Vol.1:no.4 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments..." Summer 2002 It was not Swan song for Funeral Elegy “Ye Plague” Prof. Donald Foster concedes it’s not by Shakespeare; Oxfordian Richard Kennedy credited in turnaround Oxfordian mythology about the cause of n a stunning turn of events in the author- ship debate, reported in the June 20th de Vere’s death INew York Times, Prof. Donald Foster of Vassar College has thrown in the towel on By Paul Hemenway Altrocchi his controversial 1995 claim to have found, in the 1612 poem A Funeral Elegy (which or more than 80 years Stratfordians, bore “by W.S.” on its title page), a new poem unhampered by their vacuous pre- by William Shakespeare. Fmises and the impenetrable corneal The reason that this story has author- opacities of their unyielding conventional ship overtones is that— as those involved in wisdom, have enjoyed basting and barbecu- the authorship debate back then well ing those who believe in Edward de Vere. know—the story behind the story in 1995- So convinced are Oxfordians, on the 1996 was clearly the circa 1612 composi- other hand, that they are the main reposito- tion date for Elegy, which then—theoreti- ries of Truth—“Vero Nihil Verius”—that cally—put an end to Oxfordian claims that they sometimes fail to police themselves Edward de Vere was Shakespeare. His 1604 with the self-criticism which is essential to death would mean he couldn’t have written hasten the inevitable paradigm shift. Elegy, therefore he couldn’t be Shakespeare. Examples of Oxfordian myths carried Now, however, both Foster and his col- on for decades include the false idea that The first page from the 1612 A Funeral Elegy, league Richard Abrams concede that the Burghley’s daughter, Anne, was “sweet” be- the once-famous, but now infamous, poem cause Burghley said so1, and that Oxfordians (by the mysterious “W.S.”) that Prof. Foster’s poem is most likely by John Ford, and could debate Stratfordian professors with computer said in 1995 was by Shakespeare. credit the work of fellow scholars Prof. such powerful logic that they would “see the This claim was questioned by most Brian Vickers of the Swiss Federal Institute light” and promptly abandon their anoxic Shakespeareans around the world right from of Technology in Zurich, and Prof. Gilles D. hypotheses. the beginning. Yet in just a few years Elegie Monsarrat of the University of Burgundy in A myth is an ill-founded belief held found its way into several prestigious Shake- France, for their concession. Prof. uncritically. This paper describes careless speare collections, whose editors will now Monsarrat’s article in the May Review of research by Oxfordians regarding the cause have to do a quick about-face and get it English Studies, in which he lauds Prof. of Edward de Vere’s death, and its uncritical right back out. Brian Vickers’s work on Elegy (to appear transmittal for three quarters of a century. in an upcoming book), makes the case for Ashbourne story update Ford as the true author. The “Ye Plague” Myth And, in a further authorship twist to this Barbara Burris’s series on the Ash- story, Prof. Vickers credits Oxfordian Rich- B.M. Ward, in his 1928 biography of de bourne portrait story will continue in our ard Kennedy (of Newport, Oregon) as “the Vere2, appears to have initiated the myth next issue (Fall 2002). Meanwhile, check first to identify John Ford as the author of that Oxford died of the plague. Ward states: our Letters page and From the Editors for the poem.” Kennedy had advanced the issue some thoughts and comments about what by his research on the Elegy in 1996 and In the margin of the page in the Parish we have published so far, particularly Part his forceful insistence in several Internet Register in which the burial occurs has been III and the incredible story of how the Shakespeare discussion forums that the written ‘ye Plague.’ It may be that his death Folger Shakespeare Library apparently real author of Elegy was John Ford, a pro- at the age of fifty-four was due to this disease. “engineered” the Hamersley attribution. lific but undistinguished writer of verse— (Continued on page 14) (Continued on page 4) Internet Ed. (©2002, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent) page 2 Shakespeare Matters Summer 2002 ing is the wrist ruffs worn by the Ashbourne portrait of Sir Edward Cecil wearing wrist Letters: sitter, which had gone out of fashion by ruffs, painted around 1610, makes it im- mid-1580s, so that the date of 1612 origi- possible to claim that the Ashbourne must nally painted on the picture is an impossi- have been painted before 1585, although of To the Editors: bility. Never having taken much notice of course it may have been. There may be wrist ruffs up till now, I thought I would many good reasons for ruling out Hamer- I enjoyed reading your article look through the only book of Tudor and sley as the sitter for the Ashbourne, but wrist “Smithsonian showdown and New York Jacobean portraits I have. Sure enough, all ruffs are not one of them. Times feature article rock the authorship the sitters after about 1590 were wearing debate,” (Shakespeare Matters, Spring wrist cuffs rather than ruffs—apart that is John M. Rollett 2002) but there is one misrepresentation of from one painted by Michiel Jansz van Ipswich, Suffolk, United Kingdom fact in it, which I am sure is a result of a Miereveld circa 1610, wearing what are 30 June 2002 misunderstanding. You wrote: undoubtedly wrist ruffs. The sitter was Sir Niederkorn’s judicious but sympathetic Edward Cecil, later Viscount Wimbledon. To the Editors: treatment of the Oxford case marks a gigan- The existence of just one person portrayed tic shift in attitude from The New York wearing wrist ruffs so long (25 years) after Thank you for the splendid series on the Times of a few years ago. In comments to the this style had supposedly gone out of fash- Ashbourne portrait. However, a couple of newsletter, Niederkorn underscored that attitudes towards the authorship question ion is enough to show that the Ashbourne points in Ms. Burris’s Part III account have shifted throughout the institution. could also have been painted around 1610, (Shakespeare Matters, Spring 2002) that and removes one of the cornerstones of my p. 9 statement did not cover deserve I have no knowledge of any shift of Barbara Burris’s argument. Moreover, this clarification. attitudes throughout The Times. What I portrait was painted in Holland; as a suc- On p. 16 Ms. Burris asks, “If this were tried to underscore in reply to questions on cessful London merchant, it is not improb- truly a blind search,” how could Helen Cyr Oxford Day was that the thinking at The able that Hamersley would visit Holland know that the 1687 date listed “was a typo- Times is not monolithic. Articles appear all now and again on business, and therefore graphical error?” The answer is simple. She the time depicting the different sides of possible that he was painted during such a did not know and as Ms. Burris’s narrative various issues. Every writer brings an indi- visit, especially as the best Dutch painters makes clear, Helen continued the search vidual perspective to every piece, and edi- were regarded as superior to any in within the time available. tors bring individual perspectives as well. England. As it happens, Cornelius Ketel My 1979 statement (in the summer 1979 Skepticism is a hallmark of journal- returned to Holland in 1581, and died Shakespeare Oxford Society Newsletter) ism. The old adage to young writers in the in 1616. that 1687 was a “typographical error” is news business is, “If your mother says she It seems to me that the existence of this patently an ex post facto deduction from loves you, check it out.” If anything, skep- ticism was the natural reaction to the sub- ject of my article by my colleagues at The Subscriptions to Shakespeare Matters are Times, not credulity. Come to think of it, Shakespeare Matters Published quarterly by the $30 per year ($15 for online issues only). Oxfordians I’ve met are more prone to The Shakespeare Fellowship Family or institution subscriptions are $45 per skepticism than credulity, too. year. Patrons of the Fellowship are $75 and up. Editorial Offices Send subscription requests to: William S. Niederkorn P.O. Box 263 The Shakespeare Fellowship The New York Times Somerville, MA 02143 P.O. Box 561 New York, NY Belmont MA 02478 29 May 2002 Co-Editors: Dr. Roger Stritmatter, William Boyle The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowship To the Editors: is to promote public awareness and acceptance Contributing Editors: of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by Mark Anderson, Dr. Charles Berney, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550- Barbara Burris’s researches into the Charles Boyle, Dr. Felicia Londre, 1604), and further to encourage a high level of Ashbourne portrait make fascinating read- Alex McNeil, Dr. Anne Pluto, scholarly research and publication into all Elisabeth Sears, Richard Whalen, ing (Shakespeare Matters Vol. 1, nos.1, 2 aspects of Shakespeare studies, and also into the Hank Whittemore, Dr. Daniel Wright history and culture of the Elizabethan era. and 3), revealing evidence of apparent skull- The Society was founded and incorporated duggery committed by the Folger authori- Phone (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-3411 Phone (Northampton, MA): (413) 585-8610 in 2001 in the State of Massachusetts and is ties on several occasions.