November 2012 An Ox on Our Tongues/Two Reviews De Vere Society Newsletter $QGVRZRXOG,JODGO\« 7ZR5HYLHZVE\.HYLQ*LODU\ ,VSHDNWRWKRVHZKRNQRZWRWKRVHZKRGRQ¶W my mind’s a blank. I never say a word. The Man who was Never (Tr. Robert Fagles) Shakespeare 7KHFU\SWLFOLQHµ7KHR[LVRQP\WRQJXH¶VDLGWR E\$-3RLQWRQ be ‘A proverbial expression (of uncertain origin) for HQIRUFHGVLOHQFH¶ /RHE AeschylusQ LVXVHGWR 6RIWEDFN 3DUDSUHVVSS explain the watchman’s silence to his master. A prose ,6%1 YHUVLRQ RI WKH VDPH SDVVDJH DERYH LV WDNHQ IURP ZZZSDUDSUHVVFRXN Herbert Weir Smyth’s translation of the play in the ,W¶VEHHQDORQJZDLW±EXWZHOOZRUWKZKLOH7KRXJK Loeb Classical Library collection: RSHQ PLQGHG RQ WKH DXWKRUVKLS FDQGLGDWHV 7RQ\ $KZHOOPD\WKHPDVWHURIWKHKRXVHFRPHKRPHDQGPD\ Pointon has been a regular at De Vere Society meet- ,FODVSKLVZHOFRPHKDQGLQPLQH)RUWKHUHVW,¶PGXPED ings and his knowledge and incisive understanding JUHDWR[VWDQGVXSRQP\WRQJXH²\HWWKHKRXVHLWVHOIFRXOG of the Authorship Question has been outstanding. LWEXWVSHDNPLJKWWHOODWDOHIXOOSODLQVLQFHIRUP\SDUWRI )LQDOO\ZHKDYHWKHIUXLWVRIKLVHQTXLULQJPLQGLQ P\RZQFKRLFH,KDYHZRUGVIRUVXFKDVNQRZDQGWRWKRVH seventeen closely argued chapters. ZKRNQRZQRW,KDYHORVWP\PHPRU\ Tony is Emeritus Professor of Physics at It seems that Shakespeare was telling readers and Portsmouth University with close links to the Admi- playgoers with a classical education that the story be- UDOW\ +H LV DOVR DQ H[SHUW RQ &KDUOHV 'LFNHQV WKH hind HamletFRXOGQRWEHEUXLWHGDERXWLQSXEOLFDQG bicentenary of whose birth was recently celebrated FKRVHDFOHYHUSXQIURPDQWLTXLW\WRPDNHKLVVWDWH- in Portsmouth. Thus Pointon has many reasons to be ment … to those who know. distracted from his long-held interest in the identity of ,QGHHGWKHYHU\\HDUWKDWWKH6HFRQG4XDUWR Shakespeare. of HamletZDVSXEOLVKHGLQDOVRZDVWKH\HDU /LVWHQLQJ WR 7RQ\ , KDYH DOZD\V IHOW WKDW WKH JUHDW 6SDQLVK QRYHOLVW 0LJXHO GH &HUYDQWHV I am struggling to keep up whereas he is impatient ZURWHKLVVKRUWQRYHOThe Dialog of the Dogs (later WRJHWRQZLWKKLVQH[WSRLQW6RLWLVZLWKKLVERRN SXEOLVKHGLQ ,QLWKHXVHVWKHVDPHSKUDVH which hurtles us through a whole array of arguments µ+H KDV DQ R[ RQ KLV WRQJXH¶WR FRQYH\ WKH VDPH as to why the man from Stratford could never have PHVVDJHRIRI¿FLDOVLOHQFH written the immortal works of Shakespeare. Even the PRVWOHDUQHGKHUHWLFZLOO¿QGVRPHWKLQJQHZKHUHLQ %HUJDQ]D:KHQ,ZDVDWFROOHJH,UHPHPEHUKHDULQJDWHDFK- Pointon is keen on the idea of ‘identity theft’: HUUHSHDWD/DWLQSKUDVHµHabet bovem in lingua¶«<RXPXVW that the name William Shakespeare was originally know that the Athenians had among their coin one which was just a pseudonym and that it was only in 1623 that VWDPSHGZLWKWKH¿JXUHRIDQR[ZKHQHYHUDMXGJHIDLOHGWR JLYHMXVWLFHLQFRQVHTXHQFHRIKDYLQJEHHQEULEHGWKH\VDLG anyone attempted to suggest that this pseudonym was ‘He has an ox on his tongue.’ (32) referring to a real person. He lists the variety of ways in which the man from Stratford spelt his name (and It appears that Cervantes was commenting on Shake- UHIHUV WR KLP DV µ6KDNVSHUH¶ QRWLQJ WKDW KH QHYHU VSHDUH¶VDOOXVLRQWRWKHSURYHUELQKLVRZQZD\±RU used the spelling ‘Shakespeare’ which was used in- perhaps also used the term as it applied to his own variably (often hyphenated) for the author’s name in OLIHJLYHQKLVWURXEOHVZLWKWKHODZ,QHLWKHUFDVHLW print. is clear that Shakespeare knew he had an ox on his +H GHVFULEHV WKH DZDUG RI D FRDW RI DUPV tongue. G.G. which would normally be included on the title page of DQ\ZRUNDWWULEXWHGWRKLP+HFRQVLGHUVWKHHTXLYR- WORKS CITED FDOGHGLFDWLRQVE\-RQVRQ'LJJHVDQG0DEEHZKLFK gave a few veiled clues for anyone curious enough Hamlet, William Shakespeare. Ed. David Bevington. 1HZ<RUN6FRWW)RUHVPDQ WRHQTXLUHDERXWWKHDXWKRUEXWZKLFKZHUHLQVXI¿- The Oresteia$HVFK\OXV7U5REHUW)DJOHV 1HZ<RUN cient to direct the unsuspecting to the business man 3HQJXLQ&ODVVLFV from Stratford. Pointon evaluates the thin evidence The Oresteia$HVFK\OXV9RO DQG 7U +HUEHUW that Shakspere was an actor. He also deals carefully :HLU 6P\WK 7KH /RHE &ODVVLFDO /LEUDU\ &DPEULGJH ZLWK6KDNVSHUH¶VFDUHHULQ6WUDWIRUGQRWLQJWKDW:LO- 0$+DUYDUG8QLY3UHVV OLDPKHOGQRSXEOLFRI¿FHDQGOHIWQRPHPHQWRHVDQG The Dialog of the Dogs0LJXHOGH&HUYDQWHV7U:DOWHU shows how unlikely it would have been for anyone in .HOO\ .HQW¿HOG&$7KH$OOHQ3UHVV the provincial town ever to suspect him of being an Sonnet 125 (text of the 1609 Quarto) DXWKRUDFFODLPHGRURWKHUZLVH 41 November 2012 Book Reviews: Pointon and Rubinstein De Vere Society Newsletter Pointon draws together many sensible points closely with the regarding the Droeshout engraving and the Stratford Oxfordian case for PRQXPHQWDUJXLQJWKDW'XJGDOH¶VGUDZLQJRI authorship. Never- the man with a woolsack is probably the best likeness WKHOHVV5XELQVWHLQ of the man from Stratford. Perhaps the best part of the is not an Oxford- ERRNGHDOVZLWKYDULRXVP\WKVWKHµGDWLQJ¶P\WKWKH ian and along with false claim that Shakespeare used vocabulary based Brenda James pub- on Warwickshire or that the works have any special lished The Truth reference to local places near Stratford-upon-Avon. Will Out LQ Although the main purpose of the book is not to con- which argued that VLGHU RWKHU FDQGLGDWHV 3RLQWRQ GRHV EULHÀ\ UHYLHZ Henry Neville was the usual suspects (pp. 201-216). the concealed au- Two or three small criticisms do not detract thor of the works IURPWKHERRN¿UVWWKLVUHYLHZHUZDVRFFDVLRQDOO\ of Shakespeare. confused by the use of the name ‘Shakspere’ to refer Some of the ma- to the man from Stratford and ‘Shakespeare’ for the terial in this book DXWKRU ± VLPSO\ EHFDXVH WKH\ ORRN VR VLPLODU VHF- is necessarily repeated in Who Wrote Shakespeare’s RQGVRPHUHIHUHQFHVDUHOHIWDOLWWOHYDJXHQRGRXEW Plays? but not as much as might be expected. as part of the effort to keep the whole volume under Sixteen years have passed since John Michel SDJHVWKLUGDQGSHUKDSVPRVWLPSRUWDQW,IHHO offered a complete overview of the AQ in Who Wrote that the argument of ‘identity-theft’ over the ‘front- Shakespeare? Rubinstein now covers much the same man’ theory needs further elaboration. The choice of ground in Who Wrote Shakespeare’s Plays? but with the name William Shakespeare (without hyphen) for reference to the many impressive contributions to the the dedication to Venus & Adonis in 1593 seems re- debate which have been made in the intervening peri- markably close to the name of one William Shakspere od. He begins by recounting the grounds for doubting ZKRFRLQFLGHQWDOO\FDPHWR/RQGRQDERXWWKLVWLPH the man from Stratford in the longest chapter of the SHUKDSVDOLWWOHODWHUDQGZRUNHGLQWKHWKHDWUHV book. While there is nothing particularly new to this 7KHERRNLVEHDXWLIXOO\SURGXFHGZLWKLO- UHYLHZHULWVVWUDLJKWIRUZDUGDQGQRQFRQIURQWDWLRQDO OXVWUDWLRQV DSSHQGLFHV D WKRURXJK ELEOLRJUDSK\ style makes it a useful overview for all readers. of almost 200 items and a comprehensive index. This There follows a chapter devoted to the main book is not just a must-read but also a must-buy for FDQGLGDWHVVWDUWLQJZLWKWKH6WUDWIRUGPDQKLPVHOI HYHU\RQH LQWHUHVWHG LQ 6KDNHVSHDUH HVSHFLDOO\ IRU referring to him confusingly and ahistorically as Wil- those not yet persuaded that there is an Authorship liam Shakespeare. Rubinstein presents numbered Question. It has taken its place on my main bookshelf SRLQWVIRUDQGDJDLQVWHDFKFDQGLGDWHGHDOLQJZLWK alongside John Michell’s Who Wrote Shakespeare? 2[IRUG ZKR UHFHLYHV WKH ORQJHVW WUHDWPHQW %D- (1996) and Diana Price’s Shakespeare’s Unorthodox FRQ0DUORZH0DU\6LGQH\:LOOLDP6WDQOH\5RJHU Biography (2001). Oxfordians will want a second 0DQQHUVDQG¿QDOO\+HQU\1HYLOOH1RQHRIWKHVH FRS\WROHQGWRIULHQGO\HQTXLUHUVVRDVWRVKRZWKDW WUHDWPHQWVLVPHDQWWREHH[KDXVWLYHEXWDVHULRXV our doubts about Shakespeare are not as daft or as and balanced introduction is supplied for each per- snobbish as some people assert. VRQZLWKPHQWLRQRIWKHPDLQVWXGLHVZULWWHQWRDG- vance their several cases. Who Wrote Shakespeare’s Plays? )RU2[IRUGLDQVWKHPRVWLQWHUHVWLQJFKDSWHU E\:LOOLDP'5XELQVWHLQ will be about Edward de Vere. After a thorough intro- GXFWLRQWR2[IRUG5XELQVWHLQ¶VSRLQWVLQIDYRXURI +DUGEDFNSSSDJHV Oxford’s candidacy are: $PEHUOH\3XEOLVKLQJ6WURXG ,6%1 EDFNJURXQGDQGHGXFDWLRQ FRQWHPSRUDU\UHSXWDWLRQ EXWRQO\0HUHVLVQRWHG Bill Rubinstein is well known to many members of (3) parallels between events in the plays and in Ox- WKH'H9HUH6RFLHW\DIWHUPDNLQJWKHDGGUHVVDWWKH IRUG¶VOLIHZLWKEULHIUHIHUHQFHWRHamletThe Mer- GLQQHUWRPDUNWKHTXDWHUFHQWHQDU\RI2[IRUG¶VGHDWK chant of Venice and 1 Henry IV. As a professor of history at the University of Aber- KLVDQQXLW\DQGKLVNQRZOHGJHRI,WDO\ZKLFKDUH \VWZ\WKKHWDNHVDUHIUHVKLQJO\RSHQDSSURDFKWRWKH VXUSULVLQJO\JURXSHGWRJHWKHU Shakespeare Authorship Question (AQ). Bill is good SDUDOOHOVLQKLVSRHWU\ZLWK6KDNHVSHDUH friends with the DVS and many of his points resonate WKH*HQHYD%LEOH 42 November 2012 Book Reviews: Pointon and Rubinstein De Vere Society Newsletter 7KHµHYHUOLYLQJSRHW¶UHIHUHQFHLQ 2[IRUG Stratfordian cry to arms with this point. I challenge lived near a Stratford (east of London) and owned es- him to administer to his literature undergraduates the tates near a River Avon and a Forest of Arden. Benezet Test, which splices together segments of Ox- ford’s poetry with Shakespeare’s in a way which no- Rubinstein, however, is not convinced. He makes the body in my experience has yet been able to puzzle out. following points against Oxfordian authorship: The next points are unnumbered: Rubinstein (1) Lack of direct evidence linking Oxford to the DFFHSWV WKH ÀQGLQJV RI (OOLRWW DQG9DOHQ]DWKDW IUH- works. (This reviewer cringed at the phrase ‘not an quency counts eliminate Oxford’s