The Ashbourne Portrait of Shake-Speare Dr

Home , Anne Cecil, Ashbourne portrait, Henry Green (courtier), Henry Unton

Vol.1:no.2 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments..." Winter 2002 The Ashbourne First Fellowship Portrait: Part II meeting held Costume dating debunks Board elected; meeting dates, pro- Folger’s Hamersley claim gram schedule established By Barbara Burris ©2001 On a cold day in late October, members of the Shakespeare “The emperor walked in the procession under his crimson canopy. Fellowship met for the first time in And all the people of the town, who had lined the streets or were the warm and welcoming home of looking down from the windows, said that the emperor’s clothes were Isabel Holden of Northampton, Mas- beautiful. ‘What a magnificent robe! And the Train! How well the sachusetts. Some had arrived from emperor’s clothes suit him!’ None of them were willing to admit that Boston, some from New York and they hadn’t seen a thing; for if anyone did, then he was either stupid Connecticut. I had come from or unfit for the job he held. Never before had the emperor’s clothes Toronto. Just shortly after the trag- been such a success.” 1 edy of September 11th, it wasn’t a time conducive to traveling, but n the area of costume the Ashbourne portrait of Shake-speare Dr. Charles Berney, nonetheless, twenty of us still man- has long been a Stratfordian version of “The Emperor’s New Fellowship President aged to make the trip. IClothes.” Art experts who have examined the painting includ- After coffee and greetings, we ing Wivell in 1847, Spielmann in 1910, and the art experts the removed to the living room and began to talk, with Chuck Berney Folger Shakespeare Library has consulted since 1931, when they taking the chair. We were thrilled to learn we already had 100 purchased the portrait, have not expressed what they must have members—we now have over 150—and were even happier to seen, that the costume is that of a nobleman from the 1570s. Like receive our first issue of Shakespeare Matters, which—slick and the emperor’s counselors, who out of fear for their reputations and (Continued on page 4) positions, concealed what they really saw and pretended to “see” the emperor’s invisible “clothes,” these art experts have ignored and concealed evidence in this painting that contradicts the Stratfordian On Shakespeare’s por- mystique and claims for Sir Hugh Hamersley. They have ignored evidence in the painting and the costume that as experts they must trayal of the moral life have seen and in any other circumstance would have used without By John Baker any qualms in a rational dating of the portrait. ecently I picked up a copy of a nearly century-old book on Only the well known art expert M. H. Spielmann, who examined Shakespeare, Frank Chapman Sharp’s Shakespeare’s Por- the painting in 1910, cautiously remarked upon discordant ele- Rtrayal of The Moral Life (Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, ments in the painting that contradicted the official view of a Shake- 1902), and it reminded me yet again of the timelessness of Shake- speare portrait of the Stratford man. These dissonant elements speare and Shakespeare studies. Regardless of where one stands included the problems with the inscription, nobleman’s dress, on the authorship debate, it is always useful to remind one’s self neck ruff, age of the sitter and similarity of the costume to the Earl about the man who authored these remarkable works, what he was of Morton who died in 1581, thirty years before the 1611 date on up to, and why it matters even today, four centuries later. the painting.2 But, like the emperor’s counselors, Spielmann Since moral philosophy does not change, the book is as valid hesitated to draw the logical conclusions from his observations. today as it was a century ago, perhaps more so, since modern Instead he fell in step with the Jacobean dating of the portrait that philosophers don’t seem to think as clearly as Sharp. Moreover the fit the Stratford man. Yet it was Spielmann’s reference to the subject, Shakespeare’s works, have not changed at all, unless one similarity of the Ashbourne costume with the costume of the Earl counts the new texts and manuscripts—such as the Dering and (Continued on page 17) (Continued on page 22) page 2 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002

hesitate to make. It is true that the text does been about three times more expensive Letters: “link the Poet” to this type of book, but it than paper. The word “royall” may have To the Editors: doesn’t “identify” Oxford in this portrait poetic overtones add to the picture of those and this specific book. Secondly, I do not highly-born who have over-blown egos Barbara Burris’ most interesting and credit the connection in Romeo and Juliet about their verse, but there were more such well-presented article in the first edition of she proposes, though I understand her ar- courtier/poets than De Vere on the scene to Shakespeare Matters referred briefly to the gument. whom this description might apply. poem, A Lover’s Complaint. In her article The specific details of Chapman’s text Because Harvey used the word “apish” Ms Burris referred to a line taken from the relative to the book of the “foolish Poet” and “ape” to describe Oxford, I can’t assume second verse: “Upon her head a platted hive lead me, as a librarian, to picture a large that every use of “ape”—a man who imi- of straw,” which she construed as a possible book, as “paper royall” is a term meaning tates, often Continental manner and dress— reference to Queen Elizabeth’s “gold red “paper of a size measuring 24 by 19 inches, always means Oxford. Jonson seems to use periwig, etc.” I am sure that Ms Burris will as used for writing and 25 by 20 for print- the word about the Stratford man. The not object to my adding, that this type of ing.” (OED, royal paper, paper royal) Con- Shakespeare plays employ it in several head-dress was forcibly imposed upon sulting Gaskell’s A New Introduction to instances applying to characters created women, in some parts of medieval Europe, Bibliography (1995) we find that a royal there. French manners were aped at court after they had given birth to an illegitimate octavo would be about 23 X 15 cm. after the by many, even if we think of Oxford as the baby. The subject of the poem has therefore usual 3 folds of that size sheet of paper. The leading example. And “never” and “ever” been discreetly labelled as an unmarried paper in this period would probably have have evermore been great end-rhyme words. mother, resulting from her seduction. I been imported from Italy or France. The If the Bard used them, so could Chapman, also suggest that this symbolism is rein- 6th edition of The Bookman’s Glossary and thereby gain attention. I even think that forced by the opening line which sets the puts the size at of a royal octavo at 10 X 6 and “Admiring E.Ver.” might ask to be taken scene: “From off a hill whose concave womb 1/4 inches. The book in the portrait looks seriously. I’ll concede at the same time ... ,” since this also implants thoughts of as if it might be a regular octavo or perhaps Chapman might be highly ambivalent pregnancy in the mind of the reader from a smaller size, but a “royall” evokes the about Oxford and tried to write a better the very start. By a fortunate coincidence, an exhibi- image of a larger book, especially a royal Hamlet character without necessarily sub- tion of “Inquisition Torture and Intoler- folio. This is backed up by the next line scribing to the picture of De Vere as a ance” at the Museum of Man in San Diego where a presumably large piece of parch- “ditcher.” That the passage is a paraphrase presently has an exhibit on display of a ment is being “smooth’d with the Pumice” of one from Catullus seems reason enough woman attired in a plaited straw head- and “rul’d with lead,” as a very richly orna- for creating a satirical portrait which hap- dress, after having given birth to an illegiti- mented manuscript page might be pre- pens to be at odds with the passage praising mate child. pared. A book on parchment would have De Vere.

David Roper Truro, Cornwall Shakespeare Matters Subscriptions to Shakespeare Matters are Published quarterly by the $30 per year ($15 for online issues only). United Kingdom The Shakespeare Fellowship Family or institution subscriptions are $45 per 16 October 2001 year. Patrons of the Fellowship are $75 and up. Send subscription requests to: To the Editors: Editorial Offices P.O. Box 263 The Shakespeare Fellowship Somerville, MA 02143 With my receipt of the first issue of P.O. Box 561 Belmont MA 02478 Shakespeare Matters I was immediately Co-Editors: drawn to read Barbara Burris’ first article Dr. Roger Stritmatter, William Boyle The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowship on the Ashbourne portrait, having recently is to promote public awareness and acceptance heard her presentation at the SOS Confer- Contributing Editors: of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by ence. The evidence she reviewed at Carmel Mark Anderson, Dr. Charles Berney, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550- Charles Boyle, Dr. Felicia Londre, 1604), and further to encourage a high level of was fascinating; but, as usual, I craved the Dr. Anne Pluto, Elisabeth Sears, scholarly research and publication into all hard copy. Richard Whalen, Hank Whittemore, aspects of Shakespeare studies, and also into the There are two issues I found in the Dr. Daniel L. Wright history and culture of the Elizabethan era. The Society was founded and incorporated article to worry me. That Chapman’s two Phone (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-3411 Bussy D’Ambois plays link Oxford to Ham- Phone (Northampton, MA): (413) 585-8610 in 2001 in the State of Massachusetts and is Fax (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-4258 chartered under the membership corporation let, point to Oxford’s trip abroad, and hint email: [email protected] laws of that state (nonprofit status pending). at his authorship of poems credited to All contents copyright ©2002 Dues, grants and contributions are tax- Shakespeare, I completely agree. That the The Shakespeare Fellowship deductible to the extent allowed by law. words “verse in paper royall ...bound richly Shakespeare Matters welcomes articles, essays, up, and strung with Crimson strings” is a commentary, book reviews, letters and news items. Contributions should be reasonably concise and, when description of the exact book held in the appropriate, validated by peer review. The views expressed hand of the man in the Ashbourne portrait by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the in particular is an assumption I would Fellowship as a literary and educational organization. Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Winter 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 3

As for Lady Capulet’s speech to Juliet From the Editors asking her to read Paris like a book (Lines 81-94, I, iii) and by marrying him provide a cover “that in gold clasps locks in the Tender airs, Tudor heirs golden story,” I submit that the figure is a Some irreverent wag once claimed that presuppositions of our readers, and of our- natural one for the author of many plays to if a drunken Stuart compositor had up- selves. We vow to go out of our way to find use. Gold clasps around a golden story ended the “n” in “tender air” (Cymbeline articles which offer controversial interpre- don’t necessarily equal Shakespeare’s manu- V,iv,140; V,v,445), the result would be a tations, to print them, and then to facilitate script book of sonnets. In fact, if anything perfect homophone for the controversial as much dialogue, debate, and discussion is specifically suggested in Romeo and theory over which there has recently been as possible. Juliet it may be that a “golden book” in this so much trouble. We don’t claim to know We regard this as our editorial respon- period referred to a register of the nobility why Shakespeare chose to transform this sibility. of the state of Venice. (OED) Oxford knew curious turn of phrase, which also appears The conclusions of articles, then, are the distance from Venice to Verona. so prominently in the Sonnets under the always those of the individual writers, not Books—richly bound books with gold- variation “tender heir” (1.4), where it refers the editors, the Shakespeare Fellowship or stamping or tooling, gilded edges and tied to the Fair Youth, into an oracular enigma its Trustees. In no case does publication of with crimson string or cord—were prized in Cymbeline. But there is no doubt that an article imply an endorsement of the “tender air” and “Tudor heir” are close conclusions or reasoning of the article; it possessions. Most books didn’t come bound, enough to invite a circumspect second merely indicates our conviction that the but only sewn, and the wealthy or “noble” glance. Nor is there any doubt that Posthu- article is sufficiently probative to stimulate often decided to afford richly decorated mous Leonatus’ oracle concerns royal suc- a useful and educational dialogue which bindings with either ties (usually worn off) cession. Nor is there any doubt, finally, that facilitates the purposes of the Fellowship as or metal clasps to keep the pages compact. dynastic questions are fundamental to defined in its Mission Statement. However, Gaskell says, “Gold tooling... be- Shakespearean texts, as are—in many— The Shakespeare Fellowship neither came increasingly common from the mid royal bastards and changeling children. endorses nor condemns the “Tudor heir” sixteenth century and was not confined to Often these ultimately inherit—or at least theory in any of its published permuta- bespoke binders...” while “heavily gilt re- are seen to deserve to—in the fictional, tions. Some of our members believe that tailers bindings such as the small English compensatory world of the Shakespearean the theory, in one form or another, resolves devotional books that were sold in large oeuvre. many longstanding enigmas of Shake- numbers from the 1560s until the later To anticipate some of the objections spearean scholarship and Tudor/Stuart seventeenth century were indeed intended Paul Altrocchi’s analysis of the “Persian cultural and diplomatic history. to look expensive while really being cheaply lady”—–apparently a portrait of Queen Tudor heir advocates such as Mrs. Sears executed...” Photographic examples of Elizabeth I—is likely to evoke in some in her Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose finely done “golden” volumes can be seen rarified quarters, we’ll take this opportu- (2nd edition forthcoming from Meadow in the works of Mirjam M. Foot, leading nity to lay some cards on the table: yes, we Geese Press) have, in our opinion, estab- scholar of bindings of this period. The think that the “Tudor heir” theory—which lished a firm foundation for the plausibility Huntington and Folger own many examples argues that the Shakespeare question is of the theory. However, a new theory inevi- in all sizes and yes, the OED uses the inextricably linked to issues of the dynastic tably produces new problems and ques- Chapman lines from The Revenge of Bussy succession of the Tudor government under tions. Its proponents, if they practice intel- d’Ambois to define the term string—“to Queen Elizabeth I —merits open-minded lectual honesty, must consider these. By no bind, tie, fasten or secure with a string or consideration and very close examination. means have the advocates of this theory strings.” This is a matter of principle, not dogma prevailed by satisfying all our doubts on The book in the Ashbourne portrait or even private conviction. some critical points of fact and interpreta- might not be the Sonnets. A book, either Shakespeare Matters will evaluate sub- tion. And their critics have sometimes made printed or in manuscript, is the proper missions, in consultation with our edito- valid arguments which deserve consider- symbol for the Bard and his life of writing rial associates, on the basis of the quality of ation, discussion and debate. as Ms. Burris points out, but assuming it is argument and analysis, not on whether we Shakespeare Matters welcomes dissent a portrait of Oxford, might it not be Hamlet’s happen to agree with the conclusions of a —polite, open, reasoned dissent—from any book, Cardanus Comforte, or Castiglione’s given writer. We will deploy our editorial article or editorial we publish. In fact, we El Cortegiano with Oxford’s prefatory let- prerogatives to combat the unfortunate propose to establish a regular feature in our ter, or maybe a copy of a commonplace tendency of Oxfordians to replicate the newsletter which is specifically designed book which he probably made and isn’t censorious values which have produced to allow readers the opportunity to “talk extant? Maybe it was a copy of sonnets by his the present intellectual cul-de-sac of back” to the editors (or writers of major uncle, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, or a Shakespearean orthodoxy. Banning dis- articles). This “My Turn” column will afford prayer book such as Queen Elizabeth may cussion of “offensive” topics which can’t us a chance to hear from you, our readers. harm anyone, and might open up new av- Of course we hope you’ll write to agree as have held in one or more of her portraits. enues for inquiry and investigation, is bad well as disagree, to clarify as well as com- From our perspective we’d like it to be The ethics, bad strategy, and bad thinking. plain, and to enlighten as well as to argue. Sonnets, but we might be mistaken. On the contrary, we expect and hope to But even if you’re just feeling cranky please, There are many facets to the fine and (Continued on page 32) publish articles which will challenge the do, write. Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 4 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002

Fellowship (continued from page 1) be held in Boston, to try to tap professional-looking—was filled with in- into the educational system sightful articles. there, and plans are now pro- The first order of the day was business, ceeding to that effect. We and there was a motion by Ron Destro that needed, everyone agreed, to be a nine-member board containing five of- an organization of action, with ficers be elected by acclamation to serve for outreach and education as our one year. Those officers would be Chuck primary goals. Berney (President); Lynne Kositsky (Vice We discussed other initia- President for internal communications); tives before adjourning for a Roger Stritmatter (Vice President for out- delicious meal, which Isabel reach and education); Alex McNeil (Trea- Holden and Siching Song had Fellowship founding members (l to r) Betty Sears, Mark surer); and Ted Story (Recording Secre- been preparing all morning. Anderson and Charles Boyle at the 3rd Annual Renaissance tary). Members at large would be Paul Following lunch, Tony Bur- Festival in Vermont last August. The popular Festival was Altrocchi, Steve Aucella, Pat Urquhart, and ton, a lawyer and Shakespeare co-founded by Sears in 1999. another member to be chosen at a later scholar, but emphatically not date. The motion was seconded by Betty an Oxfordian, gave a fascinating paper on shouldn’t have one. There was unanimous Sears and passed unanimously. Hamlet and Inheritance. There was a lively agreement to this, and we went on to dis- We decided to conduct board meetings discussion afterwards; several of our mem- cuss various matters, including a website via email. Each month the recording secre- bers tried somewhat noisily to convert Mr. committee, the newsletter, and our 501C tary would precis them for the minutes and Burton to our persuasion—with very little tax status. those minutes would be displayed on the success, I might add. We adjourned in the late afternoon, but Shakespeare Fellowship website. We also After yet another break for tea— of course that wasn’t the end of the day’s decided to be a truly open organization, Oxfordians do seem to need a lot of suste- events, as at least 10 of us met later for with as much input as possible from mem- nance—there was a Board of Trustees meet- dinner, drinks, and more discussion. It was bers. Membership meetings would be an- ing with everyone welcome to attend, our sad to part, but all in all it was a memorable, nual, probably in November, and in all first chance to be open to all. heart-warming experience, and a fitting likelihood tied in with conferences. Bill The point was made that as an executive beginning to the Shakespeare Fellowship. Boyle suggested that our first conference committee encourages secret decisions we —Lynne Kositsky From Fellowship President Dr. Charles Berney One excellent newsletter might be a fluke, but two excellent Our website (http://www.shakespearefellowship.orghttp://www.shakespearefellowship.org) cur- newsletters is a tradition. As you can see from the document in your rently has 62 members registered for the discussion boards. hand, the Shakespeare Fellowship has a tradition of bringing you Through the kindness of Mark Alexander, the complete text of incisive, well-documented research, as exemplified by the articles Shakespeare Identified is available here. The web committee contributed by Barbara Burris and Paul Altrocchi, continuing with hopes the site will eventually provide a public-access archive of topics reported on in our first newsletter. We have already been articles on each Shakespearean play, tailored to students doing approached by the World Shakespeare Bibliography requesting research on particular texts who want to know how the Oxfordian copies for their organization. perspective affects our understanding of the plays. Dr. Felicia Our dream of an open and active Oxfordian society is fast becom- Londre’s essay, “Hamlet as Autobiography,” is an example of the ing reality. Membership is growing rapidly. So far we have garnered type of essay we hope to make available to a wider audience 130 responses to an initial mailing of less than 500, a return of better through the site. Special thanks are due to Julie Wood, a web-site than 25%. In addition, about 25% of our respondents have joined as designer from Michigan, for her dedicated efforts. patrons, contributing $75 or more. I regard this as an inspiring Let me close by asking that those of you sending materials to indication of enthusiasm for the Oxfordian movement and faith in our our newsletter editors use the following addresses: William Boyle, fledgling organization. My special thanks to each of you who have Shakespeare Matters, P.O. Box 263, Somerville MA 02143, or Dr. gone this extra mile. Roger Stritmatter, 20 Day Avenue, Northampton MA 01060. The We are currently laying plans for future get-togethers. We have Belmont address (Box 561, Belmont MA 02478) should be used for reserved our customary room in the Harvard Faculty Club for the financial matters, or for communications intended for me. Inci- traditional Oxford Day banquet, this year on Friday, April 26th, and dentally, we are planning to post our membership list on our web are hoping to expand the tradition by arranging a program (speakers, site in the near future. If for any reason you do not wish to be perhaps a panel) for the following morning. We are also planning for included, please contact me at the Belmont address. a conference to be held in the Boston area in November 2002, possibly As noted above, April 26th, 2002 in Cambridge will be our first at the Newton Marriott, where the successful 1999 conference was official get-together since our founding meeting, and we’re plan- held. Peering into the crystal ball for plans beyond 2002, we discern ning to make it a gala affair. I hope to see many of you there. indications of New York in 2003, Carmel in 2004, and Stratford, Ontario, in 2005. With warmest best wishes, Chuck Berney Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Winter 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 5

Guest Column My Turn New beginnings By Dr. Daniel L. Wright Since 11 September, none of us are as what she ought to be as she assumed a claimed playwright and poet, a lauded his- we were before that yet still almost unbe- hitherto unprecedented place at the center torian and scholar, a courtier surrounded lievable day. Our perceptions of the world, of European affairs—a position from which by persons of the highest power and conse- our families, friends, colleagues, adversar- she would become poised to command the quence whose ancestors and families fill, in ies and ourselves have been changed in future and, in substantial part, influence rich detail, the ranks of the Shakespeare fundamental ways by the enormity of the the affairs of the world for generations to plays? Was he an eccentric, erudite, broadly blow that has been struck against us. The come. What kind of nation would she be? traveled linguist and wordsmith, a patron shock has been psychic as well as physical. Would she prostitute herself to vanity and of writers and playmakers whose life, from We have awakened to a new sensitivity and the pursuit of empire, or would she over- its earliest years, had been anchored in a vulnerability, to the recognition that a spec- come the lure of o’ereaching dominion to world of learning, literature and theatre? tacular, malevolent conspiracy of invis- struggle for a destiny that would ennoble Did his work reap a personal fortune or ible, evil genius lurks in our midst. “Eden” her and bestow on her people a dignity that dispense one? has been invaded; we have been struck with mere wealth and power could not provide? Of course, we know the answer to that. incredible violence by a sinister power that Would she turn inward, repeat past mis- We know who he was, what he did, and what is fortified by deep resentment and sus- takes, and be torn asunder by old rivalries it cost him—but the greater world does not, tained by a centuries-old hatred that has and unbroken obedience to codes of vio- and perhaps more regrettable than its igno- resolved never to end its bloody vendetta lent and retributive justice, or would she rance is its indifference to the question of against the West. learn to incorporate into her national life a who this unrivalled contributor to our in- However, although 11 September, like new appreciation for the Classical world’s dividual and collective self-understanding a spectre, continues to haunt our waking virtues of patience and endurance, mingle was. In the light of the events of 11 Septem- and sleeping moments, it has summoned those with a renewed Christian commit- ber, the question of who Shakespeare was us, simultaneously, to pensive thoughts ment to repentance and forgiveness, and may seem inconsequential to some. But I and a break with tired routine; it has invited therein strive to heal her broken land and would put it to us that if we believe the us to re-evaluate what we should be doing “cleanse the foul body of the infected works of Shakespeare to be discerning with our lives. We have been challenged not world”? guides to the complexity and indecisive- only to re-examine old assumptions of se- For us, as students of Shakespeare who ness of a nation on the precipice of pro- curity and trust but challenged to recon- recognize that this writer was a cultural found change, the writer who created these sider our priorities in this horrific reminder midwife at the moment of his nation’s treasure-laden companions for our lives’ that we live all-too-short and unpredict- emergence from the dark isolation of its journeys is someone we want to know, able lives. What are we about as individuals, native womb into a world of cosmopolitan engage, quarrel with, and learn from. And as a nation, as a people at the sunset of an era brilliance, lingers, therefore, an important I submit we cannot do that when we are and at the bloody dawn of an unknown age? question: was this most influential of all expected to suspend rational judgment and These were some of the questions that writers who assisted at the literary birth of accept the incredible proposition that this the writer who called himself Shakespeare his nation, suckled it in its cultural infancy, man who relied so extensively on the sto- addressed in his immortal works, for Shake- and helped it take its first steps among ries, examples and personages from mani- speare, like us, lived in a society that grew those lands that had been captured by the fold works of classical antiquity never robust in the warm glow of a “golden age” intellectual promise and zeal of the Renais- needed to read any of those works because, at the same time that it struggled over the sance, a provincial, untutored and acquisi- in the words of Stratfordian author T. W. icy, dangerous terrain of war, insurrection, tive bourgeois who journeyed to London Baldwin, the singularity of his genius was terror and foreign intrigue. If Shakespeare (handicapped—at least a bit[!]— as former such that he could acquire their contents was who we think he was, for half a century Yale Professor Tucker Brooke admits, by a “by absorption from the air.” he rode the crest of a rising if turbulent tide “plentiful lack of knowledge”) with the As Oxfordians of post-September cata- of great national achievement and prosper- goal of enriching himself for idle retire- clysm sensibilities, therefore, Shakespeare ity even while, in the midst of his country’s ment by writing throwaway work for the confronts us with new challenges. Among heady surge toward prominence and re- illiterate masses? Was he a man with a them, he invites us, in all the spheres of our nown, he endured personal hardship and craving after fame and fortune, who, in the lives, to move from where we have stood, bitter disappointment, soul-piercing be- imagination of Walter Sullivan, set out for mired in silent acquiescence to hollow trayal, and losses—emotional and finan- London “[w]ith a few belongings in his tradition, from inaction and quarrelsome cial—of staggering proportion. He an- hand, a long vision in his eyes, and clowns pettiness to fresh associations of fellow- chored his plays, especially his histories, in and heroes and ringing lines of poetry ship, collaboration, support and learning. the complex questions and problems of the simmering in his head”? Or (as if we really To this long-overdue goal of shaking off day while England struggled to understand need ask!) was he a passionate and ac- (Continued on page 6) Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 6 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002 Folger’s SQ asks, “Why should Authorship we study Shakespeare?” Symposium A recent mailing from the Folger Shake- Shakespeare Library. The brochure features A symposium on Shakespearean topics speare Library’s Shakespeare Quarterly an image of the Droeshout engraving as was held on the Harvard University campus asks pro- used on the cover of the Quarterly’s Winter on Saturday, November 3rd, sponsored by vocatively, 2001 issue, adorned with Maori motifs— Paul Streitz’s Oxford Institute. The event “Why i.e., nativized in honor of the issue’s inter- was opened by Hank Whittemore, who spoke should we view with Maori poet and translator on the historical events of 1601-1603 study Merimeri Penfold, on the subject of trans- (the Essex rebellion, the death of Eliza- Shake- lating the Sonnets into Maori. The theme of beth), and related them to passages in the speare any- the entire Winter issue is “Dislocating Sonnets. more?“— a Shakepseare.” Chuck Berney then presented reasons sentiment So while authorship is only one item in for associating particular historical fig- that is right a long list of theoretical paradigms invoked ures with characters in Hamlet. He began in keeping by Paster, it is—pretty obviously —the cen- with the tral issue, the nagging question, the both- with the usual Burghley/Polonius identifi- thinking ersome little irritant that just won’t go cation, then covered the other characters, behind the away, which haunts the Quarterly’s new including the link between Yorick and Will “Dislocating Shakespeare” founding of public relations efforts. Somers, who was jester to Henry VIII. The the Shake- While Editor Paster seems quite enam- Earl of Leicester’s reputation as a poisoner speare Fellowship and Shakespeare Mat- ored by the fig leaf of contemporary theo- was emphasized, strengthening his identi- ters. It also can be seen as something of a retical fashions, which have frequently fication with Claudius. response to the recent trend in some quar- served as an emotional and intellectual The session was closed by a talk from ters that seems to be trashing and pretext for academicians to avoid dealing Oxford Institute director Paul Streitz, who marginalizing the Bard. honestly with the authorship question, there used material from his newly-published Of course, lurking behind all this is the is direct language in the brochure which book, Oxford, to make a case for the theory unmentioned “A” word—authorship. And readers of Shakespeare Matters will con- that Edward de Vere was the child of the yet, ironically, inside a small brochure sider a welcome relief to academic jargon young Elizabeth and Thomas Seymour, enclosed in the SQ mailing, “authorship and dissimulation: placed in the de Vere household by William studies” does make an appearance—as a “In our pages,” Paster writes, “Shake- Cecil. After the symposium, some of the hot new topic for Shakespeare scholar- speare isn’t worshipped as a cultural icon; participants, their intellectual hunger sated, ship, spliced in between “cultural studies” he is studied as a brilliant artist whose gathered at a local pizzeria to satisfy more and “deconstruction” in a list of all the dramatic and lyrical inventions touch on corporeal appetites. Others treked back to most chic topics du jour. Thus authorship every aspect of human discourse and expe- New York to attend a surprise birthday is effectively neutralized and subjugated rience: gender relations, race, class, desire, party for Hank Whittemore. to the latest academic theories. family affection and rivalry, existential sor- As is often the case in this paradigm row, comedy, history, and that rich terrain shift, however, what the editorial voice known as language.” We’ll drink to that, denies or marginalizes is flamboyantly Dr. Paster. 15th Oxford Day evident in the iconography of the sales For information on subscribing to the Banquet scheduled brochure, apparently a joint production of Shakespeare Quarterly, write to The Johns the Johns Hopkins Press—a center for radi- Hopkins University Press, P.O. Box 19966, for April 26th cal chic literary theory—and the Folger Baltimore MD 21211-0966 U.S.A. The 15th Annual Oxford Day Banquet and a generosity of spirit that Shakespeare Wright (continued from page 5) will be held on Friday, April 26th at the instructed us to practice when, in the words past associations and working with one Harvard Faculty Club in Cambridge, Mass. another in forums and with persons who of Duke Vincentio of Measure for Measure, The event will now be sponsored by the promote cooperation, embrace friendly he bad us always put forward our best Shakespeare Fellowship, and plans call for dissent, pursue cordial relationships and natures in our associations with other expanding the usual schedule by adding a practice mutual respect as mechanisms to people: Saturday morning seminar to the weekend’s create better avenues for us to pursue with Heaven doth with us as we with torches do, activities; topics under consideration in- others a more perfect understanding of Not light them for themselves; for if our clude Shakespeare and religion, with Dr. who Shakespeare was, I see the Shake- virtues Roger Stritmatter’s work on Oxford’s speare Fellowship committed in ways that Did not go forth of us, ‘twere all alike Geneva Bible being highlighted, along with no similar organization is or has been. In As if we had them not. the current debate over Shakespeare’s own the Shakespeare Fellowship, I look for- religious beliefs (i.e. a Catholic?). ward to spirited wrangling, genial conten- Here’s to an exciting journey! I look Contact Chuck Berney at cvberney tiousness, a commitment to excellence forward to seeing you in Portland in April! @rcn.com for further details. Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Winter 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 7

Stritmatter Bible dissertation Special Offer Subscribe to Shakespeare Matters nominated for award and receive Edward de Vere’s Roger Stritmatter’s 2001 PhD personal congratulations to Stritmatter in Geneva Bible for only $45.00. dissertation (The Marginalia of Edward a recent letter. (See page 31) de Vere’s Geneva Bible: providential dis- Stevens refers to the dissertation as “an covery, literary reasoning and historical impressive piece of work” and endorses its “Roger Stritmatter has provided for us a map of the author’s mind as his creative consequence) has been nominated for the primary conclusion: “You demonstrate that art was informed by Scripture.” prestigious Bernheimer award for the best the owner of the de Vere Bible had the same —Dr. Daniel L. Wright PhD dissertation in Comparative Litera- familiarity with its text as the author of the “A stunning piece of scholarship.” ture. To date the competition judges have Shakespeare canon.” —Sir Derek Jacobi not responded to the nomination. “I trust you will not object,” added “I enjoyed the book immensely ... words such as ‘definitive’ and ‘conclusive’ do However, Supreme Court Justice John Stevens, “if I refer to your thesis when I not seem out of place.” Paul Stevens—whose numerous public comment on the authorship question in —Michael York comments in support of de Vere’s author- future talks...in time, more and more tradi- “An impressive piece of work ... demon- ship have made him the most outspoken of tional scholars will be compelled to recog- strates that the owner of the de Vere Bible had the same familiarity with its text as several Supreme Court Justices who sup- nize the force of the evidence you have the author of the Shakespeare canon.” port inquiry and debate on the authorship assembled in support of the Oxfordian —Supreme Court Justice John Stevens question—has already weighed in with his position.” Shakespeare Oxford Who Wrote Society Conference Shakespeare? The Shakespeare Oxford Society held was but 11). Dr. Alan Nelson debated Roper Evening seminar at the its 25th annual conference in Carmel, Cali- on his theory Sunday morning and offered fornia last October 4th to 7th. This was the an alternative reading of the sketch’s short- Smithsonian Museum second time the Society has visited Carmel hand Latinized date. January 29th, 2002 for one of its annual conferences, the last Nelson also spoke on Oxford’s possible being in 1994. behavior upon the succession of James I. Mark your calendars (Tuesday, January A highlight of this conference was the Other papers included Scott Fanning on 29th, 6:30 to 9:00 pm) for what promises to special series of Shakespeare and Shake- “Titan and the Ghost of Hamlet,” and Bill be a hot and lively “courtroom drama” as speare apocrypha plays—“Royal Blood: Farina on “Italian sources for Venus and two renowned experts on the Shakespeare the Rise and Fall of Kings”—being put on Adonis and Rape of Lucrece.” authorship question are cross-examined by conference host Stephen Moorer’s Katherine Chiljan’s “New Spin on the by two of the best trial lawyers in the Carmel Shake-speare Festival. Conference Elizabeth Procession Portrait” (she consid- country. attendees were treated to performances of ers the wedding may have been Gail Paster, editor of the Shakespeare Richard II, Edward III and Thomas of Southampton’s) was one of three confer- Quarterly and professor of English at Woodstock (these plays are reviewed by ence papers on portraits. The other two—by George Washington University, will be the Chuck Berney on pages 31-32). Barbara Burris and Paul Altrocchi—appear advocate for the man from Stratford. Rich- Several of the conference papers fo- in this issue of Shakespeare Matters. An- ard F. Whalen, past president of the Shake- cused on these same plays (Richard Desper other paper—Charles Boyle’s response to speare Oxford Society and author of Shake- on Edward III and Stephanie Hughes on Diana Price’s Elizabethan Review article speare: Who Was He? will present the case Thomas of Woodstock). Henry V also re- on the Tudor heir theory—will appear in for Edward de Vere. ceived some attention, with Dr. Ren Draya Shakespeare Matters in 2002. They will be cross-examined by Robert speaking on “Henry V: the Gentler Game- At the AGM five new SOS trustees were S. Bennett, renowned trial lawyer with ster,” and Ramon Jimenez on, “Rebellion elected: Dr. Frank Davis (Savannah, GA); Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Broached on a Sword,” making a case for Marion Buckley (Chicago, IL); Barbara Flues and former counsel to President Clinton an early composition date for the play. (North Carolina); Wayne Shore (San Anto- and Secretary of Defense Caspar Early composition dates for some plays nio, TX); and Jim Sherwood (New York, NY). Weinberger; and by E. Barrett Prettyman was also the theme of David Roper’s paper Current trustee and treasurer Joe Peel (Nash- Jr., senior partner at Hogan and Hartson, on Henry Peacham’s chronogram (first ville TN) was re-elected to another term. former special assistant to President published in the July 2001 De Vere Society The meeting ran overtime discussing Kennedy, and recent inspector general of Newsletter), in which he considers that the former trustee William Boyle’s tenure as the District of Columbia. William F. Causey famous sketch of Titus Andronicus dates Treasurer and the ongoing dispute over of Nixon Peabody LLP will moderate. all the way back to 1575, thus placing the whether certain disbursements made by The evening will conclude with a display’s beginnings then also (when Stratman Boyle were or were not authorized. cussion and questions from the audience. Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 8 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002 The Queen Elizabeth Pregnancy Portrait: Who designed it and who did the cover-ups? By Paul Hemenway Altrocchi, MD

“Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long—a man’s son may, but in the end truth will out.” (The Merchant of Venice)1

or centuries the portrait known as Queen Elizabeth in a Fancy Dress has tantalized English art experts by its complex F indecipherable symbolism. The painting shows a pregnant lady in a highly-decorated silver gown, wearing a tapered headdress with a long veil extending down her back, standing under a tree bearing nuts. Her right hand crowns a weeping stag with a circlet of pansies. Three enigmatic Latin mottoes are spaced along the trunk of a large tree on the left, and a graceful gold cartouche on the right contains a 14-line poem. The portrait has been owned for more than 300 years by the English Royal Family which labeled it as Queen Elizabeth until recently. Oxfordians first learned of it about 35 years ago.2 In 1898, Ernest Law agreed that the portrait was of Queen Elizabeth and concluded that “This curious picture, with its fantastical design, enigmatical mottoes, and quaint verses, doubt- less has some allegorical meaning which we are now unable to interpret.”3 England’s most respected art expert Sir Roy Strong, now in his 90s, said that “Without doubt we are looking at . . . the most complicated of all Elizabethan allegorical portraits.4 He also stated that “such a picture cannot have been conceived as anything other than a major statement.”5 According to the published literature about the Pregnancy Portrait, its complex symbolism has remained a mystery to the Royal English art world up to the present time.

A history of the painting

1. The portrait was painted between 1594 and 1604 by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger (1561-1635). For solid reasons of style, The Royal Collection ©2001, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II landscaped background, and similarity to other paintings, particu- Fig. 1. “Lady in a Fancy Dress” by Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger. larly Gheeraerts’ Ditchley portrait of Queen Elizabeth which has a Reproduced with permission by The Royal Collection (copyright 2001 similar cartouche and identical calligraphy, this attribution is not Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). debated.6 2. In 1613, a portrait of “a beautiful Turkish Lady” was seen 5. George Vertue in 1725 saw the royal cipher of Charles 1 hanging at Somerset House in Westminster, a house owned by the (1625-1649) on the back of the painting, subsequently removed.10 Crown.7 6. In Queen Anne’s reign, 1702 to 1714, the portrait was 3. The portrait was lost to the royal family sometime during the displayed at St. James’ Palace, labeled as Queen Elizabeth in a fancy 1600s. Whether it was thrown out during the Commonwealth, after dress.”11,12 the beheading of Charles I in 1649, is not known. 7. Queen Caroline, the wife of King George II (1727-1760), 4. In the early 1700s Sir John Stanley recovered for the Crown transferred the painting to the Queen’s Gallery of full-length the painting of “Queen Elizabeth in a strange fantastick habit” from portraits of English Sovereigns in Kensington Palace, where it a painter who had bought it at a flea market in Moor Fields.8, 9 stayed for more than 100 years as a portrait of Queen Elizabeth.13

8. Queen Victoria The weeping moved the portrait to stag is from Ovid’s Hampton Court Pal- Metamorphoses, ace in 1838 where it in which Actaeon has remained, cur- is transformed into rently in the Renais- a stag by the God- sance Galleries, dess Diana after he Room 1.14 came upon her 9. In 1849, art bathing nude in a critic Horace Wal- stream. According pole described it as a to Strong, “there “picture of Elizabeth could only be one in a fantastic habit, Diana in Elizabe- something like a Per- than England, the sian.”15 Virgin Queen her- 10. In 1898 Er- self.”22 nest Law, in a descrip- Strong be- tion of all paintings lieves that the at- hanging at Hampton tire is Persian and Court Palace, for the he labels her The first time printed a Persian Lady.23 The photo of the painting dress decoration and described it as includes grape Queen Elizabeth in a clusters, green 16 fanciful dress. The Royal Collection ©2001, Her Majesty The Royal Collection ©2001, Her Majesty leaves, dove-sized 11. In 1959, Queen Elizabeth II Queen Elizabeth II exotic birds, hon- Frances Yates Fig. 2. Closer detail of stag’s head; note stag’s Fig. 3. Closer detail. Note rubbing and over- eysuckle, and red thought the head- tears and the crown of pansies. painting near lady’s left elbow, and the original roses. She wears dress and veil were shrubs, hills, and pond on lower right. blue slippers elab- similar to the 1581 orately adorned Persian Virgin woodcut by J. J. Boissard.17 with large blue-silver pearls. 12. In 1959, Janet Arnold, an apparel historian, thought the Strong is unable to designate any particular symbolism for the painting was most likely an emblem or allegory “with some two male chaffinches in the walnut tree’s branches. He says that the symbolical meaning, now lost” rather than an actual event like a cartouche poem seems to be a coded lament of lost love, perfidy, costume party or masque.18 injustice, and sadness but he cannot translate the meaning.24

In sum, the portrait has hung in Royal Palaces for almost 300 Deliberate changes in the painting’s years, at Hampton Court Palace for the last 164 years. During this composition before 1898 time, the portrait’s lady was designated as Queen Elizabeth until the 20th century when the label at Hampton Court was changed to The Royal Collection’s 2001 Catalog says that the painting “has “Portrait of an Unknown Woman.” The current listing by The Royal been extensively rubbed (i.e. erased, extirpated, or blotted out) and, Collection is “Portrait of a Woman . . . in a loose white Oriental dress especially in the background, heavily repainted. The outline of the richly embroidered.” dress down the sitter’s left side has been drastically simplified; the overlapping folds of the dress and its fringes have been painted Comments on specific features of the Pregnancy Portrait out.”25 Studying color enlargements meticulously with magnifying That the Lady is pregnant has not been disputed in the art glasses yields the following observations: literature. The tree bearing “fruit” is a walnut, quite common in England but having its origin as a Royal Tree sent to ancient Greece 1. Incomplete painting-over of a portion of the lady’s dress on by Persia.19 her left side was presumably done to make her look slimmer and The headdress is studded with pansies and the lady is placing less pregnant. Nothing could be seen through the silver dress, so a wreath of pansies on a crying stag’s head. Pansies were the Virgin there was nothing objectionable behind it. Residua of silver tassels Queen’s favorite flower and symbolized royalty, chastity, and which lined the lovely transparent spangled wrap of gauze are Queen Elizabeth. Strong points out that “the pansy’s strongest easily seen, now out of place. allusion in the last years of the reign was to the Queen.”20 2. In the light-colored area on the right side of the painting there The white pearls below the lady’s left ear and around her right are gentle hills interpreted as original. These are interrupted by wrist also symbolize regal chastity despite the obvious crude green swirls and swaths, painted with all of the refined brush 21 pregnancy. (Continued on page 10) Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 10 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002

Persian Lady (continued from page 9) limitations of examining photographic reproductions of the por- techniques of Huckleberry Finn whitewashing Tom Sawyer’s fence. trait in books and articles, sequential analysis of Queen Elizabeth’s Strong states that the portrait of Captain Thomas Lee, painted by veil in art publications yields the following tentative interpreta- Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger in 1594, for the first time placed tions: English portrait-subject in a landscape.26 Lady in a Fancy Dress, dating to the same period,27 once had a similar landscape, now 1 . In 1898 (Law), the upper veil is slightly opaque so that dark painted over. Under high magnification, remnants of foreground embroidery can display a large “R” standing for Regina. buildings and faint receding hills can still be seen despite the 2. By 195932 a number of new dark embroidery lines and attempts at obliteration. patches have been painted on the veil, making the “R” less well 3. The dark foreground immediately above the cartouche has defined. been extensively painted over, annihilating any original symbol- 3. Strong’s 1969 illustration of the portrait33 shows additional ism. Here also one can recognize remnants of buildings. A pond on dark patches and swirls on the upper veil in the vicinity of the “R.” the right, with reflections of shrubs, has been narrowed by brown 4. Between 1969 and 2001, the upper veil has been deliberately and black paint. It seems to show partial reflections of other altered for the third time—densely whitened, wiping out the dark buildings, no longer visible. embroidery almost completely and becoming totally inconsistent 4. A dense growth of trees and bushes, ineptly added, is silhou- with the lower veil’s delicate transparency. etted against the sky, totally out of perspective with the small hills and shrubs of the original background and quite uncharacteristic These three veil-alterations occurred in the last 103 years, the of Gheeraerts. most drastic in the last 33 years during the current reign of Queen 5. In 1725, George Vertue said the portrait showed birds Elizabeth II. All of these painted alterations are concerned with flying.28 Now there are none. Was one of these the “restless swallow” eliminating the royal symbolism on the pregnant lady’s upper veil. described in the cartouche poem’s first line, now swallowed up by It was in this same epoch that the Royal Collection changed the re-painting? name of the lady from Queen Elizabeth to “Unknown Woman.” This 6. The area for lettering in the inferior portion of the cartouche correlation cannot be ignored. is quite faint. Magnified shadows appear to show an R in the center, a Royal crown on the right within a square, and a very faint E on the A century of deception continues left. If indeed it originally read ER, which stood for Elizabetha Regina, then obviously the lady’s identity would not have been in Since the pregnant lady became anonymous, deliberate at- question. ER and a crown did appear on some paintings of Queen tempts have been made in the last century to label her as someone Elizabeth.29 else. 7. The first two mottoes have white, easily readable paint. The In 1914 a royal art expert, Sir Lionel Cust, said the portrait was last two words of the crucially important third motto have been of Arabella Stuart, first in line to the throne after James I. Strong says altered. Circumstantial evidence (vide infra) suggests that the this is untenable because her many portraits do not show any letter-alteration occurred before 1725. resemblance to the lady in fancy dress.34 This raises questions as to the motivation of such a highly respected, knighted royal art critic Comments on painting alterations before 1898 as Lionel Cust. Despite symbols implying royalty, chastity, and the Virgin There are no depictions of the portrait until Ernest Law’s photo- Queen, Strong in 1992 decided to disagree with more than 300 illustrated The Royal Gallery of Hampton Court. Illustrated Cata- years of opinion by art experts, the Royal Family, and his own logue. in 1898.30 This clearly shows these aforementioned back- analytical evidence, and state that the painting is of a pregnant ground alterations, and also establishes a baseline for noting Frances Walsingham, widow of Philip Sidney and wife of the Earl further changes to the painting that have occurred in the 20th of Essex.35, 36 century. The purpose, Strong decides, was for the portrait to elicit Non-royal owners in the 1600s would have had no motivation Queenly pity so she would spare the life of Essex.37 But if the Queen to alter a painting of Queen Elizabeth. Since the Royal Family has refused to see Frances personally at that time, which she did, why owned the portrait most of the time since it was painted, and since would she allow a portrait of Frances in her eyesight? Secondly, if it was definitely labeled as Queen Elizabeth until the 20th century, it is Frances, why was it altered so many times? She was neither there would have been no reason to paint out any background noble, nor a member of the Queen’s court, nor controversial, nor scenes if they merely confirmed her royalty, e.g. a royal castle or noteworthy in any respect. a royal heraldic crest. Frances Walsingham’s only known portrait is in the Mildred It is postulated, therefore, that originally the right-hand side of Anna Williams Collection at the Palace of the Legion of Honor, San the painting contained symbols unacceptable to the Royal Family Francisco.38 Strong says the portrait’s identity is certain.39 Its which linked the Queen to some other individual or individuals. provenance is well known, being first described in 1590 by John, Lord Lumley.40 Deliberate changes in the painting after 1898 The face on the pregnant lady is much more similar to that on the Rainbow Portrait of Queen Elizabeth by Gheeraerts than the The 2001 Royal Collection catalog states that “the adornments face on the Frances Walsingham portrait. Also, the portrait of on the veil (have been) almost entirely obliterated.”31 Granting the Frances shows brown hair and gray-blue eyes.41 The Pregnancy Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Winter 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 11

Portrait lady has orange hair and greenish-brown eyes, as did both makes no sense. Queen Elizabeth and Henry Wriothesley. Another interpretation of the third motto is Dolor est medicina It is not immediately clear why world-respected royal art critics ad lori, misreading the two altered letters as the alterers intended.47 put forward other portrait-candidates who are so easily disproved. The translation of “lori” as “leather thongs” renders the motto meaningless. Translation of the three mottoes New analysis of the key third motto It is now time to analyze the three Latin mottoes on the tree. In fact, in agreement with Ernest Law in 1898,48 the third motto 1. lniusti Justa querela (upper motto). is in Latin and, when magnified, reads:

(a) Strong’s translation: “A just com- Dolor est medicina ed tori plaint of injustice.”42 (b) Author’s translation: “A complaint Dolor = grief, anguish, sorrow, or, as about injustices is just,” which is basi- used by Livy, the torment of love.49 Est = cally the same as Strong’s interpretation. is. Medicina = medicine, remedy, or healing process. “Ed” is not a Latin word. Tori 2. Mea sic mihi (middle motto): is probably the plural of torus = bridal or conjugal bed, bulge or round swelling. (a) Strong’s translation: “Thus to me With such meanings, a play on words is my ...” Since this has no meaning, and conceivable since the portrait lady is since the word mea is feminine, Strong The Royal Collection ©2001, Her clearly pregnant, although the Romans Majesty Queen Elizabeth II suggests adding regina to the end of the Majesty Queen Elizabeth II did not use torus to mean pregnancy.50 Fig. 4. The upper motto. Note tallness and thinness of motto so that it means, “Thus to me my Renaissance England, fueled by its 43 the “I” in querela, and thickness and swirling crossbar Queen.” of the two “t’s.” extraordinary literary explosion, loved (b) Author’s translation: “Thus what new words, new word usage, and the is mine should be mine, namely the stimulating complexities of crafty phrase- Queen.” Again, this is essentially the same ology. But why would the painting’s cre- as Strong. ative designer put in a non-word followed by a space? 3. Dolor est medicina ed tori (lower For two reasons. Most importantly, motto): This motto has caused the most the words “ed tori” must have a symbolic translational problems because: meaning on their own. Secondly, the space after the non-word “ed” is an open invita- (a) ed is not a word in Latin. tion to fill in whatever number of letters (b) The space after the non-word im- is most appropriate to create a new and plies that letters are missing. significant last word in the motto. (c) Superimposed brown paint blurs The Royal Collection ©2001, Her There is space for only one letter Majesty Queen Elizabeth II “ed tori.” The swirling crossbar of the “t” Fig. 5. The crucial lower motto. Note partial paint-over between “ed” and “tori.” Would the in tori has been painted out. The “t’s” to obscure the “e” in “ed” and the “t” in “tori” including painting’s creator leave one space if he vertical stem is the same as the three elimination of the swirling crossbar of the “t.” wanted one letter to be supplied, and other t’s in the mottoes and quite differ- three spaces for three missing letters? No. ent from the taller, narrower stems of the It is not the width of the blank space which “I’s” in the first motto and third mottoes. Orthographically, the “t” is significant but its invitational presence. in tori is definitely a “T” and not an “I.” If the above interpretation is not correct, and only one letter is missing, why didn’t the portrait designer put in that letter? For George Vertue in 1725 thought the motto was “dolor est example, the letter “i” makes the Latin word editori , the plural of medicina dolore.”44 Since he read the first letter of the last word an uncommon word in classical Latin, editor, which means “that as an “I”, this suggests that the alteration of the “T” occurred before which brings forth or emits,” as in breezes or vapors. This has no 1725. relevance to the painting. Strong in 1963 thought the last two words were “ed lori” which In classical Latin, editori is not an accepted grammatical form is not Latin and makes no sense (Grief is medicine of the leather of editus,51 meaning high geographic places and, uncommonly, thongs?).45 In 1992 Strong says that the third motto is in Italian and lofty status. reads, Dolor est medicina e d(o)lori which he thinks means “Grief Accepting the implied invitation to fill in the blank between the is medicine for grief.”46 This is bad Latin, bad Italian, and less than nonword “ed” and “tori,” the following three missing letters are clear in English. now proposed: “uca.” The actual motto, therefore, would then read: Others have read the motto as Dolor est medicina ad(ju)tori, adding two missing letters, but “Grief is medicine for helpers” still Dolor est medicina educatori (Continued on page 12) Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 12 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002

Persian Lady (continued from page 11) beginning soon after.53, 54 Elizabeth gave gifts to the Sultan and Educatori = the plural of rearer, bringer up, foster father or, as Sultana. When the Sultana asked what gifts the Queen would like used by Cicero, foster parentage.52 Thus, the motto can now be in return, Elizabeth’s answer twice was clothes in Turkish fash- translated as: ion.55 In 1593, Elizabeth received a rich gown of gold; the headdress, “Anguish is part of the healing process for foster parentage.” “which the Queen so much wanted,” had been stolen. In 1594, the Sultana sent two silver garments, and in 1599, silver attire. Follow- So the plot thickens as we are now made aware of a foster parent ing Queenly fashion, by 1600 Turkish clothes, including turbans, theme in the portrait. were an English fad.56 But the quintessential third motto yields a further decipher- The portrait lady’s dress is silver—is it one of the actual dresses ment. Torus is pronounced the same as its homonym, the Latin from the Sultana? Was it available to Gheeraerts to copy for the word taurus, meaning bull, steer, or ox. The plural is tori = tauri portrait? = oxen. Immediately, the crucial cipher becomes clear: Did de Vere himself visit Turkey in the fall of 1575, sailing from Venice? Is this why the Queen called him “My Turk”?57 Is this why Dolor est medicina ed tori = Dolor est medicina ed tauri de Vere chose to show her in the Pregnancy Portrait in Turkish “Anguish is part of the healing process for Ed Tauri = Edward Oxen attire? = Edward Oxenford.” There was no official English diplomatic or trade relationship with Persia at this time for good reason — the Persians were Edward de Vere was the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. The word enemies of the Turks and they were at war for 12 years during this “oxford” derives from oxen fording a stream. De Vere often signed period.58 Given Queen Elizabeth’s persistent efforts to establish his name “Edward Oxenford.” Turkey as a trading partner, it is unlikely that she would wear The three mottoes, therefore, inform us of the portrait’s major clothes of Turkey’s foe. symbolic themes: De Vere himself may not have liked Persian attire, for he has King Lear say (111, 6, 36-39):59 1. Injustice. 2. The Queen should have been mine. “You, sir . . . I do not like the fashion of your garments. 3. Foster parentage. You will say they are Persian; but let them be changed” 4. The person who suffered anguish from these three central themes is Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxenford. The Royal tree is bearing its fruit, walnuts, just as the pregnant lady is bearing the fruit of her womb. New Pregnancy Portrait hypotheses New Pregnancy Portrait hypotheses The Queen is wearing a large oval earring with a highly unusual With Edward de Vere’s signature literally staring us in the face, decorative color — dark brown. Originally, this may have been an new portrait hypotheses are now justified. Sometime between armillary sphere with a diagonal ecliptic and a series of horizontal 1594 and his demise on June 26, 1604, Edward de Vere commis- concentric rings designed to show the earth’s central place in the sioned Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger to paint the portrait of a celestial heavens. Queen Elizabeth wore such an armillary earring pregnant Queen Elizabeth, with de Vere himself devising the in the Ditchley portrait. Since this was her own regal symbol as Earth’s heavenly monarch and as the moon goddess Cynthia or complex symbolism. 60 The purpose? To record for history that the Queen was pregnant Diana, there was ample reason to eliminate this royal connection by him in 1573-1574 with the son who became Henry Wriothesley, by painting the earring brown. Third Earl of Southampton, who should have been lawful heir to Two highly-colored male chaffinches, beautiful birds which the Tudor throne. have lovely songs, are seen in the shelter of Royal branches. Do they One may postulate that symbolism on the painting’s right side represent the beautiful creativity of writers and poets, sheltered by contained buildings which identified the Third Earl of Royal authority from Cecilian suppression and censorship? Southampton. Why buildings? Because remnants can still be seen Crowning the stag’s head with a circlet of pansies, Elizabeth’s under magnification. The painting’s theme would represent a favorite flower, represents a crowning of de Vere as the Queen’s threat to the legitimacy of the Stuart monarchy and one may husband. The author believes that in February, 1574, with Eliza- speculate that these paint-overs occurred during the many years of beth already five months pregnant, she and de Vere talked about ownership of the painting by the Stuarts in the 1600s. marriage and the possibilities of annulment of Edward’s unwanted In the past century the paint-over deceptions had another marriage to Anne Cecil, with Archbishop Matthew Parker in Can- terbury, and again for two days in March at the Archbishop’s purpose—to protect the myth of The Virgin Queen by eliminating 61 any connection of the pregnant lady to royalty and thus to Queen residence in Croydon, south of London. The author thinks that the Elizabeth I. Queen and de Vere did exchange rings at this time, tantamount to marriage. New interpretations based upon these hypotheses In the Pregnancy Portrait, there are two rings hanging on a black cord around the lady’s neck. The cord is tied in a symbolic The portrait lady’s fancy dress is more likely Turkish than knot over her upper chest. Attached by a second knot is a side-loop Persian. Queen Elizabeth worked hard to establish relations with with a ring of rubies and diamonds which may be de Vere’s ring Turkey, exchanging ambassadors in 1583, with vigorous trade given to him by the Queen. The ring with a circlet of diamonds at Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Winter 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 13 the cord’s end may represent the Queen’s ring given to her by Portrait: Edward de Vere. The shales (= husks) be mine, the kernels others are.

The cartouche poem Sonnet 38:

The poem in the cartouche is quite de Verean and describes the If my slight muse do please these curious days, Queen’s pregnancy by him, the injustice of the broken engagement, The pain be mine, but thine shall be the praise. and his sadness over the loss of his son by forced foster parentage: The author believes all three poems were written by Edward de The restless swallow fits my restless mind, Vere, and that he wrote the portrait-poem in his style of 1573 to In still reviving still renewing wronges; commemorate Queen Elizabeth’s pregnancy by him in 1573. Her just complaints of cruel[t]y unkind, Are all the music that my life prolongs. Analysis of the cartouche poem’s content

With pensive thoughts my weeping stagg I crown, One of the premises of this paper is that Henry Wriothesley, Whose melancholy tears my cares express; His tears in silence and my sighs unknown Third Earl of Southampton, was the son of Queen Elizabeth and Are all the physic that my harms redress. Edward de Vere, an hypothesis first put forward by Percy Allen, independently by Dorothy Ogburn,63 and more recently by Betty My only hope was in this goodly tree, Sears.64 This author finds evidence in favor of the “Tudor Rose Which I did plant in love, bring up in care; Theory” compelling, including Thomas Nashe’s Prologue to The But all in vain, for now too late I see Choice of Valentines, written directly and openly to Henry The shales be mine, the kernels others are. Wriothesley: My music may be plaints, my physique tears If this be all the fruit my love tree bears. Pardon, sweet flower of matchless poetry And fairest bud the red rose ever bore ... Ne blame my verse for loose unchastitie The cartouche calligraphy is identical to that in the Ditchley For painting forth the things that hidden are. portrait’s cartouche. It is not in de Vere’s handwriting. The poem is similar in style to de Vere’s poem in his preface to Bedingfield’s Aware that this theory is not universally accepted and that translation of Cardanus’ Comforte, “Published by commandment alternative poem interpretations will be forthcoming, the author of the right honourable the Earle of Oxenforde, Anno Domini tentatively interprets the portrait’s cartouche poem as follows. 1573.”62 Sample verses are as follows: The restless swallow fits my restless mind, The labouring man that tills the fertile field In still reviving still renewing wronges; And reaps the harvest fruit, hath not indeed Her just complaints of cruel[t]y unkind, The gain, but pain; but if for all his toil He gets the straw, the lord will have the seed. Are all the music that my life prolongs.

The manchet fine falls not unto his share; De Vere’s active mind is reviving powerful memories of On coarsest cheat his hungry stomach feeds. Elizabeth’s 1973 pregnancy. She told de Vere it was cruelly unkind The landlord doth possess the finest fare; that Monarchy realities compelled her to cancel their wedding He pulls the flowers, the other plucks the weeds. plans. One reason she decided against open recognition of their son So he that takes the pain to pen the book as Tudor heir was the realization that he might be subjected to Reaps not the gifts of golden goodly muse; illegitimacy accusations all of his life, just as she had been. The But those gain that, who on the work shall look, memory sustains his life that she favored the marriage but was over- And from the sour the sweet by skill shall choose; ruled by her sense of royal duty, although there were clearly other For he that beats the bush the bird not gets reasons for her decision. But who sits still and holdeth fast the nets. With pensive thoughts my weeping stagg I crown, If one compares selections from each, plus two lines from Whose melancholy tears my cares express; Sonnet 38, the similarity of meter and rhyme is even more striking, His tears in silence and my sighs unknown as is the powerful antithesis used to end stanzas: Are all the physic that my harms redress. The pansy derives its name from penseé, French for “thought.” Cardanus: De Vere thinks about the symbolic crowning of the stag, himself, He gets the straw, the lord will have the seed. by the pregnant Queen, a theme which he commissioned Gheeraerts He pulls the flowers, the other plucks the weeds. to paint. The stag’s silent tears represent his own tears of grief, with introspective anguish over loss of his regal son being the only For he that beats the bush the bird not gets healing process available to taper his sorrows over time. But who sits still and holdeth fast the nets. Just as Edward de Vere was regally commanded into silence by (Continued on page 14) Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 14 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002

Persian Lady (continued from page 13) the Queen about their son, so Actaeon saw Diana bathing nude and was struck silent by metamorphosis into a stag as in Book 3 of the Metamorphoses. The 1567 translation was ascribed to Arthur Golding, Edward’s uncle and Latin tutor,65 but there are those who believe de Vere was the translator. The weeping-stag passage ends with these lines:

But when he saw his face And horned temples in the brooke, he would have cryde alas, But as for then no kinde of speach out of his lippes could passe.

He sighed and brayde, for that was then the speach that did remaine, And down the eyes that were not his, his bitter teares did rain

Sir Roy Strong says that in addition to the allusion to Ovid’s Metamorphoses, “The touchstone for the weeping stag is the scene in As You Like It of the melancholy Jaques reclining at the foot of a tree observing a weeping stag beside a stream,” and crying himself over the wounded deer’s misfortune.66 The third stanza of the Pregnancy Portrait poem is:

My only hope was in this goodly tree, Which I did plant in love, bring up in care; But all in vain, for now too late I see The shales be mine, the kernels others are.

Edward de Vere placed his hopes and dreams in the Queen’s pregnancy, conceived with her in love and supported by him with caring throughout the pregnancy, including the final eight to ten The Royal Collection ©2001, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II weeks at his manor house of Havering Atte Bower in May, June, and Fig. 6. “Queen Elizabeth in a Fancy Dress” as illustrated by early July, 1574.67 But all in vain (the actual word in the poem is Ernest Laws in his 1898 book Royal Gallery at Hampton spelled “vanie”) because, after their son was born, she decided Court. Note the “R” on upper veil, which stands for Regina against their marriage. Thus de Vere gets nothing, equivalent to the (Queen). This “R” is no longer visible today. husks of walnuts, while others get the Royal fruit, their son, adopted-out to foster parents. his own name in motto number three on the left, there would have The cartouche poem’s final two lines are: been no necessity to further identify him on the right. 4. The paint-outs began before 1898 and may have occurred My music may be plaints, my physique tears before 1725. If this be all the fruit my love tree bears. 5. Techniques like x-ray or infra-red analysis would be neces- sary to uncover the truth underneath the crude paint-overs. This The melodic poetry of his life is now reduced to lamentation seems unlikely since the painting’s alterations most likely oc- and tears of sorrow, the only residua of a royal pregnancy (his love curred when the painting was owned by the Royal Family, and the tree) gone astray—no marriage for de Vere or the Queen, no painting is still owned by them. acknowledged son for de Vere, and no Tudor heir for the Queen. 6. That the portrait clearly portrays a pregnant Queen Elizabeth has apparently been regarded in the last century by The Royal Summary of author’s interpretation of portrait’s symbolism Family and/or its Royal Art experts as incompatible with the historical mythology of The Virgin Queen. This would seem to 1. The portrait lady is Queen Elizabeth I, pregnant in 1573-1574 provide the motivation for the spread of misinformation regarding with de Vere’s son. Against de Vere’s strong wishes, this son was the lady’s identity, for the painting out of the veil’s large R, which adopted out to foster parents at the Queen’s insistence, namely to stood for Regina, and for putting forth other candidates for being the Wriothesleys, and became Henry Wriothesley, Third Earl of the pregnant lady. Southampton. 7. Sufficient clues remain elsewhere in the painting, however, 2. England’s Royal Family owned the portrait intermittently in to offer meaningful interpretations of original symbolism. the 1600s and constantly since the early 1700s. 8. The attire is Turkish, symbolic of Edward de Vere’s nickname, 3. The extensive, deliberate, obliterating paint-over on the right “My Turk,” and of dresses requested by, and given to, Queen may well have symbolically linked Queen Elizabeth to Henry Elizabeth from the Sultana of Turkey in the 1590s during the initial Wriothesley and would, therefore, have represented a threat to the stages of trade relations. legitimacy of the Stuart Monarchy. Since Edward de Vere blazons 9. The lacrimating stag is from Ovid’s Metamorphoses which Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Winter 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 15 represents de Vere as the Queen’s muted lover, forbidden to In 1992, Sir Roy Strong concluded that “This picture is un- acknowledge their son, The Third Earl of Southampton, just as happy. Its theme is of wrongs and injustice, of tears and grief, of Actaeon was struck silent by the Goddess Diana. fruits snatched by others.”68 This paper concurs and provides the 10. The Queen crowns the stag with her favorite flower, pansies, missing context wherein the painting and its symbolism finally symbolizing her promise to make de Vere her Royal consort. make sense after centuries of bafflement, real or feigned. 11. De Vere’s cartouche poem was written in the same style as his 1573 poem prefacing Thomas Bedingfield’s Cardanus’ Comforte Meaning of this portrait for the authorship question and symbolizes the onset of the Queen’s pregnancy by de Vere in 1573 . As Michael Bath said in 1986, “Study of Shakespeare’s relation 12. The two rings hanging from her neck signify an actual to the visual arts involves defining the iconographic codes and exchange of rings and vows between the pregnant Queen and de conventions within which his imagery operates.69 Vere in early 1574. Despite mutilations, paint-overs, and cover-ups on a number of occasions in the past 400 years, all of which most likely occurred Summary of the Pregnancy Portrait’s three Latin mottoes during ownership by the Royal Family of England, the Pregnancy Portrait’s detailed, complex, iconographic symbolism conveys the 1. Iniusti justa querela (motto level with the Queen’s head): “A vivid message that Queen Elizabeth gave birth to a son, fathered by complaint about injustices is just.” Edward de Vere, who was adopted out and became the Third Earl of Southampton. The injustices include Elizabeth’s unilateral decision not to This explains why Edward de Vere wrote so many loving, father- marry de Vere, her refusal to legitimize her son by him, and her son sonnets and such tender dedications to the Third Earl of adopting out of their son, thus depriving England of a Tudor heir Southampton for his long narrative poems, Venus and Adonis and and preventing de Vere and Henry Wriothesley from having a The Rape of Lucrece, his first publications under his pen name: normal father-son relationship. William Shakespeare. Of whatever authorship persuasion, all agree that the Sonnets, 2. Mea sic mihi (motto level with the Queen’s heart): the two long narrative poems, and Shakespeare’s plays were written by the same person, namely William Shakespeare. Therefore, if de “Thus what is mine should be mine.” Edward de Vere and Queen Vere wrote the sonnets, Venus and Adonis, and The Rape of Lucrece, Elizabeth may have exchanged rings symbolizing marriage de- as the Pregnancy Portrait implies by its vivid symbolic imagery of spite his existing, disharmonious, forced marriage to Anne Cecil. de Vere’s paternity of the Third Earl of Southampton, then he also He and the Queen should have had a stimulating, mutually- wrote the plays. benefiting marital relationship. Vital clues in the original Pregnancy Portrait have been painted over—especially those on the painting’s right side which are 3a. Dolor est medicina educatori (motto level with the stag’s postulated as once connecting Henry Wriothesley to the pregnant head, i.e., de Vere’s head, and also level with the baby in Queen lady, Queen Elizabeth 1. Despite this shortcoming, the Pregnancy Elizabeth’s womb) = “Anguish is part of the healing process for Portrait is tentatively put forward as further evidence that Edward foster parentage,” i.e., “Anguish is part of the healing process for de Vere is William Shakespeare. having to give up one’s son to foster parents.” The author thanks the following individuals for help with this 3b. The conversion must be made of Dolor est medicina ed tori paper: Cate Altrocchi Waidyatilleka ; Anne Bingham Altrocchi, MD; into Dolor est medicina ed tauri, yielding Edward de Vere’s Prof. Dirk Held, Professor of Latin, Connecticut College; and unmistakable ciphered signature as Edward Oxenford, the allegory’s Allison Pennell, M. H. de Young Memorial Museum, San Francisco. creator: “Anguish is part of the healing process for Edward Oxenford.” References The author believes that these superbly inventive motto-meanings are not far-fetched and did not happen by chance alone. 1. William Shakespeare. The Merchant of Venice (11, 2, 74-76). Perhaps those who are still reluctant to embrace the Prince 2. Charlton Ogburn, Jr. Letter to the Editor, The Elizabethan Review Tudor theory should recall the words of J. P. Morgan when he was 5, No. 1, Spring 1997. asked to render advice on investing in the stock market: “It is better 3. Ernest Law. The Royal Gallery of Hampton Court. Illustrated to be on the caboose than not on the train at all.” Catalogue. George Bell and Sons, London, 1898. Edward de Vere and the Queen were multi-lingual including 4. Roy Strong. “My Weepinge Stagg I Crowne”: The Persian Lady elegant fluency in Latin. Both delighted in the intricate play on Reconsidered.” In The Art of the Emblem, M. Bath, Ed., A. Young, words so enjoyed by Elizabethans during their incandescent liter- NY, 1992. ary and cultural outburst beginning in the last quarter of the 16th 5. Strong, ibid. Century, initiated by Edward de Vere, stimulated by Queen Eliza- 6. Strong, ibid. beth, and maintained primarily by de Vere and his University Wits. 7. W.B. Rye. England as seen by Foreigners. Benjamin Blom, NY, 1865; An expert at authorship clues in his plays, de Vere used powerful reissued 1967. portrait clues—within Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger’s painting 8. Oliver Millar. The Tudor-Stuart and Early Georgian Pictures in the itself, in the cartouche poem, and in the three Latin mottoes—to Collection of H. M. the Queen. Phaidon Publishers, Greenwich, CT, convey his important message to history. 1963. (Continued on page 16) Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 16 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002

Persian Lady (continued from page 15) late 1960s. 9. George Vertue. Note Books (1725), vol. IV, Twenty-Fourth Volume 48. Law, ibid. of the Walpole Society, University Press, Oxford, 1936. 49. C. Lewis and C. Short. A Latin Dictionary. Clarendon Press, 10. Millar, ibid. Oxford, 1962. 11. Millar, ibid. 50. Dirk Held. Professor of Latin, Dept. of Classics, Connecticut 12. Strong, ibid. College, New London, CT. Personal communication. 13. Strong, ibid. 51. Held, ibid. 14. Strong, ibid. 52. Lewis & Short, ibid. 15. Frances A. Yates. “Boissard’s Costume-Book and Two Portraits.” 53. Nabil Matar. “Renaissance England and the Turban.” In David R. Journal of the Warburg & Courtauld Institutes 22, 1959. Blanks, Ed., Europe and the Muslim World before 1700. Cairo 16. Law, ibid. Papers in Social Sci. vol. 19, Monograph 2, Summer, 1956. Amer. 17. Frances A. Yates. Astraea: The Imperial Theme in the Sixteenth Univ. in Cairo Press. Century. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1975. 54. Nabil Matar. Turks, Moors, and Englishmen in the Age of Discov- 18. Janet Arnold. Elizabethan and Jacobean Smocks and Shirts. ery. Columbia Univ. Press, NY, 1999. Waffen und Kosthumkunde (Munich), 1977. 55. S.A. Skilliter. “Queen Elizabeth 1.” In S.M. Stern, Ed., Documents 19. Strong, ibid. from Islamic Chanceries. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 20. Strong, ibid. 1965. 21. Strong, ibid. 56. Skilliter, ibid. 22. Strong, ibid. 57. Altrocchi, Paul H. My Turk. Unpublished manuscript, 2001. 23. Strong, ibid. 58. Samuel C. Chew. The Crescent and the Rose: Islam and England 24. Strong, ibid. during the Renaissance. Octagon Books, New York, NY, 1974. 25. Catalogue, Royal Collection Enterprises Ltd., 2001, London. 59. William Shakespeare. The Tragedy of King Lear, In William 26. Strong, ibid. Shakespeare, The Complete Works, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991. 27. Strong, ibid. 60. Roy Strong. Gloriana. The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth 1. Thomas 28. George Vertue. Note Books (1725), vol. 11, Twenty-Fourth Volume & Hudson, 1987. of the Walpole Society, University Press, Oxford, 1932. 61. Dorothy Ogburn and Charlton Ogburn. This Star of England. 29. Catherine MacLeod, Art Consultant, National Portrait Gallery, Coward McCann, NY, 1952. London. Personal communication, 2001. 62. Ogburn & Ogburn, ibid. 30. Law, ibid. 63. Charlton Ogburn, Jr. The Mysterious William Shakespeare, Dodd, 31. Catalogue, Royal Collection Enterprises Ltd., ibid. Mead & Co., New York, NY, 1984. 32. Yates, ibid. 64. Sears, Elisabeth. Shakespeare and the Tudor Rose. Consolidated 33. Roy Strong. The English Icon: Elizabethan and Jacobean Press Printing Co., Seattle, 1991. Portraiture. Yale Univ. Press, 1969. 65. W.H.D. Rouse. Shakespeare’s Ovid being Arthur Golding’s 1567 34. Strong, 1992, ibid. Translation of the Metamorphoses. De La More Press, London, 35. Strong, 1992, ibid. 1904. 36. Robert Brazil. “The Mysterious Lady in Persian Costume.” 66. Strong, 1992, ibid. Internet. (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/4260/ 67. Ogburns, 1952, ibid. persian lady. htmlhtml), 1999. 68. Strong, 1992, ibid. 37. Strong, 1992, ibid. 69. Michael Bath. “Weeping Stags and Melancholy Lovers: The 38. David Piper. “The 1590 Lumley Inventory: Silliard, Segar, and the Iconography of As You Like It.” Emblematica 1, no. 1, Spring, Earl of Essex, 11.” The Burlington Magazine, Sept., 1957. 1986. 39. Strong, 1992, ibid. 40. Strong, 1969, ibid. Advertisement 41. Allison Pennell. M.H. de Young Memorial Museum, Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, California, personal communication MOST GREATLY LIVED 2001. A Biographical Novel of Edward 42. Strong, 1992, ibid. de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford 43. Strong, 1992, ibid. Whose Pen Name was William Shakespeare 44. George Vertue, Notebooks, 1932, ibid. by Paul Hemenway Altrocchi 45. Roy Strong. “Elizabethan Painting: An approach through inscriptions; 111; Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, “The Presents the dramatic and colorful life of Edward de Vere based upon solid historical research. Burlington Magazine, cv, 1963. Xlibris Publishing Co. Hard cover $31 Soft cover $21 46. Strong, 1992, ibid. 47. Dorothy Ogburn. The Power and the Glory of England. Unpub- Available at: Amazon.com, Barnes&Noble.com (B&N.com), lished manuscript, collection #543, box 8, Special Collections Dept., and Xlibris: 1-888-795-4274 Robert W. Woodruff Library, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, Or order at any bookstore: ISBN 0-7388-4161-7

Ashbourne (continued from page 1) and most beautiful of all the famous por- handsome, courtly gentleman, well formed of Morton, who died in 1581, that intrigued traits of the poet, is one of three of the well- and of good bearing, and apparently of me and sent me off in the direction of known Shake-speare portraits, including high breeding...,”8 and adds that, “This researching the costume to learn the true the Janssen and the Hampton Court, that gentleman is clearly not in stage dress; date of the painting. photographic expert Charles Wisner Bar- there is nothing of masquerade about the This second article in the series detail- rell X-rayed in 1937. Barrell found that all presentation,” he is referring to the kind of ing my more than two years research into three portraits were over painted portraits presentation and clothing that portraits of the Ashbourne Shake-speare portrait fo- of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.5 noblemen exhibit.9 Spielmann also notes cuses on the costume in the portrait and The Earl is the same man whom J. Thomas that, “It is difficult to imagine Shakespeare’s what it reveals about the sitter and the time Looney discovered to be the real Shake- friends, Ben Jonson the dramatist or period in which the portrait was painted. speare in 1920.6 Burbage the actor, attired in such a cos- Through this examination, which dates the tume, rich as it is and fashionable, albeit painting to the late 1570s, the Folger’s Costume dating sober and in good taste.”10 In fact, as claims about the 1611 inscription date and Spielmann well knew, all the actors and Hamersley’s supposed “coat of arms” be- In response to Barrell’s evidence for dramatists of that time were portrayed in come irrelevant. Costume evidence proves Oxford as the Ashbourne sitter, previous commoner’s garb—all, that is, except that the painting cannot have been painted Folger administrations cast about to find Shake-speare. in the 1600s or the 1590s, or even during anyone but Oxford as the sitter in this Ruth Loyd Miller notes that “there are at most of the 1580s. Hamersley was 15 years portrait. In addition to ignoring the evi- least 12 altered portraits (into Shake- old in 1580. This costume evidence is there dence in the painting, like the swindlers speare) of undoubted Elizabethan or Jaco- for all to see, but the art experts called on by who wove invisible cloth for the emperor’s bean composition. Until very recent times Stratfordians to evaluate the picture have “clothes,” the Folger since 1979 has woven 6 of these paintings had been held by vari- ignored it, avoided it, and denied it just as its own story out of airy nothing, claiming ous members of the old English Aristoc- the emperor’s counselors ignored the evi- Sir Hugh Hamersley, a Lord Mayor of Lon- racy and had no connection whatsoever dence they saw when they were questioned don in 1637/8, as the Ashbourne sitter. As with Stratfordian ownership.”11 For ex- about the emperor’s “beautiful” invisible we shall see in the costume dating of the ample, the Hampton Court portrait of clothes. Ashbourne in this article, the Folger claims Shake-speare, which Barrell found to be The late 1570s dating of the painting by for Hamersley based upon the bogus 1611 an over-painted portrait of Oxford holding costume also confirms Charles Wisner inscription and the purported Hamersley the sword of state (blacked out), did not Barrell’s X-ray examination of the “coat of arms” are invalidated by the cos- leave the collection at Penshurst Place, Ashbourne that revealed a portrait of Ed- tume evidence that proves the portrait can- seat of the Sidney-Herbert families, until it ward de Vere beneath the overpainting into not have been painted in the 1600s. was given to King William IV. This was the Shake-speare.3 And it places the painting Costume is the single most reliable and same Sidney family of whom Mary Sidney’s back in its correct time frame when the universally respected method of dating sons, the earls of Pembroke and Montgom- Dutch painter Cornelius Ketel— whose portraits whose dates are unknown or in ery, were the “incomparable brethern” to initials were exposed beneath the dispute. The dating of costume is a reliable whom the 1623 Folio was dedicated. overpainting by Barrell’s X-rays—was in means for dating a painting within a range Oxford’s daughter Susan was married to England from 1573 to 1581, and was known of a few years and sometimes even within a the Earl of Montgomery, one of these two to have painted a portrait of Oxford. year or two. Just as we can date 1920s, 30s, “incomparable brethern.” At this point you might be asking why or 50s pictures from our familiarity with Miller adds that, “Of the 12 genuine all the fuss over a portrait? The answer is the clothes, hair styles and objects in those ‘Renaissance studies’ of Shakespeare listed best expressed by quoting from a February times, so art experts rely on extensive knowl- by The Encyclopedia Britannica, 8 depict 1982 letter from the Folger Shakespeare edge of the changes in fashion and in paint- him wearing the attire of a nobleman.”12 Library when the Library was proclaiming ing styles in dating portraits.7 As in our own One of the most interesting of these is the Hugh Hamersley, former Lord Mayor of time, fashion in Elizabethan and Jacobean portrait of Shake-speare in nobleman’s London in 1627/8 as the painting’s subject. England generally changed by decades, garb formerly in the Tudor collection at The letter, intended for Geoffrey M. with some overlap of course, especially at Windsor Castle, given by Queen Victoria to Lemmer, conservator of the Baltimore the beginning and end of a decade. the novelist Lord Lytton. “Another is the Museum of Art giving him instructions In studying costume and looking at miniature called ‘Shakespeare’ acquired about the portrait, states that, “...the por- large numbers of portraits in a particular by the Earl of Oxford (2nd creation) about trait is an important document in the con- era, such as the Elizabethan era, one be- 1719 showing the bard in the dress of a troversy over the true authorship of comes familiar with the patterns of dress 16th century nobleman.”13 Shakespeare’s works.”4 and forms of portraiture unique to various Indeed it is an important document in decades during that time. One learns from The sitter’s wardrobe the authorship controversy. In fact, the this study that certain aspects of costume portrait is actual physical evidence con- absolutely confirm the dating of portraits. So we first take note of the nobleman’s necting Oxford with the name Shake- When Spielmann says of the Ashbourne rich yet tasteful black velvet doublet and speare. The Ashbourne, which is the largest sitter, “We thus have the presentment of a (Continued on page 18) Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 18 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002

Ashbourne (continued from page 17) the rest of the painting. black velvet and gray trunk hose in the The crude ruff now visible in the por- Ashbourne portrait. He is sporting a richly trait is formed to look like an early 1600s tooled dress dagger belt and holding the ruff, as can be seen in many paintings of that top of a gauntlet embroidered in cloth of period, such as the portrait of Robert Cecil gold—of the kind courtiers wore on dress in 1602.18 In viewing the painting in person occasions. Spielmann notes these aspects one can even see with the naked eye differ- of the painting and then states, “Just such a ences in the background paint around the dress, belt, and glove as we see in the head area where the original ruff was over- portrait of James Douglas, Earl of Morton, painted. who died in 1581—that is to say 30 years After I had studied enough portraits and before the date of this picture.”14 read enough about various aspects of Eliza- Intrigued by Spielmann’s comparison bethan and Jacobean costume to be certain of the Ashbourne costume to the costume that the evidence of the doublet and trunk of the Earl of Morton, I began a quest to date hose and ruffs fit the 1570s date, I wrote for the painting by costume. I found that the expert confirmation of my findings on the Earl of Morton painting had been dated by Ashbourne costume. I received a gracious costume to circa 1575 by Sir Roy Strong.15 response from Susan North, head of Tex- And I soon found out why Stratfordians tiles and Dress at the Victoria & Albert have avoided this issue of the costume. As Museum. Along with other visuals, I had I learned more about Elizabethan and sent her a copy of the 1848 woodcut made Jacobean fashion it became clear that the directly from the Ashbourne (Fig. 1) that outfit worn by the Ashbourne nobleman fit clearly delineates the costume details that into a 1570s time frame. Fig. 1. This 1848 woodcut of the Ashbourne are hard to see in reproductions of the I was soon excited to learn that after reveals more of the detail of the doublet, with its portrait because of the black dress. 1583 in England wrist ruffs were no longer close fitting sleeves and a waistline dipping Ms. North agreed with my conclusions, slightly below its natural position, elements worn, but were replaced by wrist cuffs. As that place it clearly in the 1570s / 1580s era writing, “ I would agree that the dress does Spielmann noted in his description of the of Elizabethan men’s fashion. not appear to date from 1611...The general Ashbourne, “around the wrists are small shape of the doublet with close fitting figure-eight edged ruffs (rather than ruffles) sleeves and a waistline dipping only slightly with small white corded edging.”16 The below its natural place in front corresponds wrist ruffs in the Ashbourne (Fig. 2), origi- with men’s dress of the 1570s...Regarding nally a brilliant white, had been deliber- your comments on the wrist ruffs, I agree ately muddied with dark gray paint to make that these go out of fashion in the 1580s.”19 them less noticeable but they had not been Everything she said agreed with my altered or completely painted over as had conclusions about a 1570s costume in- the original neck ruff. Here was compel- cluding the fact that the wrist ruffs on the ling proof dating the Ashbourne painting portrait precluded any possible claim that before 1583, making it absolutely impos- this could be a 1600s portrait. But Ms. sible that the portrait was painted in the North also wrote that she was “puzzled” 1600s or the 1590s or even during most of about the large neck ruff which the X-rays the 1580s. I poured over portrait books had uncovered under the visible circa 1610 looking at wrist ruffs and cuffs and found smaller ruff painted over it. She noted that, that wrist ruffs had indeed begun to phase “ Those [ruffs] of the 1570s are quite modest out at the very beginning of the 1580s and in size for men and women. It isn’t [until] cuffs had replaced them in English fashion Fig. 2 (Ashbourne detail). The wrist ruffs about 1585 that the ‘cartwheel’ shape be- by 1583. worn by the Ashbourne sitter went out of comes popular.”20 I also explored neck ruff fashions be- fashion in the 1580s. She was puzzled because the visibly cause Barrell’s X-rays had uncovered the scamped and muddied ruff clearly didn’t fit outline of a very large circular neck ruff a stronger yellow almost seems to be by the 1570s costume or detailed painting under the much smaller crudely painted another hand, and is certainly the most, styles of that time, yet the over-painted ruff now visible in the painting. Spielmann’s and indeed the only, scamped part of the large circular ruff underneath it (uncov- observations from his naked eye examina- picture.”17 (emphasis added) ered by Barrell’s X-rays) also didn’t seem to tion of the portrait in 1910 anticipate and What Spielmann is saying is that the fit the 1570s costume, because—as she coincide with many of Barrell’s findings in ruff doesn’t fit this painting. It is fuzzy, noted—neck ruffs in the 1570s were 1940, including his description of the vis- muddied and crudely executed, like the smaller. But I eventually found these doubts ible neck ruff. “The multifold ruff, zig over-painting of the sitter’s hair, both of easy to resolve. zagged, yellowish in tint, with highlights of which are unlike the finely painted detail in During most of the 1570s neck ruffs Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Winter 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 19 were smaller, such as the neck ruff in the 1575 Welbeck portrait of Edward de Vere or the considerably larger but still modest neck ruff in the Ketel portrait of Christo- pher Hatton in 1578.21 The large cartwheel ruff (which the over-painted ruff in the Ashbourne is not) became popular in 1585 as can be seen in the 1586 portrait of Sir Henry Unton.22 Although it was not yet the dominant fashion, by the end of the 1570s some gentlemen and aristocrats were wearing the large French style ruff as is shown in the 1581 picture of the Duc and Duchess de Joyeuse.23 In fact we have examples of English gentlemen in 1579 and 1580 wearing this very large French style ruff in the portraits of what is called Philip Sidney in 157924 and William, Lord Russell in 1580.25 (Figs. 3 and 4.) Both are wearing the French Reproduced from The English Icon style ruff, which differs from the later cart- Figs. 3 and 4. Large French neck ruffs started to come into fashion by the late 1570s. These two wheel ruff fashion that became popular in examples—of Sir Philip Sidney (Fig. 3, left) and Lord Russell of Thornhaugh (Fig. 4, right)— both the mid-1580s. Lord Russell’s ruff has de- appear in Roy Strong’s The English Icon. Russell’s elaborate ruff is similar to what the original tails similar to the lacy detail that was kept Ashbourne ruff may have looked like. on from the original ruff in the Ashbourne and re-used in the detail of the ruff now that were worn in 1579 and 1580 and in we have done placing this portrait circa visible on the painting. It is significant that Harvey’s poem that describes Oxford sport- 1579-80. Lord Russell’s French ruff fits perfectly ing this type of ruff we have the answer to Mark Evans, Head of Paintings at the over the X-ray outline of the original over- Ms. North’s questions. The large white Victoria & Albert Museum in London, En- painted ruff in the Ashbourne. starched French Camerick ruff, which gland wrote to me that the “format of the Harvey describes Oxford as wearing, was portrait of which you sent me a photocopy Direct testimony about the same as the original white French ruff would appear more consistent with a date Oxford’s wardrobe in the portrait. This original white French in the 1570s than circa 1611.”29 In fact ruff was partially painted over and what was there is a striking similarity of the style of Gabriel Harvey provides evidence that left was muddied over into the scamped the Ashbourne to another Ketel portrait of in 1580 Oxford was wearing this large imitation of a circa 1610 ruff to fit the the period, the Thomas Pead portrait, French style ruff made with expensive fine altered 1611 date on the painting. painted in 1578.30 (See Figs. 5 and 6, next Cambric or Camerick linen, in his mock- With this information about the origi- page.) Pead was a registrar recording ing poem about Oxford, Speculum nal French style ruff in the painting we can births and deaths. The painting of Pead Tuscanismi, printed in mid-1580: now refine our dating of the portrait even includes a partial corner of a table in the further to the very late 1570s when these front right hand side of the painting cov- “...A little apish flat couched fast to the pate large French ruffs were worn by a number ered with a green cloth painted in the same like an oyster, French Camerick ruffs, deep of fashionable gentlemen most likely at the manner as the red cloth on the table in the with a whiteness starched to the pur- Court. Thus the painting can be dated circa Ashbourne. The table also has a skull on top, pose...”26 (emphasis added) 1579 to 1580. Hugh Hamersley was 15 representing Pead’s recording of deaths, years old in 1580. But most importantly and the painting has the same kind of Harvey’s description of the French Cornelius Ketel, a fine Dutch portrait brown tone in the background as the Camerick ruffs as being “deep” or wide and painter, was in England at that time doing Ashbourne. Pead is also dressed in black “starched to the purpose” refers to the fact his best portrait work. with brilliantly contrasting white detailed that these large ruffs had to be heavily Ketel’s friend and biographer Van neck ruff and wrist ruffs, indicating what starched to be stiff enough to stand up off Mander noted that Ketel had painted a the Ashbourne’s original ruffs would have the shoulders and frame the face. Some- portrait of Oxford.27 This portrait, which looked like before they were muddied over. times a kind of frame was used to hold them all evidence points to as the Ashbourne The dating of the Ashbourne painting up as well. But as critics of fashion at the portrait of Shake-speare, was most likely by costume which sets the Ashbourne in its time sarcastically observed, they became painted sometime after his painting of proper time frame of circa 1579-80 raises something of a wilted problem when it Hatton and the Queen in 1578. Hatton is the issue of the incongruity of the costume rained. credited with introducing Ketel as a painter of the St. Alban’s portrait with the inscrip- In these examples of large French ruffs to the Court28 which fits the costume dating (Continued on page 20) Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 20 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002

Courtesy, The Berger Collection A 1578 Cornelius Ketel painting of Thomas Pead (Fig. 5, above) shows remarkable similarities to the Ashbourne (Fig. 6, right), particularly the skull sitting on a partially-showing table, the sitter’s black costume with white trim, and a medium-brown background. By permission of The Folger Shakespeare Library Ashbourne (continued from page 19) and stood out in slight relief above the rest been wrong either by mistake or by design. tion denoting that it is a portrait of Edward of the painting were correct. “Whether or The fact that the St. Alban’s has the name de Vere. The style of the doublet and the not it (the inscription) is a later addition is Edward de Vere blazoned across it does not high collar with its tiny lace edged in black an open question; but the fact must not be counter the primary costume evidence that that is a precursor of the ruff, in the St. lost sight of that the colour of it corre- Sir Roy Strong used to date this painting Alban’s portrait belongs to the period of the sponds to that of the book-cover gold and circa 1565. The costume proves that the late 1550s or 1560s. Sir Roy Strong has that of the thumb-ring and is in sharp inscription is wrong in the St. Alban’s por- dated it circa 1565.31 Because of the inter- contrast to that on the belt and glove.”32 trait. Using the same costume dating meth- twined ribbon of black and white (the Spielmann maintained the Jacobean dat- ods and evidence for the Ashbourne, the Queen’s personal colors, not the Oxford ing in spite of contrary evidence, but he 1611 date on the inscription, as Spielmann colors) suspending the Oxford boar, I would added later that, “The picture is pretty clearly suspected and Barrell confirmed with X- date it from 1558 (when the Queen came to an original and no copy; and obviously rays, is wrong: it is not the original inscrip- the throne) to 1562 when its sitter, most represents a gentleman of the early years of tion. The 1611 date is a false date added likely John De Vere, the 16th Earl of Oxford Jacobean rule, who, if the ‘AETATIS SUAE later. Additionally, Barrell’s X-rays con- died. Because the sitter appears to be in his 47’ is to be trusted, looked young for his firmed that the original inscription in the early 40s and the costume is of the early age”33 (emphasis added). Oxford in 1580 Ashbourne portrait had been rubbed out so 1560s it cannot be Edward de Vere who was would have been around 30 years of age, vigorously that holes were made in the in his teens in the 1560s. not age 47, as in the inscription on the canvas, although ghostly remnants of let- painting, which fit the age of the man from ters could still be seen. The inscriptions Stratford in 1611. Clearly the over painting Spielmann stuck with the 1600s time of the full head of hair above the forehead period for the Ashbourne despite all the Which brings us to the issue of inscrip- was intended to make the sitter look older evidence he observed to the contrary. Other tions. Spielmann’s suspicions about the to fit the inscription age. experts called upon by the Folger have also 1611 inscription on the Ashbourne that was The point is that inscription dates and gone along with the charade about this in a different paint from the original paint names on portraits can be and have at times painting. Such is the power of an entrenched

Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Winter 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 21 viewpoint and the power of institutions January, 1940), 4-8 and 43-45. Bibliography: 4) Correspondence from Ann H. Skiff to that promote that viewpoint to intimidate Geoffrey M. Lemmer, February 22, 1982. Anderson, Hans Christian. The Emperor’s and influence even trained experts percep- From the Ashbourne Portrait Files, Fol- New Clothes. New York: Penguin Books, tions and reporting of the facts before their ger Shakespeare Lib., Washington, DC. 1995. eyes. Like the Counselors around the em- 5) Barrell, “Identifying ‘Shakespeare’”, 4-8 Ashelford, Jane. A Visual History of Costume and 43-45. of the Sixteenth Century. New York: peror who were questioned about the 6) J. Thomas Looney, Shakespeare Identified Drama Book Publishers, 1983. emperor’s “clothes” the experts have not in Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Barrell, Charles Wisner. “Identifying been willing to report what they see and Miller Edition, Vol. I. (Port Washington, Shakespeare.” Scientific American NY: Kennikat Press, 1975). (January 1940): 4-8 and 43-45. what is really there in this painting. 7) Hearns, Karen, Editor, Dynasties, Berger. The Berger Collection. Online at In conclusion, the circa 1579-80 cos- Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England http://www.bergercollection.org/html/the tume in the Ashbourne Shake-speare por- 1530-1630 (London: Tate Gallery, 1995), collection/artists/ketel.html. 57. Charlton, Derran. Private correspondence trait eliminates as subjects both the 8) Spielmann, “The Ashbourne, Part I,” 249. with English Oxfordian researcher Derran Stratford man and Hugh Hamersley, who 9) Ibid., Part II (May-August, 1910), 38. Charlton in 2000. would have been 14 and 15 years old re- 10) Ibid., Part I, 250. Cumming, Valerie. A Visual History of 11) Ruth Loyd Miller, “Lord Oxford and the Costume of the Seventeenth Century. spectively in 1580. The costume is that of a ‘Shakespeare’ Portraits, Part I,” in New York: Drama Book Publishers, 1984. nobleman. Looney discovered in 1920 that Shakespeare Identified, Vol. II. (Port Davenport, Millia. The Book of Costume Vol. the nobleman poet playwright Edward de Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1975), I. New York: Crown Pub., 1948. Vere was the author behind the Shake- 406. Evans, Mark. Private correspondence with 12) Ibid., 406. Mark Evans, Head of Paintings. Victoria & speare mask. The Dutch painter Cornelius 13) Ibid., 406. Albert Museum, London. August 14, Ketel, whose initials Barrell found in the 14) Spielmann, “The Ashbourne, Part I,” 2001. painting through X-rays, was in England 249. Folger Shakespeare Library. The Ashbourne 15) Sir Roy Strong, The English Icon, Portrait file. Correspondence from Ann H. from 1573 to 1581. Hatton introduced Elizabethan and Jacobean Portraiture Skiff to Geoffrey Lemmer, February 22, Ketel as a painter to Elizabeth’s Court in (New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1969), in 1982. 1578. Van Mander notes Ketel painted a Attributed and Undated Works, #94. Harvey, Gabriel. Speculum Tuscanismi. 16) Spielmann, “The Ashbourne, Part I,” From: Ogburn, Charlton. The Mysterious portrait of Oxford. In 1580 Harvey mocked 249. William Shakespeare: The Myth and the Oxford’s wearing of large French Camerick 17) Ibid., 249. Reality. McLean, Virginia: EPM Pub.,Inc., ruffs. Barrell’s X-ray examination revealed 18) Strong, Icon, #241. 1984. 19) Private Correspondence with Susan Hearns, Karen, Editor. Dynasties, Painting a large circular ruff under the visible ruff. North, Head of Textiles and Dress, Victoria in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530- Lord Russell’s 1580 French ruff fits per- & Albert Musuem, London, England. 1630. London: Tate Gallery, 1995. fectly over the outlines of this hidden ruff. March 30, 2001. Laver, James. Costume and Fashion. NY: Thus more evidence accumulates to con- 20) Ibid. Thames and Hudson, 1982. 21) Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn, This Star Looney, J. Thomas. Shakespeare Identified in firm that the Ashbourne portrait of “Shake- of England, (New York: Coward-McCain, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. speare” is the nobleman poet and play- Inc., 1952), 177. Ruth Loyd Miller Edition, Vol. I & II. Port wright Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of 22) Jane Ashelford, A Visual History of the Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1975. Costume of the Sixteenth Century (N.Y.: Norris, Herbert. Tudor Costume and Oxford. Drama Book Pub., 1983), #110. Fashion. Mineola, New York: Dover The next articles in the series on the 23) Herbert Norris, Tudor Costume and Publications, Inc., 1997. Ashbourne portrait will examine the pur- Fashion (Mineola, New York: Dover North, Susan. Private correspondence with Publications, Inc., 1997), 657. Susan North, Head of Textiles and Dress. ported restoration of the painting begun in 24) Strong, Icon, #122. Victoria & Albert Museum, London. 1979 and the deceptions of past Folger 25) Ibid.,#123. March 30, 2001. administrations in their claims regarding 26) Gabriel Harvey, in Charlton Ogburn’s, Nunn, Joan. Fashion and Costume from The Mysterious William Shakespeare, 1200 to 1980. NY: Schocken Books, 1984. the inscription and the spurious Hamersley The Myth and the Reality, (McLean, Ogburn, Dorothy and Charlton. This Star of “coat of arms.” In addition I will provide Virginia: EPM Publications, Inc. 1984), England. New York: Coward-McCain Inc., new evidence linking the crest on the paint- 630. 1952. ing with a 1599 crest used by Edward de 27) Miller, Identified. Vol II, 418. Spielmann, M.H., F.S.A. “The Ashbourne 28) Strong, Icon, 151. Portrait of Shakespeare”, I and II. The Vere. A separate article in the future will 29) Personal Correspondence, Mark Evans, Connoisseur (Jan-April 1910, May-August delve into who, when and why the portraits Head of Paintings, Victoria & Albert 1910): 244-250 and 38-42. were changed and what the portrait changes Museum, London, England, August 14, Strong, Sir Roy. The Cult of Elizabeth. New 2001. York: Thames and Hudson, 1977. reveal about the implementation of the 30) The Berger Collection (online: http:// Strong, Sir Roy. The Elizabethan Image, Shake-speare fraud. www.bergercollection.org/html/the Paintings in England 1540-1620. collection/artists/ketel.html) Ketel, London: Tate Gallery, 1969. References: Thomas Pead portrait. Strong, Sir Roy. The English Icon, Elizabe- 31) Private correspondence with Derran than and Jacobean Portraiture. New 1) Hans Christian Anderson, The Emperor’s Charlton, Oxfordian researcher, South Haven: Yale U. Press, 1969. New Clothes (New York: Penguin Books, Yorkshire, England, 2000. Concerning Strong, Sir Roy. Tudor and Jacobean 1995), 7. Strong’s recommendation to Peer not to Portraits, Vols. I & II. London: Her 2) M. H. Spielmann, F.S.A., “The Ashbourne use the St. Alban’s as a portrait of Edward Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1969. Portrait of Shakespeare, Part I” (Connois- de Vere in the television documentary The Strong, Sir Roy. The Tudor and Stuart seur Jan-April 1910), 249. Shakespeare Conspiracy. Monarchy, Pageantry, Painting, 3) Charles Wisner Barrell, “Identifying 32) Spielmann, “The Ashbourne, Part I,” Iconography, I & II. New York: The ‘Shakespeare’” (Scientific American, 250. Boydell Press, 1995. 33) Ibid., Part II, 41. Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 22 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002

Baker (continued from page 1) human nature, for Shakespeare is a source In interpreting the plays themselves we Cardenio—as part of the canon. book of human nature, as many have pointed may be less rigorous. Each of them is a Many of us don’t know what philosophy out. group of problems or puzzles, set for the is, let alone what moral philosophy is. So Consider that Shakespeare does not spectator’s pleasure and profit. lets start with philosophy. It asks three hold up examples of good men and good questions about the world: What is real? women for us to dote upon, emulate or to Did you get that, gentle reader? It’s How do we know it? What does it mean to model our behavior upon, as the old “mo- important. me? The three branches are: metaphysics, rality” plays did. Each play—indeed each scene and each epistemology, and ethics. Ethics is that Why? line and, yea, often, each word—is a puzzle part of philosophy which deals with mak- Because Shakespeare was a true set for the spectator’s pleasure and profit. ing moral choices and with organizing Platonist. He expected us to find good on And Sharp means, “moral profit.” We be- choices in terms of moral values. our own, particularly once he’d pointed out come better persons, more human in Values can be viewed as “intrinsic” or Bloom’s sense, from seeing, reading and “extrinsic,” meaning internal and unchang- reflecting upon these great dramas. ing, or situational and pragmatic. “It is clear ... that Sharp continues, It is clear from this that Shakespeare’s The answers lie deep where the super- plays are predicated on “situation-based Shakespeare’s plays ethics,” and focus our attention on charac- ficial and the indolent shall never find ters not only capable of changing, but in them...[for] the dramatist is subtle and will are predicated let no one win the prize who is not willing fact undergoing dynamic change. Othello’s to observe carefully, to think patiently, and “intrinsic” goodness which his wife recog- to pay for more than one ticket of admission. nizes and marries, is changed by his behav- on ‘situation- ior into an evil she does not know or under- Isn’t that lovely? Doesn’t it make you stands, “Husband?” she cries. based ethics...’” marvel at both Sharp and Shakespeare? Indeed millions of us—fundamental Doesn’t it bring a smile to your face and a Muslims and Born Again Christians, to bounce to your walk? Can you not see the name just two groups—suppose religion what was bad, à la Dante. Author chuckling and waiting expectantly is a philosophy and that ethics must be As it turns out, for Shakespeare good for your return? Where he intends to hook based on a religion taken on faith. Shake- is more personal than evil. What is good for you again. Always the old cobbler, waiting speare rejects this view. His characters are one may not be good for another. This is to work upon us all, to mend our souls with not black and white, but are realistic per- because we are so unique, due to what his magic, as the opening aural puns in sonalities struggling within themselves for Robert Ardrey calls “the accident of the Julius Caesar suggest. the “right” course of action, as exemplified night” and others call the wisdom of God. Sharp holds out one conciliatory fig: by Hamlet’s dilemma. Thus the positive fulfillment of our unique- Recall the story of how Dante was lo- ness takes many diverse turns and cannot But it lies in the very nature of the game cated while masked in a large crowd of properly be addressed by an a priori phi- [i.e., the one between the Author and the playful revelers. The searchers were in- losophy. reader/spectator] that the solution must structed to interrogate revelers with the On the other hand, evil is a commonal- not be beyond the reach of human ingenu- question, “Who knows the good?” To ity: it is the lowest level to which all of us ity. which Dante promptly answered, “He that may fall. This is why there isn’t much differ- knows evil.” ence between murderers and traders, but While this is true, and important, de- It turns out that Shakespeare presents there is a great deal of difference between spite all of Sharp’s wisdom, he misses the us in his plays with marvelous examples of drivers. moral point entirely, even when he is so evil. Ok, so Shakespeare’s moral teachings close to it. Sharp should have asked him- Once we know evil we can say to our- consist primarily in dramatizing how self: “Why does Shakespeare engage his selves that we don’t want to be like people become evil and, in a few cases, as audience in this game?” Macbeth, or Hamlet or Othello—not to with Lear, Othello and Hamlet, how they None of us venture into the Author’s mention Iago, or Rosencrantz and attempt to extricate themselves afterwards. realm to be surprised. So the Author’s in- Guildenstern. If we are women, we can Othello in killing himself freed himself tention cannot be either suspense or the learn from the “mistakes” of Desdemona. from what he had become. His action runs character’s unfolding that drives suspense, A passive ignorance is Desdemona’s prob- counter to “God’s canon against self but rather the engagement of his audience lem. If she had actively combated Othello’s slaughter,” which one should point out, in questions of a moral nature. Thus the growing fears, she might well have changed and is good proof that the author wasn’t author is clearly interested, as any social her own destiny. Failing in this, she could Catholic. or political or moral philosopher, in the have opted out. Finding moral advice in Plato and journey of souls within his audience as So, from a study of Shakespeare the Shakespeare is thus difficult. Often it is effected by his ministrations. wise in the audience will know evil and be hidden and not completely obvious. Con- The Author is grooming us to become more able, in the moral course of our lives, sider Sharp’s observation tucked away near better citizens. Grooming us toward supe- to guard against it in our search for our the end of his study (221) which runs like rior discernment. Causing us to exercise unique personal good. We will also be this: our moral facilities in making good judg- strengthened in our basic understanding of ments rather than bad ones. Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Winter 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 23

Only the twisted can see Othello and What Sharp is pointing out is that if the In this I believe Sharp—and all Strat- want to be like Iago. Rather the ordinary casual reader had missed this line about fordians—have made a fundamental error. sees Othello taken down by jealousy and Kent’s “prayers” tucked innocently way in The fact is that the mind behind these plays resolves not to follow a similar course. This the first part of the play, the reader would constructed them not for his own amuse- collective resolution, among English speak- have missed the entire point: Kent is de- ment, in which case his ultimate intention ing peoples, has changed the course of stroyed both in body and in soul by the could not be glimpsed, but for us. With this western civilization. Women are more than events of this play. Broken. So it may be said knowledge in hand, we can pierce this veil. stomachs and wombs and they are not the that the entire play turns on one word. This man believed, wholeheartedly, in the property of their husbands, as Emilia so There are many such turns in Lear and in future of mankind. He loved us one and all eloquently stipulates. the other great plays as well. and he gave of himself, of his time and of his Interestingly more of Shakespeare’s Sharp is right, each word is considered creativity, freely, over and over, so that we women are good role models than his males, and weighted. As he notes, we have been might become better persons. or so I suppose without counting. Even So we can understand his “positive theo- Emilia and Desdemona can be emulated, logical beliefs.” They weren’t religious, though guardedly so, because both met “Plays devised for they were moral or humanistic. They rest tragic fates, where prompt earlier action on the Platonic foundation that we can would have adverted it. entertainment are improve our own lot, but only through Before I close, I want to direct our great effort and what might be called the attention to what Sharp says about the didactical exposure to evil. absence of accidentals in Shakespeare. suspense driven, For, as Glaucon notes in the Republic, Because of the Stratfordian dogma he’s a his soul is not harmed when Socrates is with bit apologetic about it. He writes, not morally driven, him, even though he is taken into the presence of “evil.” I know the casual reader of the plays will as Emerson noted.” So it is for those careful readers who smile at this statement: but here are no will pay more than one price of admission accidents in the great tragedies. Least of all to Shakespeare: their souls are in good in King Lear. In the compass of thirty-two given clues towards our interpretations of hands and the process of close scrutiny to hundred lines is told a story almost as full the plays. Andthe answer, Sharpe explains, his text will prove positive. His text will of incident as War and Peace, crowded with characters as clearly conceived and as com- does not lie beyond human understanding: prove positive. The Author was a man who pletely developed as those of the Russian knew evil and wanted to share this knowl- novel. These wonderful results are accom- Therefore, in [these] properly con- edge with us, so that we might avoid it, and plished by an employment of suggestion structed dramas the most probable expla- through this avoidance live a better life. that has no parallel in literature. The effect nation of an action or character, even if it be So we can say, unequivocally, that of every word is carefully measured; it always only barely probable, is the true one. This Bloom, not Sharp, was right. We do know reveals something; it may reveal much. holds even where the number of our data is the moral underpinnings of these works: ridiculously small, for we must believe we were given all we need. Not so in life. Nature they were positive. As has been their effect To prove this Sharp directs us to Kent’s has entered into no tacit agreement with us on mankind. The supposition that they “innocent looking phrase,” early in Lear to preserve all that is required for the an- were written for momentary pence is ri- which explains, when we reflect upon it, swers to our questions, and to provide a diculous beyond description. Plays devised Kent’s own tragedy: corrective for misleading facts. for entertainment are suspense driven, not morally driven, as Emerson noted. The Royal Lear, Which is why we need moral philoso- fabric of these plays is far more complex Whom I have ever honour’d as my king, phy to sort our way though the maze. than needed for mere entertainment and Loved as my father, as my master For me the vital point follows closely the Author’s labors, thus, far greater than follow’d, from this. Yet Sharp misses it entirely and would have been called for. As my great patron thought on in my argues that we simply can never know the These plays represent a labor of love prayers. (I,i,141) mind of the Author, whereas we can and and the object of that love was a better indeed must know the mind of Kent and future for mankind. He did not like serfs Sharp argues, Hamlet: nor servitude and wrote in order that we might be free and better masters of our own ...as a prosperous nobleman, Kent has fates than the twisted kings who had ruled never had any occasion to doubt the exist- I do not claim that the plays reveal us for all too long. In his brave new world ence of Providence. Evil he must have seen, absolutely nothing about the mind and the only the repatriated exile might rightly but he has never known— or at any rate experience which were their sources; here rule. Just as in Plato, it was the philosopher realized—its worst possibilities. Then comes and there we may undoubtedly detect the overwhelming misfortune to one he loves, man in the pattern he is weaving. But I do who returned to the cave who knew what to coupled with the revelation of malignant maintain that the proceeding paragraphs, do. wickedness of those whom he has person- or the material as yet presented by any other ally known. As a result, God has gone from student of Shakespeare, is totally inadequate John Baker researches and writes on his world. The sufferings and the heartless- for the construction of a theory of his Marlowe as Shakespeare. He’s on the web at: ness in his master’s family cost him not only positive theological beliefs....this secret we www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/ his life, but also his religious faith. may never hope to pierce. default.htm Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 24 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002

Column A year in the life By Hank Whittemore 1589: The Metamorphosis begins he first full year after England’s vic- in April 1590 upon the death of spymaster tional pull could no longer sustain them tory over the Spanish armada in 1588 Francis Walsingham, whose post of Secre- they would fly off course, scattering and Topened a new chapter in the nation’s tary of State was to remain open until disintegrating on their own. history. Victory celebrations that Novem- Elizabeth’s gift of it to Robert Cecil six In September 1589 two of these writers, ber had marked the great dividing line years later. The first private move came in Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Watson, of Elizabeth’s reign; the initial three the fall of 1589, when Burghley began were arrested for involvement in a brawl decades were over and the final 15 years trying to block Henry Wriothesley, Third and accused of having murdered an now lay ahead. William Cecil, Lord Trea- Earl of Southampton, from attaching him- innkeeper’s son. Both were imprisoned at surer Burghley could tell himself that his self too strongly to Essex’s ambitions. The Newgate and acquitted that December. Like Protestant Reformation in England had younger lord, still at Cambridge, also had others in Oxford’s circle such as Anthony every chance of succeeding. The destruc- military dreams and appeared destined to Munday, they were involved not only with tion of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots had become a Court favorite as well. Noting in literature and the stage, but also with been achieved in 1587; the defeat of King his diary for the sixth of October that “Edw. Walsingham and his underworld of espio- Philip’s invasion had been followed by the (sic) Co. Southampton” was now 16, nage. sudden death of Burghley’s longtime rival, Burghley launched a campaign to have him During 1589 the pamphlet war against Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, whose marry his 14-year-old granddaughter, the unidentified Puritan writer “Martin hold over the Queen and lust for power had Elizabeth Vere. This union would bring the Marprelate” went into full swing; and surely been surpassed only by his evil reputation earl into alliance with Burghley’s family; it was Oxford who had recruited John Lyly, and blundering incompetence. but Southampton, stalling with a request Robert Greene and Thomas Nashe to help The sole fly in Cecil’s ointment was that, for a year to think it over, had no stomach slash back on Archbishop Whitgift’s behalf. remarkably enough, reckless young Rob- for the Cecils; and as subsequent events Nashe, addressing university students in a ert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex had would prove, he was already casting his lot preface for Menaphon by Greene, spoke of already replaced his stepfather Leicester as with Essex. “whole Hamlets” and “handfuls of tragical Court favorite. Essex in the spring of 1589 Southampton’s prospective father-in- speeches,” referring to a play already so violated the Queen’s command by scam- law, Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of well known that even a passing allusion to pering off to Portugal, only to return a Oxford, was going through a transition of it would trigger recognition. An Oxfordian military hero whose popularity rivaled that his own in the year 1589. Oxford had acted dating of Hamlet would push back its ini- of the monarch herself. Here was a new as the guiding force behind the golden tial draft by several years, with Eva Turner challenge to the supremacy of Burghley, renaissance of English literature and drama Clark suggesting that in 1589 the earl be- who was even now planning for the trans- over the previous decade, but now that gan Macbeth in reaction to the assassina- ference of governmental control to his great surge of creativity was ending. The tion that July of Henry III of France. (The little hunchbacked son, Robert Cecil. From earl’s wife Anne Cecil had died in June of slain king’s brother-in-law Henry of Navarre here on it was urgent, more than ever, to 1588, a month before the armada was succeeded as Henry IV; and Queen Eliza- prepare for the death of the Queen by secur- sighted; and her father, Burghley, had pro- beth sent Lord Willoughby to Normandy in ing power behind the throne in time for the ceeded against him for his marriage debt, military support of this new Protestant royal succession. seizing some of his lands and holding them ally.) According to Clark’s chronology, The end game of England’s political for payment. Although Oxford was still Oxford would howl on the page as Lear in struggle had begun. receiving quarterly sums from his annual 1590, completing the “Shakespeare” plays Publicly the final contest would begin grant of a thousand pounds, he was also to be revised up until his death in 1604. selling off Fisher’s Folly, his London house Oxford’s descent from public view in With this issue of Shakespeare Matters where the “university wits” had labored to 1589 was less a “retirement” than the be- Hank Whittemore begins a regular col- write under his inspiration and guidance. ginning of a metamorphosis. Over previ- umn, “A Year in the Life,”in which he will Oxford was heading into retirement and ous decades he had served the Queen and review the key events (history, politics, virtual seclusion. His acting company the her policies as directed by Burghley with arts and literature, personal life, friends, family, etc) during just one year in the Paul’s Boys would play three times during help from Secretary Walsingham. His dra- lifetime of Edward de Vere/Shakespeare. the 1589-90 season at Richmond Court, but matic activities had helped rouse patriotic Coming up in our next issue (Spring the group would disband after that as Ox- national support against Spain; and his 2002): ford moved to the countryside. In relation employment of writers had also given them to the other poets and playwrights, he had cover while they acted as spies and gave 1564: The Education of been the indispensable sun around which other kinds of governmental assistance. Young Shakespeare these planets had moved; when his gravita- Now, at this critical juncture in the political Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Winter 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 25 life of England, the path for Oxford hence- poet was obviously quite well known; what father-in-law of Oxford, the best of the forth leads to “Shakespeare”—the poet couldn’t be discovered and revealed was courtier poets whose works could not be who will dedicate Venus and Adonis to not the man, but, rather, the works of the found out or made public. So we are led Southampton in 1593 and pledge lifelong man. The author was proclaiming that right back to Burghley at the great dividing “duty” to him in his dedication of The Rape many familiar poems or plays had come line of the Elizabethan reign, with the po- of Lucrece the following year. from the pen of Oxford, but he had failed to litical end game beginning and Oxford “What I have done is yours, what I have claim authorship of them. himself about to undergo his metamor- to do is yours, being part in all I have, The bottom line was that the author of phosis. devoted yours,” he will tell Southampton Poesie, whoever he was, had created a per- While dedicating this work to Burghley, publicly in 1594, signing himself as “Your fect setup for the arrival of “Shakespeare” however, Field made clear that its primary Lordship’s in all duty, William Shake- four years from now. Edward, Earl of Ox- reader was to be Elizabeth herself. “This speare.” Book (right Honorable),” he addressed Cecil, The publisher-printer of Venus and “coming to my hands, with his bare title printer of Lucrece would be Richard Field, “Oxford’s descent without any Author’s name or any other who appears to have been involved in early ordinary address, I doubted how well it preparations for Oxford’s transformation. from public view might become me to make you a present Although traditional biographers of thereof, seeming by many express passages “Shakespeare” have tried to make much of in 1589 was less in the same at large that it was by the Author Field’s origins in Stratford-upon-Avon, the intended to our Sovereign Lady the Queen, fact is that in 1589 he issued two works a ‘retirement’ and for her recreation and service chiefly intimately connected to Oxford’s life; and devised.” Be that as it may, Field went on, these served as springboards for his “disap- than the beginning he thought it best to make Burghley “a pearance” from the public scene before his than the beginning partner in the honor of his (the author’s) debut under the Shakespeare name. gift.” One work Field published was the sec- of a metamorphosis.” A few lines later Field wrote of, “the first ond edition of the English translation of view of this mine impression” of Poesie, a Ovid’s Metamorphoses attributed in 1567 turn of phrase similar to the one “Shake- to Oxford’s uncle, Arthur Golding. Here ********** speare” would use to describe Venus and was the sudden re-emergence in 1589 of a Adonis as “the first heir of my invention.” In work that the earl himself may have written any case, he had seen the book “to be a more than two decades before, as a teen- “...the author of Poesie, device of some novelty (which commonly ager; and here was the very translation of giveth every good thing a special grace) Ovid to be used by “Shakespeare” as his whoever he was, and a novelty so highly tending to the most favorite source of words, themes and inspi- worthy praises of her Majesty’s most excel- ration. In fact this new author with the had created a lent name (dearer to you I dare conceive heroic-sounding name would announce than any worldly thing besides),” and there- his arrival with a Latin epigram from Ovid perfect setup for fore “me thought I could not devise to have on the title page of Venus, establishing his presented your Lordship any gift more link with the Roman poet of antiquity. agreeable to your appetite, or fitter for my The other work published by Field in the arrival vocation and ability to bestow, your Lord- 1589 was The Arte of English Poesie with its ship being learned and a lover of learning, conspicuous mention of courtier-poets of ‘Shakespeare.’” my present a Book and my self a printer “who have written excellently well as it always ready and desirous to be at your would appear if their doings could be found Honorable commandment. And thus I hum- out and made public with all the rest, of ford, was about to plummet from men’s bly take my leave from the Black-friars,” which number is first that noble gentle- eyes and fall into virtual invisibility; but he Field ended, on “this 28th of May 1589.” man, Edward Earl of Oxford.” It is difficult might as well have stood on the edge of a So this book confirming Oxford as the to avoid the feeling that this statement was high diving board and raised his arms wide, best of the courtier poets is intended for the an announcement of some kind. Suggest- like a swan spreading its wings, for all to Queen and dedicated to Burghley by the ing he couldn’t reveal the identities of these see. man who will introduce “Shakespeare” in courtier-poets, the anonymous author went That Richard Field, the man who would conjunction with the Earl of Southampton right ahead and blared the name of the man introduce “Shakespeare” to the world in in 1593, by which time the latter will have who stood highest of them all. This was not 1593, was issuing both Metamorphoses spurned any marriage alliance with the a contradiction, however, because the and Poesie in 1589 could hardly be more Cecils in favor of one with Essex. anonymous author of Poesie emphasized it appropriate. Equally so is that Field him- Now in 1589, these key players in the was the “doings” or specific writings of self dedicated Poesie to “the Right Honor- drama are standing at the brink of an un- Oxford that could not be found out and able Sir William Cecil, Knight, Lord of known future, at a time when “history” is yet made public. The fact of his being a great Burghley, Lord High Treasurer of England,” to be made. Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 26 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002

Column Paradigm Shift By Mark K. Anderson and Roger Stritmatter The Potent Testimony of Gabriel Harvey: Master “Pierce Penniless” and his “Sweetest Venus in print…. armed with the complete harness of the bravest Minerva” y the 1580s Edward de Vere had provide ready cash to underwrite their lit- the world, let [Falstaff] be brought in to his established a formidable reputation erary ambitions, extending their hands in answer. A hundred mark is a long score for Bfor subsidizing writers, scholars and expectation of the heart-warming clink of a poor lone woman to bear, and I have borne dramatic productions with his inherited gold sovereigns. However, de Vere didn’t and borne and borne; and have been fubbed off and fubbed off and fubbed off, from this fortunes. This outpouring of money began pay; Nashe and Churchyard quickly learned day to that day, that it is a shame to be in the 1570s and reached a peak in the next that they were out in the cold. The only thought on. There is no honesty in such decade, with London productions at the metallic sound they heard was the clang of dealing, unless a woman should be made an Blackfriars Theatre that introduced the bells from the church a few doors down, St. ass and a beast to bear every knave’s wrong.6 modern five-act play to England.1 By the Benet’s of Paul’s Wharf.4 end of the decade, however, de Vere’s When the landlady Julianne Penn came In its fictional form, the ending to this resources were exhausted. He resembled to collect the advance for the first quarter’s interlude is comic. Falstaff smooth-talks the Shake-spearean protagonist Timon of rent—several thousand dollars in today’s his way out of debt and borrows still more Athens2—a formerly munificent patron money—still no one paid, and her pleas money so he can continue to raise hell with who, as he grows ever more destitute, is went unheeded. his drinking buddies. abandoned by his friends and colleagues. The transaction is very well preserved Would that de Vere’s actual biography Orthodox scholars like to trot out this in extant documents. Before long, the be- had as many mirthful endings. In history of de Vere’s financial descent as an leaguered hostess appealed to de Vere him- Churchyard’s undated letter to his land- argument against his authorship of the self, complaining of “The great grief and lady, presumably written after her pleas Shakespeare canon, but, of course, the story sorrow I have taken for your unkind deal- had proven futile, we learn that matters had of de Vere’s life, whether good, bad or ugly, ing with me.” The letter explains that she eventually become so desperate that the contains numerous unexpected confirma- considered Churchyard’s signature a secu- poet had to seek sanctuary in a local church.7 tions of the theory. In 1590 occurred a rity against Nashe’s reputation. “You know, “I never deserved your displeasure and remarkable event, the reverberations of my Lord, you had anything in my house, have made Her Majesty understand of my which contain in miniature a logical proof whatsoever you or your men would de- bond touching the Earl of Oxford, and for of the theorem identifying de Vere with mand, if it were in my house,” she adds. “If fear of arresting I lie in the sanctuary,” “William Shakespeare,” the author of Ve- it had been a thousand times more I would Churchyard writes to his hostess of his nus and Adonis. have been glad to pleasure your Lordship desperate circumstances. “For albeit you In 1590, de Vere agreed to pay the rent withal. Therefore, good my Lord, deal with may favor me, yet I know I am in your on a furnished apartment near St. Paul’s me in courtesy, for that you and I shall come danger and am honest and true in all mine Cathedral for the elderly poet Thomas at that dreadful day and give account of all actions.”8 5 Churchyard and the aspiring satirist Tho- our doings.” Nashe, for his part, found no sanctuary. mas Nashe. Churchyard, by now in his late It is a pitiful and earnest plea that de He was promptly hauled off to debtor’s 60s or early 70s, had lived under de Vere’s Vere was unable to redress. He was, how- prison. on-again-off-again patronage for several ever, able to do the next best thing: He This financial fiasco is recounted with decades,3 served as a mercenary and intel- raised the hostess to immortality. In the obvious relish by a vociferous critic of ligence agent for de Vere in the Catholic- second part of the Henry IV plays, the land- Nashe’s, the Cambridge University pedant Protestant wars in the Netherlands. Nashe lady Mistress Quickly wants to evict Falstaff Gabriel Harvey, in his 1592 pamphlet, Four was just starting his flamboyant career as a because he can’t pay the rent. The pathetic Letters. The incident, furthermore, gave satirist , having only a year previously writ- tone of her pleas with the authorities seem rise to a nickname for de Vere which turns ten the preface to Greene’s Menaphon to imitate Penne’s surviving letter (a trick, out to be pregnant with long-delayed im- (1589) which contains the enigmatic refer- incidentally, which de Vere frequently and plications for the Shakespearean question. ence to the so-called “Ur-Hamlet.” skillfully employed): The pamphlet was one salvo in a bitter Nashe and Churchyard had no money war of words between Nashe and Harvey— of their own; they looked to the benevolent I pray ye, since my exion [i.e. legal suit] written about extensively by Shakespeare Timon to co-sign the rental agreement and is enter’d and my case so openly known to Fellowship founding member Elizabeth

Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Winter 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 27 van Dreunen—during the early 1590s. The sponse in Strange News, without acknowl- that his three daughters from his first mar- origin and purposes of the pamphlet war edging Harvey, Nashe could not let de riage had to be raised in the household of are still obscure, but the most authoritative Vere’s faux pas pass unnoticed. In his dedi- their grandfather (de Vere’s father-in-law) testimony identifies Edward de Vere, known cation to “Gentle Master William” he speaks the Lord Treasurer of England, William under the sobriquets “Will Monox,” and of de Vere’s gaffe and throws in an extra jab Cecil Lord Burghley. The “charitable deed” “Master Apis Lapis,” as a central player in at the expense of his patron’s children. was de Vere’s parentage of his own daugh- the dispute. In his collected works of Nashe, Nashe begins with the fact that Churchyard ters, the “three maids.” Now, however, the the distinguished renaissance scholar had to seek asylum from his landlady in a deed deserves to be written in account Ronald McKerrow acknowledges that the nearby church—an act that would have books filled with red ink, i.e. symbolizing dispute “seems in its origin to be an off- activated the legal machinery of the Lon- de Vere’s bankrupt estate. shoot of the well-known one between Ed- don Archdeacon’s court. After he had calmed down, Nashe prob- ward de Vere, Earl of Oxford and [his rival] ably recognized the error of his ways. In the Sir Philip Sidney in 1579...”9 a theory which second and all subsequent printings of Ms. van Dreunen has developed in some “The [Harvey-Nashe] Strange News, the paragraph is cut, re- detail, first in her 1985 essay “Edward de placed by a generic passage that only hints Vere and the War of Words” (published pamphlets ... are a at the excised controversy. In the revised under the name Elizabeth Appleton) and copy, de Vere the deadbeat financier be- more recently in her book (to be reviewed comes de Vere the “infinite Maecenas” rein our next issue), An Anatomy of the critical but typically ferring to the Roman politician who was Marprelate Controversy: Retracing famous as a patron to the poets Horace and Shakespeare’s Identity and that of Martin ignored body of Virgil. (Eight years before, Robert Greene Marprelate (Mellen Press, 2001). had also praised de Vere as a “Maecenas.” )13 The pamphlets, of which Strange News evidence in the “Yea, you are such an infinite Maecenas is one, are a critical but typically ignored to learned men that there is not that morsel body of evidence in the Shake-speare ques- of meat they can carve you but you will eat tion. Scholars often avoid these documents Shake-speare question. for their sakes and accept very thankfully,” because their obscurity can be a challenge. Nashe writes in the second edition of his Frequently the debaters seem to be writing Scholars often avoid dedication. “Think not, though under cor- in code. They employ multiple nicknames rection of your boon companionship, I am for each other, and for allies or would-be these documents disposed to be a little pleasant, I condemn allies on both sides. One of the most promi- you of any immoderation either in eating nent sobriquets reserved for de Vere, for or drinking, for I know your government reasons that should by now be becoming because their obscurity and carriage to be every way canonical. obvious, is “Pierce Penniless.” Harvey first Verily, verily,14 all poor scholars acknowl- uses this name for de Vere in his 1592 can be a challenge.” edge you as their patron, provider and pamphlet Four Letters, in a passage con- supporter, for there cannot a threadbare cerning the Julianne Penn episode: “I would cloak sooner peep forth but you straight think the counter [i.e. prison], Mr. Church- “I would speak in commendation of press it to be an outbrother of your yard, his hostess Penia,10 and such other your hospitality likewise,” Nashe writes, bounty.”15 sensible lessons might sufficiently have “But that it is chronicled in the Archdeacon’s “Disposed to be a little pleasant” though taught [Nashe] that ‘Penniless’ is not law- Court, and the fruits it brought forth (as I Nashe may have been, one reads this para- less and that a poet’s or painter’s license is guess) are of age to speak for themselves. graph and still detects a slight growl in the a poor security to privilege [against] debt Why should virtue be smothered by blind author’s voice. The fact that he says he was or defamation.”11 circumstance? ... You kept three maids to- “under the correction” of de Vere’s “boon We might paraphrase the passage as gether in your house a long time: A chari- companionship” suggests both that the earl follows: “You, Mr. Nashe, have defamed table deed and worthy to be registered in twisted Nashe’s arm to put in the correction 12 me. You also owe some serious debt. ‘Pen- red letters.” he did and, by extension, that he must have niless’ granted you a poet’s license, but he In this paragraph Nashe’s wit appar- approved of the rest. is not lawless and therefore will not en- ently inflicted a bruise on his patron’s pub- In 1592, even though he was thrown in dorse your defamation or pay your out- lic pride. Both Churchyard and his land- prison for de Vere’s irresponsibility, the standing bills.” lady are in their 60s or 70s, which is why young Nashe still seems a little star-struck Harvey is partly right about this, al- Nashe sarcastically opines that they are “of by the eminent earl. Of course, if your pal though Nashe undoubtedly did not want to an age” to speak for themselves. But then turned out to be Shake-speare, you’d be too. admit it. If Harvey was often a pedant, Nashe Nashe hits one below the belt: By 1592, de “However I write merrily,” Nashe says. “I was sometimes a loudmouth. In his re- Vere’s estates had become so overburdened (Continued on page 28)

Paradigm (continued from page 27) Pierce’s Supererogation is subscribed shakespearefellowship.org/News/ love and admire thy pleasant witty humor, with a specific date— 27 April 1593—only Gabriel_HarveyGabriel_Harvey) may help the reader to which no care or cross can make two weeks after the registration of Venus follow the logic which leads to the inevi- unconversable. Still, be constant to thy and Adonis, the text in which the name table conclusion that Gabriel Harvey in his content; love poetry; hate pedantism.” “Shakespeare” first appears in print. Appar- Four Letters testifies that Edward de Vere “I’ll be your daily orator,” the satirist ently, the poem was not yet printed. In wrote the poem Venus and Adonis under continues. “[T]o pray that that pure san- Pierce’s Supererogation, however, Harvey the pen-name “William Shakespeare.” guine complexion of yours may never be is retailing his private knowledge of the famished with pot-luck, that you may taste not yet quite public “M. Pierce Penniless Copyright ©2001 Mark K. Anderson and till your last gasp and live to see the confu- ... in the rich garden of poor Adonis.” Roger Stritmatter. sion of both your special enemies: Small The punchline, however, is yet to come. beer and grammar rules.” “Who can conceive small hope of any References: But back to “Pierce Pennilesse.” The 1) In his chapter on the year 1583-84 at the punchline to Harvey’s 1592 identification Blackfriars Theater, theater historian of de Vere as Pierce Penniless comes a year Charles William Wallace writes, “Then, un- later in his spring 1593 pamphlet, Pierce’s der the Earl of Oxford’s financial support Supererogation. and patronage, the Blackfriars took a stride. For all his affected prolixity, Harvey Himself a university man, musician, lyric could be astonishingly direct at times. poet and dramatist, another Henry VIII in the love of such pleasures, he brought to While Nashe’s preface to Strange News the Blackfriars two kindred university spir- refers to de Vere as a “copious Carminist,” its, George Peele and John Lyly... These plays Harvey’s work announces that “Penniless” by Lyly and Peele at the Blackfriars mark a has been working on a poem about Venus new era in the form of the English drama, and Adonis. (He also expresses his anxiety and the two authors share the honor. They at being ribbed in the play Love’s Labor’s are the first modern five-act plays ever Lost and cites a line from Falstaff in Merry known to have been performed before a public audience in an English theatre.” The 16 Wives of Windsor. ) Evolution of the English Drama Up To Pierce’s Supererogation praises the Shakespeare. George Reimer, Berlin (1912) great literary works of his friends Edmund 181. Spenser and the late Sir Philip Sidney. But 2) According to conventional scholarship, their works, Harvey continues, began to Shake-speare’s Timon of Athens was written sometime between 1605 and 1609 — sprout in the writings of other authors: Harvey’s Pierces Supererogation was several years after de Vere had died. In fact, Greene, Nashe and “M. Pierce Penniless.” registered on April 27, 1593. the claim that many Shake-speare plays Spenser’s and Sidney’s unrivaled liter- were written after de Vere’s 1604 death is ary works, Harvey states, “were but the possible account,” Harvey continues, “Or now often used as a “silver bullet” to kill the violets of March or the primroses of May: regard of mine own discourses were that whole case for de Vere as Shake-speare. This Till the one began to sprout in M. Robert fair body of the sweetest Venus in print as it argument, however, is founded largely upon Greene .... the other to blossom in M. Pierce is redoubtably armed with the complete institutionalized circular logic: Scholars have long assumed Shakspere to have writ- Penniless, as in the rich garden of poor harness [i.e. armaments] of the bravest ten Shake-speare and have codified an “ac- Adonis. Both to grow in perfection in M. Minerva.”18 cepted” chronology of composition that fits Thomas Nashe.”17 If any confirmation is needed, Harvey the details of Shakspere’s life. With de Vere Stop and read that passage again. Harvey here restates that it is indeed Shake-speare’s as Shake-speare, naturally, the chronology speaks of “Pierce Penniless” as being an Venus and Adonis about which he writes. It of the plays changes. But the simple fact author of a poetical work drawn from “the is a work about Venus, “not yet in print.” that the de Vere chronology differs from present scholarly convention does not make rich garden of poor Adonis.” Furthermore, the poem is armed with “the it wrong. It just makes the subject verboten Since Harvey explicitly names Nashe as complete harness”—i.e. with the armor within the academy—which, in fact, may be someone distinct from “Penniless,”18 the and weapons—of the classical goddess more of an endorsement of the case’s per- nickname in this instance can only refer to Minerva/Athena, the patroness of literature suasiveness than academics realize. the same man that Harvey meant when he known to Elizabethans as “the spear- 3) In the Dictionary of National Biography entry for Churchyard, one learns that the spoke of the Churchyard incident: “‘Penni- shaker.” poet “was born at Shrewsbury about 1520 less’ is not lawless,” Harvey wrote of de Unlikely as it may seem, despite several and in his youth was attached to the house- Vere. decades of research into the theory of de hold of the famous Earl of Surrey, whose And now, Harvey says that “Penniless” Vere as Shakespeare, the argument of this memory he fondly cherished throughout is drawing his inspiration from the “garden essay is new. A summary of the case, posted his long life.” Surrey was de Vere’s paternal of Adonis.” at the Fellowship’s website (www. uncle.

4) An echo of this real-life event seems to have canon and its tributaries. While such zeal- speare’s pedant and Harvey, it’s also impor- crept into Twelfth Night, in which this un- otry has undoubtedly tainted the waters, tant to note that Harvey, widely recognized likely semantic association—between the there are occasions more often centered and criticized for his pedantry, vented his bells of this quite specific but obscure chapel around de Vere’s family motto (Vero nihil spleen over far less substantial supposed and the sound of coins doled out to needy verius/”Nothing truer than truth”) than his criticisms than this e.g. Nashe’s observa- fools—appears as the basis for some witty family name when authorial identity puns tion that his father was a rope-maker, etc.] repartee between the fool Feste and his pa- serve an artistic or comic or sardonic pur- Mocked, barbed and “thrust... upon the tron, Olivia, who rewards the jester for his pose. In this case, if Nashe doesn’t mean to stage,” Harvey admits to his foreboding over verbal agility with a coin. But Feste wants taunt the reader with the obvious lexical being lampooned by such a towering figure more money. The lady begrudgingly pulls connection between “Verily, verily” and Vere, as Shake-speare. Indeed, in describing his out another gold piece and hands it over. he’s being unusually clumsy in his selec- consternation Harvey quotes Shake-speare Feste, undaunted, still wants more. The tion of words. himself: “I feared the brazen shield and the jingle of these coins, he says, sounds like 15) Nashe ends the paragraph with the line brazen boots of Goliath and that same hid- the peal from St. Benet’s steeple. Primo, “Three decayed students you kept attend- eous spear like a weaver’s beam,” Harvey secundo, tertio is a good play,” Feste jests. ing upon you a long time.” The identity of writes. [Pierces Supererogation 282.] In “And the old saying is the third pays for all. the third “scholar” and probably would-be these words, Harvey offers an ironic turn The triplex, sir, is a good tripping measure; housemate with Nashe and Churchyard has on the original phrase, where a cowardly or the bells of St. Benet, sir, may put you in yet to be advanced. Wisner Barrell guesses Falstaff in The Merry Wives of Windsor mind—one, two, three.” Unlike his fictional (op. cit.) that the third is either the play- boasts of his infinite courage, saying that lord, however, de Vere had no gold to hand wright John Lyly, who was indeed a long- he “fear[s] not Goliath with a weaver’s out. The third did not “pay for all” but left time recipient of de Vere’s patronage, or beam.” [5.1.23-24] The original source of the other two dangling in debt. There were Robert Greene himself. these quotes, in fact, II Samuel 21:19, where particular reasons, in 1592: his enemy Chris- 16) In Pierce’s Supererogation, Harvey speaks King David’s meager military might is con- topher Hatton had just become Lord Chan- of someone staging a comedy that “threat- trasted to the sophisticated weaponry of his cellor of England. As Chancellor, Hatton ened” him. “Baubles and comedies are per- famous opponent Goliath. As it happens, promptly put himself into the business of ilous fellows to decipher and discourage Shake-speare’s interest in this obscure de- settling old scores, the first of which was an men (that is the point) with their witty tail from Davidian lore is amply noted in old vendetta against de Vere. Hatton forced flouts and learned jerks; enough to lash any Edward de Vere’s personal copy of the Bible, collection on a crippling load of debt to the man out of countenance,” Harvey writes in where de Vere not only marked the section crown. The debt trickled down to Nashe his tract Pierce’s Supererogation. “... where the allusion appears, he even under- and Harvey’s landlady, Julianne Penn. Gentlemen, beware of a chafing pen that lined the words “weaver’s beam.” In short, 5) Lansdowne MSS., 68.114. Transcribed by sweateth out whole reams of paper and whole Shake-speare’s bombastic braggart Falstaff Charles Wisner Barrell. Shakespeare Fel- theaters of jests.” [Harvey Pierces Super- refers to arcane lore from the Old Testa- lowship Quarterly 5:4 (Oct. 1944)59-60. erogation 2:213 (Grosart ed.)] In fact, the ment. Then Harvey steals a line from 6) 2 Henry IV 2.1.28-36. same month Harvey writes this portion of Falstaff’s quote. But, in Harvey’s case, the 7) ibid. 60. his diatribe (November 1589) a London the- man with the “spear” is not a biblical char- 8) Lansdowne MSS., 68.115. Transcribed by atrical troupe appears to have performed acter but rather a real contemporary figure B.M. Ward. The Seventeenth Earl of Ox- Shake-speare’s Love’s Labor’s Lost, which whom Harvey both fears and mocks. That ford. John Murray, London (1928) 303. was then suppressed for its topical jests and man is de Vere, i.e. Shake-speare. 9) McKerrow Nashe V:73. allusions. [F.G. Fleay (Life and Work of 17) Harvey. Works. Alexander Grosart, ed. AMS 10) Harvey is being characteristically precious Shakespeare (1886) 102; reprinted in the Press, New York (1966; orig. ed. 1884) 2:50. here in Latinizing Churchyard’s landlady’s Variorium edition of Love’s Labor’s Lost, 18) Nashe and Harvey love to bandy about name, Julianne Penn. Nashe replies to this Horace Howard Furness ed. J.B. Lippincott multiple nicknames for everyone. De Vere, Harveyism by calling his adversary a “whore- Co. (1904) 336-7) argues that the Lord is variously referred to as “The Ass,” “The son ninnyhammer” for “hop[ing] to dash Strange’s company performed Love’s Old Ass,” “Nashe’s St. Fame,” “Entelechy,” me quite out of request by telling me of the Labour’s Lost at the Cross-Keys Inn.] The and “Pierce Pennilesse” —among others. ‘counter and my hostess Penia’”! comedy is filled with references to many To complicate matters, “Pierce Penniless” 11) Harvey. Foure Letters and certaine Son- contemporaries and events in de Vere’s life is also the name of a pamphlet Nashe wrote nets: Especially touching Robert Greene and world. But the one Harvey undoubt- loosely based on de Vere’s troubled finances, and other parties by him abused. John edly took offense over is the Shake-speare and so at various points in Harvey’s rheto- Wolfe, London (1592) reprinted in The canon’s most Harveyesque character: The ric, “Pierce Penniless” clearly refers to Works of Gabriel Harvey, D.C.I. Alexander witless pedant Holofernes, a figure in whom Nashe himself. Fortunately, a glance at the B. Grosart, ed. private circulation, 1884 [re- both orthodox and heterodox scholars have larger context within which these “Pierce” printed by AMS Press, New York (1966)] seen an antagonistic likeness drawn of allusions are situated often makes it clear 1:199. Harvey. [For commentary on the harsh light when “Pierce” means the author of Pierce 12) McKerrow, 1:255-6. in which Holofernes is cast, cf. O.J. Campbell Penniless and when “Pierce” means the 13) “Wherever Maecenas lodgeth, thither no Shakespeare’s Satire (New York 1943) 32- subject—Edward de Vere. In this case, be- doubt will scholars flock.” Robert Greene. 37; Bryan A. Garner “A Note on Holofernes’ cause Nashe is named as someone distinct Gwydonius, The Card of Fancy. William Pronunciamentos” American Notes and from “Pierce” this leaves only one choice Ponsonby, London (1584). Queries 20 (1982) 100-1. While such critics for the real-life person being referred to. 14) A past-time of some advocates for de Vere is as M.C. Bradbrook (“St. George for Spelling 19) Harvey. Works 2:324. to find as many groan-worthy puns on the Reform!” Shakespeare Quarterly 15:3 names “Vere,” “Oxford,” “Edward” as can (Summer 1964) 135, fn. 13) point out inex- be summoned out of the Shake-speare actitudes in the correlation between Shake-

Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 30 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002 Moorer’s Marathon, or three plays in one day Ambitious program schedule in Carmel delivers history By Chuck Berney ne of the reasons to attend the Shakespeare Oxford power from his uncles, climaxing with the murder of Woodstock. Societyconference in Carmel last October was the oppor- Among the links to the previous play are the reappearances of Edward Otunity to see three Shakespearean history plays in chro- III and the Black Prince as ghosts warning Woodstock of his fate. nological order, with the added incentive that the first two are Part of the fun of being an Oxfordian is discerning the identities seldom performed. The plays were Edward III (recently admitted of real-life models for characters in Shakespeare’s plays (there’s no to the canon by academics), Thomas of Woodstock (apocry- doubt in my mind that Woodstock is by Shakespeare/Oxford). phally Shakespearean), and Richard II. They were presented as Stephanie Hughes gave compelling evidence that the title character, the Pacific Repertory Theatre’s summer season under the rubric “Plain Thomas,” was based on Oxford’s tutor Thomas Smith, an “Royal Blood: the Rise and Fall of important figure in the Elizabethan intellectual landscape. In the Kings.” The plays were chosen Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter (Summer 1999) I pointed out that Sir and directed by Stephen Moorer, Henry Green, the most prominent of Richard’s sycophants in the play, founder and head of the Pacific is actually a stand-in for Robert de Vere, the 9th Earl of Oxford, Rep, which hosted the conference. historically the most important of Richard’s favorites (“vert”— Moorer arranged for a special chal- French for green—and Vere are pronounced identically). lenge for history-hungry playgo- After centuries of neglect, Woodstock seems to be getting popu- ers: on Saturday, 6 October 2001, lar. Roger Stritmatter pointed it out to Timothy Holcomb, director the three plays were performed in of the Hampshire Shakespeare Company, which mounted an excel- sequence, back to back—Edward lent production (said to be the American premiere) in the summer of III in the morning, Woodstock in 1999. Anne Pluto and the Oxford Street Players did a version with an the afternoon, and Richard II in all-female cast early in the year 2000, and the Emerson Stage the evening. Company plans performances in February and March of 2002 (see the Edward III tells two stories: ad for this production on page 31). John Oswald as Edward III the first is the king’s potentially Unfortunately, the Pacific Repertory production of Woodstock adulterous infatuation with the was the weakest of the three plays presented. Part of the problem was beautiful but virtuous Countess of Salisbury. John Oswald as the the performance of Michael Sandels in the title role. The basis of king and Julie Hughett as the Countess brought flair and dra- Woodstock’s character is his plainspokenness (“I’m Plain Thomas, by matic tension to their scenes of lust opposed by honor. Comic th’ rood, I’ll speak the truth”); the role thus demands an actor of weight relief was provided by the king’s efforts to produce a poem and dignity (the Burl Ives of 1958 would be ideal). Sandels came worthy of the Countess’s charms. He enlists the aid of a poet, closer to the Burt Reynolds of 1977 (Smokey and the Bandit). He Lodowick, played with panache by Tim Hart, and the contrast elaborated the role with so many gestures and facial expressions that between the soaring rapture of the smitten king and the down- when he said “Plain Thomas will speak plainly,” I thought, “Why is he to-earth observations of the poet was delightful. The interaction trying to con me?” The comic duo of Tresilian and Nimble was one between the two smacked of personal experience on the part of of the highlights of the Hampshire Shakespeare production; in the the author (Oxford/Golding? Oxford/Lyly?). present case Tim Hart and Nathan Sanford, who were delightful in The second story told by the play is that of the attainment of Edward III, were allowed to overact—comic dances of glee at their maturity and martial glory by the king’s son, Edward the Black own villainy replaced a believable relationship. Prince, by his triumphs over the French at Crécy and Poitiers. The Another problem was that Moorer trimmed the play to make it fit production was staged in the round (appropriately, in the Circle with its successor. Queen Anne and Henry Green both die in Woodstock Theatre) with the actors practically on top of the audience; this but show up alive in Richard II. The director’s solution was to insert gave the action an immediacy and urgency that was extraordinar- a line (a scene or two after reports of Anne’s illness) indicating she ily compelling. The battle scenes were choreographed effec- didn’t die after all, and to omit the fight in which Green is killed. The tively and accompanied by music that added greatly to the first change is anticlimactic (“Why did we bother to worry about impact. David Mendelsohn as the Black Prince played the role Anne?”) and the second (since Green is the most important of the with an iconic intensity that was entirely convincing. All in all, flatterers) distorts the structure of the play by eliminating a climactic this was a brilliant production, and a satisfying introduction to scene. a play that few if any of us had seen before. In Woodstock the character of the governor of Calais, who is When Thomas of Woodstock opens, four of Edward III’s responsible for the murder of Plain Thomas, is called Lapoole. seven sons are deceased, including Edward the Black Prince. His Historically, the governor at that time was Thomas Mowbray, the son has ascended the throne as Richard II, but the country is being name Shakespeare gives to the same character in Richard II. The governed by his three surviving uncles: York, Lancaster (John of quarrel between Bolingbroke (Woodstock’s nephew, later Henry IV) Gaunt) and Gloucester (Thomas of Woodstock, officially the and Mowbray opens the play; they each accuse the other of treason and Lord Protector). The story concerns Richard’s efforts to wrest the spectator is puzzled (what are they talking about?). Finally Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) Winter 2002 Shakespeare Matters page 31

Bolingbroke that his son, Aumerle, is carrying. The audience was laughing! The gets specific and scene, which I had believed to be deadly serious, was being played charges Mowbray for comedy! When I got home, I checked out the video again; sure with the murder enough, the BBC actors were trying to play it for comedy, but were of Woodstock, to not succeeding—it just wasn’t funny. It was not the actors’ fault. which Mowbray They were all skilled players, and on the second viewing I recog- replies “I slew him nized that Charles Gray, the actor playing York, had shaped his not, but to my own performance throughout the play with an eye to comedic effect in disgrace neglect- Scene 5.2. ed my sworn duty But the medium shapes the message. There’s something about in that case,” having live actors before you in the flesh (and perhaps being In one of Woodstock’s comic moments, which is a self- surrounded by an audience of your fellows) that allows you to Thomas of Woodstock (Michael Sandels) chats serving descrip- accept sudden changes in tone. And the comic scene just before the with a horse in his courtyard.. tion of the action conclusion of a tragedy is a device that Shakespeare is fond of in Scene 5.1 of (think of the Clown with the asp in Antony and Cleopatra, or Osric Woodstock. If one is to make alterations in Woodstock for the in Hamlet). Live and learn. benefit of those about to watch Richard II, I suggest that the most Stephen Moorer is to be applauded for his audacity in schedul- helpfuchange one could make would be to change Lapoole’s name ing three history plays (with more to come in succeeding sum- to Mowbray, so that the cause of the opening quarrel in the later play mers), for his immense contributions to the success of the confer- is immediately clear. ence, and for his generally deft and frequently inspired direction Back to Carmel. I must confess that I wimped out—I did not see of these important plays. all three plays in one day, but took Saturday evening off, postponing I am thus delighted Thomas of my encounter with Richard II. On Sunday evening I strolled to the that a tentative agree- Forest Theatre, a stage surrounded by magnificent evergreens. ment has been reached Woodstock at Bonfires roared on each side of the space, warming the audience for the Shakespeare Fel- Emerson College (at least by proxy), and filling the air with scents redolent of lowship to conduct its Directed by warriors’ encampments. third annual conference Michael Hammond The magic was back. And the play was satisfying. Brian Hern- in Carmel in October Feb. 27th to Mar. 3rd, at don was convincing in the title role, and John Oswald again made 2004, which will be the Emerson College, Studio the most of the magnificent opportunities given him by the concluding year for the Theatre, 69 Brimmer St. Playwright, delivering John of Gaunt’s dying speech (“This royal Royal Blood series. Boston, MA. throne of kings, this sceptered isle . . .”) most movingly. Henry VI, part 2 and Ri- Wed. to Sat. at 8:00 pm My only previous experience with Richard II had been via the chard III will be pre- (Sat. and Sun. at 2:00 pm) BBC video of 1978, directed by David Giles and starring Derek sented then. Tickets - $10.00 Jacobi. Thus I was confused when the Pacific Repertory’s perfor- See you there! Tickets - $10.00 mance got to Scene 5.2, York’s discovery of the treasonous letter (617)824-8000 Subscribe to Shakespeare Matters Regular member: Name:______e-member ($15/year) ______(Website; online newsletter) Address:______One year ($30/$40 overseas) ______Two year ($55/$75 overseas) ______Three year ($80/$110 overseas) ______City:______State:______ZIP:______Family/Institution: Phone:______email:______One year ($45/$55 overseas) ______Two year ($85/$105 overseas) ______Three years ($125/$150 os) ______Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____ Patron ($75/year or over): ______Name on card:______Special offer for new subscribers: Card number:______Bible dissertation ($45) ______P&H for Bible ($5) ______

Signature:______Total: ______

Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478 Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 32 Shakespeare Matters Winter 2002

Letters (continued from page 3) beth I, Burghley, Anne Cecil, Hatton, Le- productions, with a virtual monopoly on extensive research here presented for which icester, Henry Howard, Anne Vavasour, the subject. Without seeing our play, this I am grateful and which will send me back Henry Wriothesley, et al.) come to life director defended the critic’s arguments to the bookshelf to read more of Allen, breathing Shakespeare’s own words: taken and added to the list of Stratfordian mis- Barrell, Chapman etc. bearing on the sub- from their portraits in the plays and sonnets conceptions. The debate then fizzled out ject. Ms. Burris has a compelling tale to tell, where they were trapped in disguise. (further contributions from us were not at least as I remember hearing it, and she The process of this reverse interpreta- desired). But there is hope it may be re- doesn’t need a good deal of this “layer of tion is guided by a combination of forces: kindled when we premiere our evidence” which I find shaky. The evidence our artistic intuition, our own detective SHAKE-SPEARE, Part 2, which is planned will stand without it and I’m looking for- work, as well as the excellent Oxfordian for early 2002. ward to reading it in the next several issues research spanning from Looney via Ogburn Feedback from our audience has been of Shakespeare Matters. to now. Parts 1, 2 and 3 cover the Elizabe- overwhelmingly positive: for many it was than past; Part 4 will look into more recent an eyeopener, not only into the man behind Virginia J. Renner issues, using as a major inspiration the the name, but also into the mind and spirit Retired Reader Services Librarian Barrell courtcase and intrigues surround- of the Elizabethan age. To be witness to a Huntington Library, California ing the Ashbourne portrait. Our pre-season great man’s story, obliterated from official 1 December 2001 publicity met with no response, perhaps history, inspired many to look into the because it coincided with the September authorship question themselves. The un- To the Editors: 11 events. But later, when we tried again to derlying metaphor relevant today was not drum up some interest from local academ- lost on them: and so it stands—de Vere, We would like to share with your read- ics and teachers, the response was bluntly: after 400 years, still serving truth. ers some news from our Sydney-based Ki- “Who cares. It’s not important to know who netic Energy Theatre Company. the author was. We’ve got the plays.” Jepke Goudsmit and Graham Jones, We are creating a series of plays about Public dialogue began when the major Co-writer/directors Kinetic Energy Theatre Company the authorship question, the first of which paper’s review came out. It was a classic Sydney, Australia —SHAKE-SPEARE, Part 1—premiered in case of Stratfordian vitriol. Virtually ignor- 23 November 2001 October 2001. The plays look at how ing the play, the critic contented himself Shakespeare’s work reflects the life of Ed- with attacking our Oxfordian perspective. Advertisment ward de Vere in stunning detail, therefore Numerous complaints caused the A History changing suggesting the Earl to have been the true arts-editor to give us redress, inviting us to discovery! author, ingeniously concealed within his write a defence of the Oxford case, while 300 coded signatures in own words. This drama-documentary leads giving the same critic (!) the opportunity to Hamlet are absolute proof the audience, with the help of co-narrators respond from the Stratfordian view. He of Ver authorship. Francis Bacon and Mary Sydney, through expected to spark off a debate among the Order your copy ($21.95) of de Vere’s personal history and the wider public. But the double article The Real Shakespeare from iUniverse (1-800-823-9235) socio-political labyrinth surrounding it. prompted only one reply: from the director ISBN 0-595-19191-6 The characters (protagonists: Oxford, Eliza- of a company specialising in Shakespeare

Shakespeare Matters Inside this issue: The Voice of the Shakespeare Fellowship P. O. Box 263 Ashbourne portrait: Part II - Somerville MA 02143 page 1 Address correction requested Fellowship meeting - page 1

Shakespeare’s moral philosophy - page 1

The Queen Elizabeth Pregnancy Portrait - page 8

“A year in the life” - page 24

Paradigm Shift - page 26