Vol.4:no.1 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments..." Fall 2004 A critique of Back to the the “Monument Ashbourne More layers of deception in the theory” 2002 examination of the portrait By Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter, PhD. By Barbara Burris ank Whittemore’s summer 2004 Shakespeare Matters n the fall of 2002, the Folger article, “Authorize Thy Trespass With Compare,” promises Shakespeare Library sent the Hto supply a simple, comprehensive solution to the enigma I Ashbourne portrait hundreds of the sonnets: “Reading the sonnets becomes as clear and of miles away from Washing- uncomplicated as reading a signed, dated letter to a known ton, DC, for examination by the 1 addressee about the events of the day,” writes editor Bill Boyle in Canadian Conservation Institute his accompanying essay. Whittemore’s solution, believes Boyle, (CCI). Why they went so far afield 2 “is absolutely correct” and makes “crystal clear what was once strongly appears to connect to mysterious and opaque.”3 Like many Shakespearean students, we the recent controversy sur- would love to receive the definitive enlightenment promised by rounding the Sanders portrait, a these bold words. Regrettably, however, the Whittemore solution claimed Shake-speare portrait to the sonnets fails to live up to Boyle’s advance publicity. No critique of Whittemore’s “solution” to the sonnets would that was examined by the same be complete without some reference to the highly selective use of company. reference materials used to construct the theory. Although many Dated 1603, the Sanders relevant influences are noted regarding subjects such as the date portrait depicts the head and of Sonnet 107, neither Whittemore nor Boyle acknowledges the The Ashbourne Portrait (Continued on page 15) debt that both writers owe to previous scholars who have analyzed the structure of the sonnets. Traditionally, scholars identify four Engaging significant parts: 1-17 (fair youth/marriage sonnets), 18-126 (fair youth sonnets), 127-152 (dark lady sonnets), 153-154 (mythological coda). From this it can be seen that two of the four Prince Tudor segments which serve to define Whittemore’s monument are Concordia seminar touches the traditional (127-152 and 153-154) in the sense of being acknowledged by many Sonnet scholars. Contrary to Boyle’s third rail of Oxfordianism claim that “all commentators have struggled with” but “none have solved” the question of whether the 1609 Q is in authorial order, hen Prof. Daniel Wright first an- many commentators, including Stephen Booth,4 have argued that nounced last year that the topic for until a better order can be discovered, the best premise is that the Wthe Summer 2004 Shakespeare Au- order is in fact authorial. We see nothing in Whittemore’s analysis thorship Studies Seminar would be the dreaded which materially contributes to this question. Asserting a “Prince Tudor” theory the slings and arrows of chronological order for the Sonnets does not constitute evidence outrage started flying almost immediately, to resolve this question. and they still haven’t stopped. As most Oxfor- The Whittemore “monument” depends on the one structural dians are well aware, this particular issue has innovation of moving the first break from sonnet 17 to sonnet 26. Hank Whittemore stirred passions from the earliest years of the By making this change, Whittemore produces the 100 sonnet gave a presentation Oxfordian movement in the 1920s and has sequence (27-126) which forms the “center and centerpiece”5 of on his new theory more than once proved to be a schism that has (Continued on page 10) on the Sonnets. (Continued on page 8) page 2 Shakespeare Matters Fall 2004 used for dead authors. (Additionally, the To the Editor: Letters: spelling “Shak-speare” was never used by the Stratford man.) Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter Finally, what is one to say about Tho- in their report on the recent University of To the Editor: mas Pendleton’s and John Mahon’s upside- Tennessee Law School symposium note down responses to Dick Whalen? Are we that Steven May’s talk dealt with stylistic The Summer 2004 issue of Shakespeare seriously being asked to believe that be- features and imagery advanced as Matters is superb! Clearly, William Boyle cause Stratford Will is shown by Mahon to arguments for the Oxfordian thesis by is proving his mettle as editor. be “difficult,” he could have written the Looney in his classic of 1920. They report His tandem piece with Hank works, but Oxford’s being more “awful” May’s observation that some of Looney’s Whittemore’s provides one of the best proves that Oxford could not? examples “are in fact widely found in expositions of WHY Oxford could not It is high time that Oxfordians repudi- Elizabethan literature and hence are not write poetry or plays under his own name ate the calumnious assertions of Nelson, fingerprints...” They characterize May’s and why Henry Wriothesley’s sentence Giroux, Mahon and their ilk: that Edward was commuted from execution to de Vere was a monster. The truth is, as Sir presentation as “an exceptionally forceful imprisonment. George Greenwood wrote in 1908, “not a and credible critique of the Oxfordian case,” single creditable act” can be attributed to informing us that “Professor May gave Albert Burgstahler the Stratford man. On the other hand, the examples from Turberville, Grange, Lawrence, Kansas tributes to the 17th earl’s character, intelli- Gascoigne, Whetstone, and others to 12 August 2004 gence, generosity, and religiosity are quite reinforce his argument.” numerous—from Gabriel Harvey, Robert Although we were not present to hear Greene, Spenser, Percival Golding, to Sir May’s talk, on the basis of the report and To the Editor: George Buc—and this is only a partial list! our own research we remain skeptical of To Stratfordians, apparently, where abso- the forcefulness and credibility of May’s Much valuable stuff in the Summer lutely nothing is known, anything can be data. Our skepticism relates to the fact that 2004 issue; here is my grab bag of re- imagined (such as Pendelton’s nonsense we have shown in Shakespeare’s sponses. I am very anxious to read Hank about Shakspere “quite likely” being bet- Fingerprints that the names ‘Turberville’, Whittemore’s new book on the sonnets. I ter educated than de Vere)! ‘Gascoigne’, and ‘Whetstone’ were think, based on what he and Bill Boyle Oxfordian pseudonyms. In our soon-to- wrote, that he may well have proved his Gordon C. Cyr appear Never and for Ever, we go on to case—as far as the “central” 100 sonnets Baltimore, Maryland show that the name ‘Grange’ was another are concerned. I am not as convinced, 8 September 2004 such. Haggard hawks aside (many examples however, of his interpretation of the so- called “Dark Lady” poems, although Queen Elizabeth may well have been the subject Shakespeare Matters Subscriptions to Shakespeare Matters are of some of them. Absent some more eso- Published quarterly by the $40 per year ($20 for online issues only). Shakespeare Fellowship Family or institution subscriptions are $45 per teric reading, Sonnet 138 (for example) year. Patrons of the Fellowship are $75 and up. would seem to be addressed to a younger Editorial Offices Send subscription requests to: woman, and Sonnet 130 to a woman with P.O. Box 263 The Shakespeare Fellowship black hair. If the Sonnets 128-154 were Somerville, MA 02143 P.O. Box 561 written earlier than (or concurrently with) Belmont MA 02478 Editor: the first 127, this circumstance would dis- William Boyle turb Hank’s thesis that all of the sonnets are The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowship is to promote public awareness and acceptance in “authorial order”—a contention he suc- Contributing Editors: of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by cessfully maintains (in my opinion) for the Mark Anderson, Dr. Charles Berney, Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550- central 100. Charles Boyle, Dr. Felicia Londre, 1604), and further to encourage a high level of Lynne Kositsky, Alex McNeil, scholarly research and publication into all President Alex McNeil omits from his Dr. Anne Pluto, Elisabeth Sears, aspects of Shakespeare studies, and also into the catalog of “noteworthy publications” for Dr. Roger Stritmatter, Richard Whalen, history and culture of the Elizabethan era. 1608-1609 the first quarto of “M. William Hank Whittemore, Dr. Daniel L. Wright The Society was founded and incorporated Shak-speare—His True Chronicle Historie in 2001 in the State of Massachusetts and is Phone (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-3411 chartered under the membership corporation of the life and death of King Lear and his Fax (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-4258 laws of that state. It is a recognized 501(c)(3) three Daughters…” in 1608. This quarto is email: [email protected] nonprofit (Fed ID 04-3578550). singular in being the first publication of a All contents copyright ©2004 Dues, grants and contributions are tax- Shakespeare play in which the author’s The Shakespeare Fellowship deductible to the extent allowed by law. name (along with the 1609 Sonnets quarto) Shakespeare Matters welcomes articles, essays, commentary, book reviews, letters and news items. precedes the title. As Oxfordian Gwynneth Contributions should be reasonably concise and, when Bowen (citing Stratfordian Sir Sidney Lee) appropriate, validated by peer review. The views expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of the pointed out, this was a practice mostly Fellowship as a literary and educational organization.