcriptions” which in this issue) is a direct consequence of “misconstrues the personality of a genius” “Ogburn never the publication of Ogburn’s 1984 book. (see page one of this issue). To argue, The chief reason that, by the turn of the however, that Professor Nelson merely “mis- intended, of millennium, the Oxford myth had been construes” the character of Edward de Vere, “uncritically embraced” by large segments 17th Earl of Oxford, is a kindness, in my course, to present of popular media and was making signifi- opinion, which reflects more on the no- cant inroads within academia was Ogburn’s blesse oblige of the reviewer than on the a new body of book. It was in response to it that Frontline content of the book being reviewed; the prepared a 1989 documentary, on which word implies that there is something ca- ‘original documen- Ogburn was a featured guest; it was in sual and innocent about Nelson’s method- response to this book that a thousand per- ology, that the book should be criticized tary research’ .... sons attended the 1987 moot court trial on for errors of judgment instead of errors of the authorship question at American Uni- intent. Admittedly, the difference may in Instead, his book versity in Washington, D.C.; the moot court practice be difficult to discern. But even in turn led directly to a 1988 Shakespeare the casual reader of Monstrous Adversary assembled under authorship story in The New Yorker and will be impressed by Professor Nelson’s stimulated Supreme Court Justice John one cover an thorough hostility towards the subject of Paul Stevens to enter the authorship fray his own biography and wonder why a man impressive body of with his article, “The Shakespeare Canon would devote ten years of his life to writing of Statutory Construction,” published in a book about a man whom he so obviously circumstantial evidence ....” the Pennsylvania Law Review in 1992; it despises. was in response to Ogburn’s book that Ironically, Professor Nelson makes no Atlantic magazine in October 1991 ran an attempt in his book to actually counter the arship which has about it an air of unreal- extensive cover story on the authorship arguments contained in the numerous ity. It is as if the reader is being let in on the question. And yet, Nelson refuses to en- works which constitute the desideratum of argument of the millennium, but is only gage the content of Ogburn’s book on the his project; true, a few names are consid- being given access to one side in the de- basis that it fails to contain anything sub- ered in his introduction and a handful of bate. He is expected to assume that the stantial “in the way of original documen- works advocating the case for Oxford’s other side is beneath consideration. To be tary research.” authorship are named in his bibliography. sure, Nelson does make an effort to justify Ogburn never intended, of course, to Yet, whenever the arguments of those the book’s one-sidedeness. In his introduc- present a new body of “original documen- works would have a bearing on the matters tion, Nelson states that he will “dismiss tary research” based on archival transcrip- in question, Nelson somehow fails to offer from serious consideration” two major tion of the kind which Professor Nelson any reference to their contents. This is not, works which make the case for Oxford’s approves. Instead, his book assembled it must be emphasized, because Nelson is authorship because “neither...contains under one cover an impressive body of unaware of the relevance of these argu- anything substantial in the way of original circumstantial evidence, much of it ap- ments; it is clear from the shape of his own documentary research” (5). pearing previously in print only in obscure “refutation” that he is often formulating One of them is Charlton Ogburn’s 1984 articles published in journals with tiny his own narrative with these very argu- work, The Mysterious William Shake- circulations during the 64 years interven- ments in mind. speare. Nelson’s condescending phraseol- ing between Looney’s book and his own. But somehow Nelson cannot trust his ogy is a clue to the importance of this Ogburn’s purpose was to transmit the re- readers enough to acknowledge that an- rhetorical gambit. As anyone who has stud- search and scholarship contained in these other point of view exists. They must be ied the recent history of the Shakespearean obscure sources to a general readership; protected from what Nelson’s ideological question is aware, Ogburn’s book is the by all accounts, he was enormously ancestor, Giles Dawson, reviewing This most important work on the authorship successful in achieving this purpose. As Star of England in 1952, referred to as the question since J. T. Looney first made the Pulitzer Prize winning historian David Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 9

McCullough wrote in the introduction to animadversions were matched against worried .... Ogburn has skillfully directed the 1984 first edition, those facts they would never again be cited so much attention on the shabby behavior as authorities by anyone with respect for of his opponents that his argument for this is a scholarly detective work at its evidence and reason... (xvii). Oxford looks all the better because of who most absorbing. More, it is close analysis by is against it.” a writer with a rare sense of humanity. The Ogburn may have been overly optimis- Ironically, then, Professor Nelson’s strange, difficult, contradictory man who tic about the immediate consequences of Monstrous Adversary constitutes a delayed emerges as the real Shakespeare...is not response to Ogburn’s purpose of engaging just plausible but fascinating and wholly exposing the fallacies of orthodox reason- believable. It is hard to imagine anyone who ing. But it must be acknowledged that one the authorship debate. Without Ogburn’s reads the book with an open mind ever of the primary reasons for the success and book, Nelson would have found no occa- seeing Shakespeare or his works in the popularity of his book was that, in an age sion to write his monstrous biography, and same way again (x). when inherited respect for authority had without Ogburn’s book Nelson’s own work would probably not have found a pub- A second purpose of Ogburn’s book, lisher and certainly would never have found however, was to force a long-delayed con- “The market Nelson is a readership. The market Nelson is now frontation between advocates of the Ox- playing to exists only because of Ogburn’s ford case and their academic opponents. now playing to exists charismatic eloquence; unfortunately, As long ago as 1950 Hamilton Basso, writ- Nelson’s own work is profoundly deficient ing in The New Yorker, quoted Columbia only because of Ogburn’s in the very qualities—balance, tolerance, University Professor Fredrick Tabor and critical acumen, to name only a few— Cooper’s opinion of “Shakespeare” Identi- charismatic eloquence; which made The Mysterious William fied, said: Shakespeare such an influential work. unfortunately, Nelson’s Nelson has of course read Ogburn’s work, Here at last is a sane, dignified, arrest- but it failed to impress him in the manner own work is profoundly ing contribution to the much abused and it impressed David McCullough. Not only sadly discredited Shakespearean contro- deficient in the very is his view of Shakespeare unchanged by versy. Every right-minded scholar who Ogburn’s book; he wants to make sure that cares for the welfare of letters in the bigger no one else’s view of Shakespeare will be sense should face the problem that this qualities .... which made changed by it, either. book presents and argue it to a finish. The Mysterious William To Nelson, this is a professional man- Ogburn, born in 1911, had been a keen date. What might seem a strange paradox, observer and participant in the authorship Shakespeare such an namely that Nelson has excised Ogburn’s debate since the 1940s when both he and book from his bibliography, and for all his parents were inspired by Looney’s book influential work.” practical purposes from his book, is in fact to take up the cause Cooper advocated. the conventional orthodox methodology Ogburn had watched in dismay as two in dealing with the authorship question. generations of academic scholars ignored, been undermined by the colossal follies of Ogburn’s real crime was not that his book belittled, and misrepresented the case for the U.S. war in Indochina, Watergate, and lacked “original documentary research,” Oxford’s authorship. He was determined the Iran-Contra scandal, his argument that but that it exposed to public awareness a to change this circumstance; accordingly, the Emperor of Shakespearean orthodoxy shocking duplicity within the literary es- his book opens with a stunning indictment had no clothes found a ready audience. tablishment and lack of candor in its meth- of the animadversions of the Shakespear- One early, sympathetic review of the book ods of dealing with public dissent. There- ean establishment. He wrote in the introduc- is remarkable because of its source and fore, at any cost, the book must be con- tion to The Mysterious William Shakespeare: author: in 1985 Richmond Crinkley was demned as inadequate in its scholarship the Director of Educational Programs at and beneath “serious consideration” by One of their weapons was to attack the the Folger Shakespeare Library, an institu- “real scholars.” character and motives, even sanity, of dis- tion which then, as now, was a bastion of Ogburn’s point about the limitations senters. I meant to try not to reply in kind. orthodox dogma on the questions raised of the ad hominem argument, however, One of my points would be that by Ogburn’s book. Crinkley, however, applies with special ironic force to Nelson’s argumentum ad hominem, while often achieved the miraculous by publishing a own book. For all its window-dressing of effective and difficult to combat, does not do thoughtful review of Ogburn’s book in the scholarship, the book is neither plausible much to advance anyone’s understanding Folger’s Shakespeare Quarterly. In a stun- nor believable. In place of a judicious of the issues and is the resort, usually, of ning rebuke to the Folger’s own traditions, scholarly critique of the Oxfordian case it those unable to defend their case on its substitutes a sustained ad hominem attack merits. What I could do and would do was Crinkley commented that “if the intellec- to put the orthodox academicians on record tual standards of Shakespeare scholarship on Oxford’s character which bends or at every turn and contrast their claims with quoted in such embarrassing abundance breaks every canon of fairness which might the facts. I knew the academicians well by Ogburn are representative, then it is not impede its single-minded pursuit of ideo- enough to have little doubt that if their just authorship about which we need to be logical conformity to orthodox belief. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 10 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003

Commentary Knocking on Wood Why Michael Wood’s recent biography of the Strat- ford man undermines Shakespearean orthodoxy By Prof. Daniel L. Wright s many Oxfordians are aware, Michael never [to have been] arrested . . . .” miserly businessman, bought it for invest- Wood’s new book, In Search of In addition to showing that even “be- ment purposes. AShakespeare and the four-hour tele- fore [Shakspere] was out of his teens . . . the Moreover, as Peter Dickson has pointed vision series based on it have been getting taint of treason had touched his family,” out in the 2003 issue of The Oxfordian, a lot of attention from scholars and Shake- Wood reminds us that Will’s parents, in the incredulity of this purchase by the speare aficionados (to date, the TV series conformity with their Catholic convictions, putative writer of the Shakespeare plays is has been broadcast only in the United King- had had their son baptised not by the Angli- underscored by the fact that, at the very dom, but is scheduled for release in the US can vicar at Stratford, but by a Catholic time when Shakspere was acquiring the in January 2004). Central to Wood’s inter- sympathiser. Wood notes that Will him- Blackfriars’ Gatehouse, “five Shakespeare pretation of the legend of Stratford Will is self, a couple of decades later, elected not dramas were being featured at festivities his emphasis on Shakspere’s Roman Catho- to be married according to Anglican rites celebrating . . . the highly political mar- lic heritage and ostensible religious con- by the local Protestant vicar, but by the riage of King James’s daughter Elizabeth victions. However, it is precisely Wood’s aged John Frith, a relic of England’s Catho- to Frederick, Elector of the Palatinate and underscoring of these features in lic past who later would be denounced by leader of the German Protestants.” Can we Shakspere’s biography—in addition to all a government agent as an “old priest . . . believe that the dramatist I would nomi- the other damning evidence against him— [u]nsound in religion.” Shakspere and his nate as the archetypal advocate of Refor- that disqualifies Stratford Will from seri- wife also would have their twins, Hamnet mation sensibilities on the English stage— ous consideration as a candidate for the and Judith, christened in honour of Hamnet at the same moment his works were being authorship of Shakespeare’s works. and Judith Sadler—neighbors who, like used to celebrate the alliance of two major Wood establishes Shakspere’s Catho- Will and Anne, were devout Catholics. Fi- European Protestant powers—would be lic identity beyond serious question. He nally, as if there yet were any doubt about about the business of purchasing one of points out that the Warwickshire of Stratford Will’s Catholicism, Wood re- London’s most notorious dens of Catholic Shakspere’s youth was a region that for minds us of the declaration by Archdeacon sedition? Dickson puts the question well: generations had stood firm in its resis- Richard Davies who attested that “Can one,” he asks, “imagine a greater tance to the Protestant Reformation. He Shakspere, when he passed from this world incongruity?” reminds us that Shakspere’s mother was a in 1616, “dyed a Papyst.” Given that the sum of evidence clearly member of the Arden family—“old-fash- Wood also provides other evidence at- points in the direction of a Catholic ioned stalwarts of the shire”—whose pa- testing to Will Shakspere’s probably near- Shakspere from Stratford-Upon-Avon, how terfamilias, Edward Arden, a long-time fanatical and quasi-treasonous brand of does a reasonable person reconcile these antagonist of Protestant authority, was Catholicism. Most significantly, however, facts with the evidence of plays that con- executed in 1583 for his role in the Arden- he notes that in 1613 Shakspere purchased spicuously advance a Reformation agenda, Somerville conspiracy to assassinate the the infamous Blackfriars’ Gatehouse, a no- challenge pontifical authority, nurture a Queen. On Will Shakspere’s father’s side, torious, labyrinthine-tunneled London ref- skeptical attitude toward Catholic ortho- Wood recalls John Shakspere’s notorious uge for Catholic dissidents and seditious doxy and reveal an authorial disposition recusancy as well as the record of his post- priests located on the north bank of the that is decidedly Erasmian, humanistic humously-discovered spiritual testament, Thames. Why Shakspere would have pur- and Protestant? Is such reconciliation pos- in which he affirms a passionate attach- chased, of all places, such a scandalous sible? ment to the Roman Catholic Church and property—unless his purposes were inti- Ten years ago, I published The Angli- instructs his son and others, upon his death, mately linked with those who were sus- can Shakespeare, a text in which I at- to have masses said for the repose of his pected of using it as a cover for their tempted to demonstrate that Shakespeare, soul. Given such evidence of Will proscribed activities—is difficult, if not especially in his history plays, wrote as an Shakspere’s parents’ religious practices, impossible, to imagine. Additionally, the ardent supporter of the Protestant Refor- and their alliance with Elizabethan price he paid for this property—the exor- mation and the Anglican Church. Shake- England’s most notorious Catholic rebels bitant sum of £140 (more than twice what speare, after all, elected not only to view and insurrectionists, one easily can under- he paid for New Place)—challenges, as Ian the world from an open-minded, Reforma- stand Frederick Pohl’s conclusion that for Wilson has suggested, the easy assumption tion perspective that enthusiastically em- their obstinacy, “his parents were lucky . . . by most orthodoxists that Shakspere, the braced the exploration of theretofore for- Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 11 bidden questions and long-cherished ment of the Bishop of Carlisle in Richard only reason he was spared execution was “truths,” but, in doing so, he utilized sources II as a lonely exception to the portrayal of due to intervention by the Pope—not, as crafted and shaped by firmly Protestant “scarlet hypocri[sy]” (1 Henry VI, I.iii.56) Shakespeare would have it, because Henry authorities that no Roman Catholic, in that typifies the bishops and cardinals in saw “[h]igh sparks of honour” in the old conscience, would have touched: texts like the rest of the canon, but such an argument traitor and wanted him to “joy [his] life” the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, the ultimately can go nowhere, for (V.vi.26, 29). Elizabethan Homilies, Richard Hooker’s Shakespeare’s depiction of Carlisle is his- That Shakespeare wrote as a man per- Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity and the Prot- torical fiction. From first to last, suaded of the truth of the Reformation has estant Geneva Bible. The utilization of Shakespeare’s Carlisle is not depicted as long been acknowledged by many ortho- such sources for anything but an opposi- he was, for the playwright’s fawning rever- dox critics. In 1993 Maurice Hunt declared tional purpose would have been anathema ence for Carlisle is nothing but an obsequi- as much in a celebrated article on to any Catholic writer of the age, and surely Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, observing it would have been so for one of such that “[a]fter satirizing traits of Puritanism, decidedly Catholic heritage and appar- “Given that the sum of Brownism, and Catholicism . . . Shake- ently radical conviction as Will Shakspere speare approximates an Anglican perspec- of Stratford-Upon-Avon. evidence clearly points in tive on Providence . . . .” Similarly, Jeffrey Shakespeare’s depiction of Catholic Knapp, in Shakespeare’s Tribe, argues that, authority in his plays is utterly irreconcil- the direction of a Catholic notably in 1 Henry VI, “a popish able with any argument suggesting he Christendom is united by cupidity, not Shakspere from Stratford- wrote as a Catholic sympathizer, let alone faith, if it is united by anything at all.” In as a propagandist for the Old Faith. His Upon-Avon, how does King John, Knapp further observes, depictions of Roman Catholic prelates are “[Shakespeare] endorses the Protestant particularly unflattering. His high-rank- a reasonable person critique of Rome,” reflecting and reinforc- ing ecclesiastics are worse than corrupt— ing earlier criticism by S.W. Fullom, who they are the very counterfeits of Christ. reconcile these facts had written that throughout the canon These “wol[ves] in sheep’s array” (1 Henry Shakespeare “denies the supremacy of the VI, I.iii.55) instigate unrest and conspire with the evidence of Pope and contemns his spiritual powers. the overthrow of the State. In King John, He ridicules the notion that there is mi- Shakespeare even has the papal legate call plays that conspicuously raculous virtue in the shrines of saints. . . . for the assassination of the King—accom- The old Church sealed up the Bible [but] advance a Reformation panied by the promise of canonization and Shakespeare is for having it open . . . .” “worship . . . as a saint” for the man who agenda, challenge One staggers at the odds that the Eliza- performs it (III.i.174-79). Also in King John, bethan Age’s premier playwright could Shakespeare has his thirteenth-century pontifical authority, have been a Catholic during the most anti- King speak as though he were a son of the Catholic epoch in English history. The sixteenth-century Reformation, boldly [and] nurture a extreme unlikelihood that the writer could declaring the Pope to be a “meddling . . . have been a Catholic is underscored with Italian priest” whose authority is “usurp’d” skeptical attitude toward particular force by the fact that Catholics and his power corruptly sustained by the did not—indeed, could not—write as sale of pardons (III.i.152-60, 162-71). In 1 Catholic orthodoxy...?” Catholics for the theatre. Given the laws of Henry VI, the duke of Gloucester denounces censorship that applied to the Elizabethan the Cardinal Archbishop of Winchester as stage, nothing that could be recognized as an “insolen[t]” and “manifest conspirator” ous nod to Elizabeth’s fondness for her anti-Protestant and pro-Catholic propa- who “regards nor God nor king,” and the own bishop of Carlisle, Owen Oglethorpe ganda had any chance of achieving a pub- Mayor of London declares him to be “more (he, after all, had agreed to crown her lic forum by passing the ecclesiastical cen- haughty than the devil” (I.iii.33-37, 60, Queen when all the prelates with prior sors. Catholics, therefore, like Puritans, 85). Indeed, the only prelate in the entire claim to that privilege had refused). frowned on most theatrical productions in canon who is treated with uncompromis- Shakespeare’s approbation of the Bishop early modern England, albeit for different ing favor is Thomas Cranmer, Henry VIII’s of Carlisle in Richard II, therefore, is not reasons. Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, who for Thomas Merke, England’s late four- If Puritans scowled at the theatre be- baptises the Princess Elizabeth and pro- teenth-century Bishop of Carlisle but for cause they saw it as a corrupter of morals claims, prophetically, that in her reign, Oglethorpe, a man who would follow al- and a distraction from religious devotion, “[t]ruth shall nurse her,” and “God shall be most 200 years later. Contrary to Catholics glowered on it because the pub- truly known” (V.iv.14-55). Shakespeare’s depiction of him, Merke lic stage was the Elizabethan State’s prin- One might try to make something of a was tried for conspiracy against Henry IV, cipal vehicle—apart from the pulpit—for case for Shakespeare’s sympathetic treat- convicted and sentenced to death. The (Continued on page 17) Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 12 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003

Camden (continued from page 1) Translation: “From here the 1. Britannia, A Chorographicall River Avon flows down more Description of the Most Flourishing strongly first through famous Kingdomes, England, Scotland, Charlcott and the house of the and Ireland, and the Islands knightly family of Lucies which long adjoining, out of the depth of ago passed to them from the Antiquitie: Beautified With Mappes Charlcotts as it were by heredity, of the several Shires of England. Six and through the not (un) richly illustrated editions were distinguished little market town of published in Latin in 1586, 1587, Stratford, which owes all of its 1590, 1594, 1600 and 1607. English reputation to its two foster sons...” editions were published by Philemon Holland in 1610 and, after Fourth Edition (1594) Camden’s death, by Holland again in 1637. Plenior hinc Avona defertur “Chorography” combines geo- primum per Charlcott nobilis & equestris familiae Luciorum graphic descriptions of a country’s habitationem, quae à Charlcottis iam regions with its history, in particular olim ad illos haereditariò quasi what makes a town or district transmigravit: & per Stratford distinctive or special with regard to emporiolum non inelegans quod its history and notable citizenry. duobus fuis alumnis omnem dignitatem debet... [Words changed are 2. Reges, 1600, a book about the 1590 spelling of “emporiolu” to Westminster Abbey’s epitaphs. “emporiolum” and correcting the 3. Anglica, 1602, a collection of Fig. 1 By courtesy of National Portrait Gallery misprinted word “elegans” back to historical chronicles about England. William Camden, 1551-1623 “inelegans”.] 4. Remains Concerning Britain, 1605, containing diverse tidbits of English Cantuariensi qui templum posuit, & The English translation remains the Hugoni Clopton Pretori Londinensi, qui A history not used by Camden in his vone pontem faxeum quatuordecem same as that for the 1590 edition. Britannia. fornicibus subnixum non fine maximis 5. Annales rerum Anglicarum et inipensis induxit. Fifth Edition (1600) Hibernicarum regnante Elizabetha. Volume 1, 1615, is a praiseful history of Translation: “From here the River Avon Same wording as the 1594 edition. Queen Elizabeth’s reign to 1588. Volume flows down more strongly through the not 2, completing the history, was finished in undistinguished little market town of Sixth Edition (1607) 1617 but, at Camden’s specific request, Stratford, which owes all of its reputation Plenior hinc Avona defertur per was not published until two years after his to its two foster sons, John of Stratford, the Archbishop of Canterbury who built the Charlcott nobilis & equestris familie death. Since this history was commissioned Luciorum habitationem, quae à Charlcottis by Baron Burghley and was largely based church, and Hugh Clopton, the magistrate iam olim ad illos haereditariò quasi upon his highly sieved and selected papers, of London who began the stone bridge transmigravit, qui ad pauperes & some think Camden delayed the second over the Avon supported by fourteen arches, suscipiendos domum religiosam pio not without very great expense.” instituto ad Thellisford posuerunt, Thelley volume’s publication to avoid any personal enim fluviolus dictus erat, qui per compton criticism. Modern historians now recognize Murdac olim Mutdecorum. nunc equestris this two-volume work as quite “Cecilized” [Second Edition (1587), not available] familie Vernaiorum, & hanc Thellisford and one-sided. Avonam petit, qui Stratford mox allabitur Camden wrote in Latin. His descriptions Third Edition (1590) emperiolum non inelegans, quod duobus fuis alumnis omnen dignitatern debet ... of Stratford-on- Avon in the first six editions 3 of Britannia are provided below, together Plenior hinc Avona defertur primùm Translation: “From here the River Avon with modern translations by the author per Charlcott nobilis & equestris familiae flows down more strongly first through and his consultant.4 Luciorum habitationem. quae à Charlcottis famous Charlcott and the house of the iam olim ad Was haereditariò transmigravit knightly family of Lucies which long ago First Edition (1586) & per Stratford emporiolù non elegans [misprinted; word should have been passed to them from the Charlcotts as it Plenior hinc Avona defertur per “inelegans”], quod duobus fuis alumnis were by heredity, who in order to accept Stratford emporiolu non inelegans quod omnem dignitatem debet... [The rest is under their protection the poor and the duobus fuis alumnis omnem dignitatem unchanged; the author’s underlines mean outsiders, established a religious house debet, loanni de Stratford Archiepiscopo words added since the first edition.] near Thellesford with a Godfearing

Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 13 purpose. For the little river had been called adviser to King William III and several contributions to its current and future Thelley which, flowing through Compton times an emissary to France and the Vatican. welfare. Murdac (formerly of the Murdackes, now He was appointed Archbishop of of the knightly family of Vernaies) and Canterbury in 1333, a post he held until his Who was Hugh Clopton? Thellesford, then heads for this River Avon death in 1348. which next flows to the not undistinguished The first Stratford church was of wood, Hugh Clopton was born in Stratford little market town of Stratford, which owes mentioned in 845 by Bertulf, King of circa 1440 and became rich as a London all of its reputation to its two foster sons...” Mercia. The word Stratford is derived from textile merchant. He became Mayor of The 1607 edition of Britannia was the “strete ford” a Roman road crossed the London in 1492 and died in 1496. Although last edition published by Camden and, River Avon at this fording place, the name sometimes referred to as “Sir”, he was therefore, no further text revisions were being coined when the town was planned never knighted.10 made by Camden himself. His fondness for his birthplace was financially manifested by: Holland’s 1610 & 1637 Translation of “The key point is that Camden’s 6th Edition “The key point is that 1. Replacing a dilapidated wooden bridge over the Avon in Stratford with an The next two editions were translated William Shakespeare is expensive stone bridge of 14 arches, still in by Philemon Holland and published for use today. the first time in English in 1610 and 1637, not mentioned at all, 2. Rebuilding the Guild Chapel of Holy 14 years after Camden died in 1623 Cross in Trinity Parish Church. (Shaksper died in 1616). These two editions either in the first edition 3. Building New Place in Stratford contained identical English wording for which became the final home of the grain the single paragraph describing Stratford. or in subsequent editions merchant and real estate speculator “Avon now runneth downe from William Shaksper.11 Warwicke with a fuller streame by of 1627, 1634, and 1661, Charlecot, the habitation of the renowned Was William Camden acquainted ancient family of the Lucies Knights, which as a contributor to the with the Vere family? place long agoe descended hereditarily to them from the Charlcots: who upon a pious Elizabethan Golden Camden must have known Edward de and devout minde founded a religious Vere personally, doing much of his research house at Thellisford, for entertainment of Age for literature.” at Cecil House where de Vere’s three poore folke and pilgrims. For, that little daughters lived with their grandfather, river was called Thelley, which by Comton William Cecil, and where de Vere himself Murdicke, the possession sometime of the often visited. Clearly he knew of the Vere Murdackes, and now of the Vernaies, in 1196. family, in his Elizabethan history referring Knights, and by this, Thellisford goeth into The present Trinity Parish Church was to the following Veres contemporaneous Avon, which within a while runneth hard built of limestone in the shape of a cross with himself:12 by Stratford, a proper little mercate town, beginning in 1210. Many additions and beholden for all the beauty that it hath to remodelings have occurred over the 1. “This yeere (1562) John Vere, the two men there bred and brought up, centuries, including a chantry founded by sixteenth Earl of Oxford of that noble namely, John of Stratford, Archbishop of John of Stratford in 1331 for the singing of lineage, rendered his life to Nature, 7 Canterburie, who built the Church; and Sir masses in the Thomas Becket Chapel. who by ... his second wife Margaret Hugh Clopton, Major of London, who over John built a College of Priests which Golding begate Edward Earle of Oxford Avon made a stone bridge supported with had a significant impact on the church (who set his Patrimony flying) and Mary foureteene arches, not without exceeding over succeeding centuries.8 John also married to Peregrine Berty.” 5 great expenses.” purchased an advowson from the Royal 2. He lists Edward de Vere as a trial Crown, giving Trinity Parish Church the judge of Mary Queen of Scots in 1586. Who was John of Stratford? right to nominate its own vicar, subject to 3. He lists “Edward Earle of Oxford, approval by the Bishop. This gave the Lord Great Chamberlaine of England” John de Stratford was born in Stratford church some important control over its as a judge in the treason trial of Philip and graduated from Oxford. A Doctor of own leadership.9 Howard in 1589. Civil and Canon Law, he pursued a religious For these reasons William Camden 4. He refers to Francis Vere’s career, becoming Archdeacon of Lincoln, praised John as having “built” Trinity Parish important victory at Turnholt in 1597. Canon of York and then Bishop of Church, which he didn’t. But he did make 5. Writing Cecil’s obituary in 1598, Winchester in 1323.6 John was the principal important material and administrative Camden states, “By his other wife (Continued on page 14) Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 14 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003

Camden (continued from page 13) Even the less eminent Henry de Vere, evidence that playwrights were denigrated Mildred Coke hee begat . . . Anne Edward’s son, is mentioned by Camden as by Camden or by England? Certainly not in Countess of Oxford (to whom were the 18th Earl of Oxford in the 1610 edition Gloriana’s Court, to which the exemplary born three daughters, Elizabeth of Britannia. In 1964, Charlton Ogburn, Jr. playwright Edward de Vere and others married to William Earle of Darby, had this to say about Camden:14 brought supreme glory, making it the most Bridget married to the Lord Norris, illustrious Court of the age and for which and Susan married to Philip Earle of William Camden, while including he was paid £1000 a year for writing plays. Montgomery) . . .” William Shakespeare among the “most Was the Queen paying him for his sonnets pregnant wits of these our times” in 1605, 6. Camden refers to Francis Vere’s not only did not record Shaksper’s death and other poetry? Hardly. war commentaries of 1600. in 1616 but made no mention of him in his Thomas Sackville, cousin of Queen 7. Camden describes the treason listing of “Worthies” of Stratford when Elizabeth through Anne Boleyn, was co- trial of the Earls of Essex and Shaksper was domiciled there. He obviously writer of the highly regarded The Tragedy Southampton in 1601, listing their did not consider the two men the same. of Gorboduc, performed at Whitehall 13 judges, including the Earl of Oxford. In the 1980s, the Shakespeare Oxford before the Queen on January 18, 1562, and In his Britannia, Camden refers to a Society pointed out that other works.17 His “denigration” included number of de Veres, including Aubrey being made a Privy Councilor in 1585, (second son of Alberic, who came over William Camden in his book Remains Chancellor of Oxford in 1591, Lord High to England with William the Concerning Britain... had praised the Treasurer in 1599, and Earl of Dorset in Conqueror), who was made Lord Great author ‘Shakespeare,’ but in his Annals for the year 1616 Camden omits mention of 1604. The funeral sermon for Sackville at Chamberlain of England; Aubrey III the Stratford man’s death. Also, in the list Westminster Abbey in 1608 described the who was made the first Earl of Oxford; of Stratford Worthies of 1605 Camden Queen as “sharing the general high opinion Robert, the Ninth Earl of Oxford who omits the Stratford man’s name, even of Sackville’s merits as a writer.”18 was a close friend of Richard II; John, though Camden had previously passed on The Elizabethans did harbor the the great Thirteenth Earl; and others. Shakspere’s application for a family coat of arms. The inference is that it did not occur strange idea that nobles should not to Camden that the author, “Shakespeare,” acknowledge any hand work because it Comments and the Stratford man were the same was “manual labor” unbefitting the rank of person.15 noble. Therefore any literary creativity It is hard to imagine that Camden, a must remain anonymous until after their Thus William Camden was aware of the privileged historian with detailed access death. But this is a far cry from writers and existence of William Shaksper of Stratford to the highest circles of government playwrights being denigrated, i.e., and yet never mentioned him as the great including Queen Elizabeth’s Court, was blackened and defamed. playwright, William Shakespeare, in any not fully aware of de Vere’s writing genius Elizabeth herself was highly of his many editions of Britannia, or in his and the open “secret” of his Cecil-coerced intellectual, loved literature and Remains Concerning Britain, or in his pseudonymity as William Shakespeare, but encouraged literary pursuits throughout official history of the Elizabethan era. there is no primary proof of this her reign. It was through these writings Diana Price, in her recent book, assumption. Although the town of that her Court achieved the acme of its Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography, put Hedingham’s chorography is not men- brilliance, becoming a “golden age,” not it this way:16 tioned in Britannia, de Vere certainly for painting, sculpture or music but for deserved description as bringing glory to ...in 1603, the antiquarian and historian creative writing. Sonnets were passed Queen Elizabeth’s Court. But one senses a William Camden, in his Remains around the Court. New plays by the best Burghley-influenced intentional and Concerning Britain, included ‘William playwrights, after tryouts at tavern inns, complete omission of Edward de Vere Shakespeare’ as one of the ‘most pregnant were presented at Court first before London despite his being described by others as the wits of these our times, whom succeeding public staging. By the end of Gloriana’s preeminent poet and comedy playwright ages may justly admire’. Yet Camden omitted reign, plays in London were attended by in England. For example, William Webbe Shakespeare when discussing the worthies the staggering number of 15,000 paying in his 1586 critique, “A Discourse of English of Stratford-on-Avon in his later work of customers per week, scarcely possible if 1607, Britannia. Poetry” said: plays and playwrights were “denigrated” Should Camden have mentioned in the Elizabethan age. I may not omit the deserved But what were Camden’s own commendation of many honourable and William Shakespeare? noble Lords and Gentlemen in Her guidelines for including writers and poets Majesty’s Court which, in the rare devices Stratfordians argue that playwrights as in his Britannia? Literary wisdom, writers, of poetry have been, and yet are, most well as actors were denigrated by learning, books, poets and poetry are skillful; among whom the Right Elizabethan England and this explains why placed on a revered pedestal in Britannia, Honourable Earl of Oxford may challenge to himself the title of most excellent among Camden didn’t mention Shaksper of sprinkled with literary quotes, both poetry the rest. Stratford in his Britannia. But where is the and prose. For instance, in the 1637 edition:

Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 15

1. Page 375: “The town itself, having Stratfordian hypothesis and its many The reign of Elizabeth was a Golden nothing in it at all to shew, glorieth yet in eminent proponents, one is reminded of Age, distinguished by poets whose like are hardly to be hoped for in any succeeding this, that Geoffrey Chaucer our English the words of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: age. The first in honor is Edward de Vere, Homer was there bred and brought up.” Earl of Oxford. 2. Page 411: In describing the town of The most fruitful lesson is the conquest of Verulam in Hertfordshire, “Alexander one’s own error. Whoever refuses to admit error may be a great scholar, but he is not The key point is that William Nicham who 400 yeeres since was there a great learner. Shakespeare is not mentioned at all, either born...” Camden then quotes one of in the first edition or in subsequent editions Nicham’s poems: Lisa Fittko’s words also come to mind: of 1627, 1634, and 1661, as a contributor “Such people known for their eminent to the Elizabethan Golden Age for This is the place that knowledge took of my literature. The implication is clear and Nativity, intellects are found shambling throughout My happy yeeres, my days also of mirth and history with blinders on. Sometimes it obvious except to those with eyes wide jollity. seems that the higher the mind, the bigger shut, that to mention Shakespeare would This place, my childhood trained up in all the blinders.” have been redundant since Peacham and Arts liberall, As Francis Bacon said, circa 1600: the Elizabethan literary world were quite And laid the groundworke of my name and aware that Edward de Vere was skill Poeticall. The more intelligent the authorities, Shakespeare. Increasingly confident the more idiotic will be some of their Oxfordians need no longer tread lightly on 3. Page 518: “Whereupon Bernard claims. When such a man sets out in the the erroneous, often preposterous and Andreas of Thelous, a Poet living in those wrong direction, his superior skill and sometimes fraudulent Bigfootian toes of days. . .” (wrote an ode dedicated to Henry mental swiftness will lead him pro- Stratfordians, and Peter Dickson pulls no VII). portionally further away from the truth. punches: 4. Page 575: Describing the Saxon times Until a smoking gun is found of Old English, Camden mentions “Joseph This glaring omission of Shakespeare’s the Monk of Exeter, a right elegant poet in confirming that Edward de Vere is William name from Peacham’s list was astounding those days.” Shakespeare, Oxfordians must rely upon and in all likelihood was not an oversight 5. Page 654: “. . . that I may use no other the increasing cascade of powerful but, on the contrary, was a deliberate words than the verses of Augustus Thuanus circumstantial evidence, exemplified in exclusion because Peacham knew that the following examples. Oxford and Shakespeare were the same Esmerius, that most excellent Poet of our person . . . Peacham’s decision in 1622 was age....”. In a recent paper entitled “The Queen clearly testimony that there was no 6. Page 707: “Master John Jonston of Elizabeth Pregnancy Portrait: Who Shakespeare but, instead, only Oxford.21 Aberden has but a while since written in Designed It and Who Did the Cover ups?”19 verse of Yorke...” a compelling circumstantial case is made, The same logic applies to William 7. Page 744: “And our St. Bede, the despite one-third of the portrait having Camden and his clearly intentional singular glory and ornament of England, being painted over by truth destroyers, omission of William Shaksper as a worthy wrote many most learned volumes.” that: person of Stratford or bringing any fame whatsoever to that “not undistinguished These important precedents in 1. Edward de Vere designed the little market town.” Britannia create a powerful argument that enigmatic pregnancy portrait which has The rigid exclusion of important the failure to mention England’s greatest perplexed English art experts for evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, is poet, William Shakespeare, in his generations. typical of dominant guild ideation. The chorographical description of Stratford- 2. Through Latin mottoes on the process is widespread, not only in the on-Avon is both intentional and significant. portrait, de Vere strongly implies: (a) that Shakespeare authorship debate but in all The argument that he could not mention the royal fetus was Henry Wriothesley; (b) other fields of endeavor as a distinguishing Shakespeare because he was a playwright that he, de Vere, was the father; (c) that de characteristic of humans. In the field of is not viable. Vere was William Shakespeare, who medicine, for instance, Skrabanek and devotedly dedicated his first two “signed” McCormick conclude that it is often The importance of circumstantial published works (Venus and Adonis and “experts” themselves who delay important evidence to the Oxfordian case The Rape of Lucrece) to his son, the Third advances. They point out that: Earl of Southampton. Peter Dickson’s As growing numbers of lid nails excellent work on Henry Peacham, now It now sounds incredible that the inexorably circumnavigate the coffin of familiar to all Oxfordians, is also a strong prestigious scientific journal Nature could the appallingly weak and prognosis- case in point.20 In his 1622 Compleat refuse, on the advice of ‘authorities’, to doomed Stratfordian authorship doctrine, Gentleman, a survey of important English publish Hans Krebs’ work on the citric acid the Oxfordian case steadily strengthens. literature, Peacham wrote: cycle, H.C. Urey’s work on heavy hydrogen, Reviewing the embarrassingly illogical and Enrico Fermi’s research on beta-decay. (Continued on page 16) Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 16 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003

Camden (continued from page 15) taught to others, and have woven thread by 8. Ibid. Krebs, Urey, and Fermi all subsequently thread into the fabric of their lives. 9. Ibid. received Nobel Prizes for these discoveries.22 10. Ibid. References 11. Much of this information is taken from the internet (anonymous). Concluding remarks 12. William Camden. Annales Rerum 1. Charlton Ogburn, Jr. “Shakespeare and the Gestarum Angliae et Hiberniae Regnante 1. In the Shakespeare authorship Man of Stratford.” Shakespeare Oxford Elizabetha (1615 and 1625). Posted on the debate, neither side has yet discovered a Society, 1964. internet by Prof. Dana F. Sutton, Univ. of 1a. Julia Cooley Altrocchi. Personal communi- California, Irvine, 2000 and 2001. smoking gun. Until such is found, and cation, 1949. there may not be one, Stratfordians and 13. Philemon Holland, op. cit. 2. William Camden. Remains Concerning 14. Ogburn, op. cit. Oxfordians must rely upon circumstantial Britain. Edited by R.D. Dunn. Univ. of 15. Shakespeare Oxford Society Handout. A evidence. Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada, 1985. summary of the doubts surrounding the 2. Each side is supremely confident of 2a. Encyclopaedia Britannica. William Benton, Stratfordian attribution. Mimeographed its case. But while Stratfordians rest upon Publisher, Chicago, 1970 Handout, 1980s. 3. Microfilm, Univ. of Hawaii Library, as 16. Diana Price. Shakespeare’s Unorthodox their whimsically constructed laurels, listed in the Short Title Catalogue. based upon more than 200 years of biased Biography. Greenwood Press, London, 4. Kay Roberts, Ph.D., Teacher of Latin, lolani 2001. research intermixed with blatant coverups School, Honolulu. 17. Encyclopaedia Britannica, op. cit. p. 861, and vitriolic ad hominem attacks against 5. Philemon Holland. Britain, or A vol. 19. their adversaries, Oxfordians quietly do Chorographicall Description of the Most 18. Ibid. their basic research and march with firm Flourishing Kingdomes, England, 19. Paul Hemenway Altrocchi. “The Queen Scotland, and Ireland. Written first in persistence towards the Truth. Elizabeth Pregnancy Portrait: Who Latine by William Camden. Translated 3. William Camden, England’s first Designed It and Who Did the Cover ups?” newly into English by Philemon Holland. Shakespeare Matters, Vol. 1, no. 2, Winter historian, who knew of Shaksper of Imprinted by George Bishop, London, 2002. Stratford through his application for a 1610. 20. Peter Dickson. “Henry Peacham on family crest, never once mentioned him as 6. Much of this information is taken from the Oxford and Shakespeare,” Shakespeare the playwright William Shakespeare or as internet (anonymous). Oxford Newsletter, Fall 1998. 7. Maid Macdonald, Deputy Head of a noteworthy citizen of Stratford in any of 21. Ibid. Archives, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. seven editions of Britannia between 1586 22. Petr Skrabanek and James McCormick Personal communication, 2002, including Follies & Fallacies in Medicine. and 1610, or in his Remains Concerning references. Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1990. Britain of 1605, or in his comprehensive two-volume history of the Elizabethan age published in 1615 and 1625. Earwig Arts present 4. The main conclusion is the same as that of two generations of Oxfordians, that E D W A R D’ S P R E S E N T S the failure of Camden to link William Shaksper of Stratford-on-Avon to the works Written by Sally Llewellyn of Shakespeare is significant circum- Directed by Kirrie Wratten stantial testimony that Camden knew they were two very different individuals. This exciting new play tells the story behind the writing of Shakespeare’s 5. The Camden evidence cited in this Sonnets and A Midsummer Night’s Dream, on the assumption that paper is against the reigning Shaksper of Shakespeare was the pseudonym of Edward de Vere. Stratford authorship theory but does not ‘An accomplished and entertaining piece with an involved story add specific evidence in favor of Edward and rounded characterisation... the language is so fluent and de Vere’s candidacy. progressive in terms of the narrative’ (Paines Plough) 6. It is difficult not to shake one’s head Edward’s Presents grew from Sally’s combined interests in literature and in continuing disbelief over the psychology. Sally’s first degree was in English, at Sussex University, and she remarkable power of Conventional later trained as a psychotherapist at Regent’s College, London. She has Wisdom in maintaining the incredibly written several shorter pieces; this is her first full-length play. The production weak Stratfordian dogma which continues marks the 400th anniversary of the death of Edward de Vere. impervious to all evidence and logic. The words of Leo Tolstoy come to mind: Times: 6th to 24th January 2004 7:30pm Tickets: £10 (£8 concessions)

Most men can seldom accept even the Venue: The Union Theatre, 204 Union Street, London SE1 0LX simplest and most obvious truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of Box-office: 011-44-20-7261-9876 (or e-mail: [email protected]) conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, have proudly Further information: www.edwardspresents.co.uk E-mail: [email protected] Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 17

Knocking on Wood (cont’d from page 11) vancement of unambiguously Protestant divine revelation to contend, as Hamlet instructing of the people in the new Prot- religious doctrine and prejudices—may does, that “there is nothing either good or estant religion. John Foxe, for example— be his distinctly Reformation and human- bad, but thinking makes it so” (II.ii.249- a man we know best for his graphic Prot- istic attitude toward writing itself, a per- 50)? Would he give authority to sorcer- estant martyrology—was unapologetic in spective that eschewed any assumptions esses and represent them as actually ca- his defense of the theatre in the cultural that a writer was obligated, first and fore- pable of seeing into the future? Would he war against Catholicism: “[P]layers, print- most, to write in deference to an ossified lionize, in a play like Henry VIII, the very ers, [and] preachers,” he declared, were tradition, in obedience to codified doc- Queen who would put the head of the “set up of God, as a triple bulwark against trine, and in submission to hierophants Catholic Queen of Scots on the the triple crown of the Pope . . . .” If with mitres and red hats. executioner’s block? Would he show Catho- Shakespeare had been a Catholic of any Particularly in this respect Shake- lic popes, bishops and cardinals as arro- conviction—let alone the fiery, subversive gant, carnal-minded toads worthy of being Catholic that the historical record sug- cudgeled by plain-spoken, doughty En- gests Stratford Will may have been—it is “Could any Catholic writer glishmen? Would he laugh at Catholic inconceivable that he would have pursued, piety, merrily indulge an irreverent and as his life’s work, the advancement of the bawdy wit, and consistently depict the government’s Protestant agenda by so completely abandon Catholic Church’s notables as incompe- skewering Catholic authorities and mas- tents, dissemblers, subversives and trai- tering one of the primary means of propa- tors? Would he write with a skeptical muse, ganda by which the State sought to under- his confidence in the explorationally, quizzically and non-dog- mine Catholic faith, convictions and loyal- matically? How, in God’s name, if he were ties. authority of divine so dedicated to a fundamentalist, activist “[M]iracles are ceas’d,” utters Shake- Catholicism and the subversion of the Eliza- speare’s anachronistically Protestant Arch- bethan State as was the man who bought bishop of Canterbury in Henry V (I.i.67) in revelation to contend, the Blackfriars’ Gatehouse, could he have obedience to the Protestant conviction that written a masterpiece of proto-existential- revelation has been closed. Henry IV, Part ist sensibility like King Lear? One, in Falstaff’s comic lament over Poins, as Hamlet does, that So, more power to Michael Wood and trumpets the distinctively Protestant propo- other Stratfordian historians as they un- sition that one’s salvation is not achieved ‘there is nothing either seal the literary tomb that orthodox by personal works: “O, if men were to be Stratfordianism has tried to keep closed sav’d by merit, what hole in hell were hot for generations. What they reveal, in enough for him?” (I.ii.107-08). The play good or bad, but unravelling the Stratford mummy, is that echoes that doctrine in Act IV when Henry this “corpse”—like its fabled Egyptian laments that “all that I can do is nothing counterpart—tells a story and bears a curse, worth, / Since my penitence comes after thinking makes it so?’” too. What it reveals is that the narrowly all, / Imploring pardon” (IV.i.303-05). And Catholic, parochial, bourgeois malcon- when Shakespeare’s Catholics are not about tent from Stratford could not have been the the business of trying to kill someone or speare’s work has much in common with wildly artful, free-thinking humanist with plot with a foreign power, they are usually that of the members of the School of passions for romance, fantasy, high com- worse than useless, as even the relatively Night—those poet/philosophers of the late edy and revisionist history that was Shake- innocuous Friar Laurence is unarguably sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries speare—a literary creator whose existence culpable for the deaths of Romeo and Juliet, such as Raleigh and Marlowe, whose works was possible, in large part, because of a having encouraged the children to lie to reflect skeptical attitudes toward conven- cultural revolution that broke old restraints, their parents, offered them dangerous coun- tional truths, as well as a strong measure of liberated imaginations and freed artists to sel, supplied them with drugs and, in the unorthodox religiosity. Can one seriously create works transcending the simple words of the late Roy Battenhouse, prof- imagine, for example, a Catholic writer mechanics and medieval morality of the fered “worldly nostrums rather than gos- advancing, in the person of Prince Hamlet, old mystery and miracle plays. Shakespeare pel. . . .” a hero meditating on the nobility of sui- was our first modern writer—indeed, our An independent factor which may be cide or suggesting, as Prospero does in The contemporary—a literary revolutionary the most revealing about Shakespeare’s Tempest, that faith in the Resurrection is who broke ground and planted seeds in incompatibility with any assumption that absurd by asserting, instead, that “We are soil that, in the hands of his artistic succes- he was Catholic—quite apart from his pro- such stuff/As dreams are made on/And our sors, would yield a harvest of unrivalled Reformation manipulation and distortion little life/Is rounded with a sleep”? Could richness that would ultimately establish of history, his copious appropriation and any Catholic writer so completely aban- little England as the literary jewel in the use of Anglican texts, and his open ad- don his confidence in the authority of world’s crown. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 18 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003 Book Reviews

Counterfeiting Shakespeare—Evi- fantasy.” He parses the words down to the it is wrong.” dence, Authorship and John Ford’s incredible “Fordian thumbprint”—“Of as Vickers wastes no words on Foster’s Funerall Elegye. By Brian Vickers. a key fulcrum” of Ford’s writing, his “fa- fall. He congratulates him, “as Richard J. Cambridge University Press, 2002. 562 vorite partitive genitive.” Kennedy put it, on ‘having discovered a pages. ISBN: 0-521-772435 (hardback, Poor Foster “evidently never looked at new poem by John Ford.’” $75). Ford” although he was the first to drop On to the bigger issue, integrity. “It is Ford’s name in this famous failed attribu- noteworthy how Foster’s critics continu- By James Webster Sherwood tion to Shakespeare. The “odds on the ally find their attempts to have a say being Elegye having arisen by chance from one blocked.” He cites case after case of editors rian Vickers, a professional Strat- corpus or the other were at least 3,000 who do not referee this controversy with fordian scholar, took his thesis from times better for Ford than they are for fairness. Not to forget the other disgraced BRichard J. Kennedy, a prize-win- Shakespeare,” Vickers writes, quoting a editor, “I also noted Taylor being ‘violent ning professional writer of children’s sto- satellite study by two of his myriad fellow in dismissing other scholars’ views.’” Then, ries, but a self-professed amateur at Shake- scholars, Professors Elliott and Valenza. “As readers will already have noticed, it is speare studies, and therefore to be forgiven So much for the fall of a few Stratford- sometimes necessary to read Taylor’s ar- his Oxfordian views. ian experts. Vickers’s real book is only guments rather carefully.” And, examin- In a massive work of research, com- beginning: ing Foster’s work, “how easily the unwary parative analysis and common sense, Pro- reader can be misled by the manipulation fessor Vickers uses statistics to fight statis- Arguably, the importance of properly of statistics.” tics. He affirms that if the writing is dull, a identifying authorship is even greater in So, “Foster is a master of sweeping the literature, since our engagement with the dull mind wrote it, thereby denying Shake- detail of language in poetry, drama or crumbs together, hoping to identify the speare and awarding John Ford the credit. fiction is far more intense than that of the loaf from which they derive.” His efforts end the claim of a little three- philosopher or historian. In literary texts page ditty called “Shall I Die” and a four- the direct confrontation with language is The death of scholarship teen-page dirge, A Funerall Elegye, to au- the primary experience, to which we con- thorship by Shakespeare. stantly return. We take it for granted that As Vickers calmly observes in this epic Along the way he disqualifies two seri- even the most humble writers deserve to of rational discourse and understatement, have their work correctly identified, an ous Stratfordian scholars: Gary Taylor, an expectation which becomes more exigent “Refusing to address counter arguments editor of the Oxford Complete Works of the more eminent the author. . . the inclu- brings about the death of scholarship.” Shakespeare, and Donald Foster, the cel- sion in his canon of work erroneously Where “disputes have proved particularly ebrated Vassar professor who correctly attributed to him would be deeply depress- troublesome,” he notes, “an attribution identified Joe Klein as the Anonymous ing, almost tragic. scholar, almost more than anyone else, is author of Primary Colors and then awarded duty-bound to take note of contrary inter- a forgotten man from Poughkeepsie the Just warming up, he continues: pretations of the evidence. . . .” authorship of “The Night Before Christ- Whipping his fellow Stratfordians, mas,”—attributions which have been ac- As I point out, authorship studies, Vickers purrs, “To ignore one’s critics is to cepted by experts. Others who had acqui- almost more than other branches of liter- kill off scholarship, denying the whole esced to the Taylor and Foster claims for ary criticism, is prone to. . . the pursuit of purpose of intellectual exchange.” He bur- scholarly disagreement in a personal man- Shakespeare, and are now reduced by ner, as if the goal. . . was not to establish ies his foes. They “seem to have forgotten Vickers’s proofs of poor scholarship, are truth, or probability, but to protect schol- the questionable status of certainty in all Professors Stanley Wells, David Bevington, arly reputation. forms of research.” And, “an issue dis- Stephen Greenblatt and Walter Cohen. He missed as closed remains gapingly open.” then winds up by describing the conduct of The gloves are off. Setting the stage for Thus, “To build on such foundations is to the established scholars and suggests a his real case, against a scholar’s ethics, the rest, not upon sand, but upon air.” more congenial attitude. professor writes that his book will end Vickers’ aim “is to try and remedy the “with a reminder that authorship studies, increasing isolation of authorship studies A simple plan like all forms of research, is best per- within a specialized enclave.” formed with an open mind.” That is a virtue Now he presents his philosopher he- Vickers follows a simple plan. He shows he denies Mr. Foster, whose aggressive roes: “A person’s judgments of the quality how Shakespeare could not, then proves defiance of all his better warnings “in- of evidence. . .are perspectival, depending beyond question how the poet-playwright volves not just the ethics of controversy but on his background beliefs.” (Susan Haack, John Ford (1586-at least 1638) could and the whole practice of authorship studies.” who warns about “the untidy process of did, write the tedious“Elegye, “‘a fantasy As Vickers notes, “it is a sad fact . . . that when groping for truth.”) Then, “what passes for on one note’—only showing little or no an attribution is wrong, everything about truth, known fact, strong evidence and Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 19 well-conducted inquiry is sometimes no and everywhere, perhaps the way the Earl were synonymous with “anonymous.” That such thing, but only what the powerful of Oxford was tutored, according to record. was the year when certain Catholic inter- have managed to get accepted as such.” (C. Yet Brian Vickers does make the Oxfor- ests were attempting to unmask a Protes- S. Peirce, the founder of pragmatism.) So, dian argument though he never posits the tant literary conspiracy which had claimed “Do not believe what you wish to believe question. To him, Shakespeare “was often the high ground of religious neutrality until you perceive what you ought to have content to explore older resources rather behind a pen name and beard for a bard perceived.” (John Crow). than turn to new ones” almost suggesting that carried no cultural baggage or literary Now comes a curious collision. “No an author perhaps older than his author. controversy from the past. They were pub- biographical or ‘close’ reading of the Son- And, Shakespeare “seems to have been ‘the lishing at London a book revealing a hand nets has ever produced any coherent evi- sole serious exponent’ of a syntactical us- disguised behind a curtain and a literary dence that the human feelings described age more common in The Spanish Trag- allusion in cipher to the name of Edward and represented in those poems are actual edy (1589) than in the Jacobean theater.” de Vere, unmasked in Minerva Britanna, feelings felt by Shakespeare on specific But perhaps Mr. Vickers is just letting his evidencing that the common knowledge occasions for real people.” mind run free, describing a bard of “the old regarding pen names in the town was ob- Is he suggesting a miracle of writing, school” of conservative writers, not as dar- vious. The “W.S.” initials—and indeed the an author who knows nothing about his ing as the newcomers of William of whole name William Shakespeare—were subject? Here is the kicker: “Such a naive Stratford’s generation. accepted as a pen name, a “Mickey Mouse” approach would turn the whole of lyric Maybe Mr. Vickers is a closet Oxford- and therefore free to be used by anybody poetry from Petrarch to Milton, at least, ian, an undiagnosed heretic to the profes- who wished to remain unknown— as John into concealed autobiography, an unusu- sional scholarly community, allowing only Ford obviously did—who today might sim- ally silly form of reductivism.” hints that the true author, even as a “new- ply be referred to as “Name Withheld” or Good grief, the scholar pleads for blood- comer” seemed to be far older than his age. “according to Reliable Sources,” or “Cholly less bleeding, for soulless soul-searching, The professor provides his alibi with, Knickerbocker,” “Deep Throat,” or some for life without living and death without “the desire to prove a thesis can blind one other “Mark Twain” and left unexplained, dying! to everything else,” he writes. “One of the unstained, unashamed, untamed. Yet, studying the text he attributes to vices of authorship studies as currently We owe to Mr. Vickers’s university in Ford, our gentle professor opines, “Here practiced, where electronic databases give Zurich, Eidgenossische Technische for the first time, [John Ford] seems to instantaneous access to a far wider range of Hochschule, an expression of sincere ap- compose from a real familiarity with his linguistic material than ever before, is that preciation for his saving effort. History subject-matter, and with a sense of relief words become treated as neutral units. . . still will have, thanks to his great work, no that he has something concrete to write that take no account of their history. . .” new writing from the author of the Shake- about. . . something that he has lived, is And, “it is a general fact in all human speare Canon which can be conclusively living with.” experience that any phenomenon may have proven to have been written after 1603, the Does the professor betray a conflict more than one explanation.” year when the Stratford man left London to between the real and the imagined? Per- Alas, poor Vickers! We learned from return home more or less permanently, haps he will entertain our query in the him, friends. As he said of Foster, his “total and the Earl of Oxford, whatever he wrote, spirit of “well-conducted inquiry.” reversal of position must call in question did lay down his pen forever. Now our Stratfordian guide says, his methodology.” Here is a telling statistic with which I “Thanks to T. W. Baldwin, we know that end: “‘the’ is, far and away, the single most Shakespeare had had the standard Eliza- Synonymous with anonymous common word in Shakespeare,” appear- bethan grammar-school education, with ing over 29,000 times in his work, “or just its remarkable intensive analytical ap- Mr. Vickers ends on a question he for- about once in every 30 words.” Now those proach to Latin style, the best students gets to ask. In denying attribution of A are the kind of facts I like—just the facts, acquiring a high linguistic consciousness Funerall Elegye to William Shakespeare, only factual. Let’s see, how many times did and a range of skills which were then let and assigning it to the clear claimant of its Marlowe use “the” after he was declared loose on English.” sorrowful achievement, the 27-year-old dead, and Bacon, in all those essays and But of course no one in history has ever John Ford, he does not deal with why its legal briefs he wrote, especially when prov- offered one document to prove that Will- publication page, “Imprinted at London ing himself the Ken Starr of his time? Is it iam of Stratford was that student, or indeed by G. Eld. 1612” declared it to be “By W. S.” possible to prove who wrote a work based even entered the grammar-school, and our with a dedication further signed by “W.S.” on just such a statistic? [For a possible poor Vickers, alas, is forced like all his “Despite the initials,” he writes, “I see answer, see page 5—Ed.] enclave to wing it, deciding that the noted nothing in the work that would suggest As the gentle and delightful Mr. Vickers bard was not made, but born, a sort of whim Shakespeare.” Except, of course, the pseud- wrote charitably, at a particularly painful and afterthought of the gods, master of not onymous authorship. So why the initials point in his execution, “but I break off—” just the 25 forms of rhetoric which Profes- “W.S.”? and so must I. sor Vickers measures by, but so versatile in It is, in this reviewer’s opinion, to sug- (James Sherwood is author of Shakespeare’s skills, so schooled in styles that his educa- gest that—circa 1612—the name “Will- Ghost, An Historical Mystery Novel. See ad on tion had to come out of his ears, and pores, iam Shakespeare” and the initials “W.S.” page 32)

Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 20 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003

Monstrous Adversary (cont’d from page 1) Berkeley and the author of several books His transcriptions will go to the Edward de guilty of similar erratic behavior he was on the early English stage. One of his works Vere Collection at Concordia University, just the kind of writer who would have in progress is a biography of Shakspere of Portland, Oregon, the site of the annual produced the works of Shakespeare. Stratford as the author Shakespeare. (Yet Edward de Vere Studies Conference, di- another biography!) Although not a career rected by Professor Daniel Wright. And he An object of curiosity Shakespeare scholar, he has had consider- says he will donate the royalties from the able experience researching archives and sale of the second 1,000-copies of his book Although his subject is the leading can- deciphering 16th century handwriting. to the conference. didate for authorship honors, Nelson says To his credit, he debates with Oxford- A number of contemporary Oxfordian almost nothing about the controversy. ians at their conferences, at social occa- scholars and writers appear in the acknowl- Oxfordians eager to see how a Stratfordian sions and on the Internet. He has been a edgments, foremost among them Nina English professor addresses the evidence genial critic and friendly adversary, keep- Green, an independent re- in a biography of Oxford will be searcher, who leads a list of disappointed. He never summa- eleven Oxfordians. He even gives rizes the arguments and doesn’t “The rest is silence” an example of her help. She is even mention the parallels be- Although in his book Alan Nelson never men- active on the internet but has not tween Oxford’s life and Shake- published in the Oxfordian speare’s works. Nor does he tions the parallels in Shakespeare’s works to newsletters or journals (Green present the case for the Stratford maintains a website at: http:// man. His focus is solely on www3.telus.net/oxford/www3.telus.net/oxford/). Oxford’s life as merely an “ob- Oxford’s life, he uses a line from Shakespeare to ject of curiosity” for historians. No authorship debate Almost incidental is his view of conclude his chapter on Oxford’s death. what the archival records say “The rest was silence,” he writes, and the words, Nelson sketches historical about Oxford’s qualifications to aspects of the authorship con- have written Shakespeare. of course, are a slight variation on the last words troversy in the Introduction but The archival records them- then mentions it briefly in pass- selves fairly overwhelm the book of Hamlet before he dies: “The rest is silence.” ing only three times in the 85 and may overwhelm the reader. chapters that follow. In the In- The transcriptions, which appear Oxfordians, who see the Earl of Oxford portray- troduction, he notes simply that in smaller type on virtually ev- Oxford has been “touted” as the ery one of the 442 pages, retain ing much of himself in Prince Hamlet, have some- author of Shakespeare’s works, the spelling and grammar of that J. Thomas Looney was the Elizabethan handwritten times conjectured that Hamlet’s final words ex- originator, that Bernard M. records. Some are two and three Ward’s 1928 biography has sev- pages long. A few are in pressed the dramatist’s despair about the end of eral shortcomings, and that par- untranslated Latin and Spanish. tial credit for scholarship is due While Oxfordian scholars will his creative but controversial life and about how Charles Wisner Barrell and appreciate the extraordinary Gynneth Bowen. He dismisses number of verbatim transcrip- posterity would judge him and his works. Nelson the Ogburns, parents and son, as tions, the book will be hard go- “contributing nothing substan- ing, almost impenetrable, for the would not agree—at least not yet. tial in the way of original docu- general reader. It is a book to be mentary research.” used, not to be read. In the five-page Introduc- ing Oxfordians on their toes with his chal- tion, Nelson manages to commit three Flawed interpretations lenges. His archival research into the docu- factual errors. He spells Barrell’s name ments on Oxford has no equal, and he wrong (also in the index but correctly in Unfortunately, it also suffers from sev- shares all his findings with Oxfordians. the bibliography) and gives the wrong eral flawed interpretations, a selective use Serious Oxfordian scholars will want his publication date for The Mysterious Will- of evidence and a casual bias against Ox- book on their shelf, handy to consult, even iam Shakespeare by Charlton Ogburn ford as Shakespeare from cover to cover. though it offers no significant new evi- (1984, not 1975.) The title, Monstrous Adversary, is from a dence. More seriously, he says Ward “confined denunciation of Oxford by one of his en- Besides sharing his work-in-progress, his overt speculation [that Oxford was emies. Nelson plans to deposit with Oxfordians Shakespeare] to interstitial chapters which Alan Nelson is a youthful professor his original research papers and poten- he called interludes.” In fact, the interludes emeritus at the University of California at tially some of the royalties from his book. are simply digressions. Ward’s only men- Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 21 tion of Shakespeare is at the end of the somewhere between the extremes. fourth and last interlude where he says he Throughout Monstrous Adversary, Who’s an refrained from comment on the author- Nelson interprets documents in a way that ship controversy–just the opposite of “overt he considers blots on Oxford’s character, amateur? speculation.” A bibliographic appendix supposedly disqualifying him as Shake- The back cover of Alan Nelson’s new does include works by seven non-Stratfor- speare. They show that Oxford was a “youth- biography of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of dians, including J. Thomas Looney and ful hot head” and quarrelsome, that his Oxford, Monstrous Adversary (taken from Eva Turner Clark. Nelson does not men- “first aim in life was to serve himself” not his Introduction), proclaims his reason tion it in his text. others, that he was a spendthrift, that he was for writing the book: His lapses in the Introduction inevita- superstitious and dealt in necromancy, that bly raise doubts about his knowledge of he consorted with prostitutes in Venice and Since 1920 Oxford has been touted by Oxfordian works, and unfortunately about caught syphilis, that he was debauched and amateur historians and conspiracy theo- rists as the true author of the poems and the accuracy of the rest of the book. Several riotous, that he was bi-sexual and had sexual plays of William Shakespeare. It has be- Oxfordians offered to review Nelson’s relations with boys, that his “braggadocio come a matter of urgency to measure the manuscript, but he declined. was unmatched by manly deeds,” and that real Oxford against the myth created by his He is already hearing about factual “foppishness was Oxford’s most character- apologists, and uncritically embraced by errors and serious misrepresentations. For istic trait.” television documentaries, by playwrights, and by the popular press. example, he says Oxford was not “a fully Oxford’s “most characteristic pose,” he competent practitioner of his native En- says, was “presiding at a well-furnished So, before we have even opened the glish” because he misspelled words, in- table, flanked by male companions, high in book, examined his work and given an cluding some that he had apparently “mis- his cups, firing satirical salvos and witti- assessment of its perceptions and revela- heard.” (How he knows what Oxford heard cisms, enlisting his guests in his conspira- tions about its subject, historical accuracy is not explained.) He concludes that “clearly torial fantasies...allowing scandalous talk and evidentiary value, Nelson has, in my Oxford’s language was not the language of at his table.” view, launched his enterprise, or “touted” Shakespeare.” (The bluster of “clearly” it, to use his aggressive vocabulary, with from a scholar usually betrays some hesi- Unworthy of Shakespeare an essentially bogus premise delivered in tancy.) Nina Green, however, had already both offensive and misleading language. shown him that many of the words are not Nelson deems this all unworthy of Though he himself is not a profes- mis-spellings but are readily found in the Shakespeare. But he misunderstands the sional historian, he nonetheless catego- Oxford English Dictionary. Nelson chose typical personality of a great genius. The rizes as “amateurs” the many profession- als from other fields who (like himself) to ignore some of her corrections, prob- life that he finds “so privately scandalous” have engaged in Oxfordian studies (some ably because they undermined his view of (publicly, too) sounds just like the life of of them for many more years than he), and Oxford’s language skills. Oxfordians will most artists and writers of genius. Indeed, further impugns their credentials by add- cry “foul!” it is their complex and sometimes outra- ing to their numbers those he deems to be Nelson also infers from the record that geous personalities that are richly reflected “conspiracy theorists.” From here it’s a William Cecil, Lord Burghley, was a be- in the works of great writers. short leap to the melodramatic assertion nevolent, long-suffering guardian and fa- As Kay Redfield Jamison of Johns that (after 80 years of this) there is an ther-in-law, forever rescuing Oxford from Hopkins University pointed out in Touched urgent need to stop the mythologizing of his escapades and financial difficulties. With Fire, great artists and writers have Oxford created by his “apologists,” a locu- Oxfordians do not agree with that interpre- often been by turns difficult, charming, tion designed to suggest that Oxfordian tation of the record. eccentric, brilliant, egotistical, generous, studies “make excuses” for Oxford by those profligate and sometimes sexually repre- Nelson names “true believers” in his Intro- More demonologer than biographer hensible. Count Tolstoy was famously ec- duction. centric and difficult. And, of course, Lord In the very moment, therefore, of de- claring the dire necessity for someone to Nelson’s general view of Ward is that Byron, at war with the world, led a most set the record straight about Oxford, he is a “worthy (if partisan) historian” but scandalous life. Nelson is misrepresenting Oxfordians, not “more hagiographer than historian.” He So Nelson is right. Oxford did lead an to mention “television documentaries” accuses “partisan apologists” for Oxford of extravagant and sometimes scandalous life. (wouldn’t that be documentary filmmak- seeing him through rose-colored glasses But he’s wrong to conclude that this dis- ers?), playwrights (are there that many?) and creating what he calls a myth of an qualifies him from having written the works and the popular press (The New York admirable poet and dramatist. He doesn’t of Shakespeare. Indeed, it supports the case Times?), who are all supposedly “embrac- cite any examples, but he probably could for him as a literary genius, especially in ing” Oxford as Shakespeare without en- have. Oxfordians may well consider that contrast to the life of Will Shakspere of gaging in a single critical thought. Nelson himself is a worthy (if biased) biog- Stratford-on-Avon, a “life of mundane in- Well, he had to do something to “tout” rapher but, in his case, more demonologer consequence,” in the words of the great, his book. than biographer. The truth, as usual, lies orthodox scholar, S. Schoenbaum. —K.C. Ligon Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 22 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003

A year in the life By Hank Whittemore 1586: Part II—Preparing for war

n this year of the campaign against Sixtus V to confer the Church’s blessing prisoners use to win over servants and Spanish forces in the Netherlands, the upon his forthcoming Enterprise. The obtain secret intelligence.”7 IBabington Plot, the mortal wounding Pope readily agrees, promising financial Since the early 1570s, with cash from of Philip Sidney and the treason trial of support for this grand holy crusade against his own pocket, Walsingham has been Mary Queen of Scots, the great Enterprise the Infidel.3 building an elaborate system of espionage of King Philip and the Pope looms on the Sir Thomas Heneage informs the Dutch to support Burghley’s policies. The Secre- horizon as an inescapable reality: the long- Council that Leicester will have to resign tary “must have developed it little by little dreaded invasion by armada is at hand. his supreme office. But William Cecil, as he was able to impress upon the Queen Meanwhile, as Queen Elizabeth desper- Lord Treasurer Burghley, while equally the need for it,” writes Conyers Read. “First ately scrounges for new cash to prosecute outraged over the earl’s arrogance, argues to last, in this as in all other measures the war abroad while building naval de- that Spain would view his removal as which he devised for the safety of the State, fenses at home, she nonetheless commands English weakness. Burghley threatens to he was severely handicapped by the close- the Treasurer of her royal Exchequer to resign until Elizabeth agrees Leicester can fisted policy of Elizabeth.” start paying 36-year-old Edward de Vere, retain his post so long as he makes clear his In July 1582 the Queen finally autho- 17th Earl of Oxford, an extraordinarily large status as a subordinate. 4 rized the first annual allowance for annual allowance of 1,000 pounds. April: Leicester, celebrating St. Walsingham at 750 pounds. Within a year January: On New Year’s Day in Hol- George’s Day in Utrecht with a state came the death (possibly from Leicester- land, a deputation calls upon Robert banquet, exhibits his loyalty to Elizabeth inspired poison) of Oxford’s friend Tho- Dudley, Earl of Leicester, urging him to by installing an empty throne to signify her mas Radcliffe, 3rd Earl of Sussex, patron of accept the Supreme Governorship of the as holding the place of honor.5 the Lord Chamberlain’s Men producing United Provinces of the Netherlands. Le- May: Spanish ambassador Bernardino plays at Court; and also in 1583 the icester is well aware that the Queen herself de Mendoza, in Paris, writes to King Philip spymaster inaugurated the Queen’s Men, has consistently refused all offers of such and notes the “extreme care” with which signaling that royal-sponsored perfor- sovereignty, but he takes office in a solemn Elizabeth “obtains intelligence by every mances played an integral part in opera- ceremony at the Hague—an act, writes possible means of your Majesty’s designs.”6 tions for his Secret Service. Cecil was Jenkins, so “lunatic” it could be explained Gathering such information from paid himself a proponent of the stage as a ve- only as “the irrepressible upsurge of in- agents at home and abroad is Secretary of hicle for state propaganda, while young stincts which he had been obliged to con- State Francis Walsingham, who is now men recruited as writers gained “covers” trol for the greater part of his life, and were using a young Catholic exile named Gil- for activities as agents or informants. the stronger for being denied.”1 bert Gifford to entrap Mary Stuart in some- Plays of the Queen’s actors in the 1580s February: Elizabeth learns about thing to warrant her execution and thereby, include The Famous Victories of Henry Leicester’s office and explodes with un- once and for all, eliminate the threat she Fifth, The Troublesome Reign of King John, bridled fury. Camden records the earl had has increasingly posed. While training in The True Tragedy of Richard III and King acted “as if he were a perfect King; but the France to become a priest, Gifford entered Leire, to name but a few undoubtedly from Queen, taking it very ill that the Estates had Walsingham’s service as a spy; and upon the pen of Edward de Vere, although schol- conferred so large Honour on him, and his return to England in December he was ars in the future will view “Shakespeare” as that he had accepted it, nipped the man at “arrested” and taken straight to the Secre- drawing upon them for his own creations. unawares in his swelling Pride.” tary, who directed him to pick up letters for Elizabeth and Burghley have steadily Mary at the French embassy and bring increased Secretary Walsingham’s allow- How contemptuously you have carried them to her at Chartley Manor. Gifford will ance, with annual payments to reach a yourself towards us you shall understand return Mary’s replies to Walsingham, whose limit of 2,000 pounds in 1588. “Two thou- by this Messenger,” the Queen wrote her assistant Thomas Phelippes, a master code sand pounds was a large amount of money onetime lover. “We little thought that one whom we had raised out of the Dust, and breaker and forger, will decipher them. in the later sixteenth century,” Read notes, prosecuted with such singular Favour Then the letters will be re-sealed and sent adding, “The fact that Elizabeth, for all her above all others, would with so great Con- on to their intended destinations. cheese-paring, was willing to invest so tempt have slighted and broken our Com- Elizabeth now makes a pointed com- much in secret service shows how impor- mands in a matter of so great Consequence ment to the French ambassador, suggest- tant she conceived it to be. No doubt it was … We therefore command you that, all ing she knows all about these machina- efficient: Elizabeth was the last person in Excuse set apart, you do forthwith, upon your Allegiance which you owe unto us, do tions and approves of them: “You have the world to spend 2,000 pounds unless 8 whatsoever Heneage, our Vice-chamber- much secret communication with the she could see an adequate return.” lain, shall make known to you in our Name, Queen of Scotland, but believe me, I know By now, through Gifford, all letters to upon pain of further Peril.2 all that goes on in my kingdom. I myself Mary Stuart and her replies are being craft- was a prisoner in the days of the Queen my ily intercepted – at their hiding place, in a March: Philip of Spain writes to Pope sister, and am aware of the artifices that beer barrel – and deciphered by Phelippes

Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 23 for Walsingham, who feeds details to “the learned view and insight of your Lord- In history Oxford will be seen as Burghley. In one letter they find the ship, whose infancy from the beginning was temporarily professing the Roman faith, Queen of Scots assuring Mendoza of her ever sacred to the Muses.” 16 bragging about his antipathy toward support for Spain’s invasion and promis- Also, in A Discourse of English Poetry Elizabeth and wasting his earldom with ing help from her 20-year-old son, James this year, William Webbe pays high tribute nothing to show for it; but the view here is VI of Scotland. Clearly she welcomes a to Edward de Vere’s own verse: that this negative reputation may have chance to seize her cousin’s throne, but been a price he paid as the Lord Great more specific evidence will be needed to I may not omit the deserved Chamberlain who, as part of services he incriminate her. commendations of many honourable and could not acknowledge, was given the June 21: Burghley writes to noble Lords and Gentlemen in Her Majesty’s freedom to use his resources and talent to Court, which, in the rare devices of poetry, Walsingham about the Low Countries have been and yet are most skilful; among foster the English renaissance. In this view, and, in the midst of this letter, urges him whom the Right Honourable Earl of Oxford Oxford accepted a government pension in to confront the Queen about financial may challenge to himself the title of the most return for having privately financed his assistance to Oxford.9 excellent among the rest.17 work, as Walsingham had done, and then June 23: A “New Decree of the Star necessarily participated in the obliteration Chamber” authorizes strict government Among literary men in Oxford’s circle of the truth of what he had actually controls over printing, so wartime cen- are Walsingham operatives such as Munday accomplished: sorship is now in effect.10 This is “the and Watson – suggesting the earl himself most important enactment dealing with has been moving within the same shadows Alas, ‘tis true, I have gone here and there, the press during the period,” writes of espionage (albeit at a higher level) where And made myself a motley to the view, McKerrow. 11 appearance and reality seldom meet. In Gored my own thoughts, sold cheap what June 25: Oxford writes to Burghley doing so, he would be uniquely adapting his is most dear, that both Walsingham and Robert Cecil own life as premier earl to the multi-layered Made old offences of affections new. Most true it is, that I have looked on truth have been keeping him informed of per- hall of mirrors in which such men exist. In a true sense the entire Elizabethan world is Askance and strangely… sonal financial help expected from the Sonnet 110, lines 1-6 Queen; meanwhile, he requests a loan of a stage, its actors using various disguises amid an atmosphere of secrecy and paranoia 200 pounds “till her Majesty performeth One letter to Mary Stuart (read first by her promise.”12 from the top down. As Haigh opens his portrait of the Queen: Walsingham) describes how a priest, John June 26: Elizabeth orders an annual Ballard, has arrived from France to orga- allowance of 1,000 pounds to be paid to The monarchy of Elizabeth I was founded nize a rebellion against Elizabeth timed Oxford in quarterly installments, made upon illusion. She ruled by propagandist with Philip’s armada. The Secretary’s spies retroactive to March, using the formula images which captivated her courtiers and 13 are watching Ballard, who proposes to a for Walsingham himself. By now, if Eva seduced her subjects – images which have young Catholic supporter, Anthony 18 Turner Clark is correct, Oxford has writ- misled historians for four centuries. Babington, that they assemble a team to ten versions of all but three plays assassinate Queen Elizabeth. The next step In the labyrinth of spy and counter-spy, (Macbeth, King Lear and Henry VIII) to be is for Walsingham—through Gifford and double agent and agent provocateur,” attributed later to Shakespeare. He em- other agents, such as Robert Poley—to ploys Burghley protégé John Lyly as his Plowden writes of 1586, “it is far from clear push the conspirators onward and specifi- at this distance in time who was double- personal secretary while patronizing sepa- cally get Babington to lure Mary to make rate companies of adults, boys and musi- crossing who” among agents trying to entrap 14 a move ensuring her own destruction. cians. He maintains Vere House at Lon- Mary Stuart and “it is also evident that this Belloc offers this view of the goals and was often far from clear at the time.”19 don Stone and the mansion Fisher’s Folly, tactics used by Burghley and Walsingham: just outside Bishopsgate, which may have The same may be said of Edward de served “as headquarters for the school of Vere’s history. Having accurately accused What was really important was that poets and dramatists who openly ac- his former Catholic associates of treason Gilbert Gifford was urging the conspira- knowledge his patronage and leader- and having become the target of monstrous tors, with the object of entrapping Mary, to ship.”15 allegations against him, five years later make a definite plan for murdering Eliza- Books dedicated to Oxford thus far Oxford remains a trusted servant of Elizabeth beth. He and his master, Walsingham (and have come from the pens of Arthur as she faces her most dangerous hour. If the behind Walsingham his master, Cecil) were Golding, Thomas Underdowne, Edmund contemporary public has received negative not aiming at the wretched dupes whom Elviden, Thomas Bedingfield, Thomas reports of him, these are contradicted by the they had egged on to attack Elizabeth; they Twyne, George Baker, John Brooke, An- help Burghley and Walsingham have were aiming at catching Mary herself by displayed in securing his annual allowance, getting some document from her under thony Munday, John Lyly, John Hester, color of which she might be put to death Thomas Stocker, Thomas Watson, John not to mention by the Queen’s ordering of it. without raising rebellion in England and Southern and Robert Greene. Now the Could it be that Oxford himself played agent all Europe to fury.20 eighteenth dedication appears in the provocateur in getting his erstwhile friends Oxford-sponsored English Secretary to confide their treacherous plans? Had he July 5: The Queen and James VI of (with a new version of the Vere arms, absorbed their personal attacks on him, Scotland conclude the Treaty of Berwick, containing a double-crowned eagle crest) with the Queen’s knowledge, to avoid providing for each sovereign to help the attributed to Angel Day, who refers to the revealing the duplicitous extremes he went other in the event of Philip’s invasion. earl’s “exceeding bounty” as well as to to betray them? (Continued on page 24) Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 24 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003

Year in the life (cont’d from page 23) On the contrary, however, it was Eliza- dearest sister,” the commissioners get set Mary receives this news of her son’s be- beth (frightened for her own life) who to find her guilty; but a messenger arrives trayal with “the greatest anguish, despair originally pressed for terrible punishments saying Elizabeth has been unable to sleep and grief” while becoming more ready in public view, prompting Burghley to and the court is now adjourned to London. than ever to endorse a conspiracy against assure the Queen that her executioners Oct 29: Parliament assembles, with Elizabeth.21 She, of course, is also navigat- would be “protracting the same both to the Oxford in attendance, and focuses on de- ing through the hall of mirrors. extremity of the pains in the action” and termining Mary’s fate. July 6: Babington writes to Mary, in a that the deaths “would be as terrible as any Nov. 16: Elizabeth, torn by having to letter passing through the hands of other new device could be.”26 After the first make the ultimate decision, sends Mary a Walsingham, with a plan to liberate her spectacle evoked such horror, she appar- message warning her that she has been and kill Elizabeth.22 Phelippes, the code- ently changed her mind. sentenced to death, that Parliament has breaker, is sent up to Chartley to receive Sept 22: Philip Sidney is mortally petitioned to have the sentence carried out Mary’s reply as soon as it can be inter- wounded at Zutphen, lingering in agony and that she should prepare herself for that cepted. for twenty-six days before dying at thirty- fate; but the Queen is far from being able July 17: Mary replies to Babington, one, sparking general mourning in En- to follow through. appearing to agree with the plan and effec- gland.27 As a result of the Elizabethan hall Nov. 23: Leicester, along with his 20- tively signing her own death warrant. of mirrors, he will be viewed in history as year-old stepson Robert Devereux, Second Phelippes rushes back with the deciphered having inspired various works of Shake- Earl of Essex, returns from the Nether- letter to Walsingham, who either instructs speare, rather than the more likely sce- lands; and it may be wondered to what or allows him to forge a postscript in which nario that it was Edward de Vere who had extent he and others might be aware that Mary asks for the names of the conspira- inspired him. next year a young man named Arthur Dudley tors. By the spymaster’s later statements, Sept 27: Commissioners appointed will show up in Madrid claiming to be Belloc writes, it is virtually certain his for the trial of Mary Queen of Scots as- Leicester’s son by Elizabeth and, there- assistant “forged much else in the letter” semble in Star Chamber at Westminster to fore, of potential use by Philip as a puppet including interpolations that “could be hear the incriminating evidence. Among king of England. Nevertheless, amid the construed into a vague support for the them is “our most dear Cousin Edward never-ending hall of mirrors, Burghley project of Elizabeth’s murder.” Such evi- Earl of Oxford, great Chamberlain of En- and Walsingham now enlist Leicester’s dence means “Cecil could now kill Mary gland, another of the Lords of the Parlia- help in persuading the Queen to act deci- Stuart by process of law with a plausible ment.” 28 (Leicester is still overseas.) In the sively in the matter of getting rid of Mary excuse.” 23 Queen’s view Burghley will be directing Stuart. July 29: Francis Drake is returning the show; and Read writes that by now Dec. 2: By now the trial commission- with Walter Raleigh’s colonists from Vir- “there is no doubt at all” that Cecil’s “unwa- ers have met again and formally con- ginia. vering purpose” is “to bring Mary to her demned Mary to death; but to give Eliza- August: Ballard is arrested and sent to reckoning.”29 beth more time to strengthen her resolve, the Tower; Mary’s belongings are searched Oct 12: The trial opens at Parliament is prorogued until February of and forwarded to Walsingham; and finally Fortheringhay, but Mary refuses to appear the following year. Babington, who had fled into hiding, is on the ground that she is a sovereign Queen Dec. 4: When a redrafted proclama- caught and also sent to the Tower. After the not answerable to any English court. tion of Mary’s sentence is published, the duped young man has been examined, Oct 14-16: Formal proceedings begin result is a great burst of public rejoicing in Burghley writes to Leicester in Holland with Mary present. She denies having London. that they both were “very great motes in the written the infamous letter to Babington, Dec 25: The Court has moved from traitors’ eyes” and had been slated to be pointing out that Walsingham knew her Richmond to Greenwich, where Elizabeth killed. Unable to resist a malicious glance cipher and easily could have had it forged; agrees that Burghley should prepare a for- at reports of the earl as one who poisons his and while admitting she supports English mal warrant for Mary’s execution.31 (The enemies, Burghley adds, “Of your Lordship Catholics, she also denies ever plotting momentous event will take place on Feb. 8, they thought rather of poisoning than of against Elizabeth’s life. The Secretary rises 1587, ensuring Spain’s invasion of En- slaying.”24 in protest, calling upon God to affirm his gland.) Sept 20-21: Fourteen plotters, having own honesty and freedom from malice. Now at Christmas, with this “most griev- been tried and condemned, are executed “Mary was probably right in asserting ous and irksome burden” still upon her, amid public celebrations. (Agent Poley, that the commission had already made up Elizabeth cannot forget that she remains arrested with the others, is set free.) “The its mind about her guilt before the trial the lead actress in a real-life play. “We first seven were hanged, cut down, their began,” Read comments. “The trial itself princes are set on stages in the sight and Privities cut off, their Bowels taken out followed the usual pattern of English trials view of all the world,” she has recently before their Faces while they were alive, for treason in the sixteenth century. Obvi- reminded her lords, among them Edward and their Bodies quartered, not without ously it does not conform to modern ideas de Vere, Earl of Oxford, who holds a front- some note and touch of Cruelty,” Camden of justice. The object was not to establish row seat for the show and has surely sa- reports. “The next day the other seven … Mary’s guilt, but to display the evidence vored this allusion to players and plays suffered the same kind of death; but some- upon which the judgment was based.”30 from his sovereign Mistress.32 what more favorably, by the Queen’s ex- Despite Mary’s eloquent defense, claim- Dec. 26: The Chamber Accounts indi- press Command, who detested the former ing she would “never make shipwreck of cate that on this day a performance at Court Cruelty.”25 my soul by compassing the death of my (Continued on page 32) Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 25

Paradigm Shift By Mark K. Anderson, with Tekastiaks Burghley’s Bribe; De Vere’s Dower?

n the life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl However, another document has re- but the trade embargo set up in the fiasco’s of Oxford, few of his 19,798 recorded cently surfaced that alters our understand- wake was bad for both English and Spanish Idays on this planet had more far-reach- ing of Burghley’s above quoted expense business. Burghley negotiated a new and ing consequences than December 16, 1571: account. friendly agreement with Spain on 15 March The day he married Anne Cecil. 1573.5 The embargo was lifted. But for the Yet the circumstances behind this wed- near term it presumably remained in ding and the forces motivating the groom, “Burghley, according to Spain’s best interests to ensure that the bride and father-of-the-bride still have yet skids of their English negotiator remained to be fully appreciated. Was de Vere in love the above document, put well greased at this sensitive time when so with “sweet Anne Page” (as the Fenton many doubloons remained on the line. subplot in The Merry Wives of Windsor De Guaras notes that the bribe could would suggest) or was he kicking and up £3000 in dowry plus not come anywhere near Burghley’s ac- screaming all the way to the altar (as his counts. This, Burghley reportedly admit- self-characterization as Bertram in All’s a family property worth ted, would be tantamount to political sui- Well That Ends Well would suggest)? Or, cide if anyone at court ever found out. perhaps, was he doing both at once and £100 or more annually ... Instead, de Guaras tells his superior that neither very well? the Spanish “gratuity” should come in the Moreover, was Anne’s father Lord However, another docu- form of paying off Burghley’s dowry. (This Burghley just a passive observer on the suggests that in the spring of 1573, a year sidelines, as Burghley’s correspondence ment has recently surfaced and a half after the wedding, Burghley still from the period would suggest?1 Or did the hadn’t paid the dowry to his son-in-law.) Secretary of State (and later Lord Trea- that alters our understand- More curious still is the fact that the surer) play a more active role in this mar- dowry de Guaras requests be remitted is riage game? five times larger than what Burghley had As can be seen in Alan Nelson’s new ing of Burghley’s above recorded in his own personal notes. De biography “Monstrous Adversary,” in 1576 Guaras arranges for what he euphemisti- when de Vere first officially split with his quoted expense account.” cally calls a “stipend” of £15,000 to be wife Anne, Burghley wrote out a memo delivered to the Flanders town of Dunkirk ostensibly detailing the marriage expenses. for its presumptive final journey to En- As translated into modern spelling, it reads: The document is a letter written in gland. (The amount is actually quoted in Spanish from the Spanish agent Antonio Spanish currency—40,000 escudos— The Lord Treasurer did first assure to de Guaras in London to his superior the which in round numbers translates to the Earl and his wife and the heirs of their two Duke of Alva, then serving as governor of £15,000.6) bodies a manor of £108 per annum, and because the Earl might not sell the same away the Spanish Lowlands. The letter, dated 1 The letter quoted below introduces the he was first offended with the Lord Trea- May 1573 and preserved at the Spanish prospect of Spanish money being secretly surer. And then upon the surrender of that Archives de Simancas, reports a conversa- funneled into the Lord Treasurer’s pock- estate, the Lord Treasurer paid £3000 to and tion de Guaras had had with Burghley. It ets: To complete the story, the check, as it for the Earl, for which sum after 3 in the requests that payment be arranged for a were, should ultimately be traced. We still hundred he might have had £360 yearly and bribe the latter had tacitly agreed to. Al- don’t know how or even if the casks of gold his stock returned. though the purpose of the “gratuity” goes were shipped to or picked up in Dunkirk. The marriage hath cost the Lord Trea- surer from the beginning above 5000 or 6000 unspoken, at the time Queen Elizabeth had However, one anomaly in de Vere’s pounds.2 given Burghley a sensitive task to perform biography might be better explained with that a Spanish payoff would have adversely this new information. In July 1574, after This would seem to settle the question affected. Only months before de Guaras’s being rebuked by the queen, de Vere (and of the kind and quantity of poker chips letter, Elizabeth appointed her new Lord Lord Edward Seymour) did flee England brought to the nuptial bargaining table in Treasurer the task of normalizing trade for unknown reasons, landing at Calais 1571. Burghley, according to the above relations with Spain. Economic ties be- and passing “by Bruges to Brussels.”7 document, put up £3000 in dowry plus a tween the two European powers had been Dunkirk lies on the road between Calais family property worth £100 or more annu- feeble since England suborned Alva’s and Bruges. As can be seen in B.M. Ward’s ally—probably Combe Neville in payships in 1569.4 Catholic Spain still 1928 biography of de Vere, Burghley 3 Kingston-on-Thames. stung from Elizabeth’s filching their gold, (Continued on page 26) Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 26 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003

Paradigm Shift (continued from page 25) Excellency without him allowing me to if there was no “stipend”—that to help promptly stood up for this rash behavior: accept it [the deal], and that, in consider- with the marriage of madam his daughter, “Howsoever [de Vere] might be, for his own ation of who was ordering it [Burghley], who married the Earl of Oxford, that per- private matters of thrift inconsiderate,” that I hoped that he would not refuse it; haps milady his wife would not refuse the wrote Burghley on 15 July, “I dare avow demonstration of His Majesty’s goodwill; him to be resolute in dutifulness to the Implicitly, de Guaras appears to be Queen and his country.”8 Perhaps Burgh- expressing his fears that Burghley may be De Guaras cleverly brings in Lady ley was just defending a child he’d become trying to set up a sting or a trap. Might Burghley as an intermediary to make this accustomed to apologizing for. But, if the Burghley be arranging for a bribe to be bribe palatable to the extremely cautious casks of gold had indeed been delivered to sent just to publicly refuse it and humiliate Lord Treasurer. Dunkirk and were awaiting a pickup, there Spain? De Guaras doesn’t want to count out may have been more self-interested mo- and to this he did not reply, but [he was] as if admitting it and laughing to tives lurking behind Burghley’s avowals. himself; Below, a modern English translation “More curious still is the of de Guaras’s letter is reprinted, followed A good novelist or screenwriter by the original Spanish. De Guaras’ words, fact that the dowry de couldn’t have loaded this moment better. run-on sentences to make Alan Ginsberg howl, have been broken into sentence- Guaras requests be remit- and at that same time madam his wife length chunks. I have inserted commen- entered and greeted me, asking me how I tary between some of these snippets. ted is five times larger was and if there were anything in which she The letter, although not written in any could please me, from which I could con- cipher, is nevertheless still cryptic—no than what Burghley had sider that she was hoping for this “gift,” doubt for good reason. De Guaras was because other times she had not granted writing about sensitive matters that re- recorded .... [the letter], me such favors; quired the utmost secrecy. Intentional ambiguity and plausible deniability are although not written in Ditto for Lady Burghley. One pictures part of the lingua franca of this trade. poor Ophelia (and Anne) as a child stuck in Normal rules of antecedents are out the any cipher, is neverthe- a household where both parents loved to window. “He” can typically mean one of hide behind arrases. several people in any given instance; one less still cryptic .... [he] must rely on context to derive the identi- and his secretary, who is his cousin was writing about sensi- and who has done in this matter whatever ties and actions behind de Guaras’ well he could out of good will, and his stewards guarded language. tive matters that required who have helped me with their master, all The letter begins with de Gueras re- tive matters that required hope for something [their own bribe] as if porting to the Duke of Alva about a conver- it was an obligation, although this could be the utmost secrecy.” sation the correspondent had had with the utmost secrecy.” fulfilled with little. Lord Burghley concerning various affairs of state. The topic then shifts to the follow- But it is natural for them all to appre- ing excerpt. The letter closes with a discus- any possibility when dealing with this crafty ciate getting a gift; and, as if he were the one sion of the Huguenot Count Montgomery, English diplomat. who well deserved it, [every] third person expects the “grace” of His Majesty, as I have which like the preamble has also been written; edited out. Translated text—by Tekastiaks and he [Burghley] said to me that if his with Mark K. Anderson—is in smaller type, colleagues knew that he was getting a “stipend” from His Majesty [the King of Everyone who might get wind of this with my comments following each quoted Spain], it would be his undoing, and that bribe will want a piece of the action; fortu- 9 section: in no way would he accept it; nately, they’ll be easily bought off.

...And these were the words point by All parties involved know what kind of as he is like the king of this kingdom, point of his [Burghley’s] informal conver- dynamite they’re playing with. If Elizabeth in my humble opinion, at the very least up sation which he carried on with me more to 40,000 escudos should be sent to him, than once, and, as I say, [our] being alone; ever did find out about these subrosa which is what he offered to give in dowry to negotiations—even before it came to cash his daughter; Note that de Guaras says the following on the barrelhead—Burghley could have discussions were “carried on... more than ended up with anything from a public and less would not be appropriate, considering who had it given [Burghley?] once.” censure to a trip to the scaffold. Scarcely more than a year after the Duke of Norfolk and whom it is given to [Oxford?], [one or both?] being worthy of our high suspi- met his maker, the Regnum Cecilianum and on the occasion of the aforesaid, I cions—and with good reason; said to him that, concerning what we had would have come to an ignominious end. talked about in the way of a “gratuity” — that I would not be able to reply to Your and saying to him that I thought that, We need to make it worth his/their

Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 27 while; he/they might double-cross us oth- The don wants to see the gold with his el peligro de los piratas lo truxiese derecho aqui, erwise. own eyes before any deal is finalized. y con todo silencio y secreto entregarselo a su muger, conmunicandolo primero con el, pues con el no se puede tratar mas dello, sino then it is in such a degree that he I write my humble opinion: Your Ex- [Burghley] holds in his hand the will of the cellency will do that which will be in His ofrenciendolo y entregandolo juntamente, y, como se dize, dos vezes da el que luego da. Yo queen in everything and the disposal of all Majesty’s best interests. the royal rents at her [his?] will, and has escrivo mi simple parecer: Vuestra Excellencia hara lo que mas sera servicio de Su Magestad. gained such confidence of the queen that Precisely what the Duke of Alva did she has granted release [of the rents?] to [*] previous editor erroneously read him so that neither in life nor in death with this suggestion is a matter that will be “terna” would they [renters?] be able to seek any interesting to piece together in the coming other accounting than that which he will years. Endnotes: want to give; The original Spanish of de Guaras’s 1B.M. Ward, The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, 1550-1604. John Murray, London (1928) Burghley doesn’t have to answer to letter follows: 61-4; Charlton Ogburn, Jr., The Mysterious renters or to anyone else for that matter. He William Shakespeare: The Myth and the is a free agent in the queen’s fiscal affairs. [Y] estas fueron las palabras puntalmente Reality. EPM Publications, McLean, Va. de su platica que me dixo por mas de una ora y, (1992; 1984 first ed.) 483-93. como digo, estando a solas; y con la occasion de 2 we can hope that he is grateful, so that Salisbury MSS 2.144-45 (160/115) reprinted lo dicho, le dixe que, sobre lo que le avia hablado in Alan Nelson, Monstrous Adversary: The it will be well used on him de la gratificacion, que yo no podria hazer a Life of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Vuestra Ecellencia respuesta sin que el me la Oxford. Liverpool Univ. Press, Liverpool, Conyers Read was apparently unaware diese de aceptarla, y que, en consideracion de U.K. (2003)148; Daphne Pearson also of this letter when he wrote—with unin- quien lo mandava, que esperava que no la discusses these financial arrangements in “Did Lord Edward ‘Send His Patrimony tended irony—“De Guaras was of the opin- rehusaria; y el me dixo que, si sus compañeros supiesen que tenia pension de Su Magestad que Flying’?” De Vere Society Newsletter 3:3 ion that the English were so eager for the (May 1999) 17, although it seems she seria su perdicion y que en ninguna manera la misread Burghley’s “jC viij” as £800 re-establishment of trade that they would aceptaria; y diziendole que estimava que, si no accept almost any terms. He even thought instead of £108. fuese pension, que para ayuda del casamiento 3 Pearson 17-18. that the Queen could be induced to return de madama su hija, que caso con el Conde de 4 Wallace MacCaffrey, The Shaping of the to the obedience of the Pope. Evidently Ocsfort, que Miladi su muger no rehusaria la Elizabethan Regime. Princeton Univ. Press, Burghley buttered him well.” [My empha- demonstracion de la buena voluntad de Su Princeton, N.J. (1968) 280-1; Conyers sis]10 Magestad; y a esto no respondio sino como Read, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth. concediendo y reyendose; y en el mismo tiempo Jonathan Cape, London (1965; 1960 first entro Madama su muger y me saludo, ed.) 100-2, 154-60. and the sending of it by courier or by 5 demandandome como estava y que si avia alguna William S. Maltby, Alba: A Biography of exchange would cause too much of a rum- cosa en que hazerme plazer, por donde podia yo Fernando Alvarez de Toledo, Third Duke pus. considerar que ella esperava por este don, of Alba, 507-1582. Univ. of Calif. Press, It seems to me that if it will be a service Berkeley (1983) 249. porque otras vezes no me hazia tantos favores; to His Majesty that it be done, that this 6 According to Arthur Dimock and Ro. Cecyll y su secretario que es su primo y que ha hecho “precaution” be sent to Dunkirk in a pair (“The Conspiracy of Dr. Lopez” The en este negocio lo que ha podido de buena of coffers in order that he [Burghley? Ox- English Historical Review 9:35 [Jul. 1894]) voluntad, y sus camareros que me an ayudado ford? or one of their agents?] would bring 450-1, fn. 15), in 1593 “50,000 crowns or con su amo, todos esperan por algo, como si it straight here in a good boat on account gold escudos [is] worth £18,800.” This fuese deuda, aunque esto con poco se cumplira. conversion rate yields the relation 40,000 of danger of pirates, Pero es natural dellos todos tener respeto al escudos = £15,040. recevir don; y, como quien lo merece bien, la 7 BL MS Harley 6991[/44], ff. 88-9, reprinted Spain, it seems, cannot bring this tercera persona espera merced du Su Magestad, in Nelson, op. cit. 110; Cal. S.P. Foreign, reprinted in Ward 93. money into England; taking the casks the como he escripto; y como es como el Rey de este 8 reyno, a mi simple parecer, por lo menos se le Cal. S.P. Foreign, Sir Thomas Smith to last leg of the journey appears to have been Lord Burghley 13 July 1574, reprinted in: Burghley’s job. Note Burghley’s conun- avian de embiar hasta quarenta mill escudos, William Kittle, G. Gascoigne. . . or Edward drum here, too: Whom might he have que es lo que ofrescio de dar en dote a su hija, de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. W.F. y menos so convenria en consideracion de trusted to make the trip? A servant could Roberts Co., Washington, D.C. (1930) 62.; quien lo manda dar y a quien se da, siendo de Cal. S.P. Foreign, Henry Killigrew to Sir easily just abscond with the cash and never muy altos pensamientos y con razon, pues esta Thomas Walsingham 18 July 1574, return to England again; de Vere would en tal grado que tiene en su mano la voluntad reprinted in WARD 93; Cotton MSS, Titus seem to be a natural choice of envoy, since de la Reyna en todo y el disponer de todas las B.2.298, Lord Burghley to the Earl of it’s presumably his money anyway. rentas reales a su voluntad, y ha hecho del la Sussex 15 July 1574, reprinted in WARD Reyna tanta confiança que le ha dado descargo 94. 9 para que en vida, ni en muerte no le puedan Reprinted in Relations Politiques des Pays- and with all silence and secrecy to pedir otra cuenta sino la que el querra dar; y se Bas et de L’Angleterre, Sous le Règne de deliver it to his [Burghley’s] wife, discuss- puede esperar que tenia[*] gratitud para que en Philippe II, Le Baron Kervyn de ing it with him first, since with him there Lettenhove, ed. Académie Royale des el sea bien empleado; y el embiarlo con correos can be no negotiating about it, without Sciences, etc., Brussels (1888) 6:723, o por cambio seria mucho ruydo. Pareceme offering it and delivering it at the same translated from the Spanish by Tekastiaks time, and as they say, he who gives soon que, si sera servicio de Su Magestad hazerse, with Mark K. Anderson. Cited in Kittle, que se embiase este recaudo a Dunquerque en gives twice. op. cit. 53. un par de cofres para que en un buen barco por 10 Read 101. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 28 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003

Research Notes Illicit reversal By Michael Brame and Galina Popova

mong Shakespeare’s more notable can also be found in the historical plays. In this display formal relatedness is artistic devices is found one we will indicated by the two intervening relational Acall illicit reversal. As the name sug- There I’ll uncrown him ere’t be long symbols—one marking relatedness in term gests, the device relates to the reversing of 3 Henry VI, 3.3, 232. of reversal (=REV), another marking lexi- the action expressed by a verb. In English cal relatedness (=LEX). The example sug- Then crushing penury this process is effectuated by attaching to Persuades me I was better when a king; gests one of two conclusions: (1) Shake- the verb the familiar prefix un-, as wit- Then am I kinged again: and by and by speare took his clue for his artistic deploy- nessed in the change of zip to unzip or of Think that I am unkinged by Bolinbroke. ment of reversal from the author Brooke, dress to undress, and the like. What makes Richard II, 5.5, 37. or (2) the two authors express a similar Shakespeare’s use of reversal appeal to our propensity for artistic reversal precisely artistic sense is the tasteful manner in Alongside the predicate say, Shake- because they are one and the same author. which he reverses what cannot be reversed speare reverses a range of additional irre- If (2) holds, it follows that the real in the real world, amounting to a violation versible vocal verbs, including speak, Shakespeare was not William of Stratford, of ordinary rules of reversal, hence our shout, and swear. since Brooke’s work appeared in 1562, added adjective illicit. An apt illustration is when William of Stratford was a mere provided by his illicit reversal of the verb Your darling tongue sprite of minus two years of age. Of course, Scorns to unsay what once it hath deliv- say. ered some Oxfordians have suspected “Arthur Richard II, 4.1, 9. Brooke” to be another pseudonym for Ed- Call you me fair? that fair again unsay ward de Vere, following on Looney’s em- Midsummer Night’s Dream 1.1, 181. Even now I put myself to thy direction, and pirical demonstration of the pseudony- Unspeak mine own detract Interestingly, it is through such a vio- mous status of the name “William Shake- Macbeth 4.3, 123. speare.” If they are right, we expect to find lation of rules that Shakespeare succeeds more impressive Brookean examples of in expressing with almost uncanny accu- Unshout the noise that banished Marcius, racy and precision just that meaning he Repeal him lexical congruence within the context of the reversal relation. A stunning example wishes to convey. Elsewhere, in his sonnets Coriolanus 5.5, 4. of such convergence is situated in the fol- and in his narrative verse, we encounter Hath he said anything?—he hath, my lord; lowing pair. more such examples of the master’s but be you well assured, genius: No more than he’ll unswear BROOKE: Othello 4.1, 31. Look in thy glass and tell the face thou A thousand times she kissedkissed, and him unkissed again viewest, Many more examples could be cited, Now is the time that face should form Romeus and Juliet, 821-2. another, but the point will be granted: Shakespeare =REV, =LEX-4, =SYN Whose fresh repair if now thou not violates ordinary rules of reversal with SHAKESPEARE: renewest, stellar results. Such illicit reversal can be A thousand spleens bear her a thousand Thou dost beguile the world, unbless some taken as a subtle indication of his deft ways, mother. hand, a kind of fingerprint indicating that She treads the path that she untreads again; Sonnet 3, 1-4. we are indeed dealing with the genius we Venus and Adonis, 907-10. Now she unweaves the web that she hath recognize as Shakespeare. In light of so many diagnostic examples wrought: Apart from the reversed items them- Adonis lives and death is not to blame; identifying Shakespeare and his genius, It was not she that called him all to naught; we are inspired to look elsewhere, first selves, these examples also evince an im- Now she adds honors to his hateful name: turning to Arthur Brooke’s Romeus and pressive degree of lexical relatedness, in- Venus and Adonis, 991-4. Juliet, the alleged source of Romeo and cluding at least four lexical items: a, thou- Juliet, taking careful note along the way of sand, she, and again. We also encounter Shakespeare’s plays are truly riddled two particularly lovely related examples. upon careful inspection a third salient with ingenious examples of illicit reversal. relation, a syntactic fact, namely the pres- One oft-noted instance, though cited by SHAKESPEARE: ence of adverbial modification of the re- orthodoxy for very different reasons, is the Let me unkiss the oath ‘twixt versed predicate in both cases by the fre- following: thee and me. quency adverb again. Clearly this conver- Richard II, 5.1, 74. gence of three congruence relations is no Untune that string, =REV, =LEX accident. Either Shakespeare was an out- And, hark, what discord follows! BROOKE: Troilus and Cressida 5.2, 109. A thousand times she kissed, and him right plagiarist of Brooke, or else Shake- unkissed again speare and Brooke were one and the same A striking array of clever examples Romeus and Juliet, 821-2. author. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 29

Needless to say, those who show great Edward de Vere, a conclusion that can be eyelids like unto Pallas, who can no other- store of little wit will be unmoved by our supported by a wealth of additional evi- wise do, for that she was engendered of the examples, but it is our hope that those who dence, including the following stunning brains of Jupiter, who always are troubled and vexed, answered: “Am I the cat by do not will not. In this spirit, to be fully fingerprint playing on the author’s real whom thou meanest?” convincing the argument for (2) must be name E. Vere, reminiscent of Shakespeare’s every buttressed by another big C, which we line: That every word doth almost tell my The reason for this convergence of two choose to call cumulation. That is, to the name. name Shakespearean signature devices is that two C’s of congruence and convergence of the author “John Grange” and “Shake- And by her power divine she so hath framed, congruence, one seeks a cumulative effect speare,” i.e., the Earl of Oxford, were again of converging congruence relations. With That by his own name he is ever namednamed. one and the same, as we have shown in the such additional evidence, there can re- Faunus and Melliflora. second installment of our fingerprint tril- main no doubt that “Arthur Brooke” and ogy, entitled Never and For Ever. Still “William Shakespeare” were indeed pseud- Towards a discovery of additional more impressive is the convergence found onyms for a unique author. Such a demon- pseudonyms, we recall that Shakespeare in a book attributed to Stephan Gosson. stration has been essayed in Chapter 10 of was fond of brows, for he mentions them in Shakespeare’s Fingerprints, where a de- numerous contexts. One should not be GOSSON: tailed argument relating to plagiarism is surprised by a poet’s talk of furrows or wrinkles associated with brows, but talk of Of thousand heels except the Lord do lend also developed. His helping hand and louring brows What animates us here—indeed, the a bending brow is another matter. Just so, unbendunbend. raison d’être for this article—is that illicit we are struck by Shakespeare’s use of this Ephemerides of Phialo. reversal can be used to give crucial clues to phrasing in several plays, of which two are =LEX-3, =SEM cited. GASCOIGNE: the existence of additional pseudonyms Another Oxe, right lean, God her amend. employed by the Earl of Oxford during the See how the ugly witch doth bend her These three, not she, their angry brows do course of his long and productive career as browsbrows! bendbend, poet, playwright, novelist, translator, his- 1 Henry IV 5.3.34. Grief of Joy. torian, satirist, and essayist. In what fol- lows, we advance several such candidates, And who durst smile when Warwick bent The Gosson example sports a context reserving others for a later date. The next his browbrow? for a climactic convergence of the bend- pair immediately lets one new cat out of 3 Henry VI, 5.2.22. ing-brow motif with illicit reversal and the bag. suggests that “Stephan Gosson” is another We may proceed by recalling what some pseudonym for Edward de Vere, a proposi- SHAKESPEARE: Oxfordians have long suspected, that the tion whose truth is also empirically veri- A thousand spleens bear her a thousand works published under the name “George fied in Never and For Ever. Considering ways, Gascoigne” were penned by Edward de this example in comparison with the She treads the path that she untreads Vere. The arguments for that conclusion again; Gascoigne lines, one cannot miss the se- Her more than haste is mated with delays are legion and many new ones are ad- mantic fact of identical agents, the Lord Like the proceedings of a drunken brain, vanced in Chapters 9 and 12 of and God, underscored in the display for Venus and Adonis, 907-10. Shakespeare’s Fingerprints. It therefore quick recognition. As for additional com- =LEX-4,, =REV, =SYN comes as no surprise that the bending- parisons, the following is also noteworthy: WEEVER: brow motif is also found in the luminous Then mused awhile; straight, as resolvèd work attributed to Gascoigne. quite, GOSSON: His helping hand and louring brows I trod the steps that I untrod before, GASCOIGNE: unbend. Oft starting back at mine own shadow’s unbend. These three, not she, their angry brows do Ephemerides of Phialo. sight, brows do bend And every sinew shivering wondrous sore: bendbend, The Grief of Joy. SHAKESPEARE: Whipping of the Satyre, 61-4. A brow unbent that seemed to welcome We are now in a position to return to woe, Again we find an example of 4-fold Lucrece 1506-9. lexical congruence exhibiting illicit re- illicit reversal and note that John Grange versal in which the reversed predicates are utilized both it and the bending-brow motif in his glorious Golden Aphroditis. Although the example drawn from themselves lexically related, thus contrib- Shakespeare involves the negative prefix uting to the total valence of =LEX. More- GRANGE: Whereat N. O., taking a better un- in contrast to reversive un-, the com- over, the two second lines are syntactically courage, told forth his will and chief desire parison nonetheless provides an added equivalent, each consisting of a subject in this order: “O muses worthy of musing, incentive for disbelieving that our views plus verb plus object modified by a relative by earnest suit I crave of your wonted and are those of rank bedlamites, as orthodoxy clause headed by the pronoun that and accustomed courtesy to unlace our liber- would no doubt have it. including in both cases within those clauses ality, extending your benevolence in filling verbs reversing the matrix predicates. This this goblet of mine with the heavenly and unspeakable dew of your gracious foun- overlap can be no random occurrence and This material is excerpted from the authors’ tain.” book Shakespeare’s Fingerprints, reviewed in we thus emerge with a powerful clue that GRANGE: A. O., looking frowningly, bend- “John Weever” is another pseudonym for ing her browsbrows, and scowling with her the Spring 2003 issue of Shakespeare Matters. Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 30 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003 Sir Walter Scott as Paleo-Oxfordian Part 2: The Abbot By Chuck Berney few years ago I read Kenilworth, Sir something noble: assuredly, the child was with the equivalent, “mad wag”) to de- Walter Scott’s 1821 novel about the born of high rank. [28]1 scribe characters such as Prince Hal, AEarl of Leicester’s attempts to per- Philip the Bastard, and Feste, who are suade Queen Elizabeth to marry him, and A few pages later, she exclaims extensions of the author. “Madcap” is the associated murder of his wife, Amy applied to Roland Græme at least five Robsart. Verbal clues in the novel led me . . . he speaks as if he were the son of an times [139, 187, 225, 230, 466]. No to believe that Scott was aware of Edward earl . . . ! [70] other character is referred to in this de Vere’s authorship of the Shakespeare way. canon a hundred years before the publica- Of course, at the end of the novel it (5) Græme’s Age. In the main part tion of Looney’s Shakespeare Identified. is revealed that he is in fact the son of of the novel, Græme’s age is given as 18 An article discussing my conclusions was a nobleman, the Baron Julian Avenel. [231, 398]. Since the events described printed in the Shakespeare Oxford News- (2) Association with Falconry. take place in 1567, he must have been letter, Fall 2000. Roger Stritmatter and Beginning with Chapter 4, much is born in 1549. This is within a year of Elliott Stone (in unpublished work) have made of young Roland’s friendship with Edward de Vere’s birth, even consider- reached a similar conclusion regarding Adam Woodcock, Avenel’s falconer. ing the ambiguity of whether he was Herman Melville. Richard Whalen (Shake- They argue about whether to feed the the son of John de Vere or of Thomas speare Oxford Society Newsletter, Autumn eyases washed or unwashed meat, and Seymour. 1995) has made the case for such knowl- hawking terms and metaphors perme- (6) The Ceremony of the Ewer. After edge on the part of Charles Dibdin (a com- ate much of the dialog. Græme has been installed as a page in poser in David Garrick’s circle ca. 1769) (3) Catholic Leanings. Wingate, the Mary Stuart’s retinue at Lochleven, he and Robert Plumer Ward (like Scott, a 19th- castle steward, notes serves dinner to her ladies-in-waiting: century novelist). Thus there appears to have been an ongoing community of liter- I have often noticed that the boy had When he observed that they had fin- ary figures who knew the identity of the strange observances which savoured of ished eating, he hastened to offer to the Popery, and that he was very jealous to elder lady the silver ewer, basin, and nap- Bard and referred to it cryptically in their conceal them . . . [78] kin, with the ceremony and gravity which writings. I term these people paleo-Oxfor- he would have used towards Mary herself. dians. In fact, the battle between Catholi- [356] Another of Scott’s novels, The Abbot cism and the Reformed Church for (1820), offers a fictional treatment of his- Græme’s allegiance is one of the As explained in Vol. II of the Miller torical events of 1567-68 in Scotland—the major themes of the book. edition of Looney (pp. 106–117), the Of- imprisonment of Mary, Queen of Scots, in fice of the Ewrie was a hereditary function a castle on the island of Lochleven, her The above three traits constitute three of the Earls of Oxford. The duties consisted forced abdication, and her subsequent es- of the criteria adduced by Looney (p. 103, of serving a newly-crowned monarch at cape. In spite of the title, the protagonist Miller edition) in seeking the identity of the banquet following the coronation in of the novel is Roland Græme, an orphan the Bard: 2. A member of the higher aris- exactly the manner described above. Note adopted as a page by Lady Avenel. Græme tocracy; 5. A follower of sport (including that Scott is careful to introduce the word eventually joins the suite of Mary Stuart falconry); 9. Of probable Catholic lean- “ceremony” into his description of what and aids in her escape. I believe that Scott ings, but touched with skepticism. was ostensibly a rather mundane event, intended the knowing reader to associate and to indicate that it normally would have Græme with Edward de Vere, for reasons (4) Word-clues. On page 55, involved the Queen. given below. Wingate says of Græme “. . . but the For the most part, the references asso- youth is a fair youth . . .” It takes but the ciating Græme with Oxford are nonfunc- (1) High Rank. In spite of his appar- buzz of a vocal cord to change “fair” to tional—icing on the cake, or caviar for the ently humble origin, perceptive ob- “vair,” the contemporary pronuncia- knowing—not affecting the plot or in- servers detect evidence of nobility. The tion of “Vere.” On page 271, Adam tended to reflect actual events in de Vere’s domestic, Lilias, muses Woodcock tells him “ . . . thou hadst life. There is one possible exception to this been the veriest crack-hemp of a page view. The climactic set-piece of the novel He must, she thought, be born of that ever wore feather in thy bonnet,” is the battle between forces loyal to Mary gentle blood; it were shame to think oth- providing two references to the Vere and those supporting the Protestant Lords erwise of a form so noble and features so family name. Another word-clue is (historically this took place at Langside on fair; the very wildness in which he occa- sionally indulged, his contempt of danger “madcap,” a term characteristically 13 May 1568; Scott places it at Crookstone); and impatience of restraint, had in them used in the Shakespeare plays (along Mary’s forces were seeking to depose Mo- Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Fall 2003 Shakespeare Matters page 31 ray, the Regent, and return Scotland to the This sentence is remarkable for at least than applauded. Scott is describing what Church of Rome. It is during this battle that two reasons: (a) it contains 17 commas, the author does, “ever and anon,” provid- Roland (now Avenel) first experiences com- more than any sentence I can remember ing the gibes that the actors then deliver to bat, and is transformed from a page to a encountering before, and (b) almost every- the audience. Even the word “stage” is knight. A year and a half after the Battle of thing it mentions is inappropriate to the inappropriate, as Scott has previously es- Langside there was an uprising in En- scene it purports to describe. Goneril’s tablished that the performance takes place gland, instigated by the Catholic earls of phrase, “all-licensed fool,” is appropriate on a plot of greensward. I can only con- the North with the object of deposing Eliza- for a court, where the reigning authority clude that Scott is giving the mature Ox- beth and replacing her with Mary, thus may give a jester permission to deal with ford—actor, director and playwright—a returning England to the Church of Rome. sensitive topics, but it makes no sense cameo appearance, perhaps to balance the This rebellion was suppressed by applied to traveling players performing use of the young Oxford as a model for Elizabeth’s forces, led by Thomas Radcliffe, on a village green. Who does the licensing? Roland. Earl of Sussex. He was accompanied by his It appears to have been included simply to Scott was writing almost 200 years 19-year-old protégé Edward de Vere, who point us in the direction of the Shake- after publication of the First Folio, and 50 thus gained his first experience of combat. speare plays. “Truncheon” is an odd word years after David Garrick’s Stratford Jubi- About two-thirds of the way through in this context; an archaic meaning is “the lee mythologized the Lad from Stratford. the novel, Roland is sent on an errand from shaft of a spear.” Webster’s dictionary How did he learn the truth? One of Scott’s Lochleven to a village on the shore. The defines “gracioso” as “a sportive and comic biographers writes villagers are celebrating May Day, and the character in Spanish comedy,” that is, a festivities include a performance by a group madcap. Scott apparently uses the Spanish Indeed, his literary art was based on of traveling players. Scott’s account in- word (capitalized) to remind us that this memory: he learned about the recent past cludes the following remarkable sentence: madcap is a noble, habitually addressed as by listening eagerly to the memories of survivors of distant adventures, and his “your Grace.” The Gracioso is described as most fruitful approach to history was . . . Amid all these, and more acceptable “mingling in every scene of the piece, and through a chain of recollection. [19]2 than almost the whole put together, was interrupting the business, without having the all-licensed fool, the Gracioso of the any share himself in the action.” This is not Spanish drama, who, with his cap fash- And later, ioned into the resemblance of a coxcomb, what an actor does, it’s what a director does and his bauble, a truncheon terminated by during the rehearsal process—and can we It was Scott’s friend and former a carved figure, wearing a fool’s cap, in his doubt that Oxford himself directed the schoolfellow Adam Ferguson . . . who first hand, went, came, and returned, mingling plays he wrote? Then there’s “ever and introduced him to the society of those in every scene of the piece, and interrupt- anon transferring his gibes from the actors whom Scott later called ‘the most ing the business, without having any share on the stage to the audience . . .” How do distinguished literati of the old time who himself in the action, and ever and anon you do that? Does the Fool listen to each still remained, with such young persons as transferring his gibes from the actors on were thought worthy to approach their the stage to the audience who sate around, actor’s lines, then run to the edge of the circle and listen to their conversation’. prompt to applaud the whole. [415] stage and repeat them to the audience? A [42] play staged that way would be booed rather (Continued on page 32) Subscribe to Shakespeare Matters Regular member: Name:______e-member ($20/year) ______(Website; online newsletter) Address:______One year ($40/$55 overseas) ______Two year ($75/$105 overseas) ______Three year ($110/$155 overseas) ______City:______State:______ZIP:______Family/Institution: Phone:______email:______One year ($60/$75 overseas) ______Two year ($115/$145 overseas) ______Three years ($170/$215 os) ______Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____ Patron ($75/year or over): ______Name on card:______Special offer for new subscribers: Card number:______Exp. date:______Bible dissertation ($45) ______P&H for Bible ($5) ______

Signature:______Total: ______

Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478 Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 32 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2003

Walter Scott (continued from page 31) Year in the Life (continued from page 24) 2003), 300 So evidently there were circles of is given “by Her Majesty’s players” (the 13 Nelson, op. cit., 301; (“Oxford received an “distinguished literati” within which the Queen’s Men) for the sum of £10.33 The initial payment of 500 pounds on 26 June, secret of the Bard’s identity was passed name of the stage work presented for Eliza- 250 pounds thereafter.”) from generation to generation. These were beth is unstated; its topic will be unknown 14 Nelson, op. cit., 248 the people that Scott expected would in the future; and even now, as the year 15 Barrell, C. W., Shakespeare Fellowship understand and appreciate his oblique 1586 comes to a close, the undisclosed Quarterly, April 1945, 25b references to Oxford as Shakespeare, the dramatist who wrote this play has begun to 16 Ward, op. cit., 199; Burris, Barbara, audience for whom he wove these disappear from view. He is slipping back Shakespeare Matters, Summer 2003, 20 references into the fabric of his story. The into the shadows and mirrors of his world, 17 Ward, op. cit., 199 significance of Scott’s knowledge of vanishing from its recorded history. 18 Haigh, Christopher, Elizabeth I: Profiles in Oxford is not so much that Scott knew it, Power (Essex: Pearson Education Ltd, but that a community of literati knew it. As Endnotes 1988), 10 19 we think about the history of the authorship Plowden, Alison, Danger to Elizabeth (New 1 Jenkins, Elizabeth, Elizabeth and Leicester York: Stein & Day, 1973), 231 question, it is important to be aware of 20 these clandestine groups. The study of (New York: Coward-McCann, 1961), 311 Belloc, Hilaire, A History of England (New 2 Camden, William, Annals, first published York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1932), 387 paleo-Oxfordian communities and 21 1615, (Chicago & London: University of Weir, op. cit., 365 populations would seem to be a fruitful 22 Chicago Press, 1970), 214-215 Weir, op. cit., 364 field for further investigation. 23 3 Weir, Alison, The Life of Elizabeth I (New Weir, op. cit., 364; Belloc, op. cit., 389 24 Read, Conyers, Lord Burghley and Queen Endnotes York: Ballantine, 1998), 363 4 Weir, op. cit., 362 Elizabeth (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1. Page numbers refer to the Houghton Mifflin 5 Weir, op. cit., 362 1960) 345 (“Burghley’s allusion to edition of 1913. 6 Ward, B. M., The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford ‘poisoning,’ reminiscent of Leicester’s 2. David Daiches, Sir Walter Scott and His (London: John Murray, 1928), 219; reprint Commonwealth, savours a little of World (Viking, New York, 1971). by Ruth Loyd Miller, Jennings, LA. malice.”) 25 7 Weir, op. cit., 361 Camden, op. cit., 326-237 Advertisement 26 8 Read, Conyers, Mr. Secretary Walsingham Read, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare’s Ghost and the Policy of Queen Elizabeth (New op. cit., 346 27 York: AMS Press, 1978), vol. 2, Ward, op. cit., 283 by James Webster Sherwood 28 9 Transcript & of letter courtesy of Robert Ward, op. cit., 283; Camden, op. cit., 239 “A work of poetry ... funny, 29 Read, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth, heartbreaking, magnificant.” Detobel 10 Chambers, E. K., The Elizabethan Stage op. cit., 351 384 pages / $25.00 30 Read, Lord Burghley and Queen Elizabeth, order: www. opusbook.com (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923), “Docu- ments of Control,” 303 op. cit., 357 fax: 516-365-8331 31 11 McKerrow, R. B., Shakespeare’s England Weir, op. cit., 375 check by mail: 5 Central Drive 32 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1916), 218 Weir, op. cit., 372 33 Plandome, NY 11030-1408 12 Chambers, op. cit., Appendix B ISBN 0-9661961-1-2 Nelson, Alan, Monstrous Adversary (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, Inside this issue: Shakespeare Matters Drive, they said - page 1 The Voice of the Shakespeare Fellowship P. O. Box 263 William Camden - page 1 Somerville MA 02143 “Monstrous Animosity” - page 8 Address correction requested Knocking on Wood - page 10 Book reviews: Monstrous Adversary - page 1 Counterfeiting Shakespeare - page 22 Year in the Life (1586) - page 22 De Vere’s dowry - page 25 “Illicit reversal” - page 28 Paleo-Oxfordians? - page 30 Internet Ed. (©2003, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent)