Vol. 3, No. 3: Spring 2004

Vol.3:no.3 Spring 2004"Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments..."

(Continued on page 12) (Continued on page 7)

In Search of

Rosencrantz and

Guildenstern

8th Annual

Edward de Vere

Studies Conference

(Continued on page 8)

By C. V. Berney

Usurping powers start wars and plot assassinations while twominor characters participate without affecting or evenunderstanding the historic events taking place around

them. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern thus seem to embody thesituation of the average citizen in today’s world, and for some havebecome the most poignant figures in Hamlet. They are twentieth-century characters trapped in a sixteenth-century drama, a qualityTom Stoppard took as the basis for his 1967 play, Rosencrantz andGuildenstern Are Dead.

Oxfordian scholars have long recognized that most of thecharacters in Hamlet can be linked to real-life historical charac-ters: Polonius with Burghley, Gertrude with Elizabeth, Claudiuswith Leicester, and so forth. Eva Turner Clark provides a list of suchidentifications, but omits the ill-fated Danish courtiers.1 Is itpossible to find their real-life equivalents? There should be plentyof candidates, since the families Rosenkrantz and Gyldenstierne(to use the Danish spellings) were among the most powerful inDenmark, and had many members in government and courtcircles. More immediately, how did the author of Hamlet learn ofthese real-life Danish names? Several Stratfordian scholars havespeculated about this. Their suggested scenarios are discussedbelow.

Scenario 1: the Tycho Connection.Scenario 1: the Tycho Connection.Scenario 1: the Tycho Connection.Scenario 1: the Tycho Connection.Scenario 1: the Tycho Connection. In 1938 the indefati-gable orthodox scholar Leslie Hotson published a book entitledI, William Shakespeare, Do Appoint Thomas Russell, Esquire.This sounds like a quote from Shakespeare’s will, but as theindefatigable heterodox scholar Richard Whalen points out,2 it isnot. Hotson identified a Thomas Russell of Strensham as one ofthe overseers of the will of William Shakspere of Stratford, the manto whom the works of Shakespeare are commonly attributed. Hefurther determined that Russell’s stepson was Leonard Digges(1588-1635), whose verse “To the Memorie of the deceased AuthourMaister W. Shakespeare” is in the preface to the First Folio andcontains the phrase “thy Stratford Moniment,” one of the founda-tion stones of the Stratfordian attribution. On the basis of thisconnection, Hotson posits a close friendship between Leonard

The Interrogation ofProf. Alan Nelson

The 2004 edition of the Ed-ward de Vere Studies Con-ference (April 15th to 17th,

Concordia University, Portland,OR) continued in its now well-established tradition of provoca-tive papers, interesting specialevents and a full-schedule thatcan leave attendees—like mara-thon runners—tired but deeplysatisfied by the event’s conclu-sion.

This year the featured eventfor the weekend was a much-anticipated confrontation withProf. Alan Nelson over his 2003Oxford biography, MonstrousAdversary. A full afternoon wasset aside for the “Interrogationof Alan Nelson,” but the 3-partsession did not go as expected

Edward de Vere Studies Conferencekeynote speaker Mark Andersonpresented material from his forth-coming 2005 biography of Edwardde Vere, “Shakespeare” by AnotherName.

The most anticipated event at the 8th Annual Edward de VereStudies Conference unfortunately turned out to be a bit lessproductive than expected. Billed as the “Interrogation of

Dr. Alan Nelson” in the program, the afternoon-long event wasdivided into three parts: first, a one-on-one examination of Nelsonby Dr. R. Thomas Hunter (Bloomfield Hills, Michigan), to befollowed by questions from a panel of prominent Oxfordians(Richard Whalen, Mark Anderson, Stephanie Hughes, HankWhittemore and Bill Farina), and finally by a Q&A session with theaudience of conference attendees.

But the afternoon got off on the wrong foot with Dr. Hunter’s

News/CommentaryNews/CommentaryNews/CommentaryNews/CommentaryNews/Commentary

Spring 2004Shakespeare Matters

Internet Ed. (©2004, The Shakespeare Fellowship - not for sale or distribution without written consent)

Shakespeare MattersPublished quarterly by the

The Shakespeare Fellowship

Editorial OfficesP.O. Box 263

Somerville, MA 02143

Editor:William Boyle

Contributing Editors:Mark Anderson, Dr. Charles Berney,

Charles Boyle, Dr. Felicia Londre,Lynne Kositsky, Alex McNeil,

Dr. Anne Pluto, Elisabeth Sears,Dr. Roger Stritmatter, Richard Whalen,

Hank Whittemore, Dr. Daniel L. Wright.

Phone (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-3411Fax (Somerville, MA): (617) 628-4258

email: [email protected]

Letters:Letters:Letters:Letters:Letters:

Subscriptions to Shakespeare Matters are$40 per year ($20 for online issues only).

Family or institution subscriptions are $60 peryear. Patrons of the Fellowship are $75 and up.

Send subscription requests to:

The Shakespeare Fellowship P.O. Box 561

Belmont MA 02478

The purpose of the Shakespeare Fellowshipis to promote public awareness and acceptanceof the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon by

Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), and further to encourage a high level of

scholarly research and publication into allaspects of Shakespeare studies, and also into the

history and culture of the Elizabethan era.The Society was founded and incorporated

in 2001 in the State of Massachusetts and ischartered under the membership corporationlaws of that state. It is a recognized 501(c)(3)

nonprofit (Fed ID 04-3578550).Dues, grants and contributions are tax-

deductible to the extent allowed by law.All contents copyright ©2004The Shakespeare Fellowship

Shakespeare Matters welcomes articles, essays,commentary, book reviews, letters and news items.

Contributions should be reasonably concise and, whenappropriate, validated by peer review. The views expressed

by contributors do not necessarily reflect those of theFellowship as a literary and educational organization.

To the Editor:

As professional linguists, we wish topoint you to one passage that touches onlanguage in Nelson’s recent MonstrousAdversary. We do so by way of emphasiz-ing our own profession only becauseNelson condescendingly dismisses Oxfor-dians as amateurs, while these passages allcogently reveal that he himself exhibits aworse than amateurish approach to com-prehending the language of Oxford’s po-etry. Additional linguistic points will bemade at a later date.

On page 159 of his recently publishedbiography of Oxford, Nelson authorita-tively asserts: “Unnatural stresses occurnot infrequently in Oxford’s poems,” cit-ing Oxford’s iambic ‘leads ME’ as “unnatu-ral” in contrast to ‘LEADS me,’ and Oxford’s‘drowns ME’ as “unnatural” versus‘DROWNS me.’

Has the professional failed to readShakespeare’s sonnets with care? Appar-ently so, for the following lines drawnfrom Sonnet 133 and Sonnet 143 placeShakespeare squarely in the same leaguewith Oxford.

Sonnet 133: Whoe’er keeps me, let myheart be his guard,

Sonnet 143: And play the mother’s part,kiss me, be kind.

By Nelson’s fixation on the iambic foot,we find Shakespeare’s “unnatural” ‘keepsME’ and ‘kiss ME’ in contrast to whatOxford’s critic considers natural: ‘KEEPSme’ and ‘KISS me.’ The same point can bemade by altering the pronoun, as we en-counter examples wherein ‘hast HER,’ ‘loveHER,’ and ‘lose THEE’ are “unnatural” feetin Shakespeare’s verse.

Sonnet 42: That thou hast her, it isnot all my grief,

Sonnet 42: Thou dost love her, because thou know’st I love her,

Sonnet 42: If I lose thee, my loss is mylove’s gain,

Additional examples confirm Nelson’scarelessness, marking him as a bona fide

amateur. Thus, in The Rape of Lucrece, weencounter lines such as the following, againsquaring with Oxford’s verse: ‘This help-less smoke of words doth me no right.’ ByNelson’s reasoning, this line is unnaturalin the precise sense that he claims forOxford’s verse, since the iambic stress pat-tern is ‘doth ME.’

Or turning to A Lover’s Complaint, wemeet with the following example, where‘made HIM’ is an instance of Nelsonianunnaturalness: ‘Love lacked a dwellingand made him her place.’ Just so, passingto Shakespeare’s Venus and Adonis, wefind the following related example: ‘Hewill not manage her, although he mounther.’ By Nelson’s reasoning, the first in-stance of ‘her’ is stressed and therefore“unnatural”, whilst the second is not, andtherefore is natural. In the same vein withinthe same narrative poem, we find:

He kisses her, and she by hergood will

Will never rise, so he will kiss herstill.

The first line of this couplet involves aNelsonian “unnatural” stress on the pro-noun ‘her,’ while the second line does not.But just what is Nelson’s criterion for natu-

ral stress? Quite obviously he conceivesnatural stress in terms of ordinary stresspatterns of spoken English, i.e., indepen-dent of poetry. Excluding contrastive andemphatic stress, a verb-pronoun combina-tion in English bears relatively strongerstress on the verb; accordingly, one says‘KISS me,’ not ‘kiss ME.’ By fixating oniambic pentameter, Nelson is thus notinga clash between ordinary stress patterns ofthe spoken language and what results ifone strictly adheres to iambic meter. Bythis reasoning, both Oxford and Shake-speare adopt “unnatural” stress in theirpoetry and this just goes to show that thepoetry of Oxford and Shakespeare are en-tirely compatible, which is not surprisingif Oxford is the man behind the renownedmask.

Nelson seems unaware of the possibil-ity that a poet may countenance violationsof strict iambic meter via trochaic feet, inwhich case the question of “unnatural”stress is quite beside the point and againOxford and Shakespeare emerge dividedas one.

Michael Brame & Galina PopovaUniversity of WashingtonSeattle, Washington24 April 2004

Spring 2004 page 3Shakespeare Matters


From the EditorFrom the EditorFrom the EditorFrom the EditorFrom the Editor

In Richard Whalen’s review of AlanNelson’s Monstrous Adversary (Shake-speare Matters, Fall 2003), his reference toNina Green’s publication history was inerror. Whalen informs us: “Contrary towhat I wrote in a review of Alan Nelson’sbook in the Fall 2003 issue, Nina Green haspublished articles in Oxfordian publica-tions, most recently in The Oxfordian,Vol. 1 (1998) and Vol. 2 (2000).”

CorrectionsCorrectionsCorrectionsCorrectionsCorrectionsIn the article reviewing presentations

at the Fellowship’s 2003 Conference inCarmel (Shakespeare Matters, Winter2004) in the section reviewing MartyHyatt’s presentation on the Sonnets (page9), the reference “in the King James Bible”should have read: “in contemporary ver-sions of the bible.”

To the Shakespeare Fellowship:

I am both honored and pleased to havereceived second place in the 2004 Shakes-pearean Essay Competition (11th/12thGrade). I intend to use [my award] to fur-ther my studies at Boston College. On apersonal note, I wish to thank the Shake-speare Fellowship for holding this contestto allow students to demonstrate theirknowledge of the greatest English poet ofthem all. I greatly enjoyed my work on“The Two R’s: Revenge and Resolution.”

Thank you again for recognition of myhumble efforts.

Sincerely,Aaron LemmonJohnstown, Pennsylvania5 May 2004

To the Shakespeare Fellowship:

Thank you notifying me that I receivedthird place in the Shakespeare Fellowshipessay contest. The award was a pleasantsurprise, and I appreciated your highlypersonalized response.

I do plan to attend college (beginningthis fall). Though I plan to major in music(piano performance), literature is also anarea of great interest to me. I hope to obtainat least a minor in English, and perhapseven double major in music and English.

Sincerely,Marie ErichsenMontgomery, Alabama28 March 2004

In the course of preparing this issue wehad some interesting choices to make abouthow to cover the “Interrogation of AlanNelson,” and this process has been as edu-cational as anything we have encounteredin our involvement in the authorship de-bate over the years.

In short, we found ourselves stuck be-tween the rock of straight reporting and thehard place of commentary. How to coverwhat happened Saturday without some com-mentary on what went right and what wentwrong, and why. And how to deal with Prof.Nelson’s book without finally steppinghard—real hard—on his toes?

At first we were going to say next tonothing about this event, then just the barefacts—that it didn’t go as well as expected,but, OK, stuff happens. Finally we movedonto a more thorough report, and con-tacted both Dr. Hunter and Prof. Nelson fortheir thoughts and comments. And in theend we felt obliged to place a header overthe article (“News/Commentary”) as a sortof “truth in packaging” move that acknowl-edges right up front that the reportingmoved directly into some opinions stronglyexpressed.

What we have learned in the process isthat, as Dr. Hunter related to us in a phoneconversation afterwards, the critical factorin how the whole afternoon went was hisdecision to refrain from making the eventa hostile “interrogation.” Instead, Hunterdecided to create a more collegial atmo-sphere for the proceedings, and in hisopening remarks he invoked an authorshipmoment that had occurred in November2002 in Toronto at the Sanders PortraitSymposium to explain his decision.

In Toronto, where the Ashbourne por-trait was to be discussed along with other“putative” Shakespeare portraits, a num-ber of Oxfordians (including this writerand Dr. Hunter) had gathered to make ourpresence felt and to advertise BarbaraBurris’s work on the Ashbourne, publishedin Shakspeare Matters over the past twoyears. Prof. Nelson was also present, sched-uled to appear on the same panel with theFolger Shakespeare Library’s Curator of ArtErin Blake, who was there that day to debunk

The Debating GameBurris’s work without mentioning it.

It was during this panel that Prof. Nelsonmade some authorship debate commentsthat were—in our estimation—inaccurate,and which—further—ran contrary to whathe had intimated to this writer earlier inthe day he might say about Burris’s workon the Ashbourne—namely that theAshbourne sitter most likely wasn’t HughHamersley and the Folger should probablyjust say so. His anti-Oxfordian commentsgarnered some cheering from the over-whelming Stratfordian audience, followedimmediately by loud booing and hootingwhen a response was attempted.

So, in an event taking place on Oxford-ian home turf, Dr. Hunter decided not toreturn the favor, so to speak. But at thisstage of the debate, with the overwhelmingcase most Oxfordians know has been madeagainst the Stratford story and for Oxford,can we afford not to meet head on theauthorship counteroffensive that is nowunderway—the Folger’s stonewalling theproblems with their Ashbourne sitter attri-bution, Wood’s neo-Stratfordian book,Nelson’s anti-Oxfordian book, and nowHarvard professor Stephen Greenblatt’snew Stratfordian biography (Will in theWorld) due out in September?

Prof. Nelson should have been vigor-ously and unrelentingly interrogated allafternoon on the numerous errors and bi-ases that permeate every page of his book.That is what some of us had expected, and,we believe, it is what is required at thisstage of the debate. Hunter says as much inthe statement he gave us for our interroga-tion article: “I do believe that it is abso-lutely essential that the work done byOxfordians to expose the errors and schol-arly abuses of the book be made availableto the world.”

We heartily agree.Our coverage of Nelson and his book

will continue in our next issue with a re-view of the recently published, prominentfront-page review of Monstrous Adversaryin the Stratfordian Shakespeare Newslet-ter. Also, Dr. Hunter will be in our nextissue with some further thoughts on theevent in Portland and debating Nelson.



Winners of 2003 Essay ContestThe Fellowship’s second annual stu-

dent essay contest proved enormouslypopular. More than 700 papers were re-ceived from secondary students living in47 states and 10 countries. The number ofsubmissions was three times higher thanin 2002, when 238 entries were received.By the time of the filing deadline in mid-January, some 50 or more envelopes werearriving daily!

Three Fellowship trustees volunteeredto judge this year’s essays: Steve Aucella,Alex McNeil and Sarah Smith, all of whomshare firsthand experience with the worldof writing and publishing. They were im-pressed with the caliber of work shown bymany of the students. “Quite a few of themshowed much keener insight into theShakespeare Canon than I could have at-tempted in high school, or even in col-lege,” observed McNeil. Aucella noted thathe was “surprised by the volume of submis-sions this year.

Teachers are obviously finding outabout us. Whether they’re pushingclasswork or are having their studentswrite something original for the contest isalmost immaterial to the fact that studentsare enthusiastically submitting their work.”

The winners were notified in lateMarch. They are:

Senior Division (11th and 12th Grade):First Place – Mary Allison Taylor, Fort

Worth TX; Second Place – Aaron MichaelLemmon, Johnstown PA; Third Place –Marie Erichsen, Montgomery AL. Honor-able Mention – Cortney Breitschwerdt,Harwood MD; Josh Dzieza, Olympia WA;Brook Erspamer, Corbett OR; Gabe Mar-tin, Ashland OH; Koki Momose, BloomfieldHills MI; Amy Troeger, Elkhart IN; SijiaWang, Beavercreek OR; Kelly Whitebread,Sugar Land TX; Aaron Yazzie, HolbrookAZ; Jenny Zhang, Athens GA.

Junior Division (9th and 10th Grade):First Place – Jenny Mahlum, Provo UT;Second Place – Kirsten Callahan, Pearl MS;Third Place – Monika Grzesiak, MacombTownship MI. Honorable Mention – JamesDong, Pearland TX; Jordin Saunders-Jensen, Puyallup WA. First, second andthird place winners received cash awards,and senior first place winner Mary Taylor’sessay has been posted on our web site.

Students could choose from eight sug-gested topics in the 2003 Contest. Two ofthe eight topics, however, proved by far tobe the most popular – the problem of evilin Macbeth or Othello, and the nature ofHamlet’s indecisiveness. Only a few stu-dents dealt directly with the authorshipcontroversy in 2003.

For the 2004 Contest, the Board ofTrustees voted to modify the requirementssomewhat. First, the two divisions havebeen eliminated (not many ninth or tenth

g r a d e r sp a r t i c i -pated in ei-ther of thefirst twocontests),and thecash awardshave beenincreaseds l i g h t l y .Second, thenumber ofsuggestedtopics has

been reduced, and students are specifi-cally encouraged to explore the author-ship question. Third, the formal require-ments for submission have been tightened(minimum word length, etc.). Essays willbe due by January 15, 2005. Full detailsmay be found on the Fellowship web site.

It is hoped that the changes made inthis year’s contest will lead more studentsto look into, and inform themselves about,the authorship issue. As contest judgeAucella pointed out, “One common threadI found this year was the general lack ofunderstanding Shake-speare the author.Virtually none of the essays even scratchedthe surface of how Shake-speare’s life en-tered into his works, which is really whatit’s all about.”

Soul of the Age — a feature film on OxfordIn postings that appeared on two dif-

ferent film news sites within two days inMay, breaking news about a planned filmon Oxford and the Shakespeare authorshipfrom Hollywood director RolandEmmerich was reported. Emmerich is abig-time action/adventure/science fictiondirector (Godzilla, Independence Day andthe just-released The Day After Tomor-row), so this news may come as a mixed-blessing to Oxfordians—i.e., the good newsis “Hollywood, big-time!!!” and the badnews (maybe) is, “Action/adventure/sci-ence fiction???!!! Oh, my!”

Anyway, quoting from the brief pressrelease stories we have:

“Emmerich vs. Shakespeare! Indepen-“Emmerich vs. Shakespeare! Indepen-“Emmerich vs. Shakespeare! Indepen-“Emmerich vs. Shakespeare! Indepen-“Emmerich vs. Shakespeare! Indepen-dence Day meets St. Crispin’s Day” (Maydence Day meets St. Crispin’s Day” (Maydence Day meets St. Crispin’s Day” (Maydence Day meets St. Crispin’s Day” (Maydence Day meets St. Crispin’s Day” (May11, 2004 11, 2004 11, 2004 11, 2004 11, 2004 - http://filmforce.ign.com)- http://filmforce.ign.com)- http://filmforce.ign.com)- http://filmforce.ign.com)- http://filmforce.ign.com)

ScreenDaily reports that filmmakerRoland Emmerich (The Day After Tomor-row) will next direct The Soul of the Age,a $30m to $35m “intense 16th centurydrama about the question of the author-ship of Shakespeare.”

The pic was scripted by John Orloff(HBO’s Band of Brothers). Emmerich isreportedly scouting locations in the UnitedKingdom. The financing for Soul, how-ever, is proving to be “a risky undertaking,”Emmerich advised ScreenDaily this pastweekend. “It’s very hard to make get amovie like this made and I want to make itin a certain way.”“Emmerich Directs Literary Drama” (12“Emmerich Directs Literary Drama” (12“Emmerich Directs Literary Drama” (12“Emmerich Directs Literary Drama” (12“Emmerich Directs Literary Drama” (12

May 2004 - www/empireonline.co.uk)May 2004 - www/empireonline.co.uk)May 2004 - www/empireonline.co.uk)May 2004 - www/empireonline.co.uk)May 2004 - www/empireonline.co.uk)Roland Emmerich has committed to

direct an intense 16th Century drama,exploring a theory about the true author-ship of Shakespeare’s works. No, no, it’s allright, you’re not dreaming, nor has thatsuspicious guy by the copier slippedketamine in your coffee again. Ladies andgentlemen Roland Emmerich is back, andthis time... he’s serious.

... the film tells the tale of Edward DeVere, the 17th Earl of Oxford and an ac-claimed poet and playwright. While De Verewas respected for his own work, recentliterary conspiracy theorists (yes, suchtroubling people do exist [Oh, please! —Ed.] ) have postulated that it was he, ratherthan Shakespeare, who truly penned theworks for which The Bard is famous.

Jenny Mahlum, Junior Divi-sion Winner.



A new book by Lukas Erne, Shakespeareas Literary Dramatist (Cambridge:Cambridge UP, 2003), revives the oncewell-accepted view that Shakespeare’splays are literature, as well as fine stagecraft.Reviewer Stephen Roth, writing for EarlyModern Literary Studies, begins his reviewby noting the contradictory stance of mostcontemporary Shakespearean scholarswith respect to this question: “One of thegreater ironies of Shakespeare scholarshipover the last century is the ongoing effortby Shakespeare scholars—most of whomspend dozens of hours a week enjoining,cajoling, and browbeating their studentsinto addressing Shakespeare’s plays asliterature—to deny that those plays areliterature. Shakespeare, these scholars say,thought of his plays as disposable, populistephemera, like Hollywood scripts; theywere created for performance, and that’sall.” Oxfordians have always insisted theplays are literature as well as fine theatre —intended as much for posterity as forcontemporary Elizabethan or Jacobeanperformance.

In our Winter 2004 issue (page 5)wereported on Terry Eagleton’s long overduerecantation of postmodernism and quotedEagleton’s thoughtful statement that “weknow as much about the historicalShakespeare as [we know] about the Yeti.”Alas, our optimism in supposing thatEagleton had fully recovered from his ownpolitical correctness was premature.

In the March 1 issue of The NationEagleton launches an acerbic, convoluted,and uninformed attack on the Oxfordians.According to Eagleton, Oxfordians are“conspiratorial souls” motivated byenvious disbelief in the power of thecommon man’s natural genius. Theyimagine that “the real Shakespeare was anobleman who stole the name of thiscountry bumpkin [from Stratford-upon-Avon].”

Terry Eagleton Attacks

Oxfordians in The Nation

New Cambridge Press Issue Supports

a “Literary” View of the BardAlthough Roth supports Erne’s central

thesis, his comment on the chronology ofquarto publication also deserves to bequoted: “Erne does not provide a satisfyingexplanation for the sudden halt inregistration of new Shakespeare playsaround the time of James’ accession.”Oxfordians have argued, since 1920, thatthe abrupt cessation of publication of newShakespearean quartos in 1604 is mostplausibly explained by the author’s deathon June 24, 1604.

Even with these imperfections, writesRoth, Shakespeare as Literary Dramatisteffectively puts paid to a complex of largely-assumed and reactive truisms that haveincreasingly dominated Shakespearescholarship over the last century. It’sdifficult to come away from this book withany impression other than the perhaps-obvious one: that Shakespeare was writingfor both the page and the stage.

“A complex of largely-assumed andreactive truisms that have increasinglydominated Shakespeare scholarship overthe last century....” Hmm. Why would that be?

“The only drawback to this eminentlyplausible case,” opines a bewilderedProfessor Eagleton, “is that there is not ascrap of evidence for it.” Setting aside thetortured reasoning of that sentence, we’dlike to remind Dr. Eagleton that the internetdoes exist. Any eighth-grader with accessto a computer terminal can disprove thesecond half of the sentence, merely byvisiting the Shakespeare Fellowship website. This site contains an abundance ofevidence substantiating the “eminentplausibility” of the case for Oxford’sauthorship. Nor is it true, thank you, thatOxfordians are motivated by envy orsnobbery. Such accusations merely testifyto the intellectual poverty of ProfessorEagleton’s ex cathedra pronouncements.We’d be glad to debate Dr. Eagleton on thatpoint, any time, any place.

The Jan.-Feb. 2004 issue of Renaissancemagazine features an extensive article byJonathan Dixon favorable to Oxford asShakespeare, including a full-page pictureof the disputed Ashbourne portrait ofOxford. Shakespeare Fellowship memberBarbara Burris has published extensiveanalysis of the Ashbourne portrait inShakespeare Matters (Fall 2001 (I.1),Winter 2002 (I.2), Spring 2002 (I.3) andFall 2002 (II.1)).

Washington DC researcher PeterDickson scores again with a review ofMichael Wood’s florid BBC documentary,“In Search of Shakespeare,” in the mostrecent issue of the The Weekly Standard.“As fascination with Shakespeare’s dramasand poems endures,” writes Dickson, “thedesire to know more about the inner life ofthe greatest literary figure in the Englishlanguage intensifies—though scholarshave always failed to satisfy it, because‘there is no evidence, you know.’ That wasthe pithy response of Simon Schama whenhe warned British historian-turned-documentary filmmaker Michael Woodabout the pitfalls in trying to make thefirst-ever film that would makeShakespeare come alive.”

So perhaps we can now add Columbiahistorian Schama, one of the greatestcultural historians in recent memory, tothe growing list of apostates to theStratford myth.

Recent issues of Shakespeare Matters(Summer 2003 and Winter 2004) havefeatured commentary on the Wooddocumentary.

Oxfordian Writer

Publishes in The

Weekly Standard

Shakespeare

Fellowship Featured

in Renaissance

Visit the Fellowship on the WebVisit the Fellowship on the WebVisit the Fellowship on the WebVisit the Fellowship on the WebVisit the Fellowship on the WebNews, bookstore, DiscussionNews, bookstore, DiscussionNews, bookstore, DiscussionNews, bookstore, DiscussionNews, bookstore, Discussion

Boards and more!Boards and more!Boards and more!Boards and more!Boards and more!http://www.shakespearefellowship.orghttp://www.shakespearefellowship.orghttp://www.shakespearefellowship.orghttp://www.shakespearefellowship.orghttp://www.shakespearefellowship.org



In February, Concordia University Pro-fessor Daniel Wright met with the Most Rev’dDr. A. Wesley Carr, Dean of WestminsterAbbey, to discuss progress on the proposal forcommemorating the life and work of Edwardde Vere in Poets’ Corner of WestminsterAbbey, in the Jerusalem Chamber on the spotwhere Henry IV died.

Last year, through the Edward de VereStudies Conference at Concordia Univer-sity, Dr. Wright raised $10,000 and solic-ited a host of letters in support from Oxfor-dian supporters to finance a memorial toEdward de Vere. Last July, he presented theproposal and the offer of full payment for

an Oxford memorial to Dr. Carr, who em-braced the application while pointing outthat acceptance of a proposal formemorialization in the Abbey is a processthat sometimes involves years of examina-tion and debate among the members ofthe Abbey chapter with results usually lead-ing to rejection or deferral of the proposal.

Still, with the Dean’s promising effortsto facilitate our attempts to achieve thememorial for Oxford (although the Dean isnot, himself, an Oxfordian), the prospectsfor the commemoration of the Elizabe-than era’s most acclaimed court poet-play-wright remain hopeful.

Two Dutch psychologists haveorganized the first ever Dutch conferenceon the authorship question, scheduled forJuly 8th to 10th in Utrecht, Holland. The“Who Was ‘Shakespeare’? - The Man Behindthe Mask” call for papers reads in part:

“‘Shakespeare’, voted Man of theMillennium, was the greatest literary geniusknown to the world; yet what is known ofthe life of William is strangely divorcedfrom the poems and plays ...”

“This yawning gulf between the personand the works has led many to questionwhether William of Stratford was in factthe real author ... ‘Shakespeare’ was almostcertainly a pseudonym for the real writerof genius. We should look for the authorelsewhere in the Elizabethan world.”

The conference aims to bring togethera wide variety of professional scholars,literary and theater people, and Shake-speare admirers in general. Among thescheduled speakers at Utrecht are Prof.Daniel Wright and former SF PresidentChuck Berney (“The Earl of Leicester inthe plays of Shakespeare”).

For further information on theconference contact: Jan Scheffer,psychiatrist and psychoanalyst at thePieter Baan Centre, Utrecht (jhs@jhs@jhs@jhs@jhs@worldonline.nlworldonline.nlworldonline.nlworldonline.nlworldonline.nl) or Sandra Schruijer,professor of organizational psychology atTilburg University (schrui jer@schrui jer@schrui jer@schrui jer@schrui [email protected])

AuthorshipConference in

Holland

Professor Daniel Wright (left) and the Most Rev’d Dr. A. Wesley Carr, Dean of Westminster Abbey.

Oxford in Westminster Abbey?

The Shakespeare Fellowship’s 3rdAnnual Conference will be held October7th-10th, 2004, at the Doubletree Inn at theCollonade in Baltimore, MD, near thewaterfront. A long list of confirmed speakersincludes Dr. Daniel Wright, Dr. Ren Draya,Dr. Kevin Simpson, Dr. Alan Nelson, Dr.Roger Stritmatter, Tim Holcomb, KCLigon, Terry Ross, Bill Boyle, Charles Boyle,Ken Kaplan, Hank Whittemore, StephanieHughes, William Niederkorn, Ron Hess,Michael Dunn, Marty Hyatt, Dick Desper,Kevin Simpson, Andy Hannas, BarbaraBurris, Ron Halstead, Thomas Hunter,David Yuhas, Gordon Cyr, and ThomasRegnier.

The conference will featureperformances by the local BaltimoreShakespeare Festival (Julius Caesar) andan Australian performance troupe, KineticEnergy (Shake-Speare), as well as a majordebate, co-sponsored by the BaltimoreShakespeare Festival, with Terry Ross andDr. Nelson squaring off against Hank

Fellowship Meets in BaltimoreWhittemore and Dr. Stritmatter. A fieldtrip to the Folger Shakespeare Library,probably scheduled for Monday, October11th, is also in the works.

The standard conference registration,for papers and performances from Oct. 7-10, Saturday’s big debate, and four meals,will be $195. Registrants will pay separatelyfor Sunday’s Awards’ Luncheon ($30). Twodiscount packages are available: 1) $75 forpapers, plays and debates or 2) $50 ($15per day) for papers only.

The conference rate (single or double)at the Doubletree is $134 (800-222-8733).Just two blocks from the Doubletree roomshave also been reserved at the Quality Inn,starting at only $85/night.

Lynne Kositsky will arrange roommatesfor those who wish to share a Doubletreeroom with another Fellowship member.Email Lynne at LynnekositskyLynnekositskyLynnekositskyLynnekositskyLynnekositsky@[email protected]@[email protected]@sympatico.ca. The deadline forregistrations is Sept. 25. After Sept. 25there will be a 15% surcharge.

There will be a two-day Shakespeareauthorship seminar held at the Universityof Tennessee Law School in Knoxville onJune 4th and 5th, 2004.

The event, “Shakespeare and the Law,”sponsored by the Law School, will bringtogether a number Stratfordian and anti-Stratfordian scholars before an audienceof lawyers and law students. It will focus onissues relevant to the authorship debatewithin the context of Shakespeare’s legalknowledge. Among those presenting willbe Dr. Roger Stritmatter and RichardWhalen. We will report on this event in ournext issue.

Tennessee Seminar



first hour, during which Hunter showedboth Prof. Nelson and the audience thegreat abundance of commentary that hadbeen generated over the past six monthsabout Nelson’s book—commentary thathad been published in Shakespeare Mat-ters, the Shakespeare Oxford Society news-letter, on the Fellowship website’s Discus-sion Forum, and on the listservs managedby Nina Green (Phaeton), Robert Brazil(Elizaforum) and Dr. Daniel Wright (DeVere).

Unfortunately this preliminary over-view of the great amount of commentary,error corrections and basic questioning byothers about Nelson’s methodology andbiases wound up consuming the entire firsthour. Nelson was never engaged in anydialogue at all by Dr. Hunter.

We learned later from Hunter that themanner in which this first hour unfoldedwas the result of last- minute changes in theformat, compounded by some misunder-standing about how the hour should pro-ceed. Dr. Hunter, just before the sessionbegan, talked with Prof. Nelson and sug-gested that they not engage in an “interro-gation,” which he felt would create a hos-tile environment for the whole afternoon.He suggested that, instead, he survey all thecritiques of Nelson’s work generated todate and then discuss them with Nelson.Prof. Nelson, Hunter recalls, then asked touse his rebuttal time at the beginning of thehour, in order to explain corrections hehad already posted on his web site (such ashis misreading “white herrings” for theproper name “Whythering”; the latest countfrom his website on errata of fact or inter-pretation is 10). Nelson, in a post-confer-ence email to us, said that he didn’t think hewas giving up rebuttal time, and was, he said,“in the dumps” when the hour proceededwithout any chance for him to respond to anyof the statements Dr. Hunter was reading.

Dr. Hunter, in comments to ShakespeareMatters after the conference, said that

I will certainly take responsibilityfor the disappointing result of the AlanNelson segment of the Portland con-ference. Instead of trying to survey theimpressive Oxfordian response to Mon-strous Adversary, it would have beenmore helpful and interesting to focuson specific but representative issueswith Alan. But, after much discussionwith others, I don’t know if the expec-tation—that this program would fi-nally put Monstrous Adversary to restfor what it is—could have ever been

Hank Whittemore (left) talks with Prof. Alan Nelson during a break inthe afternoon-long event examining Nelson’s Oxford biography.

met, interrogationor no interrogation.I do believe that it isabsolutely essentialthat the work doneby Oxfordians to ex-pose the errors andscholarly abuses ofthe book be madeavailable to theworld.

It should be notedthat the panel section ofthe afternoon did affordthe opportunity forsome detailed com-mentary and question-ing of Nelson, butwithin a restricted for-mat that precluded anyextended give and take between each pan-elist and Nelson. Each of the panelists firstread a statement/commentary about Mon-strous, and then asked a specific questionbased on their commentary for Nelson toanswer.

Briefly, these commentaries and ques-tions touched on significant issues, but theresult—given the time constraints on thefive panelists—was that Oxfordians did mostof the talking and Nelson just gave briefanswers to points raised by one panelist,and then it was on to the next panelist.

Richard Whalen pointed out errors andmisstatements that begin in the book’s In-troduction, which he cited as an ominoussign for the credibility of the rest of thebook. Whalen also noted what he describedas Nelson’s complete misreading of the fourinterludes in B.M. Ward’s 1928 biography ofOxford. Nelson says that Ward speculatedabout the authorship issue in the interludes,But, Whalen pointed out, Ward never specu-lated about the issue and specifically said hewould refrain from commenting on it.

Stephanie Hughes took special note ofNelson’s spending only two pages in hisentire book on Oxford’s education, con-cluding that he was not well educated.Hughes cited her own work on Oxford’schildhood years spent with preeminentscholar Sir Thomas Smith as his tutor, andsaid Nelson’s failure to mention these yearsstruck her as clear evidence of the book’sbiased agenda.

Mark Anderson pointed out that Nelsonappeared to be entirely too ready to take atface value anything said about Oxford in theHoward-Arundel documents and asked himwhether he thought he had been too credu-lous in accepting the Howard-Arundel

charges. Nelson replied, “No, I don’t.”Bill Farina thanked Nelson for all the

new material his book makes available, butemphasized that all the negative materialabout Oxford did not preclude his beingShakespeare. Farina also brought up theimportant fact that in the 16th centurythere was really no such thing as a spellingerror, thus calling into question Nelson’scontinual claims that Oxford’s spellingssomehow showed he “misheard” words.

Finally, Hank Whittemore emphasizedthe beauty (which Nelson dismisses) ofOxford’s verse and also emphasized an-other instance of Nelson’s biases, namelyhis omitting entirely from MonstrousOxford’s Latin letter in praise of Clerke’sLatin translation of The Courtier and hispartial excerpts only of Oxford’s Englishletter in praise of Bedingfield’s Englishtranslation of Cardanus Comforte.

Whittemore also made an interestingpoint when he hypothesized that whatNelson had written could really be seen asa book called “Big, Fat Slob” that went onand on about how awful the big, fat slobwas, but left out that the big, fat slob wasBabe Ruth. This left the door open forNelson to lean into the microphone andsay, “But Oxford was not Babe Ruth.”

And that exchange illustrates the realproblem here—that Oxfordians see Nelsonas fearing that Oxford might be Babe Ruthand so trashes him at every turn, but whenpressed on the issue, he simply shrugs andsays, “No, I’m just writing about an interest-ing but little known earl named Oxford.”

An example of how this disconnect be-tween “Oxford the earl” vs. “Oxford as Shake-speare” plays out point by point in Mon-

Nelson interrogation (continued from page 1)




(see related story, page one), and many feltthat Nelson got off too easy in this encoun-ter in the ongoing debate.

Nonetheless, the full schedule of 20papers, a performance by the Pacific Uni-versity Chamber Singers as part of the EricAltschuler/William Jansen presentation on“Watson and Shakespeare: What’s the Con-nection?” (a continuation of work they havepresented at previous conferences), thescreening of a new authorship film (TheShakespeare Enigma), and actor MichaelDunn’s one-man show The ShakespeareMystery filled out a busy, satisfying week-end.

The Shakespeare Enigma was intro-duced by Concordia University student andSigma Tau Delta President Kiersten Brady.It featured views of the Marolvian, Baconianand Oxfordian theories of authorship, withthe Oxfordian view presented by DaphnePearson of England. Pearson has presentedin Portland in the past, and is a past editorof the De Vere Society Newsletter. Sheearned a doctorate from Sheffield Univer-sity for her study of Oxford’s financial deal-ings. The film offered nothing that veteranOxfordians had not seen or heard before, butthe real news here was, “Hey, another film!”

Actor Michael Dunn of Los Angeles de-lighted everyone with his one-man show,The Shakespeare Mystery, in which heperforms as Sherlock Holmes investigat-ing the authorship mystery, taking his au-dience through a carefully thought-outoverview of the debate—from doubts aboutStratford, to theories about Marlowe, Ba-con, etc., and finally to the inevitably cor-rect answer of Oxford. The show is availablefor booking for any local groups who’d liketo promote the authorship debate in their

hometowns. Comedy is probably the bestway to engage people on controversialissues, and The Shakespeare Mystery suc-ceeds admirably at that. Call 310-230-2929or email [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] for fur-ther information.

As is the custom each year, the Dean ofConcordia, Dr. Charles Kunert, opened theproceedings Friday morning with his wel-coming address. Dr. Kunert noted his plea-sure in how the conference has grown, andthat Concordia University is proud to behosting it each year.

Keynote SpeakerKeynote SpeakerKeynote SpeakerKeynote SpeakerKeynote Speaker

Shakespeare Matters columnist MarkAnderson was this year’s keynote speaker,and he treated the audience to excerptsfrom his forthcoming book on Oxford’s lifeas revealed through his writing (“Shake-speare” By Another Name, due out in April2005).

One significant example of new revela-tions in his talk (“Between Hagiographyand Demonology: Writing the Literary Lifeof Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford”) was thestory of the months leading up to thefamous defeat of the Spanish Armada inthe summer of 1588. Anderson, citing re-

De Vere Conference (cont’d from page 1)

strous can be seen in an interesting pointHank Whittemore has made—but didn’tuse during the panel—about argumentsin Monstrous involving Nelson’s denigra-tion of Oxford’s mastery of the Englishlanguage.

On page 159, Nelson writes: “Otherfaults in Oxford’s verse include invertedword order....” and he then goes on to givefour examples from Oxford, such as “Withdue desert reward will never be.” But, asWhittemore points out, how is this exampleof “inverted word order” any different from,“And by addition me of thee defeated / Byadding one thing to my purpose nothing’[Sonnet 20, lines 11-12, ]?” We later con-tacted Prof. Nelson about this point, and hereplied that, “Of course inverted word or-der is found in Shakespeare. So invertedword order itself is not evidence that Ox-ford did not write Shakespeare.”

By coincidence, University of Washing-ton linguists Michael Brame and GalinaPopova have written a Letter to the Editor(see page 2) about Nelson’s argumentsagainst Oxford’s mastery of English in whichthey too draw examples from page 159 ofMonstrous, where Nelson claims that “un-natural stress patterns” occur in Oxford’s

verse, and they too make comparisons toShakespeare’s sonnets to debunk the claim.

It is this sort of narrow focus on Nelson’sarguments and reasoning that many ob-servers thought should have occurredthroughout the afternoon in examininghim, but didn’t. Further, there is a broaderpoint embedded within these seeminglysmall points that illustrates the larger prob-lem all Oxfordians have with Nelson’s book.

As Richard Whalen commented to usafter the conference, Nelson is “transpar-ent” when he tries to contend that he is notwriting about Oxford as Shakespeare—thebook is a veritable Mt. Everest of chargesabout all that Oxford did wrong, with spe-cial emphasis on his education (next tonone), his writing ability (inferior), and hischaracter (a monster). Yet, when one or twosimple little “faults” about his “inferior”writing are closely examined, it turns outShakespeare is “guilty” of the same faults!

So, then, Oxfordians may ask, what isthe point in listing all these “faults” if notto state implicitly that a man with so manyfaults can’t—or shouldn’t—be Shake-speare? And how credible are these attackson Oxford’s writing when his “faults” turnout to be the same as Shakespeare’s? One canonly conclude that, in Nelson’s eyes, Oxford’s

“faults” are that he thinks like a poet.In our recent email contacts with Prof.

Nelson we also asked him directly aboutwhy he wrote this book at all, if not for the“Shakespeare” factor, and he respondedthat it was not just because Oxford was a“Shakespeare” candidate. He said he wasfirst attracted to the unexamined materialin the Howard-Arundel libels (which hesays “Ward dismissed as mere lies”) andhad, in fact, originally started Monstrousas a book on just the libels and what theysaid about Oxford.

Finally, in response to an email ques-tion from us asking whether “facts” [i.e.documents] can “speak for themselves,”Nelson replied:

If facts could speak for themselves,I could have stopped with my website.Obviously, interpretation is an inevitable,unavoidable part of writing history, orbiography. Nevertheless, a biographer canstick more or less closely to the docu-ments: I chose to stick very closely, andhave been criticized even by highly positivereviewers for citing documents withoutfully digesting them.

Well, yes. —W. Boyle

Nelson interrogation (continued from page 7)

Chicago Oxford Society President Bill Farina.



cent works suchas Harry Kelsey’sSir Francis Drake,The Queen’s Pirate(1998) and M.J.Rodriguez-Salgado’sArmada 1588-1598(1988), noted that pre-Armada defensive mis-sions in May-June 1588could well have in-cluded Oxford. Such acircumstance would inturn explain his ab-sence from Anne Cecil’sfuneral in June 1588,one of the enduringmysteries of the over-all Oxford story. Ander-son also drew some in-teresting parallels be-tween this mission andAntony and Cleopatra,and noted that Shake-speare seems to be re-ferring to these mis-sions in the play.

Anderson notedthat this new materialhe is finding for hisbook is the product ofexisting mainstreamresearch (both in his-tory and literary studies) that open the doorto Shakespeare, but only for those willingto entertain the possibility that the Earl ofOxford was Shakespeare.

Plays and poemsPlays and poemsPlays and poemsPlays and poemsPlays and poems

Papers presented this year covered awide variety of topics, from the works them-selves to the debate itself, thoughts on thehistory of Shakespeare biography, thoughtson what the true role of the Stratford manwas in all this—plus several interestingexcursions into the politics of the Elizabe-than era, the true value of a pound 400 yearsago, and even the notion of nobility downthrough the ages in both England andAmerica.

Among the papers touching on theworks themselves were back-to-back pre-sentations on The Winter’s Tale from Dr.Ren Draya and Dr. Michael Delahoyde.Draya presented perspectives on the me-chanics of the play itself (“Paulina and theDynamics of Control: The Winter’s Tale inthe Cruelest Month”), while Delahoydespoke about the Tudor allegories that Ox-ford wove into his story-telling (“The

Winter’s Tale as Tudor Allegory”). And, ofcourse, the well-known word play of thetitle itself (i.e. The Winter’s Tale in French= Le Conte d’Hiver = [sounds like] “Countde Vere”) was not overlooked.

Ramon Jiménez gave another of hiswell-researched, masterful looks into thelinks between established Shakespeareplays and their possible earlier versions—ground untilled by Stratfordians who arelocked into the 1590s plus timeframe.Jiménez, ably assisted by actor MichaelDunn, spoke on The True Tragedy of Rich-ard the Third, and made a compelling casethat this was probably an earlier version ofthe Shakespeare play.

While Jiménez emphasized that muchof the text from True Tragedy was “not toogood,” the selections performed by Dunnhad most in the audience thinking, yes, thisis the same voice, the same Richard. Thiswas especially true of the passage in whichRichard both contemplates and relishes hisrevenge.

Dr. Michael Brame and Dr. GalinaPopova asked “Who’s Bottom?” in A Mid-summer’s Night Dream, and made a casefor the character being a caricature of Ox-

ford himself. They asked the audience torecall that the whole play pivots aroundmarriage and that Bottom receives thecoronet from Titania (by Oberon’s recount-ing), symbolizing, well, who knows what?Further, Bottom is also a figuration ofOxford’s comedic persona (with Oberon-Theseus being another side (or sides), asthe authors set forth in their bookShakespeare’s Fingerprints. In consider-ing the comedic side of the equation theydelved into the more scatological mean-ings of Bottom, and made comparisonsbetween the language of the play and thelanguage found in The Adventures of Free-man Jones, a work they consider to be by ananonymous Oxford.

Prof. Sam Saunders presented an un-usual but quite engaging look at a littlethought about topic: “Did ShakespeareKnow the Odds in Hamlet’s Duel?” As itturns out, other scholars have looked at thisproblem (is there anything about Hamletthat hasn’t been studied and written aboutsomewhere, sometime?). The text in ques-tion is spoken by Osric in Act V, scene ii—“The king, sir, hath laid, that in a dozen


Among the presenters at the 8th Annual Edward de Vere Studies Conference were: Prof. Ren Draya (top left), RamonJiménez (top right), Dr. Roger Stritmatter (bottom left) and Dr. Frank Davis (bottom right).



Conference (continued from page 9)passes between yourself and him, he shallnot exceed you three hits: he hath laid ontwelve for nine; and it would come to im-mediate trial, if your lordship would vouch-safe the answer.....”)

Saunders explored the meaning of theseodds in straight, numeric betting terms,but of special interest for Oxfordians washis observation that the “twelve for nine”odds can also be found in earlier sourcesthat Oxford may well have had access to.

Politics, history, biographyPolitics, history, biographyPolitics, history, biographyPolitics, history, biographyPolitics, history, biography

Other papers over the weekend exam-ined various aspects of Elizabethan soci-ety, culture and politics as they related tothe theatre and/or to the authorship debate.

Dr. Frank Davis (“Lyly-Oxford-Shake-speare Connection”), William Farina (“Pu-ritan Politics and the First Folio”), Dr. DanielWright (“Knocking on Wood: Why MichaelWood’s Recent Biography of the StratfordMan Undermines Shakespearean Ortho-doxy”), Stephanie Hughes (“Say, Who Wasthat Masked Man? Secrecy in Politics andHistory, Then and Now”), and Ian Haste(“Oxford’s Annuity from the Crown: Thevalue of £1000 between 1586 and 1604”)all explored aspects of Elizabethan historythat help clarify issues that Oxfordiansdeal with regularly in their “new-histori-cist” efforts to establish the truth about theShakespeare authorship.

Dr. Frank Davis, in taking a close lookat the connections between Lyly and Ox-ford reminded us that there clearly wasone—which in itself should remind usthat this is the sort of connection betweenShakespeare and his acknowledged sourcematerial that Stratfordian scholars can onlydream of. Their boy was just 16 years oldwhen Lyly went to work for Oxford at theoriginal Blackfriars, and within five years—as many traditional scholars attest—mod-ern drama was born as the meeting of thepublic and court theatres took place at theBlackfriars.

But of course—in traditional lore—Oxford’s involvement was minimal or co-incidental—just a patron. And to even con-sider that it might have been a young Shake-speare (i.e., Oxford) who launched the birthof modern drama, with Lyly taking from himrather than a Stratfordian Shakespeare latertaking from Lyly—well, perish the thought.

Readers of Shakespeare Matters arealready familiar with the ongoing debateover Shakespeare’s religion (i.e. was he aCatholic?) and how this debate entered into

Michael Wood’s neo-Stratfordian biogra-phy. Dr. Wright explored the Catholic is-sues as used by Wood in both his book anddocumentary In Search of Shakespeare(see his article “Knocking on Wood” inShakespeare Matters, Fall 2003, p. 10ff).

Meanwhile, William Farina looked atthe other key political-religious story ofthe era—the role of the Puritans in Elizabe-than and Jacobean society—and exploredhow this may have affected the publicationof the First Folio in 1623.

In his talk on “Puritan Politics and theFirst Folio,” Farina reviewed the politicalcircumstances surrounding the First Foliopublication; he emphasized that the poli-tics of the Puritans, who were virulentlyanti-theatre (plays = the work of the devil,actresses = whores) must have been a keyconsideration in suppressing Oxford’s au-thorship, even though King James himself

was anti-Puritan and pro-theater. Farinaalso emphasized the fact that just two de-cades after the Folio project came the CivilWar, Cromwell and an era of suppression ofthe theater that lasted for several decades.

In both instances (Catholic politics orPuritan politics) the Oxfordian paradigmmakes better sense of the fit between theauthor Shakespeare and the world he livedin than any paleo- or neo-Stratfordian views.

Stephanie Hughes’s paper gave a broadoverview of the politics of secrecy thatprevailed during this era and which mostcertainly played a role in the use of pseud-onyms by many writers, culminating in theincredible circumstance of the pseudonym“Shakespeare” becoming associated withShaksper of Stratford.

Ian Haste provided all Oxfordians withsome very useful information about thetrue value of £1000 during this era. He usedthis amount to show us how much buyingpower Oxford would have had with his£1000 annuity. The answer was that hewould have had considerable buying power,and could have easily maintained a house-hold with dozens of servants, plus actingtroupes with dozens of actors and relatedexpenses.

Several other papers shed some lighton the history of the times and the tradi-tional Stratford story. Richard Whalen cov-ered a topic that’s been covered before, butcan probably never be covered too much. In“The Stratford Bust: A Monumental Fraud,”Whalen spoke about all the holes in thetraditional Stratford story of the bust, anddelved into the dubious history of themonument in the 18th century, when avail-able evidence seems to indicate that the

The 3rd Annual Institute ofThe 3rd Annual Institute ofThe 3rd Annual Institute ofThe 3rd Annual Institute ofThe 3rd Annual Institute ofOxfordian Studies Summer SeminarOxfordian Studies Summer SeminarOxfordian Studies Summer SeminarOxfordian Studies Summer SeminarOxfordian Studies Summer Seminar

Concordia University graduate Andrew Werthhas spoken at seven consecutive EDVSCs.

The Institute of Oxfordian Studies con-venes its 3rd annual week-long seminarfrom the 8th to the 13th of August 2004 onthe Concordia University campus.

This year the principal topic for 2004will be “Prince Tudor: Truth or Delusion?”Equal time will be given to advocates forand against the Prince Tudor thesis. Lead-ing the advocacy for Prince Tudor will beauthor and actor Hank Whittemore; lead-ing the opposition to the Prince Tudorthesis will be retired statistician Dr. JohnVarady.

The cost of $995 per registrant for thesix-day seminar includes housing (double-occupancy) on the CU campus, linen ser-

vice, all breakfasts and lunches, instruc-tional costs, books, classroom supplies andthe cost of all day trips (former trips haveincluded visits to Portland’s Japanese Gar-dens and Chinese Gardens, attendance atan outdoor performance of a Shakespeareplay, a Saturday picnic lunch, and a lun-cheon cruise on the Willamette River aboardthe yacht, The Portland Spirit).

To register, send a check payable to theEdward de Vere Studies Conference,Concordia University, 2811 NE Holman,Portland, OR 97211-6099. Please include areturn address, a telephone number and anemail address. Prof. Wright will contact youto supply you with more details.



Pictured above with Dr. Daniel Wright is Michael Dunn (right), co-winner with Stephen Moorer of the 2004 Artistic Achievement Award.Below Stephanie Hughes accepts a $6,000 scholarship check, theEDVSC’s first award of a scholarship stipend to an Oxfordian researcher.

bust underwent more than a refur-bishment—it could well be thatthe bust we have today was createdthen to replace the “holding a sack”rendition sketched by Dugdale inthe mid-17th century.

Also speaking of Stratford andthe traditional story, doctoral stu-dent Daniel MacKay (University ofOregon) gave an interesting pre-sentation on the history of Shake-speare biography in his “Fashion-ing a Mask: An Attempt to Accountfor a Century of Silence About theAuthor...” MacKay noted that itwas Malone’s interest in the Son-nets in the late 18th century thatreally gave birth to modern Shake-speare biography.

Until then there had been littleinterest demonstrated by anyone,but once Malone wrote of the Son-nets as being autobiographical—and then, of course, became thefirst of many trying to grapplewith the Fair Youth problem—interest in Shakespeare biogra-phy picked up. It wasn’t long afterthat the authorship debate beganin earnest, seeking to reconcilethe author’s life with his writing.And the Sonnets continue today tobe the talisman of Shakespearebiography and theories about hislife (i.e. homosexual, royal, etc.).

Other researchOther researchOther researchOther researchOther research

Several other papers offered some in-teresting insights into research. Dr. PaulAltrocchi, who has been conducting muchoriginal research in recent years, gave apaper on the importance of research, andchallenged all Oxfordians to engage in newresearch. His paper focused on “Searchingfor a Smoking Gun in Oxford’s PersonalLetters,” but his message was that the moreOxfordian eyes that are out there looking,the more likely that obscure—but impor-tant—references that traditional scholarsmight overlook will come to light.

Dr. Roger Stritmatter revisited MinervaBritanna, the enigmatic 1612 emblem bookby Henry Peacham which has been exten-sively analyzed for its possible connectionsto de Vere. Stritmatter presented for thefirst time a theory that MB is structuredaround a simple but elegant numericalformula derived from Pythagorean num-ber theory. He noted that the total numberof verses contained in the book is 3003,

corresponding to a Pythagorean triangu-lar number with sides of 77. Stritmatter’sanalysis showed that the numbers 6, 7,and 11—and by extension their multiplesand derivatives—66, 77, and 3003—arefundamental to the structure of MB. Al-though primarily remembered as a writerof emblem books and verses, Peacham wasa renaissance polymath with special inter-est in astronomy and mathematics.

Andrew Werth, a graduate of Concordiawho has spoken at the last seven De VereStudies Conferences, gave a unique presen-tation. For those Oxfordians who would liketo look ahead to the days when Shakespearewill be taught as “Oxford was Shakespeare”Werth’s paper was a wonderful preview.

Briefly, he explored the notion of nobil-ity as expressed by Shakespeare/Oxford, andcompared it with the notion of nobility asexpressed by Walt Whitman two centurieslater. Since Whitman was a well-known anti-Stratfordian who had speculated that onlyone of the wolfish earls could have authoredthese amazing works, the comparison wasboth illuminating and ironic (we hope topublish this paper in the coming year).

BanquetBanquetBanquetBanquetBanquet

The Awards Banquet on Fridayevening also had its share of enter-tainment and a delightful time forall. Regular attendees at the con-ference thought it was probablythe best banquet to date at theEDVSC.

Humorist Dee Hartman wasthe featured speaker and spoke ofher experiences in bringing thedebate to her classes, especially aprison-outreach program sheonce taught. “Can bringingOxfordianism to prisoners be le-gal?” she wondered. And further-more, “Is it dangerous?”

There were three achievementawards and one scholarship sti-pend presented, and each of therecipients gave engaging andheartfelt observations about theirrole in the great debate. 2004Achievement in the Arts co-recipi-ents Michael Dunn and StephenMoorer—both theater profession-als—were hilarious in their re-marks and observations about thedebate.

Distinguished Scholarshipaward winner Dr. Paul Altrocchiwas magnanimous in his com-ments on Prof. Alan Nelson, and

Nelson then came to the podium to praiseAltrocchi (the two are working together onan article about the “Roscius” annotationdiscovered by Altrocchi last year and pre-sented at the 2003 EDVSC conference).

Stephanie Hughes, recipient of the firstconference scholarship stipend of $6,000,was delighted, and promised to make themost of her six-week, stipend-financed re-search trip to England later this spring.

And finally, there were moments of si-lence for Oxfordians who have left us this pastyear. Dr. Merilee Karr spoke about her fatherSam and his influence on her life and theirmutual interest in the authorship issue.

Fran Gidley of Texas spoke about herfriend, Edith Duffy of Durham (NC), whopassed away in February at the age of 91.Local papers led their obituaries with ref-erence to her passionate Oxfordian beliefs,a remembrance of her life that surely wouldhave made her proud, and makes all of uswho knew her proud.

Next year’s 9th Annual Conference willbe held the second weekend in April, fromthe 7th to the 10th, 2005.

—W.Boyle



Digges and Shakspere, although (as Whalen points out) there is nodocumentary evidence that they were acquainted, and Digges was24 years younger than the Stratford man.

Leonard Digges’ father was Thomas Digges (c. 1546-1595). AsPeter Usher has emphasized,3 the elder Digges was a mathemati-cian and astronomer of enormous stature in the scientific worldof the 16th century. Digges published works advocating therevolutionary Copernican theory of the cosmos, and was the firstto envision an infinitely large universe filled with stars. Hotsoncites a letter (December 1590) from the Danish astronomer TychoBrahe to the English scholar and antiquary Thomas Savile in whichTycho desires to be remembered to the astrologer Dr. John Dee andto “the most noble and most learned mathematician ThomasDigges,” whom he heartily wishes well. In a postscript Tycho writes“I included four copies of my portrait recently engraved in copperat Amsterdam.”4 This portrait is presumably similar to the oneincluded as the frontispiece to Tycho’s collected letters, Epistolæ,published in 1596 (Fig. 1).5 It shows Tycho framed by an archsupported by columns. It bears the names and arms of his ancestors(paternal on the left, maternal on the right). The portrait shows thename ROSENKRANS on the left side of the arch andGVLDENSTEREN on the bottom of the left column. Hotsonconcludes “There is little doubt that from 1590 Digges had a copyof his learned friend’s portrait, bearing the names Rosenkransand Guldensteren, at his house in Heminges’s parish. PerhapsShakespeare saw them there.”

Hotson’s scenario was accepted by A. J. Meadows in The HighFirmament (1969), a lucid history of astronomical thought.Meadows writes:

Thomas Digges was the leading English mathematician of histime. His father, Leonard Digges, was a friend of John Dee (both hada equal interest in astronomy and astrology) and he, himself, hadbeen Dee’s pupil. Thomas’ younger son, also called Leonard, was afriend of Shakespeare, and wrote one of the prefatory verses to thefirst folio. When Shakespeare was in London he lived close to theDigges’ house and may have been acquainted with Thomas Digges.Certainly this would explain a reference in Hamlet where the names,Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, happen to be the names of twoancestors of the Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe. Shakespearecould have learnt of this from Digges, who was the leading Englishcorrespondent of Tycho Brahe, and would therefore probably havebeen acquainted with his ancestry (of which Tycho was proud).

There are several statements here that could be challenged, butthe most interesting development is that Hotson’s conjecturedfriendship between Leonard Digges and Shakspere (which Whalen’sobservations render highly improbable) has now been elevated toestablished fact. Meadows is still relatively cautious when it comesto drawing the final link (“Shakespeare could have learnt of thisfrom Digges . . .”), but the caution has given way to virtual certaintyby May 1981, when astronomer Owen Gingerich (in the periodicalSky and Telescope) writes:

Tycho, from his Uraniborg palace on Hven, could easily looknorthward across the strait to the Elsinore castle, the setting ofHamlet. Shakespeare may well have seen Digges’ copy of theEpistolae. In any event, the coincidence with the names Rosencrantz

and Guildenstern in the play is so striking that we may be reasonablysure that Tycho’s portrait was one of the sources for Hamlet’s castof characters.

Hotson’s hypothesized chain of transmission for the Tychoportrait is quite extended: [Tycho —> Savile —> T. Digges —> L.Digges —> Shakespeare]. By claiming that the elder Digges wasTycho’s leading English correspondent, Meadows eliminates Savilefrom the chain, and by ignoring Leonard he shortens the chainfurther to [Tycho —> T. Digges —> Shakespeare], but losesspecificity in that he no longer identifies the source of the portrait.Gingerich speaks of “Digges’ copy of the Epistolae”: unfortunatelyDigges died in 1595 and publication of the Epistolæ didn’t takeplace until 1596. So unless new documents come to light, Savilemust be included in the chain, and Shakespeare must have seenTycho’s portrait between 1590 (when it was printed) and 1593(when Savile died) if this scenario is to be historically accurate.

These three authors are all Stratfordians—that is, they believethat Shakespeare, the author of Hamlet, was in fact Will Shakspereof Stratford. An alternative view is that ‘Shakespeare’ was the penname of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604).6 Theabove scenarios can easily be adapted to the Oxfordian view byassuming that Digges knew de Vere. This is less far-fetched thanHotson’s hypothesized friendship between Shakspere and LeonardDigges. Thomas Digges and de Vere were within four years of being

Rosencrantz-Guildenstern (continued from page 1)

(Fig. 1) Frontispiece from Tycho’s Epistolæ of 1596




the same age, rather than separated by a 24-year interval. Diggeswas well-connected at the Elizabethan court, and de Vere was oneof its foremost courtiers. Moreover, there was a close connectionbetween Digges and William Cecil, Lord Burghley. Digges’ bookon the “new star” of 1572(now known as Tycho’ssupernova) was dedicatedto Burghley, and found anhonored place in hisextensive library. De Veregrew up in the Burghleyhousehold and eventuallymarried Burghley’sdaughter Anne. He hadunrestricted access toBurghley’s library.

Authorship aside, thereis an unsatisfying facet tothe theory that the Danishcourtiers’ names werechosen from Tycho’sportrait. It seems arbitrary.Did the author look at theportrait and exclaim‘Rosencrantz and Guilden-stern! The very names Ineed for the characters inmy new play!’ There are 14distinct names on thestructure surroundingTycho. Why ‘Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’? Why not ‘Markemanand Rosenspar’? Why not ‘Axellsøn and Stormvase’? A defender ofthe Tycho connection would say ‘Shakespeare had his own reasons.He liked the imagery—”Rosy Wreath” and “Golden Star”—and ifhe had chosen “Axellsøn and Stormvase” we’d be wondering whyhe hadn’t chosen “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern”.’ Maybe so. Butit still seems arbitrary.

Another difficulty with the above scenarios is that the authorof Hamlet displays a deeper and more detailed knowledge ofDanish customs than can be accounted for by supposing he liftedhis Danish names from a portrait of Tycho. One example of this isthe very fact that he names Wittenberg as the university whichHamlet and his two friends attend. Wittenberg was the nearlyuniversal choice among Danish nobility. Thoren writes

[Anders] Vedel was already in Wittenberg . . . Many other Danishstudents were there too. They habitually came in such numbers, infact, that Danish kings paid regular pensions to Wittenberg professorsto ensure that their subjects would be well received. One modernscholar described the university as the postgraduate school of theUniversity of Copenhagen in that era.7

Another example is the author’s awareness of Danish drinkinghabits. Ferguson quotes an example from Tycho himself.

A letter from Tycho to Bartholomew Schultz—evidently writtenat the dining table—reported that he and his companions were

drinking “one mug after the other, filled to the brim” and exclaimedthat such drinking “to the very dregs” was a learned art in itself. . .“We dedicate these toasts to you to the sound of trumpets, recordersand lutes . . .” he told Schultz.8

It is impossible for me to read this description without thinkingof Act 1, scene 3 in Hamlet:

[A flourish of trumpets . . . ]

Horatio: What does this mean, my lord?

Hamlet: The King doth wake tonight, and takes his rouse, Keeps wassail, and the swagg’ring up-spring reels; And as he drains his drafts of Rhenish down, The kettle-drum and the trumpet thus bray out The triumph of his pledge.

Scenario 2: the Willoughby Connection.Scenario 2: the Willoughby Connection.Scenario 2: the Willoughby Connection.Scenario 2: the Willoughby Connection.Scenario 2: the Willoughby Connection. Peregrine Bertie(1555-1601), later known as Lord Willoughby d’Eresby, marriedOxford’s sister, Mary Vere, in 1578. In 1582 he was sent on adiplomatic mission to Denmark to award Frederik II the Order ofthe Garter and to negotiate for British shipping rights in the Baltic.While in Denmark he visited Tycho Brahe’s astronomical castle,Uraniborg, on the island of Hven.9

The British Library possesses a collection of Willoughby’scorrespondence (Cotton MS Titus C VII). Some refer to his travelsin Denmark, and among these is a roster of names entitledNoblissimi ad Generosi, Regni Daniae Inclÿti Cosiliarÿ etSenatores.10 It is a list of 24 guests at a state dinner given for himduring his mission. Three of the names are

Petrius Guildenstern de ThimGeorgius Rosenkrantz de RosenholmAxellius Guildenstern de Lingbÿ

(Note that the Latinized spelling of Gyldenstierne as it appearshere is the spelling adopted in the final version of Hamlet.) Hereare brief biographies (using the Danish spelling) of the three men:

Jørgen Rosenkrantz (1523 – 1596) was a member of thestate council (rigsraad), a member of the regency council thatruled Denmark during the minority of Christian IV, one of themost powerful men in the Danish government, and a patronand ally of Tycho Brahe. He finished his education at theUniversity of Wittenberg, as did most of the Danish nobility.His ties to the family of Tycho Brahe were unusually close: afterthe death of his parents he was raised by an aunt who wasmarried to the elder Axel Brahe (also a rigsraad). Jørgen’s son,known as “Holger the Learned,” married a daughter of theyounger Axel Brahe, Tycho’s brother. Holger Rosenkrantz andTycho were close friends, and their correspondence is animportant source for Tycho’s biographers.

Peder and Axel Gyldenstierne (both rigsraads) were sons ofthe elder Knud Gyldenstierne (also a rigsraad). Peder (1533 –1594) was raised in the warrior tradition and served eighteenyears as Marshal of the Realm. Axel (1542 – 1603) served forsome years as viceroy of Norway. Again, there are blood ties to

“. . . the most interest-

ing development is

that Hotson’s conjec-

tured friendship

between Leonard

Digges and Shakspere

(which Whalen’s

observations render

highly improbable)

has now been elevated

to established fact.”



Rosencrantz-Guildenstern (continued from page 13)Tycho: Axel was a son of Tycho’s mother’s aunt. The two menwere close friends and political allies, and one of Tycho’sleading assistants, Flemløse, later served as Gyldenstierne’spersonal physician.

Lord Willoughby’s negotiations over shipping rights wouldhave involved the most powerful members of the Danish court,probably including the men described above. Did he go back toLondon and regale his brother-in-law with amusing stories of thefoibles of the Danes? In any event, Oxford would have had accessto the guest list mentioned above. There is no known connectionbetween Willoughby and Shakspere of Stratford.

There are two objections to identifying Jørgen Rosenkrantzand Peder or Axel Gyldenstierne with the Danish courtiers inHamlet. One is the objection raised above—the nagging sense ofarbitrariness. There were two dozen names on the guest list—whychoose Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? The other objection,perhaps more fundamental, is the lack of correspondence betweenthe high positions held by these formidable men (rigsraads all) andthe relatively lowly status of Hamlet’s two friends in the play.Jørgen, Peder and Axel were haughty nobles who held great powerin the Danish court—hardly the type to be summoned hastily torenew a friendship and spy on a moody prince.

Two More Candidates.Two More Candidates.Two More Candidates.Two More Candidates.Two More Candidates. If the above candidates possesscharacteristics that render them unlikely as models for the courtiersin Hamlet, what characteristics would we find in more acceptablecandidates? From reading the play, we know that the two arefriends, that they travel together, and that they both attendedschool in Wittenberg. As we noted above, there is already a set ofassociations linking characters in the play with figures inElizabeth’s court, so ideal candidates for Hamlet’s friends shouldbe of approximately Hamlet’s age—that is, a generation youngerthan Claudius (Leicester) or Gertrude (Elizabeth).

In 1941 the Danish writer Palle Rosenkrantz published a two-volume novel entitled Rosenkrantz og Gyldenstjerne: Roman fraRenœssancetiden (“Rosenkrantz and Gyldenstierne: A Novel fromthe Renaissance Era”). Although it was a work of fiction, the bookfeatured two real-life figures as its protagonists: FrederikRosenkrantz (1571 – 1602) and Knud Gyldenstierne (1575 –1627). They are of the appropriate generation, both attendedWittenberg, and they traveled together to England in 1592, thoughapparently they were not beheaded on their arrival at the Englishcourt. Recent biographers of Tycho Brahe have mentioned themas the prototypes of the courtiers in Hamlet.11

The distinguished historian John Robert Christianson haskindly allowed us to include as appendices his biographicalsketches of these two historical figures. The level of detail providedin these sketches is useful in enabling us to avoid misconceptions.For example, Ferguson states “ . . . the two kinsmen were in Englandon a diplomatic mission in 1592 . . .”11 The phrase “diplomaticmission” leads one to imagine an enterprise of great pith andmoment, such as dealing with Lord Burghley about Baltic traderoutes, or reporting to Robert Cecil about Catholic activities inScandinavia. Referring to the information provided byChristianson, however, we find that in 1592 Rosenkrantz was 21

and Gyldenstierne 17. Rosenkrantz had just finished his tour ofItaly and had not yet entered service in the Danish court.Gyldenstierne had been studying and traveling in Germany withhis tutor, Bacmeister. Unless documents turn up with informationto the contrary, it seems likely that the kinsmen’s visit to Englandwas simply the last leg of the Grand Tour.

Timelines.Timelines.Timelines.Timelines.Timelines. When was Hamlet written? The answer dependson one’s authorial orientation. The play was entered in theStationer’s Register in 1602.12 Stratfordians assume it was writtenabout 1600. If Frederik and Knud are assumed to be the originalsources for the Danish names in Hamlet, the timing works out wellfor Stratfordians—Shakspere meets them during their 1592 visit(possibly in the Mermaid Tavern), the names are filed in hiscapacious memory, and when he starts writing Hamlet in 1600,they bubble up ready to hand.

However, there are indications of Hamlet’s existence wellbefore 1600. In particular, Thomas Nashe’s preface to RobertGreene’s Menaphon (1589) speaks of “whole Hamlets, I shouldsay handfuls of tragical speeches.”13 Since Shakspere was manifestlystill in Stratford in 1589 (he’s named in legal proceedings)Stratfordians have decided that the play Nashe is referring to issomebody else’s Hamlet, though there is no documentary evidenceto this effect. Oxfordians, of course—embracing an olderplaywright, one who lived in London—have no difficulty inaccepting a version of the Hamlet we know and love in 1589, oreven earlier. Clark14 has suggested that initial work on Hamletwas inspired by two events: the diplomatic mission to Denmark in1582 carried out by Lord Willoughby (Oxford’s brother-in-law),and the death in June 1583 of Thomas Radcliffe, Earl of Sussex.Sussex had been a father figure to the young Oxford and hadoverseen his introduction to military action, putting down theNorthern Rebellion of 1569. It was widely suspected that he hadbeen poisoned at the behest of his political antagonist, Robert

(Fig. 2) Lounging backstage, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern wait fortheir next entrance in a drama they don’t understand, unaware of theircosmological significance. Photo from the Questors Theatre 1974production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.

Photo courtesy of Questors TheatrePhoto courtesy of Questors TheatrePhoto courtesy of Questors TheatrePhoto courtesy of Questors TheatrePhoto courtesy of Questors Theatre




Dudley, the Earl of Leicester, who had a reputation as a poisonerrivaling the Borgias.15 The Gertrude-Claudius parallel is suggestedby the close relationship between Elizabeth and Leicester, whichlasted until his death in 1588.

If Hamlet was started in 1583, Frederik and Knud are effectivelyeliminated as the sources of the Danish names (Frederik wastwelve, Knud eight). Also eliminated is the 1596 portrait of TychoBrahe. We are left with the guest list brought back from Denmarkby Lord Willoughby, in spite of the objections of arbitrariness andinappropriateness raised above. Apparently the playwright didlike the imagery of ‘Rosy Wreath’ and ‘Golden Star.’ I still harborthe fantasy that sometime in 1592 Frederik and Knud met Oxford.Perhaps they dropped in on Willoughby to reminisce about whenhe negotiated with Uncle Jørgen and Papa Henrik, and Oxford,hearing of the presence in England of the bearers of the names heappropriated for his play, invited them to dinner.

The Cosmological Connection.The Cosmological Connection.The Cosmological Connection.The Cosmological Connection.The Cosmological Connection. In 2001 Peter Usher openedup a completely new dimension in this inexhaustible play bypointing out the existence of a cosmic allegory in Hamlet.3

According to Usher, Claudius (and Elsinore) represent thePtolemaic cosmology, in which the stationary Earth is orbited bythe seven ancient planets (the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars,Jupiter and Saturn). Hamlet (and Wittenberg) represent theheliocentric Copernican system, which forms the basis of ourpresent beliefs. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are identified withthe short-lived Tychonic cosmology (a compromise proposed byTycho in 1577), in which a stationary Earth is orbited by the Sunand Moon, while the other planets revolve around the Sun. Usherpresents a number of arguments in support of his thesis, includingShakespeare’s use of technical terms associated with astronomy(‘opposition’ and ‘retrograde,’ etc) and the name of the usurpingking (‘Claudius’ appears nowhere in the source materials,16 but isin fact Ptolemy’s first name). Wittenberg had been a hotbed ofheliocentrism since 1541, when the mathematician Georg Joachimvon Lauchen (‘Rheticus’) visited Copernicus in Poland and returnedto Wittenberg to teach his views. Just as the Tychonic system hadlittle support among 16th-century astronomers, so Rosencrantzand Guildenstern are relatively minor characters in the play—their deaths occur offstage and do not lead to any confrontations—while the battle between the Ptolemaic and Copernican systemsresults in the climactic bloodbath of the final act, followed by thearrival of Fortinbras from Poland (the home of Copernicus). Itis then that Hamlet passes the cosmological baton ( “ . . . the electionlights on Fortinbras, he has my dying voice.”).

The Tychonic cosmology was a hybrid system, combiningelements of the Ptolemaic and the Copernican. In the play,Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are ambiguous figures, curryingfavor with both Claudius and Hamlet. Historically, England wasthe home of an active group of Copernicans (including ThomasDigges, his father, and others) who advanced and elaboratedCopernican astronomy, administering the coup de grâce to theTychonic system. In the play, Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern aresent to England and beheaded.

Once the Tycho<—>R&G association is made, the pennydrops and the light comes on. Thoren17 has pointed out that whilethere were over 100 noble families in 16th-century Denmark, some

were more noble than others. Four families were the most nobleof all—the Brahes, the Billes, the Rosenkrantzes, and theGyldenstiernes—and their lines had so intertwined that they wereessentially one big family. Tycho’s father was a Brahe and hismother was a Bille; the names Rosenkrantz and Gyldenstiernesimply complete the quartet. The effect is similar to writing aroman à clef about America in the 1960s and naming a presidentialcandidate ‘Fitzgerald.’ Everybody (in America at least) wouldknow whom you meant. Now the previously-voiced objections—arbitrariness and inappropriateness—fall away. Now it is clear

there is nothing arbitraryabout the choice ofnames—the battle ofcosmologies is part of thewarp and woof of the play,and the names of theDanish courtiers are asclose as the author couldcome to saying ‘Tycho’without giving up theclaim that he was writingfiction. The fact that JørgenRosencrantz and Peder andAxel Gyldenstierne werepowerful individuals nolonger bothers us, since thereference is not to them,but to a cosmologicalsystem.

There is just a bit moreto be said. Earlier Ifacetiously quoted ahypothetical defender of‘the Tycho connection’ assaying that Shakespearechose the namesRosencrantz andGuildenstern from Tycho’sportrait because he liked

the imagery—‘Rosy Wreath’ and ‘Golden Star.’ But Shakespeare,the master weaver, has indeed woven these names into the fabricof the play. The first act opens with a description of the appearanceof the Ghost (“When yond same star that’s westward from the polehad made his course t’illume that part of heaven where now it burns. . .”). There’s our Golden Star. And it has been identified18 asTycho’s supernova, which was first observed 6 November 1572.Where? In Wittenberg. The image of a Rosy Wreath suggestsOphelia, “larded all with sweet flowers.” When Gertrude describesher drowning (4.7) she talks of Ophelia’s “fantastic garlands” and“crownet weeds,” both phrases suggesting wreaths. The referenceis even more specific at Ophelia’s burial (5.1), where the Doctorof Divinity protests “Yet here she is allowed her virgin crants . . .”The rare English word ‘crants’ does not appear in desk dictionaries,but the Oxford English Dictionary defines it as “a garland, chaplet,wreath.”19

“Now it is clear there is

nothing arbitrary about

the choice of names—the

battle of cosmologies is

part of the warp and woof

of the play, and the names

of the Danish courtiers are

as close as the author

could come to saying

‘Tycho’ without giving up

the claim that he was

writing fiction.”



Rosencrantz-Guildenstern (continued from page 15)The Oxford Scenario. The Oxford Scenario. The Oxford Scenario. The Oxford Scenario. The Oxford Scenario. From the age of four until he was

twelve, Edward de Vere lived with and was tutored by the renownedscholar Sir Thomas Smith (1513-77).20 Smith was known to be anenthusiastic student of astrology and astronomy (Hughes writesthat he had “a professional’s knowledge” of these subjects). When

his father died, de Verebecame the ward of WilliamCecil, Lord Burghley. Wehave already noted that deVere had unrestricted accessto Cecil’s extensive library,which not only containedThomas Digges’s book onTycho’s supernova, but alsoCopernicus’s seminalvolume, De revolutionibus.21

Thus, throughout hischildhood, de Vere had theencouragement and oppor-tunity to develop an activeinterest in astronomy andcosmology. His brother-in-law, Lord Willoughby, wasinterested enough in thesetopics to visit Tycho’sobservatory Uraniborgduring his 1582 mission.From Tycho’s letter to Savile

(cited above) we know that Tycho was not shy about describing hiswork and seeking credit for it, and he probably would have beeneager to explain his hybrid cosmology to the distinguished Englishvisitor. It is easy to imagine that Willoughby’s tales of his encounterwith Tycho (together with a report on Danish customs, such as theritualized drinking at banquets, the preference for sending youngnobles to Wittenberg, and the political ascendancy of the fourforemost families) started working in Oxford’s imagination, andcoalesced the next year when his mentor Sussex died, perhaps bypoison. In mystery-novel terms, Oxford had the means, the motive,and the opportunity to write a Hamlet with a cosmological subtextwell before Nashe mentioned the play in 1589. Some Oxfordianscholars believe he continued working on Hamlet throughout therest of his life.

Epilogue.Epilogue.Epilogue.Epilogue.Epilogue. Those with a knowledge of Oxford’s life will, onreading the biographical sketch of Frederik Rosenkrantz, have astrong sense of déjà vu. Both lost their fathers at an early age andthen were raised by a powerful politician. Both received exemplaryeducations and then toured Europe, especially Italy. Both got intotrouble from an affair with a lady of the court—Oxford with AnneVavasor, Rosenkrantz with Rigborg Brockenhuus—resulting inthe birth of a son. Both sons, when they reached manhood, sawmilitary service. Both Oxford and Rosenkrantz were wounded ina duel in their early thirties: Oxford was lamed by Thomas Knyvetin 1582; Rosenkrantz died in 1602 from injuries received when hetried to separate two duelists. Although I have rejected the notionthat Frederik and Knud were the original models for the Danish

courtiers in Hamlet, I think that these and other correspondencesmentioned above should qualify them as honorary, or ex post factomembers of the play’s dramatis personæ, along with Burghley,Elizabeth, Leicester, and, of course, Oxford. Long live Rosenkrantzand Gyldenstierne!

ACKNOWLEDGMENT: I am extremely grateful to Professor JohnRobert Christianson of Luther College, Decorah, Iowa, for invaluablehelp during the preparation of this work, and for permission to use hisbiographical sketches.

Notes:Notes:Notes:Notes:Notes:

1. Eva Turner Clark, Hidden Allusions in Shakespeare’s Plays, KennikatPress, New York, 1974, p. 637.

2. Richard Whalen, “Cross-Examining Leonard Digges on his StratfordConnections,” Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter 37.1, Spring 2001.

3. Peter Usher, “Advances in the Hamlet Cosmic Allegory,” The Oxford-ian IV, 2001, pp 25-49.

4. Letter printed in Tychonis Brahe Dani opera omnia, J. L. E. Dreyer, ed.,Gyldendal, Copenhagen, 1913-29, 7: 283-5.

5. Engraved by Jacques de Gheyn II (see J. R. Christianson, On Tycho’sIsland (2000), pp. 117, 286)

6. Charlton Ogburn, The Mysterious William Shakespeare, EPM Publica-tions, McLean VA, 1984.

7. Victor Thoren, The Lord of Uraniborg, Cambridge, London, 1990, p. 22.

8. Kitty Ferguson, Tycho and Kepler, Walker, New York, 2002, p. 112.9. John Robert Christianson, private communication.10. Shakespeare Oxford Society Newsletter 29.1A, Winter 1993, p. 18.11. Thoren, 429; Ferguson, 265n.12. Frank Kermode in The Riverside Shakespeare, Houghton Mifflin,

Boston, 1974, 1136.13. E. K. Chambers, The Elizabethan Stage, Oxford, 1923, Vol. IV, 234.14. Clark, p. 634 et seq.15. Leicester’s Commonwealth, Dwight C. Peck, ed., Ohio University

Press, 1985.15a. Usher, op. cit.16. The generally acknowledged sources for Hamlet are Historica Danica

by Saxo Grammaticus, printed in Latin in 1514 and translated intoDanish by Anders Vedel in 1575, and a free adaptation of Saxo’s mate-rial by François de Belleforest, Histoires tragiques, published in Parisin 1576. The name of the Claudius character in the first source is‘Feng’; in the second it is ‘Fengon.’

17. Thoren, 341.18. D. W. Olson, M. S. Olson and R. L. Doescher, “The Stars of Hamlet,”

Sky and Telescope, November 1998, 68-73.19. Alternate spellings: cranse, crance, craunce, corance. The OED offers

a quote from 1890: “The ‘crants’ were garlands which it was usual tomake of white paper, and to hang up in the church on the occasion of ayoung girl’s funeral.” In a post-Freudian era, the symbolism seemsalmost embarrassingly explicit.

20. Stephanie Hopkins Hughes, “’Shakespeare’s’ Tutor: Sir Thomas Smith(1513-1577),” The Oxfordian III, 2000, 19–44.

21. Eddi Jolly, “’Shakespeare’ and Burghley’s Library: Bibliotheca Illustris:Sive Catalogus Variorum Librorum,” The Oxfordian III, 2000, 3–18.

“Those with a

knowledge of

Oxford’s life will,

on reading the

biographical

sketch of Frederik

Rosenkrantz, have

a strong sense

of déjà vu.”



Appendix BAppendix BAppendix BAppendix BAppendix BKnud Gyldenstierne

by J. R. Christianson1

Knud Henriksen Gyldenstierne of Aagaard was born on theancestral estate of Aagaard in Jutland on 31 July 1575 and died inBergen, Norway, in 1627. His father, Admiral Henrik Gyldenstierne(1540 – 92), had first been married to Tycho Brahe’s eldest sister,and after her death to Mette Rud, who was the mother of Knud.

In 1584, Knud Gyldenstierne entered the noble academy atSorø, where he studied until he and his cousin, Corfitz Rud, (1573– 1630), traveled abroad in 1589 with Johan Bacmeister as theirpreceptor. They studied in Zürich in 1589, Strasbourg 1590-91,Rostock 1591, and Wittenberg at some time during these years.Then the two cousins parted. Knud Gyldenstierne visited Scotlandand England in 1592, while Corfitz Rud continued his studiesabroad from 1592-97 in Padua, Bologna, Siena, Malta, Spain, andFrance, visiting England and Holland on his way home to Denmark.2

Upon returning to Denmark, Knud Gyldenstierne served at theDanish court until 1598, when he assumed the management of hisinherited estates. He married a noblewoman, Sophie Lindenow,in 1608, and served with distinction as standard bearer in theKalmar War with Sweden (1611-13).

He was named governor of the fief of Vestervig Cloister inJutland in 1612-18. He accompanied King Christian IV on ajourney to Germany during these years, together with his ownsquires in the royal livery. He and another nobleman, Otto Skeel,were sent on a mission to Muscovy as royal Danish couriers, wherethey were held hostage for a time.3

From 1618 until his death in 1627, Knud Gyldenstierne heldthe important command of Bergenhus Castle in Norway. He ruledBergen, the largest city in Norway, and an immense surroundingfief, and had frequent opportunity to deal with the Scottishmerchants who were numerous in the thriving port city. Hiswidow, Sophie Lindenow, governed Bergenhus fief during theyear of grace after his death.4

1. © 2003 by J. R. Christianson. All rights reserved.2. Vello Helk, Dansk-norske studierejser fra reformationen til

enevœlden 1536-1660 (Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag, 1987), 229,336.

3. H. A. Riis-Olesen, “De kongelige lensmænd på Vestervig Kloster,”Historisk årbog for Thy og Mors 1971:28-43, at ht tp : / /ht tp : / /ht tp : / /ht tp : / /ht tp : / /www.thistedmuseum.dkwww.thistedmuseum.dkwww.thistedmuseum.dkwww.thistedmuseum.dkwww.thistedmuseum.dk.

4. Kr. Erlsev, Danmark-Norges Len og Lensmænd 1596-1660(Copenhagen: Hoffensberg & Trap, 1885), 42, 43, 79.

Appendix AAppendix AAppendix AAppendix AAppendix AFrederik Rosenkrantzby J. R. Christianson1

Frederik Rosenkrantz of Rosenvold and Stjernholm wasbaptized 2 September 1571 in Skanderborg Castle chapel, died 18August 1602 in Wessely, Moravia, and was buried in Týn Churchin Prague, where Tycho Brahe was also buried. He was a son of statecouncilor Holger Rosenkrantz (1517 – 75) and Karen Gyldenstierne(1544 – 1613). His father died when he was a child, and his uncle,state councilor Jørgen Rosenkrantz (1523 – 96), was appointed hisward.

Rosenkrantz received an excellent education, first in RibeSchool, where he lived in the household of Tycho Brahe’s friend,Peder Hegelund (Bishop of Ribe 1595 – 1614), and then abroadwith Hans Poulsen Resen as his preceptor.2 They studied inRostock 1584-86 and Wittenberg 1586-89. During a short triphome to Denmark in 1589, they sailed out to the island of Hven andspent two days as guests of Tycho Brahe at Uraniborg, where AndersSørensen Vedel was also visiting at the time. During 1589-91,Rosenkrantz and Resen studied in Padua and Siena and also visitedother parts of Italy, including Rome, Sicily, and even Malta.3

Rosenkrantz was in England in 1592, but not with Resen. TheDanish biographical dictionary simply noted that he traveled withKnud Gyldenstierne.4

After completing his education abroad, Rosenkrantz enteredthe service of the Danish court in 1593. In the years 1595-99, heheld the fief of Giske in Norway.5 In the spring of 1599, Rosenkrantzadvanced to the fief of Lundenæs in Denmark. He was brilliant,charming, learned, and polished, and had prospects of a splendidcareer as a courtier when he threw it all overboard in 1598 byseducing Rigborg Brockenhuus (1579 – 1641), a maiden-in-waiting in the court of Queen Anna Catherine. Rigborg bore hima son in 1599. Because this took place in court between twocourtiers, it was a grave offence to the laws governing conduct atcourt. Rigborg Brockenhuus lost all rights of inheritance and waswalled into a room in her father’s castle at Egeskov until after hisdeath in 1604.

Frederik Rosenkrantz fled to Hamburg but was brought backto Denmark and sentenced by a court of his peers to the loss ofhonor and two fingers, which would have deprived him of hisname, property, and all future prospects. However, the sentencewas commuted to exile when he agreed to travel to Hungary andfight against the Ottoman Turks. On the way, he visited TychoBrahe in Prague. He regained his honor on the field of battle, buthis petition to return to Denmark was denied by King Christian IV.Rosenkrantz died from wounds suffered while attempting tobreak up a duel.

His son with Rigborg Brockenhuus was eventually granted thename and arms of Rosenkrantz and fought in the battle of Lutteram Barenberg in 1626, where he was taken prisoner by theimperials but later released. He died in 1634.

1. © 2003 by J. R. Christianson. All rights reserved.

2. Resen was Bishop of Roskilde 1615-38, and later a Gnesio-Lutheran foeof Tycho Brahe’s circle.

3. These years of study abroad are described in detail in Bjørn Kornerup,Biskop Hans Poulsen Resen, (Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad, 1928-68), 1:60-132.

4. Dansk biografisk leksikon 1982, 12: 335.5. The kings of Denmark also ruled Norway, Iceland, and Schleswig-Hol-

stein.



A mong the myriad volumes of literary criticism on the Shakespeare canon, some works stand out as worthwhile

reading for Oxfordians despite their Strat-fordian assumptions. Giorgio Melchiori’sShakespeare’s Dramatic Meditations: AnExperiment in Criticism (Oxford, 1976)stands in this category. As I read this bookand substituted my Oxfordian viewing lensfor the author’s traditional Stratfordianone, I came to the interpretation of Sonnet94 discussed below. Since my explicationis based on Melchiori’s work, I will sum-marize his premise and briefly review hisanalysis of Sonnet 94.

Melchiori’s insightful study analyzesfour sonnets, 94, 121, 129, and 146, son-nets unique among all 154 in being whatthe author terms the only non-You andnon-Love sonnets. That is, they do not, as isthe norm, use the second person to set upan I-Thou dialogue, nor do they use Love asa subject.1 He contends these four sonnets“...are explorations of the contradictions—in themselves dramatic—existing in thevarious views on the exercise of power,social behaviour, sex, and religion.”2 Thissummary is reflected in the chapter titles,for example: “Lilies that fester: the Strategyof Sonnet 94 and the Ethics of Power.”

Sonnet 94 is the first sonnet Melchioriexamines at length. The author sees thispoem as a silent debate on the use andmisuse of political power. He insists that itshould not be considered as part of a groupof sonnets and that it has nothing to do witha personal relationship with a beloved ora youth. On this we agree. Melchiori con-cludes, however, that it was not createdfrom any personal experience, but as theo-retical musings on ethical principles.3 Idisagree with this statement and believe asOxfordians we can view Sonnet 94 in bothways. It is a dramatic interior soliloquy onthe ethics of political power, but it grew, Iargue, from de Vere’s personal experience.I think the specific situation rendered intoSonnet 94 was the threat that Mary, Queenof Scots posed to England, her trial andexecution, and the actions of Queen Eliza-

beth, Lord Burghley, Oxford and his peersat the time. Melchiori’s analysis, precedentto my reading, is summarized in the fol-

lowing section.Melchiori states that we are not now in

“the world of I and Thou, but the world ofIt, They, and Others,” declaring “...Sonnet94 seems to be the one political sonnet ofShakespeare,”4 dealing with people inpower. He gives a lexical analysis and dia-grams the structural schema of the sonnetbefore plunging into a discussion of Ed-ward III, which he thinks Shakespeare“remembered” or in the case of some scenes“wrote himself or revised.” Melchiori alsoopines that Sonnet 94 was “...written afterand not before Edward III.”5 Since thepublication of Eric Sams’ edition ofShakespeare’s Edward III,6 the play hasgradually been accepted as part of thecanon by many, though Melchiori regardsShakespeare only as a contributor, not soleauthor. Regardless of the date one acceptsfor the play, the Sonnet could have beenwritten after it.

Anyone fortunate enough to have seena production of Edward III7will rememberAct II, scene 1, when the King tricks Warwickinto pleading with his own daughter, theCountess of Salisbury, to become the King’smistress. Warwick, having vowed his oathof allegiance, is bound to keep his word tohis royal master in order to maintain hisworth as steward of himself and remainhonorable, though he loathes his task.Melchiori’s paraphrase relative to the Son-net and the play reads:

The mighty, only apparently just, haveabsolute control over outer forms; theothers their stewards, may be honest likeWarwick, and masters of their honour, butare in honour bound to serve the “excel-lence,” that is to say the superior state, oftheir lords and masters, whatever formthis superiority may take.8

Reading the lines from that scene is tofind a longer version of the Sonnet’s thoughtand imagery, including this line, “Liliesthat fester smell far worse then weeds.”9

In Melchiori’s more recent, extendedcommentary on King Edward III in his1998 edition for The New CambridgeShakespeare series, he surveys all the playsfor cases of power warranting loyalty andfor power misused, thereby provoking cen-sure or rebellion. His final stance is that“ambiguity” and “ambivalence” come near-est the mark in describing the author’sapparent attitude. Edward III, he declares,is “a play whose central theme is exactly theambivalence of power.”10

There are few references to Measurefor Measure in his earlier work,Shakespeare’s Dramatic Meditations, therelevance of which he leaves, he admits, toother commentators, only noting that KingEdward III is like Angelo in an “extremelyambiguous moral position.”11 Certainlymany Oxfordians, Stratfordian literarycritics, theater directors and drama re-viewers have brought the cogency of this“problem play” to the Sonnet. The ambigu-ous aspects, not only of Angelo, but theDuke, Claudio, and the variously staged

“Lillies that Fester”A Tale of Two Queens

By Virginia J. RennerBy Virginia J. RennerBy Virginia J. RennerBy Virginia J. RennerBy Virginia J. Renner

“Sonnet 94 is the“Sonnet 94 is the“Sonnet 94 is the“Sonnet 94 is the“Sonnet 94 is the

first sonnet Melchiorifirst sonnet Melchiorifirst sonnet Melchiorifirst sonnet Melchiorifirst sonnet Melchiori

examines at length.examines at length.examines at length.examines at length.examines at length.

The author sees The author sees The author sees The author sees The author sees

this poem as athis poem as athis poem as athis poem as athis poem as a

silent debate onsilent debate onsilent debate onsilent debate onsilent debate on

the use and misusethe use and misusethe use and misusethe use and misusethe use and misuse

of political power.”of political power.”of political power.”of political power.”of political power.”



unspoken response of Isabella at the end,have often been seen to lead to Sonnet 94.

Edward III is not the only text broughtto bear on the author’s reading of theSonnet. One section is headed “Sidneyversus Edward III (lines 1-4).” Melchioricites actions in Hamlet, Macbeth, KingLear, All’s Well and the Bible. Calling onthe text of Matthew 5:5, he contrasts themeek who “inherit the earth” withthe mighty who “rightly do inheritheavens graces” in line five at thebeginning of the second quatrain.“The equation can only be sardonic,”he points out, “since ‘rightly’ doesnot mean morally or legally right,but ‘in the right form’ or even‘according to the accepted norm.’”12

The qualities befitting those with(royal) power he finds in Macbeth,when Malcolm wants to test theloyalty of Macduff in what the au-thor calls “perhaps Shakespeare’smost extensive ‘political’ statementin any of the plays.”13

... The king-becoming gracesAs justice, verity, temp’rance, stableness,Bounty, perseverance, mercy, low liness,Devotion, patience, courage, forti- tude,...14

He goes on to distinguish thegarden flower from the wild flowerand recalls the Garden State imagesof Richard II.15 This distinctionturned my images of the “lilies ofthe field” into lilies on a field—ablue field—and I was ready to ac-cept Melchiori’s view of the sestetor the Garden as a metaphor for theoctave, the State. He does not citeRichard’s familiar lines against regicide,which remind us of traditional attitudestoward a crowned sovereign and which Ifind especially relevant.

Not all the water in the rough seaCan wash the balm off from an anointed

king;The breath of worldly men cannot deposeThe deputy elected by the Lord.16

Ethics vs. loyaltiesEthics vs. loyaltiesEthics vs. loyaltiesEthics vs. loyaltiesEthics vs. loyalties

Convinced that Sonnet 94 is indeed ameditation on political ethics, but disre-garding some of the author’s assumptions,

such as the poet’s non-aristocratic back-ground and the traditional Stratfordiantime frame, I asked—What special eventsin Edward de Vere’s life might have led himto meditate on the ethics of power? Thoughhis life near the center of the court asBurghley’s son-in-law often brought himface to face with problems that inevitablyinvolved ethical choices, would there have

been one circumstance he relived, somepowerful situation he might revisit andconcentrate into these 14 lines? The trialand execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, amomentous event for England, for Eliza-beth and Oxford, seems a fitting answer.

As the second ranking peer assigned tosit in judgment in the case of treason alleg-edly committed by Mary, Queen of Scots,against Queen Elizabeth, de Vere had apainful duty to perform. He was present atthe spirited speeches Mary gave in herdefense at the trial. The most routine re-ports of her demeanor and words stillevoke a sympathetic response from read-ers, as they evidently did from contempo-

rary onlookers. It is unlikely de Vere wit-nessed her beheading, but that scene, andhis part in bringing it about, might haveprovided a traumatic crux, repeatedly draw-ing his mind to meditate upon it. Thespeech by Richard II against regicide, citedabove, immediately comes to mind. Alter-natively, when a play’s action spotlightspowerful persons committing heinous

acts, leaders are subverted into ty-rants and warrant rebellion or over-throw.

Several circumstances may haveled the 17th Earl to have dividedloyalties and conflicted feelings ashe participated in these events.Whether the origin of the de Verefamily was Dutch or Danish, there isno doubt that Oxford’s ancestorscrossed the English Channel withWilliam the Conqueror and re-garded themselves as Norman.17

Oxford had visited the French court,perhaps more than once, and spokeand wrote French well. Mary Stuart,crowned Queen of Scotland whensix days old, reigned briefly as Queenof France when her husband,Francis, Catherine de Medici’s old-est son, became king in 1559. At thattime she used not only the royalcoats of arms of France and Scot-land, but was persuaded to add thoseof England as well. She was, in theeyes of the Catholics, the rightfulruler of England, rather than QueenElizabeth, who had been crownedthe previous year.

The lily figured at that point inboth English and French royal coatsof arms. The golden lily or fleur delis (lys) had been used in French

arms since the twelfth century and was onthe royal seal of Louis VIII early in theeleventh century. During the reign of Ed-ward III, the English royal arms quarteredthree lions rampant with fleur de lis in thefirst and fourth quarters to reflect the claimto the French throne. From Henry IV’s timeforward the three golden “lilies” on a blueground were on the royal coat and re-mained there throughout Elizabeth’s reigninto that of James 1. Though many royaland noble houses of the period in England,France, and Germany used the fleur de lis,it was associated especially with Frenchroyalty and the Roman Catholic Church. In


They that haue powre to hurt, and willdoe none,

That doe not do the thing, they most doshowe,

Who mouing others, are themselues asstone,

Vnmooued, could, and to temptation slow:They rightly do inherrit heauens graces,And husband natures ritches from

expence,They are the Lords and owners of their

faces,Others, but stewards of their excel-

lence:The sommers flowre is to the sommer

sweet,Though to it selfe, it onely liue and die,But if that flowre with base infection

meete,The basest weed out-braues his dignity:The sweetest things turne sowrest by

their deedes,Lillies that fester, smell far worse then

weeds.

Sonnet 94Sonnet 94Sonnet 94Sonnet 94Sonnet 94(as published in the 1609 Quarto)



Two Queens (continued from page 19)1546, the year Luther died, the Order ofthe Lily was established by Pope Paul III inthe Roman states and “its members werepledged to defend the patrimony of St.Peter’s against the enemies of the church.”18

For Oxford, a peer acutely aware ofheraldic symbols, there were two queensbearing lilies on their arms during thistrial. Both believed in their right to ruleEngland, but with the difference that at thetime made all the difference, their reli-gion. He knew where he must stand inrelation to both, but in this matter QueenElizabeth could not be seen as the purewhite lily.

The power to hurtThe power to hurtThe power to hurtThe power to hurtThe power to hurt

For years Queen Elizabeth had held the“power to hurt” her cousin and, accordingto her counselors, should have movedagainst her. As long as Mary lived to headthe Catholic faction, Elizabeth and theProtestants were in danger. But Elizabethcreated many delays even after the trial andbefore signing the warrant sentencing Maryto death. This story is repeated by many ofher biographers and the detail of eventsmust have been known by Edward de Veresoon after they happened, or more likely,were followed by him as they unfolded.With the Sonnet text in mind, let us brieflyreconstruct the events.19

After the disclosure of AnthonyBabington’s plot to murder Elizabeth andplace Mary on the throne, Elizabeth finallyhad to summon Parliament to put thoseinvolved on trial. With the trial and subse-quent executions the public’s panic anddemand for Mary’s death had increased,whereas Elizabeth had hoped it wouldsubside. She felt Mary “was not only aforeigner who was not subject to Englishlaw, but an anointed sovereign, answer-able to God alone for her actions.”

Mary’s trial began on October 14th,1586, before 36 commissioners, includ-ing Burghley, Walsingham, Hatton andOxford at Fotheringhay, “a medieval castlein Northamptonshire.” The Earl of Oxfordfound himself in the unsavory position ofdoing his duty, very probably feeling someof the same scruples against regicide ex-pressed so persuasively in the plays. Marypleaded her own case, was found guilty oftreason and was about to be pronouncedguilty “when a messenger arrived with the

Queen’s command, issued in the middleof the night since Elizabeth had beenunable to sleep, that the court be ad-journed to London to reconvene in tendays’ time.” The commissioners traveledback to London. The judges and the Courtof Star Chamber pronounced Mary guilty,but Parliament had to ratify the verdictand assembled on October 29. They de-manded her execution and a “a delegationof twenty peers and forty MPs” delivered apetition to Elizabeth on November 12that Richmond.

Mary had not confessed her guilt andthis made it harder on the Queen, who hadsecretly written her “promising that, ifMary confessed all, she would cover hershame and save her from reproach.” Inother words, she would save Mary fromdeath. Elizabeth asked Parliament to findanother way to deal with the situation, buton November 24th another deputationcame to Richmond, urging Mary’s death.Elizabeth adjourned Parliament for an-other week. On December 4th, a royalproclamation of the sentence, rewrittenjointly by Burghley and the Queen, waspublished. The order for execution was inher hands at once, but she “proroguedParliament until 15 February in order togive herself ten weeks in which to steelherself to do it.”

The description of the Queen’s agoniz-ing over the final order to execute herkinswoman as recounted in detail in theWeir biography is strikingly vivid. Was she“to temptation slow?”

Christmas came and went, as did Janu-ary. On February 1st, 1587, the Queen

summoned Sir William Davison, who pre-sented her with the death warrant, whichshe signed. Afterward, Davison’s andElizabeth’s accounts varied as to exactlywhat her instructions to him had been. AsWeir and others have surmised, it wasmore likely Davison’s account that wastruthful. She claimed he was instructed notto have the Lord Chancellor, ChristopherHatton, append the Great Seal to the war-rant without first checking back with her.He said the Queen had indicated he was toobtain the Seal and give the document toWalsingham, which he had done beforeshe asked for the document again. Davison,probably chosen for the role by Burghley,became the scapegoat of the affair.

Finally, the Queen, unaware ofBurghley’s next actions at this point, in-sisted Davison contact Sir Amyas Paulet,the guardian of Mary during her closearrest, asking him to arrange to “quietly doaway with Mary” so it could appear she“had died of natural causes.” Clearly, Eliza-beth pressured Paulet to murder Mary, toeffect a private execution, as she did notwant to be “held responsible for her death.”Burghley was after a public execution,while Elizabeth saw assassination as pref-erable. The Queen festered. Davison wroteto Paulet. Paulet refused. Meanwhile, aftera secret meeting, Burghley had drafted theorder for the sentence and on February 4thhad it sent with the warrant to Fotheringhaywithout informing Elizabeth. It arrived onFebruary 7th when the Queen was stillhoping Paulet would arrange to do thedeed for her, though he had already sentone letter in reply saying no.

Queen Elizabeth (left) and Queen Mary (right) came to represent the two directions—Protestant or Catholic—that the evolving nation of Great Britain could take. Shake-speare/Oxford was on the jury that condemned Mary to death and would undoubtedlyhave had strong views about killing a “deputy elected by the Lord.”



When the news of the February 8thexecution arrived on the 9th, the Queenbecame “almost hysterical” and hoped toconvince the world she was not to blamefor Mary’s death. She wanted Davisonhanged, but Burghley talked her out of it.The 10 Councilors who had secretly signedand agreed with Burghley to shoulder anyblame were humiliatingly questioned bythe Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justiceand Archbishop Whitgift. All 10 were indisgrace. Burghley was not allowed to comeback to Court until May. Only Paulet cameout of it unscathed, by receiving the Orderof the Garter. In this century it looks likethe equivalent of hush money.

The true power?The true power?The true power?The true power?The true power?

Was Elizabeth’s wrath at Mary’s execu-tion genuine? It appears it was.

In an article in The London Times,November 11th, 2001, and in speechesgiven recently in the United States, JohnGuy, Professor of History, Clare College,Cambridge, has made major revisionistarguments against the usual view of powerheld by Queen Elizabeth, particularly inthe matter of Mary’s execution. Accordingto Professor Guy, William Cecil was clearlyresponsible for the death of Mary, Queen ofScots, not Queen Elizabeth. This goal hadbeen determined by Burghley before Maryreturned to Scotland from France, sometwo dozen years before he finally accom-plished it. Elizabeth’s priority was to he-reditary descent before the matter of reli-gion, but Burghley felt he had a mission—a call, if you will—as a Protestant of powerto see that a Protestant ruler succeeded theQueen, who was “not Protestant enough.”20

Elizabeth and Mary, in Guy’s presentation,were together in a “monarchist tradeunion,” both understanding that Mary’sdeath would set a precedent for Elizabeth’spossible overthrow, or the public execu-tion of any English ruler thereafter, whichindeed it did in the case of Charles I.21 Evenif Professor Guy’s research places the blamefor Queen Mary’s death squarely on LordBurghley, many questions remain.

We wonder about the inner feelingsand attitudes of the major players in thedrama. Was Queen Elizabeth pushed ormaneuvered into taking action? Today it isnot her signing of the warrant, but herletters to Paulet advocating assassinationthat give us pause. Did Oxford know all the

events at the time or shortly after theyoccurred? He was in a position to learn thedetails of the actions of both Queens andhis father-in-law eventually, if not at themoment. How much did he know of theirinner motivations? I imagine the author ofthe plays, understanding human nature ashe did, knew or guessed as much as we cannow discover.

I think in Oxford’s eyes either Queenmight have refrained from using her power

to plot the death of the other. Might notthese lily-bearing leaders have resistedthe infection of regicide? I contend thatde Vere would have preferred QueenElizabeth’s view of the sanctity of monar-chy to that of Lord Burghley’s, of assuringthe Protestant succession at all costs. It ismy opinion that if any Englishman outsidethe Elizabethan court had seen the poemand connected its language to currentevents, the lily image might have beenassociated with Mary, but probably notwith Elizabeth. Bearing in mind the scenesfrom Edward III explored by Melchioriand other relevant passages about politi-cal power and monarchial status citedabove, I am not persuaded Edward de Verewas only thinking of Mary. The Earl’s sen-sitivity to heraldic symbols, his back-ground in and knowledge of English andFrench culture, his insight into motives

and actions of contemporary courtly soci-ety, his own position and his role in eventssurrounding Mary’s trial are, I have ar-gued, distilled in this poem. In fact, Sonnet94 very well may be as close as we’ll cometo his final word on these events. I cannotimagine any more perfect.

Notes:Notes:Notes:Notes:Notes:

1. Shakespeare’s Dramatic Meditations: AnExperiment in Criticism. By GiorgioMelchiori. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1976,31-32. The “You” in 146 is “not the Lovedone or Love itself, but the subject’s Soul.”Citations to Shakespeare’s DramaticMeditations will be referred to asMelchiori. For citations from his 1998edition of the play I will use the title, KingEdward III.

2. Ibid., 32.3. Ibid., 68. “It is not a case of personal

experience projected on to a universallevel, but of a reconsideration of basicprinciples in order to clear away thedeformations in thought brought aboutby private passions.”

4. Ibid., 35.5. Ibid., 45.6. Shakespeare’s Edward III. Edited by Eric

Sams. New Haven and London, YaleUniversity Press, 1996.

7. Stephen Moorer directed a production inCarmel, California, in 2001.

8. Melchiori, 46.9. King Edward III. Ed. by Giorgio Melchiori.

Cambridge, C.U.P. [cl998, 2001] 11, 1,435-453.

10. Ibid., Introduction, 41.11. Melchiori, 45.12. Ibid., 49.13. Ibid., 51.14. Macbeth, IV, iii, 91-94. Citations from

plays other than Edward III are to TheRiverside Shakespeare, 2d edition,Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1997.

15. Melchiori, 64-65.16. Richard II, III, ii. 54-57. Other possibili-

ties: Richard II, V, i. 72-73. “A twofoldmarriage twixt my crown and me, Andthen betwixt me and my married wife.”

17. The De Veres of Castle Hedingham byVerily Anderson. Lavenham, Suffolk,Terence Dalton Ltd., 1993. 4-5.

18. Encyclopedia Britannica, 12th ed. 1922.v. 10. Fleur-De-Lis.

19. The following summary of details andquotations are found in Alison Weir’sElizabeth the Queen, 1998, 367-383.

20. John Guy. Lecture given April 22, 2003,Huntington Library, San Marino,California.

21. See John Guy’s forthcoming biography ofMary, Queen of Scots, to be publishedearly in 2004.

© 2003 By Virginia J. Renner

“According to Professor“According to Professor“According to Professor“According to Professor“According to Professor

John Guy [in majorJohn Guy [in majorJohn Guy [in majorJohn Guy [in majorJohn Guy [in major

revisionist argumentsrevisionist argumentsrevisionist argumentsrevisionist argumentsrevisionist arguments

against the usual viewagainst the usual viewagainst the usual viewagainst the usual viewagainst the usual view

of power held by Queenof power held by Queenof power held by Queenof power held by Queenof power held by Queen

Elizabeth], WilliamElizabeth], WilliamElizabeth], WilliamElizabeth], WilliamElizabeth], William

Cecil was clearlyCecil was clearlyCecil was clearlyCecil was clearlyCecil was clearly

responsible for theresponsible for theresponsible for theresponsible for theresponsible for the

death of Mary,death of Mary,death of Mary,death of Mary,death of Mary,

Queen of Scots, notQueen of Scots, notQueen of Scots, notQueen of Scots, notQueen of Scots, not

Queen Elizabeth.”Queen Elizabeth.”Queen Elizabeth.”Queen Elizabeth.”Queen Elizabeth.”



“My Turk”

By Paul H. Altrocchi, MDBy Paul H. Altrocchi, MDBy Paul H. Altrocchi, MDBy Paul H. Altrocchi, MDBy Paul H. Altrocchi, MD

I cannot tell what the dickens his name is.(The Merry Wives of Windsor)

Queen Elizabeth loved nicknames—not Ed for Edward, but names whichconnoted some personal attribute,

quirk, hobby, or idiosyncrasy.Such specially chosen names imply

greater familiarity and sense of camarade-rie, as was meant by the Middle Englishword ekename from which our word nick-name is derived. But nicknames in a royalcourt also may serve to maintain a supe-rior-inferior hierarchy and to denigratethe passive receiver by “assuming the rightto boil down someone’s persona to a solecharacteristic and then legitimizing itthrough repeated use.”1

The Elizabethans relished nicknamesas much as the Mafia, the boxing world, andPresident George W. Bush do today. QueenElizabeth devised special names for manycourt personnel and politicians with whomshe interacted the most, e.g. :

1. Based upon esteem—“Spirit” or “Le-viathan” for her chief counselor, WilliamCecil, and “Sweet Robin” for her lover,Robert Dudley.

2. Based upon physical characteristics—“Pygmy” for hunchbacked, small-statured Robert Cecil.

3. Based upon Walter Raleigh’s pro-nunciation of his first name with a Devonaccent—“Water.”

4. Based upon flocks of sheep aroundhis family home in Holdenby,Northamptonshire—“Sheep” or “Mutton”for Christopher Hatton.

Were courtiers helpless victims of nick-naming? Yes, when chosen by their abso-lute monarch. But they often created theirown nicknames for politicians and othercourtiers, usually not spoken directly tothe recipient, e.g., “Pondus” for WilliamCecil because of his slow ponderousspeech, and “Gypsy” for Robert Dudley

because of the bronze tint of his skin.Poets like Edward de Vere used many

alternative names for the Queen in theirpoetry and plays, e.g., Diana, Aphrodite,Venus, Sun, Moon, Fortune, Cynthia, andSylvia.

But why “My Turk” for Edward de Vere?It is a curious nickname for the Queen’sfavorite courtier, her genius-playwrightwho, under her own stimulation, broughtlasting glory to her realm. Four possibleexplanations will be analyzed.

A. Derived from “Torc” ?A. Derived from “Torc” ?A. Derived from “Torc” ?A. Derived from “Torc” ?A. Derived from “Torc” ?

The Senior Ogburns suggest an originfrom the Gaelic word, torc, meaning “boar”,the family rebus of de Vere.2 Against suchan interpretation:

1. The Queen and De Vere spoke manylanguages, but not Gaelic. It was not alanguage heard at Court.

2. The Irish were looked down upon asan inferior peasant society by English no-bility. It would hardly be appropriate touse an Irish nickname for a premier earl ofthe realm.

3. If derived from torc, why “ My Turk”and not “My Torc”?

B. A tribute to his poetic bent?B. A tribute to his poetic bent?B. A tribute to his poetic bent?B. A tribute to his poetic bent?B. A tribute to his poetic bent?

Since all literate Turks in the OttomanEmpire were encouraged to write poetry,was Elizabeth paying homage to his ex-traordinary poetic skills? This seems doubt-ful since the word “Turk” also carried animplication of duplicity, brutality, andbeing an “infidel.”

C. Diplomatic Assignment to Turkey?C. Diplomatic Assignment to Turkey?C. Diplomatic Assignment to Turkey?C. Diplomatic Assignment to Turkey?C. Diplomatic Assignment to Turkey?

During de Vere’s 16-month trip abroadin 1575-1576, did he travel to Turkey on adiplomatic mission for the Queen to ini-tiate the groundwork for establishing tradeagreements between England and Turkey

of the type already granted to Venice andFrance?

In a letter to Burghley written in Parison March 17, 1575, de Vere says, “the kinghath given me his letters of recommenda-tion to his ambassador in the Turk’s court... perhaps I will bestow two or three monthsto see Constantinople and some part ofGreece.”3

Only three letters survive from deVere’s 16-month European trip. Betweenhis letter from Venice on Sept. 24th, 1575,and his letter from Padua on Nov. 27th, atotal of 64 days, his whereabouts are un-known. He had finally recovered from adebilitating febrile illness but it left himdiscouraged with Italy. He wrote Burghleyfrom Venice: “For my liking of Italy, myLord, I am glad to have seen it, and I carenot ever to see it any more, unless it be toserve my prince or country.”

In 1553, Suleyman the First allowedindividual Englishmen to trade with Tur-key4 but only a few did.5 In later years, deVere did carry out several personal diplo-matic tasks to France at the Queen’s re-quest,6 but there is no English archivalevidence of any mission by him to Turkey.

D. Did de Vere take a personal trip toD. Did de Vere take a personal trip toD. Did de Vere take a personal trip toD. Did de Vere take a personal trip toD. Did de Vere take a personal trip toTurkey?Turkey?Turkey?Turkey?Turkey?

We know that de Vere intended to visitTurkey, as documented by his letter fromParis. Also, one of his retinue, WilliamLewyn, who may have been fired for spyingon de Vere for Burghley, wrote to Burghleyin July 1575 that he didn’t know whetherde Vere had already started for Greece orwas still in Italy.7 September 24 to Novem-ber 27 was certainly time enough to visitGreece and Istanbul.

Along with many Oxfordians, includ-ing Ruth Loyd Miller and Richard Roe,8 thesenior Ogburns thought de Vere had vis-ited Turkey. In a letter to Julia CooleyAltrocchi dated Oct. 27, 1959, DorothyOgburn wrote: “E.O. may well have gone to

Why the nickname?




Turkey. Ben Jonson speaks of Puntarvolo‘at the Turk’s court ...’”

Malim not only agrees with others thatPuntarvolo, from Ben Jonson’s 1599 playEvery Man Out of His Humour, is a carica-ture of Edward de Vere but suggests thatthe name Puntarvolo derives from Latinand Greek words meaning Spear-Shake-Will.9

According to the Oxfordian chronol-ogy of Eva Turner Clark,10 the first playswhich de Vere wrote and/or polished uponreturning from his foreign trip were:

1. Timon of Athens, set in Greece (1576).2. Comedy of Errors, set in Ephesus,

Turkey (1576).3. Titus Andronicus, set in Rome (1576).4. Pericles, Prince of Tyre, set in Antioch,

Tarsus, Tyre and other cities of Turkey(1577).

Before he left for Europe, the only playwe know about by Edward de Vere is TheFamous Victories of Henry V, written in1574. Is it mere coincidence that two of deVere’s first four plays after his continentaltravels were set in Turkey?

Does the following passage fromOthello hint a specific personal knowl-edge of the constant direction of currentsfrom the Black Sea to the Aegean Sea, notgleanable from books or general knowl-edge?

Like to the Pontic Sea,Whose icy current and compulsive courseNe’er knows retiring ebb, but keeps due onTo the Propontic and the Hellespont,Even so my bloody thoughts with violent paceShall ne’er look back, ne’er ebb to humble love...11

Most likely this was available informa-tion without specific import.

There is reference in King Henry IV,Part II to the Turkish Sultan’s habit offratricide to forestall conspiracies, but thesewere also accessible historical facts:

Brothers, you mix your sadness with some fear:This is the English, not the Turkish Court;Not Amurath an Amurath succeeds, But Harry, Harry.12

There are no specific personal-knowl-edge allusions anywhere in the Shake-speare canon which verify a trip to Turkeyby de Vere. Such proof must come fromanother source.

Research in Turkey’s ArchivesResearch in Turkey’s ArchivesResearch in Turkey’s ArchivesResearch in Turkey’s ArchivesResearch in Turkey’s Archives

Seeking evidence of a diplomatic as-signment for Edward de Vere to Turkey,the official archives of the Ottoman State

were comprehensively examined by tworesearch associates of the author: (a) Prof.Fikret Saricaoglu, History Department,Istanbul University, and (b) Gultekin Yildiz,Masters’ Degree candidate, History De-partment, Marmara University.

In the 1500s, the Turks had a veryefficient civil service and were meticulousrecord keepers. All relevant archives, somequite difficult of access to outsiders, weresearched including:

1. The Prime Ministerial OttomanArchives.

2. The Archives of Topkapi Palace.3. Three catalogs which register other

state documents.4. Three contemporary Turkish Court

chronicles reporting events of impor-tance day by day.

The results of these searches were thatno evidence was found to confirm a diplo-matic mission by Edward de Vere in 1575-1576.

CommentsCommentsCommentsCommentsComments

Does this research rule out any kind ofofficial mission to Turkey by Edward deVere? The answer is “no,” according tothese Turkish scholars. While Murad III’sprimary interests were in the harem, ahighly intelligent, skilled and powerfulGrand Vizier, Sokullu Mehmed Pasha, hadalmost total control over domestic andforeign policy. He could have discussedtrade relations with de Vere in private, “offthe record.”

These modern scholars also confirmthat, even though the Turks had a highlydeveloped “secret service,” a private trip toTurkey by de Vere might have been wellknown to them but not recorded.

Queen Elizabeth was fascinated bythings Islamic. In 1575, with her approval,Edward Osborne and Richard Staper senttwo agents overland to Istanbul to obtainsafe conduct for William Harborne to be-gin discussing trade relations.13 This wasnot accomplished until September 1579,when the first official Turkish envoy ar-rived from Sultan Murad III offering unre-stricted commerce between Turkey andEngland.14

Perhaps it is only coincidence, but anintriguing one, that after centuries with-out significant commerce between En-gland and Turkey, there began a flurry oftrade-related activities with Turkey byEnglishmen in 1575, the only year de Verecould have visited Istanbul.

Summary of conclusions aboutSummary of conclusions aboutSummary of conclusions aboutSummary of conclusions aboutSummary of conclusions aboutthe origin of “My Turk”the origin of “My Turk”the origin of “My Turk”the origin of “My Turk”the origin of “My Turk”

1. Was “My Turk” derived from the Gaelicword “Torc”? Unlikely.

2. Was “My Turk” derived from QueenElizabeth’s awareness that poetry washeld in high esteem in Turkey?Unlikely.

3. Was “My Turk” applied to de Verebecause he succeeded on an officialdiplomatic assignment from Queen

“Only three letters“Only three letters“Only three letters“Only three letters“Only three letters

survive fromsurvive fromsurvive fromsurvive fromsurvive from

de Vere’s 16-monthde Vere’s 16-monthde Vere’s 16-monthde Vere’s 16-monthde Vere’s 16-month

European trip ... [For]European trip ... [For]European trip ... [For]European trip ... [For]European trip ... [For]

a total of 64 days,a total of 64 days,a total of 64 days,a total of 64 days,a total of 64 days,

his whereaboutshis whereaboutshis whereaboutshis whereaboutshis whereabouts

are unknown.”are unknown.”are unknown.”are unknown.”are unknown.”



Book Reviews

My Turk (continued from page 23)

A Biography of Margaret Douglas,A Biography of Margaret Douglas,A Biography of Margaret Douglas,A Biography of Margaret Douglas,A Biography of Margaret Douglas,Countess of Lennox (1515-1578):Countess of Lennox (1515-1578):Countess of Lennox (1515-1578):Countess of Lennox (1515-1578):Countess of Lennox (1515-1578):Niece of Henry VIII and Mother-in-Niece of Henry VIII and Mother-in-Niece of Henry VIII and Mother-in-Niece of Henry VIII and Mother-in-Niece of Henry VIII and Mother-in-Law of Mary Queen of Scots.Law of Mary Queen of Scots.Law of Mary Queen of Scots.Law of Mary Queen of Scots.Law of Mary Queen of Scots. ByKimberly Schutte (Lewiston NY: The EdwinMellen Press, 2002).

By Richard F. WhalenBy Richard F. WhalenBy Richard F. WhalenBy Richard F. WhalenBy Richard F. Whalen

Strong-willed, outspoken, loving wifeand mother, ambitious for her fam-ily, the Countess of Lennox was a

powerful force in Elizabethan power poli-tics. She and her relatives had strong claimsto the thrones of both Scotland and En-gland. Her grandson was James VI of Scot-land who would become James I of En-gland. She was not a favorite of QueenElizabeth, but she held her own in thedangerous swirl of Elizabethan politics.

In this first book-length biography ofthe Countess of Lennox, Kimberly Schutte,adjunct professor at Missouri Western StateCollege, describes a woman not easy tolike but impossible to ignore. Despite heroverweening ambition for her family andpropensity for marital scheming, she com-manded respect by her powerful personal-ity as well as by her position in the nobility.

She lived most of her life in England,and it intersected that of Edward de Vere,17th Earl of Oxford, at least twice. (Bothwere such prominent aristocrats that as yetundiscovered records may well disclosemore connections.)

She and Oxford were both guests of

William Cecil, Lord Burghley, at a countryhouse party in 1574 that included figuresprominent in Scottish-English politics.The assassination of her son, Henry, LordDarnley, consort of Mary Queen of Scots, isthought by some Stratfordians and Oxfor-dians to have inspired Shakespeare’sMacbeth. The parallels are striking. Shehad a keen interest in history, and scholarshave also suggested that she probably hadin her possession the rare manuscript his-tory of Scotland that seems to have in-spired passages in Macbeth. (See thisreviewer’s article, “Shakespeare in Scot-land,” in the 2003 issue of The Oxfordian.)

And, like Oxford, she spent the lastdecade of her life at Hackney, outside Lon-don, where she died in 1578.

Schutte’s straightforward biographydescribes the complex relations amongthe powerful aristocrats of the time, theirshifting loyalties and the countess’s role init all. She cites primary sources exten-sively, and her 12-page bibliography mightwell prove useful for Oxfordians who wantto do further research into the life of thisextraordinary woman and her connectionswith the earl of Oxford.

The 324-page biography is one ofMellen’s 67 volumes in its “Studies inBritish History.” Another volume that mightinterest Oxfordians is The Anonymous Lifeof William Cecil, Lord Burghley, edited byAlan G.R. Smith. But candor requires thatpotential buyers be forewarned. Mellenbooks are expensive; Schutte’s is $120.

New Book on the

Holocaust from

Fellowship VPShakespeare Fellowship founder and

Vice-President for Communication LynneKositsky, the award-winning Canadiannovelist whose 2000 novel, A Question ofWill (Roussan), brought de Vere’sauthorship of the Shakespearean canon tomany young readers for the first time, hasscored again with her most recent youngadult novel, The Thought of High Windows.

The novel, about a group of youngJewish refugees fleeing the Nazi deathcamps who take shelter in a deserted castlein France, has earned highest marks fromKirkus Review:

Superb, wrenching Holocaust fiction.Esther is a Jewish teen snatched out ofGermany at the beginning of WWII by theSwiss Red Cross to live briefly in Belgiumand later in a castle in France, under thenose of the Vichy government.... Swirlingthrough the story is her tumultuous, ever-changing relationship with mercurial peerWalter. Esther is plagued with guilt andself-hatred as well as terror of dying in thelooming Holocaust. Kositsky deftlydescribes the twisted pains of war, genocide,and cruelty. Kositsky’s poetic and piercinglanguage honors Esther’s severe lonelinessand the horrors she witnesses.

Elizabeth to Turkey? Ruled out byOttoman archival research described inthis article.

4. Did “My Turk” derive because de Verewent to Turkey in 1575 on an unofficialdiplomacy-trading mission for theQueen? Still possible but no proof.

5. Did “My Turk” derive because de Verewent to Turkey for personal reasons in1575, arousing the Queen’s admira-tion? Possible, but no proof.

In sum, the source for Queen Elizabeth’sfavorite nickname for Edward de Vere, “MyTurk,” remains an enigma.

References:References:References:References:References:

1. Garry Trudeau. Time Magazine, Feb. 12,2001, page 96.

2. Charlton Ogburn & Dorothy Ogburn. ThisStar of England, Coward McCann, Inc.,New York, 1952.

3. William Fowler. Shakespeare Revealed inOxford’s Letters. Peter E. Randall,Publisher, Portsmouth, New Hampshire,1986.

4. Halil Inalcik. The Ottoman Empire: TheClassical Age, 1300-1600, translated byNorman Itzkowitz and Colin Imber.Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1973.

5. Nabil Matar. Turks, Moors, and English-men in the Age of Discovery. ColumbiaUniv. Press, New York, 1999.

6. Ogburn, op. cit.7. Ibid.8. Personal communications with Ruth Loyd

Miller and Richard Roe.9. R.C.W. Malim. “Shakespeare: Man and

Pseudonym.” The De Vere SocietyNewsletter, April/May 2001.

10. Eva Turner Clark. Hidden Allusions InShakespeare’s Plays. William FarquharPayson, NY, 1931.

11. Othello. Act III, scene 3, line 456.12. King Henry IV, Part II. Act V, scene 2, line

47.13. Alfred C. Wood. A History of the Levant

Company. Frank Cass & Co., Ltd., 1964;also, Matar, op. cit.

14. Matar, op. cit.



ColumnColumnColumnColumnColumnA year in the lifeA year in the lifeA year in the lifeA year in the lifeA year in the lifeBy Hank WhittemoreBy Hank WhittemoreBy Hank WhittemoreBy Hank WhittemoreBy Hank Whittemore

1604: Part II — The rest of the story

T he reported death of Edward de Vere on June 24, 1604, at age 54 is accompanied this year by publica-

tion of the second quarto of Hamlet. Thisversion, containing nearly 4,000 lines, istwice the size of the first quarto publishedthe previous year, in 1603, and even a bitlonger than the text to appear 19 yearshence in the First Folio of 1623. Thecurrent edition is entitled:

The Tragicall Historie of Hamlet,Prince of Denmarke. By William Shake-speare. Newly imprinted and enlarged toalmost as much again as it was, accordingto the true and perfect Coppie. At London,Printed by I. R. (James Roberts) for N. L.(Nicholas Ling) and are to be sold at hisshoppe under Saint Dunstons Church inFleet-street. 1604. 1

Issuance of authentic editions of hith-erto-unpublished plays as by “Shake-speare” had begun in 1598, only to ceaseafter the Essex Rebellion in February 1601,when Henry Wriothesley, Third Earl ofSouthampton was imprisoned in the Towerof London. With Southampton’s libera-tion by King James in April 1603, and nowupon Oxford’s apparent death, the appear-ance of Hamlet Q2 represents a remark-able exception to this shutdown until aflurry of new titles2 in 1608 and 1609,followed by another dozen years of si-lence.

From an Oxfordian perspective, thetiming of Hamlet is no accident. Publica-tion of this quintessential autobiographi-cal play in 1604 would seem a deliberateannouncement that the dramatist had diedor disappeared from England. It also ap-pears to contain his final statement that“things standing thus unknown shall livebehind me,” along with his dying requestto “report me and my cause aright to theunsatisfied” and to “tell my story.”

The silence surrounding Oxford’s deathis hereby counterbalanced by the blazingtriumph of Hamlet as well as by the un-precedented number of Shakespeare plays(seven) to be performed at Court duringthe upcoming Christmas-New Year sea-

son, amid celebrations of the marriage ofSusan Vere and Philip Herbert – two of the“grand possessors” of the great stage worksyet to be published. Even as Edward de

Vere’s name is buried along with his body,the words he left behind are reverberatingin ghostly, glorious resurrection, surelythe result of a conscious effort to pay trib-ute to him with a proper memorial.

An extraordinary aspect of traditionalbiographies of William of Stratford is thepresumption that, just at this moment, hisacting career has ended. “We supposeShakespeare to have ceased to act in thesummer of 1604,” reports the “Life of Shake-speare” section in the 1913 Irving editionof the poems and plays, with this notableobservation about the consequences ofhis retirement:

“No sooner had our great dramatistceased to take part in public performancesof the King’s players, than the companyappears to have thrown off the restraint bywhich it had been unusually controlledever since its formation, and to have pro-duced plays which were objectionable to

the court, as well as offensive to privatepersons. Shakespeare, from his abilities,station, and experience, must have pos-sessed great influence with the body atlarge, and due deference, we may readilybelieve, was shown to his knowledge andjudgment in the selection and acceptanceof plays sent in for approbation by authorsof the time. The contrast between theconduct of the association immediatelybefore, and immediately after, his retire-ment, would lead us to conclude, not onlythat he was a man of prudence and discre-tion, but that the exercise of these quali-ties had in many instances kept his fel-lows from incurring the displeasure ofpersons in power...”3

The above description of “Shake-speare” as the guiding hand behind theLord Chamberlain’s Men (now the King’sMen) can be applied far more logically toOxford, upon whose apparent death thecompany begins encountering friction atCourt for the first time since its formationin 1594.July 7: Southampton in House of LordsJuly 7: Southampton in House of LordsJuly 7: Southampton in House of LordsJuly 7: Southampton in House of LordsJuly 7: Southampton in House of Lords

Southampton is present at the proro-gation of Parliament.4

July 11: Pembroke is MarriedJuly 11: Pembroke is MarriedJuly 11: Pembroke is MarriedJuly 11: Pembroke is MarriedJuly 11: Pembroke is MarriedWilliam Herbert, Third Earl of Pem-

broke, who had been promoted as a hus-band for Oxford’s daughter Bridget Vere in1597, has married Lady Mary Talbot, daugh-ter of the Earl of Shrewsbury.5

July 25: Southampton FavoredJuly 25: Southampton FavoredJuly 25: Southampton FavoredJuly 25: Southampton FavoredJuly 25: Southampton FavoredKing James grants Southampton three

manors (Romsey in Hampshire, ComptonMagna in Somerset and Dunmow in Essex)plus the grange of Basilden in Gloucester.6

August: “Sejanus” at the GlobeAugust: “Sejanus” at the GlobeAugust: “Sejanus” at the GlobeAugust: “Sejanus” at the GlobeAugust: “Sejanus” at the GlobeApparently the King’s Men, who pre-

sented Sejanus his Fall in the autumn orwinter of 1603 at the Court of James, now(or earlier this year) perform Ben Jonson’stragedy at the Globe, with the actors beingbooed and hissed off the stage! 7

Thomas Thorpe will publish Sejanusin 1605 with Jonson telling readers in hispreface that a “second Pen” had been in-volved in creating the original version, butthat he had taken it upon himself to rewrite


“‘We suppose Shakespeare“‘We suppose Shakespeare“‘We suppose Shakespeare“‘We suppose Shakespeare“‘We suppose Shakespeare

to have ceased to actto have ceased to actto have ceased to actto have ceased to actto have ceased to act

in the summer ofin the summer ofin the summer ofin the summer ofin the summer of

1604,’ reports the1604,’ reports the1604,’ reports the1604,’ reports the1604,’ reports the

‘Life of Shakespeare’‘Life of Shakespeare’‘Life of Shakespeare’‘Life of Shakespeare’‘Life of Shakespeare’

section in the 1913section in the 1913section in the 1913section in the 1913section in the 1913

Irving edition of theIrving edition of theIrving edition of theIrving edition of theIrving edition of the

poems and plays...”poems and plays...”poems and plays...”poems and plays...”poems and plays...”



the play to its detriment:

“I would inform you, that this book, inall numbers, is not the same with thatwhich was acted on the public stage,wherein a second Pen had good share: inplace of which I have rather chosen to putweaker and no doubt less pleasing (lines)of mine own, than to defraud so happy aGenius [sic] of his right, by my loathedusurpation.”8

In his 1616 folio Jonson will list “Wil-liam Shake-speare” as having headed thecast of Sejanus as presented at Court in1603. A few years later he will tellDrummond that the play provoked consid-erable displeasure in the Privy Council,where he was called to answer charges “ofPopery and of Treason.” Meanwhile it hasbeen widely assumed that the original“Genius” behind the play must have beenGeorge Chapman, while other traditionalscholars have suspected the hand of “Shake-speare” himself. If the latter are correct,Oxfordians may well consider that Jonsonis testifying in 1605 that he took a playoriginally written by Edward de Vere andreworked it (poorly so) with his own lan-guage for publication under his own name.

(Fritz Levy in 1995 makes a fascinatingcase that Sejanus appears to be an earlierwork reflecting the attitude of the Essexfaction toward Queen Elizabeth and Sec-retary Robert Cecil. The play is a “portraitof a society torn by faction, ruled by aprince of great power, but a power exer-cised erratically and whimsically …Elizabeth’s dilatoriness, her reluctance toheed the advice of her Council, could lookvery like the actions of the imperial Tiberius;and the factions of the last decade of the oldqueen’s reign bore more than a passingresemblance to their Roman counter-parts…”).9

It appears that Jonson has been receiv-ing access to some of Edward de Vere’sunpublished manuscripts and that, afterreworking them either partially or wholly,has been issuing them under his own namealong with torrents of scholarly notes dis-playing his classical knowledge. To whatdegree these dramatic works are based onOxford’s previous writings is a matter forfurther research and debate; what’s clear isthat Jonson has been tied politically toRobert Cecil ever since his imprisonmentfor the Isle of Dogs fiasco of 1597; and even

now he is working on Masque of Black-ness for performance in January by a castincluding Susan Vere, Oxford’s daughterand Cecil’s niece. The masque is to be partof the ongoing celebrations of her mar-riage to Sir Philip Herbert, brother ofWilliam Herbert, Third Earl of Pembroke;and Jonson will be working with this “in-comparable pair of brethren” on the FirstFolio of Shakespeare to be dedicated tothem in 1623.

Ben Jonson, the rapidly rising star ofpoets, is already closely allied with the“grand possessors” of the Shakespeareworks, that is, with those who hold the textsof most of Oxford’s unpublished plays.More to the point, it would seem that hehimself, to one degree or another, is al-ready a possessor.August 9: Spanish DelegationAugust 9: Spanish DelegationAugust 9: Spanish DelegationAugust 9: Spanish DelegationAugust 9: Spanish Delegation

Arriving in London from the Court ofSpain is Don John de Velasco, Constable ofCastile and Great Chamberlain to KingPhillip III, who has empowered this Am-bassador Extraordinary to negotiate a peacetreaty with the new English sovereign.10

Accompanying the Constable (and a spe-cial emissary from Archduke Albert ofAustria) is a party of “Marquesses, Earles,Barons, Knights, and Gentlemen to thenumber of one hundred persons.” The Span-ish delegation is to be lodged in SomersetHouse, one of the royal residences and themost splendid London palace other thanWhitehall.

A dozen members of the King’s Men areordered to “wait and attend” on the Span-ish guests as Grooms of the Chamber,performing no plays for the visitors. On

this day the actors, wearing red doubletsand hose, assist in welcoming the SpanishAmbassador upon his arrival at SomersetHouse after a triumphal progress up theThames.11 The account of their payment of21 pounds, 12 shillings (each actor receiv-ing 2s per day) is to be found among theother expenses listed by the Treasurer ofthe Chamber:

“To Augustine Phillipps and JohnHemyngs for th’allowance of themselvesand tenne of their fellows his MajestiesGroomes of the Chamber and Players, forwaytinge and attending on his MajestiesService, by commandmente, upon the Span-ish ambassador at Somerset House for thespace of 18 dayes viz. from the 9th day ofAuguste 1604 until the 27th day of the sameas appeareth by a bill thereof signed by theLord Chamberlain…”12

Although the name “Shakespeare” isnowhere mentioned in this or any otheraccount, most orthodox biographers ofthe poet-dramatist have assumed, with littleor no question, that William of Stratfordmust have been among the King’s Men inresidence at Somerset House during these18 days.August 10: Southampton & Queen AnneAugust 10: Southampton & Queen AnneAugust 10: Southampton & Queen AnneAugust 10: Southampton & Queen AnneAugust 10: Southampton & Queen Anne

Southampton is appointed Councillorto Queen Anne.13

August 10: Southampton to CourtAugust 10: Southampton to CourtAugust 10: Southampton to CourtAugust 10: Southampton to CourtAugust 10: Southampton to CourtThe Constable of Castile comes to greet

King James at the Court at Whitehall Pal-ace, attended by Southampton and LordEffingham, son of Charles Howard, theLord Admiral.August 19: State DinnerAugust 19: State DinnerAugust 19: State DinnerAugust 19: State DinnerAugust 19: State Dinner

An extraordinary State dinner is held,with unusual pomp and splendor, in theBanqueting House that Queen Elizabethhad erected on the southwest side ofWhitehall Palace. The earls of Pembrokeand Southampton officiate as gentlemen-ushers for this celebration of the Anglo-Spanish peace, signed today, consisting ofa three-hour banquet followed by a grandball with more than fifty ladies-of-honoron hand.

Ten-year-old Prince Henry (apparentlya boy-companion of Henry de Vere) iscommanded by his parents to dance agalliard. They point to a lady who is to behis partner and the Prince dances “withmuch sprightliness and modesty, cuttingseveral capers,” according to a Spanisheyewitness account, which adds:

Year in the Life (continued from page 25)

“It appears that Jonson has“It appears that Jonson has“It appears that Jonson has“It appears that Jonson has“It appears that Jonson has

been receiving access tobeen receiving access tobeen receiving access tobeen receiving access tobeen receiving access to

some of Edward de Vere’ssome of Edward de Vere’ssome of Edward de Vere’ssome of Edward de Vere’ssome of Edward de Vere’s

unpublished manuscriptsunpublished manuscriptsunpublished manuscriptsunpublished manuscriptsunpublished manuscripts

[and] ... after reworking[and] ... after reworking[and] ... after reworking[and] ... after reworking[and] ... after reworking

them ... issuing themthem ... issuing themthem ... issuing themthem ... issuing themthem ... issuing them

under his own name.”under his own name.”under his own name.”under his own name.”under his own name.”



“The Earl of Southampton then ledout the Queen, and three other gentlementheir several partners, who all joined indancing a brando … In another the Queendanced with the Duke of Lennox … ThePrince stood up to dance a correnta whichhe did very gracefully … The Earl ofSouthampton was now again the Queen’spartner and they went through theCorrenta likewise…”

Afterward they gather at the windowsoverlooking a platform set up on a squarewhere a “vast crowd” has assembled; andwith great amusement the royal partywatches bear baiting, i.e., the King’s bearsfighting with greyhounds.

“Presently a bull, tied to the end of arope, was fiercely baited by dogs. After thiscertain tumblers came, who danced upona rope, and performed various feats ofagility and skill on horseback…”14

August 20: Cecil is a LordAugust 20: Cecil is a LordAugust 20: Cecil is a LordAugust 20: Cecil is a LordAugust 20: Cecil is a LordRobert Cecil, having engineered the

peaceful succession of James and retainedall and more of his former governmentalpower, is created Viscount Cranborne. Cecilhas been the prime mover behind the suc-cessfully completed Proclamation of Peacewith Spain; next year he will become theFirst Earl of Salisbury.

The treaty with Spain has been carriedout amid elaborate festivities that were“dumbly watched by the general public,”writes Cecil biographer P. M. Handover,referring to the tough time the Englishpeople will have in reconciling themselvesto a changed relationship with the nationthat bred the Inquisition, the Jesuits andthe Armada. From the Tower, where he hasbeen imprisoned for the Main Plot sincelast November, Sir Walter Raleigh willcontinue to voice his defiance of Spain—and therefore, his defiance of Cecil, whowill go through the rest of his life until1612 with the weight of public opinionagainst him.

To give the hunchbacked son of LordBurghley the credit he is due, however,Handover writes that the peace with Spain“opened a new world to English trade, andassured that ‘vent’ for English cloth whichhad been the object of search for more thanhalf a century…

“The hunt for new markets was nolonger compelled to bay outside the ice-locked ports of the Baltic and northern

Russia, but could stream in safety downpast southern France, on through theMediterranean to the Near East, or rounda new continent, that of Africa. After 20August 1604 the sea roads were free.” 15

August 20: The Oxford AnnuityAugust 20: The Oxford AnnuityAugust 20: The Oxford AnnuityAugust 20: The Oxford AnnuityAugust 20: The Oxford AnnuityBy this date, Alan Nelson reports, the

Dowager Countess of Oxford writes in herown hand appealing to Cecil for continu-ation of Oxford’s £1,000 annuity at £500rather than at the £200-per-year the Kinghad offered “for my own, and my Child’smaintenance.”16

Elizabeth Trentham’s son Henry deVere, Eighteenth Earl of Oxford, is now 11.It would seem pathetically ironic that theDowager Countess refers in her letter tothe “consideration” in this matter shownby her late husband’s Catholic cousin HenryHoward, Lord Northampton, whom Ox-ford had accused of treason in 1581 andwho is now enjoying royal favor in the newreign. The contents of her letter seempathetic as well:

“I was very glad that the relief of thisruined estate, best known to your Lord-ships, rested in the favor of such persons,as both in honor, nature, and affectionwould regard the desolate estate of my poorChild and myself. But now hearing fromyour Lordship that the rate was set downby his Majesty’s own determination, andnot left to your discretion, I earnestlyentreat your Lordship that you wouldpresent my humble petition to his gra-cious Majesty to enlarge his gift to fivehundred pounds rent yearly. Your Lord-ship may truly inform his Highness thatthe Pension of a thousand pounds was notgiven by the late Queen to my Lord for hislife and then to determine (cease or stop),but to continue until she might raise hisdecay by some better provision.”

Queen Elizabeth had left it open as towhether she might make some “better pro-vision” for Oxford’s finances, but she hadnever done so; instead, the annual granthad simply continued in both reigns untilhis death in June.

“And as I hear, his Majesty is mostrespective (respectful?) in performing ofthe late Queen’s intentions, which makesme the more hopeful, in my great dis-tress, of his Majesty’s favor. It hath beenenjoyed but one year by his Majesty’s gift(1603-1604), and it is all the relief I everlook for to sustain my miserable estate.”

August 27: The Constable DepartsAugust 27: The Constable DepartsAugust 27: The Constable DepartsAugust 27: The Constable DepartsAugust 27: The Constable DepartsAmbassador Don John de Velasco, Con-

stable of Castile, having suffered an attackof lumbago following the State dinner atthe Banqueting House, has been in bedrecovering. Today, at last, King James bidshim a formal farewell as he departs forSpain.September 24: Oxford Post MortemSeptember 24: Oxford Post MortemSeptember 24: Oxford Post MortemSeptember 24: Oxford Post MortemSeptember 24: Oxford Post Mortem

The first Inquisition post mortem torecord the remains of Oxford’s estate, filedfor Essex, reports that the Dowager Count-ess, while still remaining at Hackney for atime, is also residing in Essex atHornchurch. Nelson observes this is “evi-dently a second home near the forest es-tates”17 that the King granted to Edward deVere before his death.October 16: Wedding PlansOctober 16: Wedding PlansOctober 16: Wedding PlansOctober 16: Wedding PlansOctober 16: Wedding Plans

William Herbert Lord Pembroke in-forms his father-in-law the Earl ofShrewsbury that his brother Philip Herbertwill marry Susan Vere:

“I rather chose to write by post thanleave you understand of that which is asjoyful unto me as anything that ever fell outsince my birth … The matter in brief isthat, after long love, and many changes, mybrother on Friday last was privately con-tracted (engaged) to my Lady Susan, with-out the knowledge of any of his or herfriends. On Saturday she acquainted heruncle (Cecil) with it, and he me. My Lordof Cranborne (Cecil) seemed to be muchtroubled at it at first, but yesterday theKing, taking the whole matter on himself,made peace on all sides…”18

October 26: The Oxford AnnuityOctober 26: The Oxford AnnuityOctober 26: The Oxford AnnuityOctober 26: The Oxford AnnuityOctober 26: The Oxford AnnuityDespite the pleadings of Oxford’s

widow, King James issues a royal grantfrom Westminster stipulating that she re-ceive an annuity of £200 rather than £500,to be drawn from the Exchequer in quar-terly payments:

“Know ye that we of our special grace… do give and grant unto our right trustyand right well-beloved cousin Henry Earlof Oxon a certain annuity or pension of twohundred pounds of lawful money of En-gland by the year…”19

November 1: “Othello”November 1: “Othello”November 1: “Othello”November 1: “Othello”November 1: “Othello”The special attendants assigned to the

Royal apartments will send in their bill tothe Treasurer of the Chamber for makingpreparations for an unprecedented Shake-speare festival at the English Court, pre-




sented by the King’s Men:

“The greate Chamber at Whitehall for2 days in November 1604, for the King’sMajestie to see the plaies … For makingready the Bangqueting House at Whitehallagainst the plaie, November 1604 … Formaking ready the great Hall for Sir PhilipHerbert’s wedding the same month De-cember 1604. For making ready the Ban-queting House at Whitehall for the mask…”20

The Revels Office reports: “HallowmasDay, being the first of November a play inthe Banqueting House at Whitehall calledThe Moor of Venice”.21

November 4: “Merry Wives”November 4: “Merry Wives”November 4: “Merry Wives”November 4: “Merry Wives”November 4: “Merry Wives”The King’s Men perform The Merry

Wives of Windsor in the Great Hall of thePalace.November 19: Silver Street WeddingNovember 19: Silver Street WeddingNovember 19: Silver Street WeddingNovember 19: Silver Street WeddingNovember 19: Silver Street Wedding

William Shakspere of Stratford may ormay not be still residing in the home ofChristopher Mountjoy, a French Huguenottire-maker (manufacturer of ladies’ orna-mental headgear) in the ward ofCripplegate. Whatever the case, Mountjoy’sdaughter Mary is married today to StephenBellot, a former apprentice and now anemployee, as a result of his help.

Bellot left London earlier this year “tosee the world,” but he soon returned toSilver Street on a fixed salary. During hisrecent courtship of Mary Mountjoy, ac-cording to later court records, her fathernot only gave his blessing but also “didsend and persuade one Mr. Shakespearethat lay in the house to persuade the plain-tiff (Bellot) to the same marriage.” That is,the Stratford man was enlisted as a match-maker, because the groom was holdingout for a more advantageous marriagesettlement; and soon the two lovers “weremade sure by Mr. Shakespeare by givingtheir consent, and agreed to marry.”

The wedding took place today in theparish church of St. Olave in Silver Street;but the records, Samuel Schoenbaumnotes, “do not show whether Shakespeareattended.”

This episode of traditional Shakespear-ean biography will be revealed by courtdocuments of 1612, when attempts will bemade to determine exactly what financialsettlement for the marriage had beenagreed upon. Mr. Shakspere will make anappearance at these hearings eight years

hence, but will fail to recall precisely whatsum of money Mountjoy had promised hisson-in-law. For Schoenbaum, this lapsewill “reveal the poet-dramatist of superhu-man powers as a somewhat baffled mortal”after all. 22

December 11: Gunpowder PlottersDecember 11: Gunpowder PlottersDecember 11: Gunpowder PlottersDecember 11: Gunpowder PlottersDecember 11: Gunpowder PlottersSeven conspirators of the Gunpowder

Plot, to be discovered about a year fromnow in November 1605, assemble in Lon-don and begin to work in earnest.23

December 18: The Gossip MillDecember 18: The Gossip MillDecember 18: The Gossip MillDecember 18: The Gossip MillDecember 18: The Gossip MillJohn Chamberlain writes to Sir Ralph

Winwood:

“Sir Philip Herbert and Lady SusanVere are to be married on St. John’s Day atWhitehall. Three thousand pounds arealready delivered for the expenses of thegreat Masque to be performed on TwelfthNight (Masque of Blackness by Jonson)…”

Chamberlain also cites an example ofhow the King’s Men are suddenly makingchoices that are not quite politically cor-rect:

“The tragedy of Gowry has been twiceperformed by the King’s Players to crowdedaudiences, but the King is displeased andit will be forbidden. Princes should not beset on the Stage during their lifetime.”24

December 26: “Measure”December 26: “Measure”December 26: “Measure”December 26: “Measure”December 26: “Measure”The King’s Men perform Measure for

Measure in the Great Hall.December 27: Vere-Herbert WeddingDecember 27: Vere-Herbert WeddingDecember 27: Vere-Herbert WeddingDecember 27: Vere-Herbert WeddingDecember 27: Vere-Herbert Wedding

Susan Vere and Philip Herbert aremarried.25 The wedding takes place liter-

ally between two performances of plays(Measure for Measure on the 26th andComedy of Errors on the 28th) that hadbeen written by the bride’s father, whosename seems to be never mentioned inpublic.

According to John Chamberlain, writ-ing to Dudley Carleton, the King has con-tributed to the marriage with 500 poundsin land (in the Isle of Sheppey) plus giftsamounting to £2,000. The wedding was“performed with as much ceremony andgrace as could be done a favorite,” hereports, noting that Prince Henry and theDuke of Holstein led the bride to churchwhile Queen Anne followed and KingJames himself gave her away.

“And she brided and bridled it so hand-somely and indeed became herself so wellthat the King said if he were not married hewould not give her but keep her himself …They were married in the chapel, feasted inthe great chamber, and lodged in the coun-cil chamber, where the King gave them inthe morning before they were up a reveille-matin in his shirt and nightgown andspent a good hour with them in the bed orupon, choose which you will believe best...”26

The groom will become Earl of Mont-gomery on May 4th next year.December 28: “Comedy of Errors”December 28: “Comedy of Errors”December 28: “Comedy of Errors”December 28: “Comedy of Errors”December 28: “Comedy of Errors”

The King’s Men perform The Comedyof Errors for the royal audience in theGreat Hall.

Festivities surrounding the Herbert-Vere marriage will continue in early Janu-ary with Love’s Labour’s Lost performedfor Queen Anne, apparently withSouthampton hosting the occasion. (Theplay was one of the earl’s favorites in hisyounger days, circa 1592.) Sir WilliamCope, charged with furnishing Her Maj-esty with a suitable performance, will writeto Cecil:

“Sir, I have sent and been all thismorning hunting for players, jugglers,and such kind of creatures, but find themhard to find; wherefore, leaving notes forthem to seek me, Burbage is come, and saysthere is no new play that the Queen hathnot seen, but they have revived an old onecalled Love’s Labour’s Lost, which for witand mirth, he says, will please her exceed-ingly. And this is appointed to be playedtomorrow night at my Lord of

Year in the Life (continued from page 27)

“Love’s Labour’s Lost, which“Love’s Labour’s Lost, which“Love’s Labour’s Lost, which“Love’s Labour’s Lost, which“Love’s Labour’s Lost, which

for wit and mirth, he says,for wit and mirth, he says,for wit and mirth, he says,for wit and mirth, he says,for wit and mirth, he says,

will please her exceedinglywill please her exceedinglywill please her exceedinglywill please her exceedinglywill please her exceedingly

...[and] is appointed...[and] is appointed...[and] is appointed...[and] is appointed...[and] is appointed

to be played tomorrowto be played tomorrowto be played tomorrowto be played tomorrowto be played tomorrow

night at my Lord ofnight at my Lord ofnight at my Lord ofnight at my Lord ofnight at my Lord of

Southampton’s…”Southampton’s…”Southampton’s…”Southampton’s…”Southampton’s…”



Southampton’s…”27

With the wedding celebrations con-tinuing, Masque of Blackness by BenJonson will be performed for Queen Anneat the Old Banqueting House on January6th, with the bride Susan Vere as a dancer inthe cast; Henry Fifth will be played onJanuary 7th; Every Man Out of His Humouron January 8th; Every Man In His Humouron February 2nd; and The Merchant of Venicewill be performed twice, on February 10th

and 12th, presumably because King Jamesand/or Queen Anne so thoroughly enjoythat stage work. In all the Court festivalwill have included seven plays attributedto William Shakespeare and two others,the Every Man works, attributed to BenJonson, who will tell readers of his ownFolio in 1616 that Shakespeare had headedthe cast of the original performance ofEvery Man In His Humour in 1598.Late 1604: “Great Oxford”Late 1604: “Great Oxford”Late 1604: “Great Oxford”Late 1604: “Great Oxford”Late 1604: “Great Oxford”

“My little beagle,” King James begins afinal letter to Cecil this year, presentinghim with an account of how Lord Sheffield,President of the Council of the North, hasbeen demanding a bigger share of theroyal largesse:

“And yet, that he might have a taste ofmy favour for his further enabling in myservice, I was contented to give him apension for his lifetime of as great value asever either the late Queen or I gave to anysubject, to wit 1,000 pounds. To this heanswered that this would do him no good,he was already ten thousand pounds indebt…

“I had already told him, never greatergift of that nature was given in England.Great Oxford when his state was wholeruined got no more of the late Queen. Imyself bestows (sic) no more upon Arbellamy only near cousin. Nay, a foreign princeof Germany that was here the last year gotnot so much…”28

Lingering questions about 1604Lingering questions about 1604Lingering questions about 1604Lingering questions about 1604Lingering questions about 1604

At the end of the previous column,which dealt with events during the firsthalf of 1604, we listed some unansweredquestions. Here are some brief, and nodoubt unsatisfactory, answers based on mypersonal opinions:

• Ben Jonson and William of Stratfordmust have known each other, but the

nature of their relationship remainsentirely unclear. They appear to be twosides of the same coin, that is, part ofthe same overall effort (directed byRobert Cecil) to obscure Oxford’sauthorship of the Shakespeare works.

• Jonson’s services had been thrustupon both Edward de Vere and the LordChamberlain’s Men by Cecil, who hadorchestrated the demise of Oxford’sprevious circle of writers while gainingunprecedented governmental controlover play companies and publictheaters, not to mention strictercensorship. Ben was to be the newpopular dramatist, taking attentionaway from Shakespeare, and Will wasto receive the eventual (posthumous)recognition as the author.

• Regardless of the similarity of histitle as Lord Great Chamberlain to thatof the Lord Chamberlain, Oxford hadbeen the guiding force of the greatacting troupe to continue as the King’sMen. By whatever practical means,Shakespeare’s company had beenEdward de Vere’s most importantcompany.

• William of Stratford may have beena member of the Chamberlain’s-King’sMen on the business side and ashareholder of the Globe, but whetherhe ever walked on the stage as an actorcannot yet be determined. It wouldseem, however, that over time suchbecame the fairly common perception.

• Oxford must have taken great interestin the decision to produce a newtranslation of the Bible, to eventuallybecome the King James Version of1611. That decision had been made atthe Hampton Court Conference earlythis year (January 1604), when Oxfordwas still very much alive, and he couldhave contributed (in various ways) overthe next five months until his death inJune.

• Whether Edward de Vere actuallydied this year is unclear. (The reader isdirected to the fascinating work on thissubject by researcher/writer Chris-topher Paul.) Some students of Oxfordnow lean to his possible suicide

(suggested by William Niederkornof The New York Times, with furtherwork being done by Robert Detobel). Ibelieve that Oxford may havevoluntarily disappeared—perhaps intohis beloved Forest of Waltham, i.e., theForest of Essex, of which he was grantedcustody in 1603, or to a remote placesuch as the Isle of Man, owned by hisson-in-law the Earl of Derby—and thatthe 1609 dedication of Shake-SpearesSonnets may have served to announcethat “our ever-living poet” had finallydeparted from this world. If such werethe case, his contributions to the KingJames Version of the Bible (given anadditional five years of life) might havebeen much greater than supposed.

• To dismiss the arrest of Southamptonon June 24, 1604, within hours beforeor after Oxford’s reported death on thatdate, would seem dangerously rash. Mystrong opinion is that Edward de Verehad worked behind the scenes withCecil, his brother-in-law, during 1601-1603, to ensure Southampton’seventual release by James withrestoration of his earldom and a royalpardon. (Nina Green, host of theInternet discussion group Phaeton, hassuggested that Oxford was theunidentified “40” who appears brieflyin the secret correspondence withJames led by Cecil.) If so, Oxford wouldhave given his personal assurance ofSouthampton’s loyalty (i.e., that hewould attempt no sequel to the EssexRebellion); but once Edward de Verewas gone, the Crown would have neededto assess the younger earl’scommitment for itself.

James was paranoid and neededsuch assurances; and Cecil would haveadmitted (grudgingly) that the popularEarl of Southampton’s continuedpresence in the Tower could constitutea potential rallying point for thosedissatisfied with the new reign. It wasfar safer for the King to freeSouthampton and heap honors uponhim, while giving him no genuinepolitical power and dispatching him tothe Isle of Wight. The new monarch hadswiftly favored both Southampton andOxford during the first year of the reign;and in that respect, despite his financial




An Interview with Beard

of Avon author Amy Freed

A my Freed lights up a room when she speaks like the messenger of good news in a renaissance painting, and

she is just the slightest bit impish to boot.Married to a newspaperman, living in SanFrancisco and lecturing in drama atStanford, she is 45, has been a playwrightsince 1990, with six completed works todate, most recently, The Beard of Avonwhich opened in New York last Decemberwith rave reviews from The New York Times,making it one of the season’s hits.

In 1998 Ms. Freed was a Pulitzer PrizeFinalist for her play, “Freedomland.”Earlier works also reveal a focus oncharacters who make literature and art -“The Psychic Life of Savages”,“Claustophilia”, “The Ghoul of Amherst”and “Still Warm.” Their characters includeEdgar Allan Poe, Emily Dickinson, SylviaPlath, journalist Jessica Savitch and a familyof artists.

In recent interviews she has said, “Myplay is not a vote for de Vere; it’s a mystery,”and “I began to write a comedy aboutpeople who are obsessed by conspiraciesand I became obsessed with thisconspiracy.” She noted that in her writing,“I have the release of comedy. I can sleepwith the uncertainty” that the authorshipof Shakespeare is in doubt.

Amy James Freed, in this short interview,shows how to end some serious thoughts ona Neil Simon note of laughter. To wit:

Newsletter:Newsletter:Newsletter:Newsletter:Newsletter: Isn’t it inevitable that the Earlof Oxford will become the designated“interpretive instrument” if not the provenauthor, the lens through whichShakespearean studies inevitably must passto be seen clearly, and so, eventually,because he appears to be Hamlet, the modelfor Hamlet, perhaps the only person wholived Hamlet, probably generallyoccupying a significant place in any studyof Hamlet? In other words, the de facto“author”?Freed: Freed: Freed: Freed: Freed: This question contains its ownanswer—I’ll pass until I finish my “Oxford”studies.NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: I believe you said that “The intellect ofOxford attracts” while Shakespeareremains dull, meaning that finally thewinner will be Oxford.

Freed: Freed: Freed: Freed: Freed: The intellect of Shakespeare attractsand confounds and the relationship ofnascent talent to learning and the degree towhich each contribute to the making of awriter of his caliber is the driving

investigation of “Beard of Avon.”NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: Which leads to a second questionconcerning experiential writing, given thatthere are probably no other writers inwestern literature who did not write fromwhat they know. Are we not looking at thewritten experience of the Earl of Oxford inShakespeare even though we do not havethe author’s signature?Freed: Freed: Freed: Freed: Freed: We are looking at the writtenexperience of the author, certainly, a manof considerable development, matureinsight, philosophical preoccupation, anda highly sophisticated understanding ofpower, human nature and behavior.NL: NL: NL: NL: NL: Which leads me to note that I believeyou appeared in “The Beard of Avon”through the character of Anne Hathaway.She made some mighty modern andrelevant comments and seemed totranscend herself. A thoroughly modernand delightful woman!Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: Anne H. is conveniently unknownto history, and so is available to the modernimagination. But she’s not me.NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: Is Anne Hathaway the spokeslady ofyour life view?Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: No, Edward de Vere is. Especiallywhen he longs for the depraved banquetsof his youth.

NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: You really sounded expert on thesubject of research, reading the old playsfrom pre-Shakespearean times, with thevaudevillian mouse-man boasting how hebeats his wife, until she comes on stage. Icertainly see where you began “The Beard.”Freed: Freed: Freed: Freed: Freed: I love the silliness of the earlyEnglish comedies. They remind me of“The Honeymooners” and “The ThreeStooges” which are among my mostimportant artistic influences.NL: NL: NL: NL: NL: How about giving us a “SaturdayNight Live” with Dumb Will Shax, NimbleNed Ox, Miss Prissy Queen Liz and thatbeautiful, glamorous Anne? Are you willingto go on adding more scenes, moreplaywrights, a third act?Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: It would be fun, but I have to get outof the 16th century for a while.NL: NL: NL: NL: NL: Can you see “The Beard” as a musical?“Hellzapoppin” for history buffs?Freed: Freed: Freed: Freed: Freed: Yes.NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: Doubtless I am not paying adequaterespect to your years of study of Elizabethanspeech patterns.Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: No, you are.NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: From the New School in New Yorkwhere you started, and the St. John’s CollegeGreat Books program, to SMU in Dallasand a Master’s from the AmericanConservatory Theater, you not onlylearned, you shaped a literary vision. Howdoes that “literary” thing, the urge to “writewell” grab you? As an actress first, andstudying with Kirsten Linklater, clearlyyou found the fun in writing.Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: Writing well, for a playwright,means you are writing well for the dramaticmoment - that your words serve actions, bethey violent, ugly, broken, exalted,ridiculous. I think to write well for theateryou have to let go of the idea of writing asa precious artifact. But I do like momentsof beauty, when they are organic to a sceneor a world... and you get to create a world,as a playwright, where someone can saysomething stunning. Might be short orsimple, but in some way perfect in its truth.Better than hemming and hawing one’sway through real life, never thinking of theright thing until the scene is long over, andthe moment gone!NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: Hasn’t the “sound” and the physicalshape of your writing for stage always been

By James SherwoodBy James SherwoodBy James SherwoodBy James SherwoodBy James Sherwood

Amy Freed



Subscribe to Subscribe to Subscribe to Subscribe to Subscribe to Shakespeare MattersShakespeare MattersShakespeare MattersShakespeare MattersShakespeare Matters

Name:____________________________________________________Name:____________________________________________________Name:____________________________________________________Name:____________________________________________________Name:____________________________________________________

Address:__________________________________________________Address:__________________________________________________Address:__________________________________________________Address:__________________________________________________Address:__________________________________________________

City:___________________________ State:________ ZIP:________City:___________________________ State:________ ZIP:________City:___________________________ State:________ ZIP:________City:___________________________ State:________ ZIP:________City:___________________________ State:________ ZIP:________

Phone:______________________email:________________________Phone:______________________email:________________________Phone:______________________email:________________________Phone:______________________email:________________________Phone:______________________email:________________________

Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____Check enclosed____ Or... Credit card____ MC____ Visa____

Name on card:_____________________________________________Name on card:_____________________________________________Name on card:_____________________________________________Name on card:_____________________________________________Name on card:_____________________________________________

Card number:_____________________________Exp. date:________Card number:_____________________________Exp. date:________Card number:_____________________________Exp. date:________Card number:_____________________________Exp. date:________Card number:_____________________________Exp. date:________

Signature:________________________________________________Signature:________________________________________________Signature:________________________________________________Signature:________________________________________________Signature:________________________________________________

Regular member:Regular member:Regular member:Regular member:Regular member:e-member ($20/year) _______(Website; online newsletter)One year ($40/$55 overseas) _______Two year ($75/$105 overseas) _______Three year ($110/$155 overseas) _______

Family/Institution:Family/Institution:Family/Institution:Family/Institution:Family/Institution:One year ($60/$75 overseas) _______Two year ($115/$145 overseas) _______Three years ($170/$215 os) _______

Patron ($75/year or over):Patron ($75/year or over):Patron ($75/year or over):Patron ($75/year or over):Patron ($75/year or over): _______

Special offer for new subscribers:Special offer for new subscribers:Special offer for new subscribers:Special offer for new subscribers:Special offer for new subscribers:Bible dissertation ($69) _______P&H for Bible ($5) _______

Total:Total:Total:Total:Total: _______

Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478Checks payable to: The Shakespeare Fellowship, PO Box 561, Belmont, MA 02478

stronger than stuffy old rules? I mean, whatwould you do if it sounded good and didn’tplay well?Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: Cut it.NL: NL: NL: NL: NL: Would you tell me again about yourteachers who drilled the essentials of theiambic line into you, and how you learnedwhat you described as “the power” of thebreaks in formal rhythm and structure,especially as our Shakespeare moved intowhat you so beautifully said “was ‘KingLear’ like Beethoven”?Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: When I was an acting student at ACTmy teachers, especially William Ball andDebora Sussel, taught us to look toShakespeare’s text as a guide to the actor.To be sensitive to the psychological effectsof his metrics - from the forward gallop ofthe iamb, to the hammer-stroke of aspondee - to the odd, unnatural sound ofthe trochees that the witches in ‘Macbeth’use when they incant.NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: It seems to me you were quite movedby Ted Hughes “writing well about poets”and “Shakespeare primarily and supremelyas a poet.” Then you noted the “intersectionof poetry and theater.” What do you thinkabout mostly when you write? Is it to tellyour story, your feelings, to love thegeniuses, to rehabilitate all thesemisunderstood great minds like Poe andPlath?Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: Mostly I’m looking for an imaginedvoice of power and singularity, that givesme a character that has its own life. Fromthat point on, it tells me what to do.NL: NL: NL: NL: NL: Isn’t that where all the beautiful

writing and rhyming are tossed out? Iseem to be mixing my questions up, fallingall over myself in contemplation of “a realthinker” and a “great entertainer” and a“truly funny lady” all in one. Did ElaineMay influence you?Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: I’m not really all that familiar withElaine May’s work, to be honest. But thereare others: Shaw, Chekhov, Mel Brooks,Goldsmith, Sheridan, Mamet, BusterKeaton, Jackie Chan, Aristophanes, BBCComedy Channel, Edna St. Vincent Millay,Edith Sitwell, Edith Bunker, and on andon.NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: I can’t believe you never realized yourown name was in “Freedomland” (playnominated for Pulitzer Prize in 1998) butthen I can believe it. Yes, you have a purity.Does the innocent heart, the trusting andmaybe almost naive person still interestyou, have your sympathy?Freed: Freed: Freed: Freed: Freed: As a hypothetical, I suppose. I’mdepressed by how rare those qualities areanymore. My students seem so over-sophisticated in a sort of surface way. Mystudents from other countries seem moreintact, sometimes, than American kids.NL: NL: NL: NL: NL: I’m told by others that you said that“The Beard” has been through three stagesof revision. Between the South CoastRepertory, Salt Lake and Seattle, SanFrancisco, Chicago and now New York.What has been the most painful cut of all?Or most difficult development?Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: Losing two final scenes, one thatdealt with Queen Elizabeth as a frailer,older and wiser lady, and another that

dealt with Shakespeare, years later, athome in Stratford. There was also, in anearlier draft, a scene that accounted forthe loss of Shakespeare’s manuscripts andanswered the question, “Whateverhappened to ‘Love’s Labour Won’?” Theywere good scenes, too. Just not right forthe final form of the play.NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: Assuming the agnostic positionallowed you to avoid preaching from asoapbox and simply to find the humor inall the positions but: Would you considerdoing a comedy about that terrible sense ofloneliness and loss, that personal isolation,which is (or is not?) the central character ofOxford’s dilemma?Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: Maybe. I consider all kinds of ideas.Whether I can pull them off is anothermatter.NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: Or do you see Oxford as somethingother than a man tormented?Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: The Oxford character that I createdfor “Beard of Avon” has taken on suchreality for me that it supersedes anythingelse - and probably all facts. That Oxfordhas an irrepressible amusement andbemusement with all things human - he’ssort of an Olympian, who is fascinated, butcan’t quite ultimately take seriously theheartbreaks of lesser mortals.NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: Or do you believe that maybe Will Shaxdid it the way craftsmen put in eight hoursa day at the studio and go home to forgetit all like any other job holder? Or was hea genius at playing like he wasn’t a genius- the way a lot of louts seem?




Shakespeare MattersShakespeare MattersShakespeare MattersShakespeare MattersShakespeare MattersThe Voice of the Shakespeare FellowshipThe Voice of the Shakespeare FellowshipThe Voice of the Shakespeare FellowshipThe Voice of the Shakespeare FellowshipThe Voice of the Shakespeare FellowshipP. O. Box 263P. O. Box 263P. O. Box 263P. O. Box 263P. O. Box 263Somerville MA 02143Somerville MA 02143Somerville MA 02143Somerville MA 02143Somerville MA 02143Address correction requestedAddress correction requestedAddress correction requestedAddress correction requestedAddress correction requested

Freed interview (continued from page 31)

Inside this issue:Inside this issue:Inside this issue:Inside this issue:Inside this issue:

Freed: Freed: Freed: Freed: Freed: I don’t know.NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: You mentioned that not a lot haschanged in the theater from 16th Centuryslapstick comedy to 1950s “The Honey-mooners.” Are you looking forward towriting a tragedy?Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: No!!NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: You mentioned that now you’ve brokenthe mold (of writing about genius andliterary icons - Poe, Plath, etc.). I hopeyou’re not abandoning the obvious fun andjoy and sympathy you have in portrayingbrilliant misfits. Is “The Cotton MatherStory” going to make us laugh?Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: Yes.NL: NL: NL: NL: NL: I think you said that the suprememoments in Shakespearean writing “comelike flights” unconnected to the eventsthen in play, suggesting that the authorbegan as a constructor of stories and skits,but ended alone at his desk writingliterature for the printer. Are you going tocontinue revising your plays as time passes,shaping them and adding as you change?Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: Future plays, yes. But what I’vewritten to date is on its own.NL:NL:NL:NL:NL: What’s your favorite question?Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed:Freed: How would you like yourhonorarium?

—James Sherwood (interview conductedduring January 2004). James Sherwood hasdone author interviews for The Paris Review,Writers At Work, Playboy, Esquire, the VillageVoice, Ladies Home Journal, of L-F Celine,Mason Hoffenberg, Clifford Irving, JamesCagney and many more over 50 years.

ruin, Edward de Vere departed fromthe scene this year in quite the oppositeof disgrace.

Endnotes:Endnotes:Endnotes:Endnotes:Endnotes:

1 Campbell, O. J., The Reader’s Encyclopediaof Shakespeare, (New York: MJF Books,1966), 284.

2 Unauthorized editions of plays under theShakespeare name between now and theFolio will include King Lear of 1608,Trolius and Cressida and Pericles of 1609,and Othello of 1622.

3 The Irving Shakespeare, “The Life ofWilliam Shakespeare” (New York: Books,Inc, 1913), Introduction, xxx (Italics addedfor emphasis).

4 Stopes, Charlotte Carmichael, The Life ofHenry, Third Earl of Southampton (NewYork: AMS Press, 1922), 283.

5 Nelson, Alan, Monstrous Adversary(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press,2003), 428.

6 Akrigg, G. P. V., Shakespeare and the Earl ofSouthampton (Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press, 1968), 142.

7 Jonson’s account is in his Folio of 1616.Although Sejanus was performed at Courtin 1603, exactly when it was first acted inpublic is not known for sure, but 1604 isusually cited.

8 Procter, Johanna, ed., The Selected Plays ofBen Jonson, vol. 1 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 1989), 9.

9 Levy, Fritz, “The Theatre and the Court inthe 1590s” in The Reign of Elizabeth I:Court and Culture in the Last Decade,edited by John Guy (Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press, 1995), 274-300.

10 Adams, J. Q., A Life of William Shakespeare,(Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1923), 365.

Year in the Life (continued from page 29) 11 Rye, W. B., England as Seen by Foreignersin the Days of Elizabeth and James theFirst (London, 1865), 118; a Spanishpamphlet of 1604 is reprinted.

12 Stopes, op. cit., 284, citing “Dec. Acc.Treas. Ch., Audit Off. 388, 41; Pipe Off.543.”

13 Stopes, op. cit. 285, citing Nichols’Progresses, 268.

14 Rye, op. cit., 123.15 Handover, P. M., The Second Cecil (Great

Britain: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1959), 313-315.

16 Nelson, op. cit., 427 (I have modernized histranscript).

17 Nelson, op. cit., 431.18 Nelson, op. cit., 428 (I have modernized the

English here, too).19 Nelson, op. cit., 428 (modernized English).20 Stopes, op. cit., 287, citing Cecil Papers,

cix, 40.21 Public Record Office, Audit Office,

Accounts Various, A.O.3/908/13; this andthe other citations of plays performed bythe King’s Men, from an account preparedunder supervision of Edmund Tilney, thelongtime Master of the Revels.

22 Schoenbaum, Samuel, William Shakespeare:A Compact Documentary Life (New York:Oxford University Press, 1987), 260-264.

23 Bowen, Catherine Drinker, The Lion and theThrone (Boston: Little-Brown, 1956), 239.

24 Stopes, op. cit., from Windwood’s memoirs,I., 41.

25 Miller, Ruth Loyd, “Oxfordian Vistas” (inShakespeare Identified. Jennings, LA:Minos Publishing Company, 1975, vol. 2),4.

26 Nelson, op. cit., 429-430 (modern English).27 Adams, 370-371.28 Akrigg, G. P. V., editor, Letters of King

James VI & I (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1984), 242-245, emphasisby italics added.

In Search of RosencrantzIn Search of RosencrantzIn Search of RosencrantzIn Search of RosencrantzIn Search of Rosencrantzand Guildenstern - page 1and Guildenstern - page 1and Guildenstern - page 1and Guildenstern - page 1and Guildenstern - page 1

8th Annual Edward de Vere8th Annual Edward de Vere8th Annual Edward de Vere8th Annual Edward de Vere8th Annual Edward de VereStudies Conference - page 1Studies Conference - page 1Studies Conference - page 1Studies Conference - page 1Studies Conference - page 1

Interrogation of Prof. AlanInterrogation of Prof. AlanInterrogation of Prof. AlanInterrogation of Prof. AlanInterrogation of Prof. AlanNelson - page 1Nelson - page 1Nelson - page 1Nelson - page 1Nelson - page 1

“Lillies that Fester” - page 18“Lillies that Fester” - page 18“Lillies that Fester” - page 18“Lillies that Fester” - page 18“Lillies that Fester” - page 18

“My Turk” - page 22“My Turk” - page 22“My Turk” - page 22“My Turk” - page 22“My Turk” - page 22

Year in the Life:Year in the Life:Year in the Life:Year in the Life:Year in the Life:1604 (Part II) - page 251604 (Part II) - page 251604 (Part II) - page 251604 (Part II) - page 251604 (Part II) - page 25

Vol. 3, No. 3: Spring 2004

Documents

Transcript of Vol. 3, No. 3: Spring 2004