The Lone Oxfordian
The Lone Oxfordian
Saving Southampton
It's not everyday that anyone can say that a real bombshell has landed in the Shakespeare authorship debate. And, as some of our readers may be aware, the term bombshell has been thrown around loosely by some Oxfordians in the past year in discussing their theories about how and why the authorship problem came to be. But now, with the discovery of a poem apparently written by the 3rd Earl of Southampton shortly after his conviction for treason in the Essex Rebellion in 1601, such a bombshell may indeed have landed, and it's for real.
In the Winter 2011 issue of the journal English Literary Renaissance researcher Lara M Crowley has reported on this discovery in her article, Was Southampton A Poet? A Verse Letter to Queen Elizabeth. In the article she reports that she found this heretofore unknown poem in a folio of manuscript copies of miscellaneous verses, compiled sometime in the early 17th century.
My friend and colleague Hank Whittemore has already written several posts about this article on his blog during the past week. I invite readers to check out what Hank has to say about how this discovery fits perfectly with his Monument Theory about Shakespeare's sonnets, particularly that Sonnets 27 to 126 were written to Southhampton while he was in the tower following his conviction and death sentence in the Essex rebellion. I do not wish to repeat here what Hank is posting on his blog about this discovery. However what I do want to do is call attention to what the author Lara Crowley has to say in her article about the Essex rebellion, Southampton's death sentence and reprieve, and the all-important question of how it came to be that Southampton was not executed. In other words, who saved Southampton?
In the first paragraph of her article Crowley notes the key question. She writes,
Just a few paragraphs later Crowley writes (after noting that it would seem unlikely that Robert Cecil would have interceded on Southampton's behalf):
But it is towards the end of her article that Crowley, in a concluding section, really digs into this key point about "saving Southampton." She notes, quite correctly, that what is missing for the years 1601-1603 is any record of who made the decision to spare Southampton, and why that decision was made (remember, the pardon was issued by King James -- not Elizabeth -- in April 1603). This section of the article (Section IV) is actually the longest section, running from pages 123-141, which is 19 pages in a 34 page-long article. It is in these pages that Crowley explores the question of whether it was Southampton's writing alone (in either this poem or his Privy Council letters) that saved him, or, as she noted earlier, whether it was "someone or something else."
To those of us who have been following this story for years this is extremely interesting, because Crowley arrives at the same conclusion that Hank Whittemore and I arrived at years ago -- that there is no good reason for Southampton to have been spared, at least not based on the record handed down to us in history. The idea that Robert Cecil interceded to save Southampton out of sympathy alone is questionable, and Crowley herself does question it. She directly analyzes this historical notion that Cecil saved Southampton out of "sympathy," and concludes that it is unlikely. In looking at Cecil's letters to others about Southampton (letters in which he expressed some sympathy towards him), Crowley characterizes the letters as "self-serving," and in talking about them as evidence she puts the word "evidence" in quotation marks, indicating her skepticism that these letters alone are proof that Cecil saved Southampton -- or at least saved him out of "sympathy." Especially revealing is this observation in a footnote:
This is why, in my opinion, both the discovery of this poem and the article written about it constitute as close to a bombshell as anything I've encountered in 30 years of studying the Shakespeare authorship debate and considering that the Essex rebellion is at the center of it all.
Readers should visit both Hank Whittemore's blog and his Shakespeare's Monument website for further information on this new poem and an overview of the Monument Theory. Readers are also invited to read my essay Unveiling the Sonnets in which I present some of the historical background that is integral to the argument that the sonnets are telling us the story of how Edward de Vere ("Shake-speare") sacrificed himself to save Southampton, which is why there came to be a Shakespeare authorship mystery.
Bill Boyle
In the Winter 2011 issue of the journal English Literary Renaissance researcher Lara M Crowley has reported on this discovery in her article, Was Southampton A Poet? A Verse Letter to Queen Elizabeth. In the article she reports that she found this heretofore unknown poem in a folio of manuscript copies of miscellaneous verses, compiled sometime in the early 17th century.
My friend and colleague Hank Whittemore has already written several posts about this article on his blog during the past week. I invite readers to check out what Hank has to say about how this discovery fits perfectly with his Monument Theory about Shakespeare's sonnets, particularly that Sonnets 27 to 126 were written to Southhampton while he was in the tower following his conviction and death sentence in the Essex rebellion. I do not wish to repeat here what Hank is posting on his blog about this discovery. However what I do want to do is call attention to what the author Lara Crowley has to say in her article about the Essex rebellion, Southampton's death sentence and reprieve, and the all-important question of how it came to be that Southampton was not executed. In other words, who saved Southampton?
In the first paragraph of her article Crowley notes the key question. She writes,
"Southampton was the only conspirator tried with Essex and both men were convicted of treason and sentenced to death. Essex was executed soon after, followed by several other participants, but, surprisingly, Southampton was spared ." (111)When Crowley uses the word "surprisingly" she cuts right to the chase: why was Southampton not executed when most assuredly he should have been?
Just a few paragraphs later Crowley writes (after noting that it would seem unlikely that Robert Cecil would have interceded on Southampton's behalf):
"It seems possible, even likely, that someone or something else influenced Elizabeth's decision, making one wonder if, at his time of greatest need, Southampton -- a 'dere lover and cherisher of poets' -- composed what could be his lone surviving poem." (112)The first part of the article is spent considering the question of whether this poem was actually written by the Earl of Southampton. She present strong evidence that indeed it was, evidence that includes the similarity in the language and arguments of the poem to the language and arguments used in Southampton's letters to the Privy Council asking for mercy. This is tremendous supporting evidence for the Monument Theory, for a key part of Whittemore's argument has also been how much the language and argument of the Sonnets is similar to the language and arguments in these same Privy Council letters.
But it is towards the end of her article that Crowley, in a concluding section, really digs into this key point about "saving Southampton." She notes, quite correctly, that what is missing for the years 1601-1603 is any record of who made the decision to spare Southampton, and why that decision was made (remember, the pardon was issued by King James -- not Elizabeth -- in April 1603). This section of the article (Section IV) is actually the longest section, running from pages 123-141, which is 19 pages in a 34 page-long article. It is in these pages that Crowley explores the question of whether it was Southampton's writing alone (in either this poem or his Privy Council letters) that saved him, or, as she noted earlier, whether it was "someone or something else."
To those of us who have been following this story for years this is extremely interesting, because Crowley arrives at the same conclusion that Hank Whittemore and I arrived at years ago -- that there is no good reason for Southampton to have been spared, at least not based on the record handed down to us in history. The idea that Robert Cecil interceded to save Southampton out of sympathy alone is questionable, and Crowley herself does question it. She directly analyzes this historical notion that Cecil saved Southampton out of "sympathy," and concludes that it is unlikely. In looking at Cecil's letters to others about Southampton (letters in which he expressed some sympathy towards him), Crowley characterizes the letters as "self-serving," and in talking about them as evidence she puts the word "evidence" in quotation marks, indicating her skepticism that these letters alone are proof that Cecil saved Southampton -- or at least saved him out of "sympathy." Especially revealing is this observation in a footnote:
" ...while Cecil might have intervened for purely benevolent reasons, he likely expected some sort of compensation for his assistance, perhaps in the form of information, assurance of position under James I, or even money. " (138, fn69)This is exactly what the Monument Theory proposes is being recorded and passed down to posterity in the Sonnets. The final couplet of Sonnet 120 is the key:
But that your trespass [i.e., your treason conviction] now becomes a fee,In other words the Monument Theory proposes that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, paid a ransom to Robert Cecil to save Southampton, and this couplet records that fact. And the ransom? Hank and I believe that the ransom payment was Oxford's agreement to be consigned to oblivion for eternity ("My name be buried where my body is," Sonnet 72), and to accept -- and participate in as "40" -- Cecil's secret correspondence with James of Scotland, resulting in James' peaceful accession to the English throne ("Incertainties now crown themselves assur'd," Sonnet 107). The ransom deal most likely followed close upon a "great reckoning" in a "little room" (AYLI, III.ii). Crowley, in her ruminations on the key question of how Southampton was saved, gets very close to the same conclusion in so far as she believes that more than just sympathy must have been involved.
Mine [my fee] ransoms yours, and yours [your fee] must ransom me.
This is why, in my opinion, both the discovery of this poem and the article written about it constitute as close to a bombshell as anything I've encountered in 30 years of studying the Shakespeare authorship debate and considering that the Essex rebellion is at the center of it all.
Readers should visit both Hank Whittemore's blog and his Shakespeare's Monument website for further information on this new poem and an overview of the Monument Theory. Readers are also invited to read my essay Unveiling the Sonnets in which I present some of the historical background that is integral to the argument that the sonnets are telling us the story of how Edward de Vere ("Shake-speare") sacrificed himself to save Southampton, which is why there came to be a Shakespeare authorship mystery.
Bill Boyle
The Nowhere Boy and the Never Writer
As a longtime Oxfordian it has been an interesting experience to watch the build up to the Roland Emmerich film Anonymous. For the past year amid Oxfordian circles the greatest concern about this film has been that a major part of the plot would be focusing on the sexual escapades of Edward de Vere as Shakespeare and Queen Elizabeth as his putative mother and lover. In other words, incest.
Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Elizabeth and Rhys Ifans
as Edward de Vere (aka "Shake-speare") in Anonymous
Now that the film is out and the reviews are flooding in we can see that this concern was really misplaced. The greater shock remains that the authorship debate exists at all. If anyone doubts that, check out the review and the articles and op eds at the New York Times (Brantley, Shapiro, Marche). Outrage that this film was made at all is paramount. Outrage over incest barely makes a peep.
I have seen the film twice in the past month and it is a good film. I've had my own reservations about a director such as Roland Emmerich making this film, because I love going to films, and I have seen all his previous efforts. He is mostly a B-list director. He does not get great performances out of his actors. But as we Oxfordians have learned from our perspective about Shakespeare, when an artist becomes passionate about something in his life, his art reflects it. So it is with Anonymous. Most critics, even those who hate the authorship issue, acknowledge that this may be Emmerich's best film. It's too bad most of the negative reviews are reviewing the authorship debate and not the film.
Which brings me to the title of this post: the Nowhere Boy and the Never Writer. Last weekend I was watching a 2010 movie on cable TV --- Nowhere Boy --- a biopic about John Lennon. As someone who came of age in the 1960s I have vivid recollections of the impact of the Beatles on the popular culture scene. It transformed rock 'n roll from outsider status to the cultural mainstream. And anyone who knows the history of the Beatles knows it was John Lennon who made it all happen. But what few people know is how John Lennon became John Lennon. This is what Nowhere Boy is all about, and it's a revelation for anyone who loves the Beatles but wasn't aware of John Lennon's childhood and upbringing.
Let me quote from one of the reviews of Nowhere Boy to get an idea of what the story is all about:
Ah, yes, the flesh and blood Lennon is infinitely more fascinating than the saint. Well, doesn't that resonate with comments we have heard in the Shakespeare authorship debate lately? Leave our saint alone! And even more emphatically, leave our Virgin Queen alone!!
But the story that Nowhere Boy tells us is that it it was Lennon's relationship with his birth mother, a woman he had been estranged from for almost 10 years and reconnected with as a teenager, that is at the heart of his story. John Lennon was raised by his mother's sister, Aunt Mimi, and so did not know his mother as the woman who raised him in his formative years. What the film shows, and his friends and biographers have confirmed over the years, is that Lennon's teenage relationship with his mother Julia sometimes bordered on the relationship of lovers, not parent and child. That is what drew my attention as I watched Nowhere Boy ---how this relationship was portrayed in the movie. More than once I said to myself, "Well, Julia can't be his mother ... look at how they're carrying on."
Aaron Johnson as John Lennon and Anne-Marie Duff
as his mother Julia in Nowhere Boy
But Julia was his mother, and she is the one who turned him on to rock 'n roll. And she is the one who taught him to play the guitar. And as some of John's friends, such as Peter Shotten, have recollected, Julia would often hang out with John and his friends like she was one of the boys.
There are some comments from fans of Lennon and the movie at Yahoo Answers under the heading "Do you think John Lennon was in love with his mother?" that give an intriguing sense of what this was all about:
What Nowhere Boy accomplishes is to tell us something about how John Lennon became John Lennon. It resonated with me because after thirty years on the Shakespeare authorship beat I have come to realize that the authorship debate is all about understanding how Shakespeare became Shakespeare. That phrase is the subtitle of Stephen Greenblatt's Will in the World. But of course Will in the World in the end tells us nothing to answer that question because, you know, he's got the wrong guy. But the question itself is important. How and why does an artist become an artist? What makes him or her tick?
Charles Beauclerk tries to answer this question about how Shakespeare became Shakespeare in his 2010 book Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom. His point of view throughout is that Queen Elizabeth was Edward de Vere's mother, and that the bizarre life-long circumstances of their relationship was at the center of both the Elizabethan Age and Shakespeare's greatness. Centuries later it can never be proved, so we are left in limbo with a theory that makes sense of a lot of things about Shakespeare, yet is in itself shocking. However, if it is true, then little wonder that the mother of all cover-ups was called for to hide this mother-son saga.
Nowhere Boy ends with one of Lennon's songs, Mother, playing as he slowly walks down a sidewalk, on his way to Hamburg, and then onto fame and fortune. "You had me," he sings, "But I never had you." We have all the Beatle's songs, and all the songs Lennon wrote after the breakup. And you can enjoy all these songs without knowing the circumstances of Lennon's upbringing. No doubt about it. But knowing is so much better. It leads to understanding.
Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Elizabeth and Rhys Ifans
as Edward de Vere (aka "Shake-speare") in Anonymous
Now that the film is out and the reviews are flooding in we can see that this concern was really misplaced. The greater shock remains that the authorship debate exists at all. If anyone doubts that, check out the review and the articles and op eds at the New York Times (Brantley, Shapiro, Marche). Outrage that this film was made at all is paramount. Outrage over incest barely makes a peep.
I have seen the film twice in the past month and it is a good film. I've had my own reservations about a director such as Roland Emmerich making this film, because I love going to films, and I have seen all his previous efforts. He is mostly a B-list director. He does not get great performances out of his actors. But as we Oxfordians have learned from our perspective about Shakespeare, when an artist becomes passionate about something in his life, his art reflects it. So it is with Anonymous. Most critics, even those who hate the authorship issue, acknowledge that this may be Emmerich's best film. It's too bad most of the negative reviews are reviewing the authorship debate and not the film.
Which brings me to the title of this post: the Nowhere Boy and the Never Writer. Last weekend I was watching a 2010 movie on cable TV --- Nowhere Boy --- a biopic about John Lennon. As someone who came of age in the 1960s I have vivid recollections of the impact of the Beatles on the popular culture scene. It transformed rock 'n roll from outsider status to the cultural mainstream. And anyone who knows the history of the Beatles knows it was John Lennon who made it all happen. But what few people know is how John Lennon became John Lennon. This is what Nowhere Boy is all about, and it's a revelation for anyone who loves the Beatles but wasn't aware of John Lennon's childhood and upbringing.
Let me quote from one of the reviews of Nowhere Boy to get an idea of what the story is all about:
"Because of his accomplishments as a musician and a peace activist and his senseless death, it’s easy to put John Lennon on a pedestal. The truth is that Lennon couldn’t have written or co-written such captivating songs if his personal life wasn’t occasionally torrid. Opening on the 70th anniversary of the singer’s birth and the 30th anniversary of his murder, Nowhere Boy proves the flesh-and-blood Lennon is infinitely more fascinating than the saint." (review by Dan Lybarger on Reel Reviews)
Ah, yes, the flesh and blood Lennon is infinitely more fascinating than the saint. Well, doesn't that resonate with comments we have heard in the Shakespeare authorship debate lately? Leave our saint alone! And even more emphatically, leave our Virgin Queen alone!!
But the story that Nowhere Boy tells us is that it it was Lennon's relationship with his birth mother, a woman he had been estranged from for almost 10 years and reconnected with as a teenager, that is at the heart of his story. John Lennon was raised by his mother's sister, Aunt Mimi, and so did not know his mother as the woman who raised him in his formative years. What the film shows, and his friends and biographers have confirmed over the years, is that Lennon's teenage relationship with his mother Julia sometimes bordered on the relationship of lovers, not parent and child. That is what drew my attention as I watched Nowhere Boy ---how this relationship was portrayed in the movie. More than once I said to myself, "Well, Julia can't be his mother ... look at how they're carrying on."
Aaron Johnson as John Lennon and Anne-Marie Duff
as his mother Julia in Nowhere Boy
But Julia was his mother, and she is the one who turned him on to rock 'n roll. And she is the one who taught him to play the guitar. And as some of John's friends, such as Peter Shotten, have recollected, Julia would often hang out with John and his friends like she was one of the boys.
There are some comments from fans of Lennon and the movie at Yahoo Answers under the heading "Do you think John Lennon was in love with his mother?" that give an intriguing sense of what this was all about:
QUESTION: John Lennon was many things. He had an affair with Brian Epstein. He would hang out at the transvestite bars in Hamburg. And he was in love with his own mother. What?Now all that I'm saying here is that this is mighty interesting for Oxfordians who have been dealing with the debate over whether the Virgin Queen Elizabeth was in fact Edward de Vere's mother, and even more, whether she had a child with him. It is shocking. There is no doubt about it. But is it unthinkable? Well, given the history of the human race here on planet Earth, I'd say no. Statements about what is or isn't "unthinkable" usually, in my estimation, just tell us something about the speaker's own thinking, but nothing about life in the real world.
Do you think that John Lennon was in love with his mother? Did John Lennon have an Oedipus Complex?
FIRST COMMENT:
It does happen, you know. He was raised by his mother's older sister, his Aunt Mimi. Julia had abandoned John in the care of her sister when John was very young and married another man. His father had been a cook on a merchant ship and abandoned his young son John and his wife Julia. When John was a teenager, he reconnected with his mother. She was not that much older than John and had him quite young. The other boys, including Paul McCartney, remarked about how attractive John's mother was. And she was very casual with the boys, very sexual and flirtatious, including her own son. She would smoke and drink with John and encourage his wild behavior.
I even heard a story in which Julia arranged for John to have his first sexual experience with a girl that she picked out for him and John and the girl made love in a spare room while the mother watched on from another room. After John and the girl finished making love, they all got drunk and she called people to come over to announce that John had earned his manhood. This scene was not shown in the movie "Nowhere Boy."
However, in that movie, and in some of the books I have read about the Beatles, John and Julia were as close as a young man and an older woman can get. It was almost like a cougar-cub relationship.
By contrast, his adult guardian Mimi, was very strict. She was a traditional British matron who didn't even allow John to cry in the house when his mother died. Mimi was very much the British lady who reserved her emotions. Her younger sister, John's mother, Julia was known to drink at the pubs and would be the life of the party.
SECOND COMMENT:
I read in a book, I believe it was in a book written by Pete Shotten, who was an original member of the Quarrymen and a close friend of John Lennon, that his mother Julia arranged for him to have his first sexual experience with a girl. She watched him do it and then got drunk and celebrated her son's loss of virginity with a neighborhood party. Julia and Mimi fought over John but the deflowering of John arranged by Julia was the last straw for Mimi who forbade John from seeing his mother after that. There was some legal thing because John was a minor that Mimi threatened to report Julia to the police about it. She didn't but she threatened her sister with it.
There is no proof that Julia actually made love with John but she frequently hugged and kissed him much like an older woman lover. Some women who do not raise their sons do have affairs with the sons. It is not uncommon. John may have reminded Julia of Freddie when he was younger.
THIRD COMMENT
In the movie "Nowhere Boy" John and Julia are lying on the couch together, holding hands and touching each other. It definitely was not a parental sort of love going on.
I have heard stories about this from books and interviews. What is the source for John saying that he touched his mother in a sexual way? Was it Rolling Stone or Playboy?
What Nowhere Boy accomplishes is to tell us something about how John Lennon became John Lennon. It resonated with me because after thirty years on the Shakespeare authorship beat I have come to realize that the authorship debate is all about understanding how Shakespeare became Shakespeare. That phrase is the subtitle of Stephen Greenblatt's Will in the World. But of course Will in the World in the end tells us nothing to answer that question because, you know, he's got the wrong guy. But the question itself is important. How and why does an artist become an artist? What makes him or her tick?
Charles Beauclerk tries to answer this question about how Shakespeare became Shakespeare in his 2010 book Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom. His point of view throughout is that Queen Elizabeth was Edward de Vere's mother, and that the bizarre life-long circumstances of their relationship was at the center of both the Elizabethan Age and Shakespeare's greatness. Centuries later it can never be proved, so we are left in limbo with a theory that makes sense of a lot of things about Shakespeare, yet is in itself shocking. However, if it is true, then little wonder that the mother of all cover-ups was called for to hide this mother-son saga.
Nowhere Boy ends with one of Lennon's songs, Mother, playing as he slowly walks down a sidewalk, on his way to Hamburg, and then onto fame and fortune. "You had me," he sings, "But I never had you." We have all the Beatle's songs, and all the songs Lennon wrote after the breakup. And you can enjoy all these songs without knowing the circumstances of Lennon's upbringing. No doubt about it. But knowing is so much better. It leads to understanding.
The Shakespeare Oxford Spring Dinner, May 6th
There will be a gathering of local Oxfordians in Cambridge, Massachusetts,
on May 6th at the Elephant Walk restaurant on Massachusetts Ave, just north of the Red Line stop in Porter Square.
Here's a copy of the email notice for the dinner that's making the rounds. Hope to see you there.
Alex McNeil
Marie Merkel
Here's a copy of the email notice for the dinner that's making the rounds. Hope to see you there.
The Shakespeare Oxford Spring Dinner
When: Friday, May 6, 2011
Cocktails at 6:30; Dinner at 7:30
Where: The Elephant Walk, 2067 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge
Why: Much to talk about in 2011!
In the spring of 2009 and 2010, we enjoyed a day-long seminar at the Watertown Free Public Library. This year we thought it would be good to relaunch the evening dinner of years past. There is so much news in the Oxfordian community this year, with the upcoming premiere of Roland Emmerich’s blockbuster film Anonymous, the expected completion of two documentaries, Cheryl Eagan-Donovan’s Nothing Truer Than Truth and Laura and Lisa Wilson’s Last Will and Testament (working title), as well as the long-awaited publication of Richard Roe’s The Shakespeare Guide to Italy. Please join us for an evening of good food and good company, in a private room that’s ours till 10 p.m.
Dinner will be $40 per person. This includes dinner, taxes and gratuities and appetizers for the cocktail hour. The three-course dinner includes a choice of appetizer, choice of entree and choice of dessert from the "Tasting Menu," a delightful way to experience The Elephant Walk’s Cambodian and French cuisine. There will be a cash bar for cocktails or other beverages.
Directions: The Elephant Walk (617-492-6900) is just west of Porter Square, a short walk from the Red Line Porter Square Station, and on the 77 bus line. The restaurant is located in the red brick building across from Walden Street. There is free parking in a lot behind the restaurant.
We will meet downstairs in the restaurant’s private party room. Wheelchair accessible through elevator.
RSVP by May 5, 2011. Please include your full name and number attending to: Alex@amcneil.com.
Payment may be made at the restaurant on the day of the event by cash or check only; NO CREDIT CARDS PLEASE! Sorry, but the restaurant cannot accommodate separate cards with a large group.If you’d prefer to prepay, please make your check payable to Alex McNeil and send it to 301 Islington Road, Auburndale MA 02466.
We hope to see you there!
Bill BoyleAlex McNeil
Marie Merkel
Charles Beauclerk Q&A Video (taped at the Shakespeare Symposium, May 8, 2010, Watertown, Mass.)
Charles Beauclerk answers questions following his talk on Timon of Athens at the Shakespeare Symposium from the Oxfordian Perspective (held on May 8, 2010, at the Watertown Free Public Library, Watertown, Mass.). The exchanges are about not only the play, but also the authorship debate itself, with a few choice words directed at Prof. James Shapiro's Contested Will.
Beauclerk's own book (Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom) is the perfect antidote to Shapiro's banality, and his views on Timon couldn't be more apt in demonstrating the difference between Oxfordian interpretation vs. mainstream/Stratfordian interpretation. On pages 275-284 of SLK Beauclerk expounds on his views of the play, views which are not only Oxfordian, but also Oxfordian with the added perspective that the playwright Oxford/Shakespeare was (in Beauclerk's view) Queen Elizabeth's illegitimate son.
"Timon," writes Beauclerk (p. 275), "is raw Shakespeare, a crie de coeur rather than a fully deliberated work of art."
Later (p. 279) he cuts right to the chase when he notes the significance of the opening scene with the Poet:
Later he writes (p. 280-281),
Beauclerk's own book (Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom) is the perfect antidote to Shapiro's banality, and his views on Timon couldn't be more apt in demonstrating the difference between Oxfordian interpretation vs. mainstream/Stratfordian interpretation. On pages 275-284 of SLK Beauclerk expounds on his views of the play, views which are not only Oxfordian, but also Oxfordian with the added perspective that the playwright Oxford/Shakespeare was (in Beauclerk's view) Queen Elizabeth's illegitimate son.
"Timon," writes Beauclerk (p. 275), "is raw Shakespeare, a crie de coeur rather than a fully deliberated work of art."
Later (p. 279) he cuts right to the chase when he notes the significance of the opening scene with the Poet:
"The Poet describes Fortune as a 'sovereign lady' enthroned 'upon a high and pleasant hill,' beckoning to Lord Timon out of the crowd of suitors with 'her ivory hand.' ... Timon himself is presented as Fortune's child or minion, 'bowing his head against the steep mount whereon she sits.'"
Later he writes (p. 280-281),
"In Shakespeare's case, Fortune could mean only one figure, the Tudor monarch ... That Shakespeare has the Queen in mind is clear from the way Timon harps upon the whore masquerading as a virgin:
Strike me the counterfeit matron:
It is her habit only that is honest,
Herself's a bawd. Let not the virgin's cheek
Make soft thy trenchant sword: for those milk-pups
That through the window-bars bore at men's eyes,
Are not within the leaf of pity writ,
But set them down horrible traitors (IV.iii.114-120) "
It is when one sees this highly personal authorial perspective as the subtext of the play (indeed, of the entire Shakespeare Canon) that one can begin to appreciate the true importance of the authorship debate, and the simple fact that knowing what the author had on his mind when he wrote a play bears directly upon fully understanding that play.
Symposium: Shakespeare from the Oxfordian Perspective
The two-day symposium recently held (May 29-30, 2009) in Watertown, Massachusetts, was a great success. About 50-60 people (many of them first timers) turned out for both the play on Friday night and the all-day session in Watertown Public Library on Saturday. There was coverage in the local media both before and after the event.
The program got under way Friday evening with a performance by Hank Whittemore of his one-man show on the Sonnets, Shake-speare's Treason. The show is based on Whittemore's theory of what the sonnets are all about, as expressed in his 2005 book on the sonnets, The Monument. The theory is, in brief, that the Fair Youth is the 3rd earl of Southampton, the Dark Lady is Queen Elizabeth, the Poet is Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford, and the story being told is of the Essex Rebellion and Southampton's crime in participating, his death sentence, and his reprieve. And the hidden story behind the known story of the Essex Rebellion is that Southampton could have been ---should have been--- Henry IX. Read all about it at The Monument site, or view this YouTube clip of the presentation given earlier this year in Winchester, Massachusetts (there are other clips at YouTube from this same performance).
The first talk on Saturday was given by Bonner Miller Cutting (daughter of Oxfordian stalwart Ruth Loyd Miller), who had come to town all the way from Houston (TX) to participate. Her talk expanded on one she had given at the Shakespeare Authorship Conference last October in White Plains (NY).
Bonner Miller Cutting answers questions after her presentation.
Cutting has been examining Shakespeare's (i.e. of Stratford) will for several years now, and has come up with some insights that are noteworthy. She has looked at upwards of 2000 other wills from this same period to make comparisons with the Bard, and the results are not too flattering. For example, everyone knows about the bequest of the second-best bed to his wife, but Cutting's research makes it unmistakable that this was at least a deliberate insult to his wife, if not an outright attempt to disinherit her by mentioning only the bed and nothing else (for example, he treated his sister Joan much more generously). The well-known absence in the will of books, manuscripts, etc. is accompanied by the glaring omission of any bequests to his daughters for their education in particular, or even to the town in general (e.g., how about something for that famous grammar school that taught him so well?). This is where Cutting's diligent work over several years in comparing the Stratford will to many other wills of the period makes the point that our friend Stratman seemed to have had no literary interests during his life or after it, and furthermore (as some of us joked after the presentation), his will reveals him as, well, cold. Not generous. Cold. But you won't find that in any mainstream discussions.
Mark Anderson spoke on the recent Cobbe portrait story (actually, controversy), and also expanded his comments to bring in the Ashbourne portrait (the one that graces the cover of his 2005 book Shakespeare By Another Name as a split image with the Welbeck portrait of Oxford). The Cobbe portrait is the one that was recently discovered by its owner to be identical to a putative portrait of Shakespeare owned by the Folger Shakespeare Library (the "Janssen"). It was unveiled with great fanfare by Stanley Wells and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust as being a "true likeness" of Shakespeare, painted in his lifetime (and most likely the model for the Droeshout engraving in the First Folio).
Mark Anderson, author of Shakespeare By Another Name.
Anderson has written about the Cobbe portrait on his blog several times since the story first broke a few months ago, and most of us in the audience were aware of it. He highlighted the story in the Times Literary Supplement by Katherine Duncan-Jones that dismisses the Birthplace Trust claim, and agreed with her that the portrait is most likely of Sir Thomas Overbury. The real story here is that Stratfordians are actually engaged in the authorship debate (sub rosa) when they reach out like this ...anything to make Stratman more real is the name of the game. The second part of Anderson's talk was on the authorship debate itself, including a point he has been making for several years now: that after 1604 no new sources or historical facts are ever used or alluded to in the Shakespeare canon. This is significant since 1604 is the date of Oxford's death.
Marie Merkel led off the afternoon session with a provocative presentation in which she put forth the idea that perhaps The Tempest was actually written by Ben Jonson. This is a topic that Merkel has been pursuing for several years, and there's no doubt that it is controversial, no matter where one stands on the authorship debate itself. But The Tempest is different from the rest of the Shakespeare canon in a number of ways, and the differences have been commented upon for a long time. Oxfordians understand this very well, since J.T. Looney in his 1920 Shakespeare Identified felt obliged to write an appendix in which he claimed that The Tempest was probably not by Shakespeare.
Marie Merkel creates a tempest.
Merkel quoted such mainstream scholars as Harold Bloom and David Lindley in support of the view that The Tempest is different from the rest of Shakespeare. She also presented some interesting lists of textual analysis and word usage demonstrating that the play has many characteristics that are not characteristic of Shakespeare, and ---most especially--- that the play to most critics seems more like a Jacobean masque. As anyone involved in the authorship debate knows, The Tempest, its sources, and its actual date of composition are a hot topic in the debate, since any bona fide composition of a Shakespeare play after Oxford's death in 1604 would knock him out of contention. But as Merkel's presentation demonstrated, mainstream scholars themselves puzzle over this play as much as Oxfordians (for more information on The Tempest debate see the Oxfordian Stritmatter-Kositsky essay at the Shakespeare Fellowship website and the Stratfordian David Kathman essay at the Shakespeare Authorship Page).
The final speaker of the day was William Boyle (full disclosure: that's me), reprising a talk he had given last fall at the Shakespeare Authorship Conference in White Plains (NY), and again (with some updates) at the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference last April in Portland (OR). This presentation on "Shakespeare and the Succession Crisis of the 1590s" takes a closer look at some of the lesser known historical and publishing events that occurred during the same period that Shakespeare burst upon the scene, and considers that Shakespeare himself (aka Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford) was keenly interested in the succession issue (i.e., who would succeed Elizabeth I) and that the Shakespeare plays and poems published during this period were written (or re-written) with the succession issue in mind.
Two publications were the focus of much of this talk: the political tract Conference about the Next Succession to the Crown of England (1594/95), in which a dedication to the earl of Essex claims that he and his followers will "settle the succession," and Willobie His Avisa (1594), a notoriously enigmatic poem whose front matter contains the first reference to "Shake-speare" as an author (of Lucrece), and even alludes to Avisa and Lucrece as being the same person (both Lucrece and Avisa are "married chastity," which is, Boyle noted, also an apt description for Queen Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen "married" to England). Boyle said that Willobie has been successfully "solved" by scholar B.N. De Luna in her 1970 book The Queen Declined. Her solution is that Avisa is Queen Elizabeth. He noted that in Harvard's Riverside Shakespeare the editors concede De Luna's work and say that Avisa is Queen Elizabeth; they then ---wisely--- say no more. This solution has great significance for understanding Shakespeare's role in the succession crisis of the 1590s, and for understanding how the "Shakespeare authorship problem" may have had its roots in Elizabethan succession politics. The chief example here, of course, is Richard II and its well-known association with Essex and the succession, right up to the disastrous Essex Rebellion.
The day concluded with this final talk, and attendees hung out for a while, with ample time to meet and talk about what had been presented. This was a very well organized, fun event. Thanks to all those involved in putting together this two-day event: Lori DiLiddo, the symposium organizer, Chuck and Carole Berney of Watertown, Barbara Hansen, Anne Atheling, Judith Christianson, and Alex McNeil (president of the Shakespeare Fellowship). We should also note that right before lunch Cheryl Eagan-Donovan showed a clip of her upcoming documentary on the authorship (Nothing is Truer than Truth --information available at the Controversy Films website), which will be available soon and should add more fuel to the authorship fire. Several of those in attendance (i.e. Alex McNeil, Hank Whittemore, Mark Anderson) were featured in the clip shown.
Congratulations to all!
UPDATE: there are two articles available on the web about this event: Caldwell Titcomb at The Art's Fuse, and Thomas Garvey at The Hub Review (Garvey didn't attend, but he responds to Titcomb's article and takes the opportunity to rail at the authorship debate in general and Oxfordians in particular).
UPDATE2: The blog Shakespeare Geek also responded to Titcomb's article ("How did I miss this?"), and, like Thomas Garvey at The Hub Review, was disappointed to learn that a local Shakespeare event was presented by Oxfordians.
UPDATE3: We added a link to the Controversy Films website for more information about the upcoming documentary film, Nothing is Truer than Truth.
The program got under way Friday evening with a performance by Hank Whittemore of his one-man show on the Sonnets, Shake-speare's Treason. The show is based on Whittemore's theory of what the sonnets are all about, as expressed in his 2005 book on the sonnets, The Monument. The theory is, in brief, that the Fair Youth is the 3rd earl of Southampton, the Dark Lady is Queen Elizabeth, the Poet is Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford, and the story being told is of the Essex Rebellion and Southampton's crime in participating, his death sentence, and his reprieve. And the hidden story behind the known story of the Essex Rebellion is that Southampton could have been ---should have been--- Henry IX. Read all about it at The Monument site, or view this YouTube clip of the presentation given earlier this year in Winchester, Massachusetts (there are other clips at YouTube from this same performance).
Cutting has been examining Shakespeare's (i.e. of Stratford) will for several years now, and has come up with some insights that are noteworthy. She has looked at upwards of 2000 other wills from this same period to make comparisons with the Bard, and the results are not too flattering. For example, everyone knows about the bequest of the second-best bed to his wife, but Cutting's research makes it unmistakable that this was at least a deliberate insult to his wife, if not an outright attempt to disinherit her by mentioning only the bed and nothing else (for example, he treated his sister Joan much more generously). The well-known absence in the will of books, manuscripts, etc. is accompanied by the glaring omission of any bequests to his daughters for their education in particular, or even to the town in general (e.g., how about something for that famous grammar school that taught him so well?). This is where Cutting's diligent work over several years in comparing the Stratford will to many other wills of the period makes the point that our friend Stratman seemed to have had no literary interests during his life or after it, and furthermore (as some of us joked after the presentation), his will reveals him as, well, cold. Not generous. Cold. But you won't find that in any mainstream discussions.
Mark Anderson spoke on the recent Cobbe portrait story (actually, controversy), and also expanded his comments to bring in the Ashbourne portrait (the one that graces the cover of his 2005 book Shakespeare By Another Name as a split image with the Welbeck portrait of Oxford). The Cobbe portrait is the one that was recently discovered by its owner to be identical to a putative portrait of Shakespeare owned by the Folger Shakespeare Library (the "Janssen"). It was unveiled with great fanfare by Stanley Wells and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust as being a "true likeness" of Shakespeare, painted in his lifetime (and most likely the model for the Droeshout engraving in the First Folio).
Anderson has written about the Cobbe portrait on his blog several times since the story first broke a few months ago, and most of us in the audience were aware of it. He highlighted the story in the Times Literary Supplement by Katherine Duncan-Jones that dismisses the Birthplace Trust claim, and agreed with her that the portrait is most likely of Sir Thomas Overbury. The real story here is that Stratfordians are actually engaged in the authorship debate (sub rosa) when they reach out like this ...anything to make Stratman more real is the name of the game. The second part of Anderson's talk was on the authorship debate itself, including a point he has been making for several years now: that after 1604 no new sources or historical facts are ever used or alluded to in the Shakespeare canon. This is significant since 1604 is the date of Oxford's death.
Marie Merkel led off the afternoon session with a provocative presentation in which she put forth the idea that perhaps The Tempest was actually written by Ben Jonson. This is a topic that Merkel has been pursuing for several years, and there's no doubt that it is controversial, no matter where one stands on the authorship debate itself. But The Tempest is different from the rest of the Shakespeare canon in a number of ways, and the differences have been commented upon for a long time. Oxfordians understand this very well, since J.T. Looney in his 1920 Shakespeare Identified felt obliged to write an appendix in which he claimed that The Tempest was probably not by Shakespeare.
Merkel quoted such mainstream scholars as Harold Bloom and David Lindley in support of the view that The Tempest is different from the rest of Shakespeare. She also presented some interesting lists of textual analysis and word usage demonstrating that the play has many characteristics that are not characteristic of Shakespeare, and ---most especially--- that the play to most critics seems more like a Jacobean masque. As anyone involved in the authorship debate knows, The Tempest, its sources, and its actual date of composition are a hot topic in the debate, since any bona fide composition of a Shakespeare play after Oxford's death in 1604 would knock him out of contention. But as Merkel's presentation demonstrated, mainstream scholars themselves puzzle over this play as much as Oxfordians (for more information on The Tempest debate see the Oxfordian Stritmatter-Kositsky essay at the Shakespeare Fellowship website and the Stratfordian David Kathman essay at the Shakespeare Authorship Page).
The final speaker of the day was William Boyle (full disclosure: that's me), reprising a talk he had given last fall at the Shakespeare Authorship Conference in White Plains (NY), and again (with some updates) at the Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference last April in Portland (OR). This presentation on "Shakespeare and the Succession Crisis of the 1590s" takes a closer look at some of the lesser known historical and publishing events that occurred during the same period that Shakespeare burst upon the scene, and considers that Shakespeare himself (aka Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford) was keenly interested in the succession issue (i.e., who would succeed Elizabeth I) and that the Shakespeare plays and poems published during this period were written (or re-written) with the succession issue in mind.
Two publications were the focus of much of this talk: the political tract Conference about the Next Succession to the Crown of England (1594/95), in which a dedication to the earl of Essex claims that he and his followers will "settle the succession," and Willobie His Avisa (1594), a notoriously enigmatic poem whose front matter contains the first reference to "Shake-speare" as an author (of Lucrece), and even alludes to Avisa and Lucrece as being the same person (both Lucrece and Avisa are "married chastity," which is, Boyle noted, also an apt description for Queen Elizabeth, the Virgin Queen "married" to England). Boyle said that Willobie has been successfully "solved" by scholar B.N. De Luna in her 1970 book The Queen Declined. Her solution is that Avisa is Queen Elizabeth. He noted that in Harvard's Riverside Shakespeare the editors concede De Luna's work and say that Avisa is Queen Elizabeth; they then ---wisely--- say no more. This solution has great significance for understanding Shakespeare's role in the succession crisis of the 1590s, and for understanding how the "Shakespeare authorship problem" may have had its roots in Elizabethan succession politics. The chief example here, of course, is Richard II and its well-known association with Essex and the succession, right up to the disastrous Essex Rebellion.
The day concluded with this final talk, and attendees hung out for a while, with ample time to meet and talk about what had been presented. This was a very well organized, fun event. Thanks to all those involved in putting together this two-day event: Lori DiLiddo, the symposium organizer, Chuck and Carole Berney of Watertown, Barbara Hansen, Anne Atheling, Judith Christianson, and Alex McNeil (president of the Shakespeare Fellowship). We should also note that right before lunch Cheryl Eagan-Donovan showed a clip of her upcoming documentary on the authorship (Nothing is Truer than Truth --information available at the Controversy Films website), which will be available soon and should add more fuel to the authorship fire. Several of those in attendance (i.e. Alex McNeil, Hank Whittemore, Mark Anderson) were featured in the clip shown.
Congratulations to all!
UPDATE: there are two articles available on the web about this event: Caldwell Titcomb at The Art's Fuse, and Thomas Garvey at The Hub Review (Garvey didn't attend, but he responds to Titcomb's article and takes the opportunity to rail at the authorship debate in general and Oxfordians in particular).
UPDATE2: The blog Shakespeare Geek also responded to Titcomb's article ("How did I miss this?"), and, like Thomas Garvey at The Hub Review, was disappointed to learn that a local Shakespeare event was presented by Oxfordians.
UPDATE3: We added a link to the Controversy Films website for more information about the upcoming documentary film, Nothing is Truer than Truth.
Happy 400th Birthday to our dear friend, The Sonnets!
It was 400 years ago today that Shake-speares Sonnets were registered for publication. Funny how it seems like only yesterday.
Still, there have already been some interesting articles and new books coming out based on this milestone, and more are sure to follow. There are two that appeared today that I wish to alert readers about.
First, NPR this morning reviewed a new book on the Sonnets, So Long as Men Can Breath, by Clinton Heylin (the review includes an audio clip, a brief article with some quotes from the author, and an excerpt from the book).
The story on the NPR site (by Lynn Neary) has the headline "Did Shakespeare Want To Suppress His Sonnets?," and the answer is yes, because they're homosexual. Heylin is quoted,
Still, there have already been some interesting articles and new books coming out based on this milestone, and more are sure to follow. There are two that appeared today that I wish to alert readers about.
First, NPR this morning reviewed a new book on the Sonnets, So Long as Men Can Breath, by Clinton Heylin (the review includes an audio clip, a brief article with some quotes from the author, and an excerpt from the book).
The story on the NPR site (by Lynn Neary) has the headline "Did Shakespeare Want To Suppress His Sonnets?," and the answer is yes, because they're homosexual. Heylin is quoted,
"If the sonnets are interpreted in what I think these days would be considered a fairly normal way, which is that they are about a homosexual affair with a peer, [Shakespeare] was committing several criminal offenses," says Heylin. "It would have been extremely socially sensitive to have a scandal come out that involved him and a male peer ... [The sonnets] are an insight into who the man was, and it is likely going to be as close as we are ever going to get into the mind of Shakespeare"Well, we can agree with that last line from Heylin, but not with his conclusion that the love being talked about must be homosexual.
Meanwhile, a second story of interest ("400 years young: The magic and mystery of Shakespeare's Sonnets") appears in today's The Independent (London, UK). The image that accompanies the story tells it all:
Pink sunglasses? OK, we get it. (courtesy, Getty images)
Early on in the article we learn that "For every blissed-out 'Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?'
comes a disgusted outbreak of 'Th'expense of spirit in a waste of
shame/ Is lust in action'. ('Spirit' is semen, among other
meanings)." But a few paragraphs later in the unsigned article (anonymous authorship??) we find, "However universal the passions they dissect, the sequence has several unusual
even unique - attributes. This bard of flesh and soul also knows English law
inside out ('summer's lease hath all too short a date')." Well, that's interesting. Law and love? What's the deal with that?
Anyway, the bottom line for both these stories is clearly the homosexual angle. As readers of this site know, there are other ways to look at these verses. I can only suggest that anyone surfing through here today check out Hank Whittemore's The Monument site for an entirely different take on these timeless verses. It involves sex alright (as in, "Who's your Daddy?", not to mention "Who's your Mommy?"), and plenty of law (as in treason, trial, conviction, death penalty, reprieve). But no pink sunglasses.
Actor Kenneth Branagh moving towards Oxford?
In breaking news this weekend noted Shakespearean actor/director/producer Kenneth Branagh (Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing, Love's Labors Lost, Hamlet) has apparently gotten off the fence about the Shakespeare authorship question. In a news report in today's Sunday Express in the UK Branagh is quoted as saying, "There is room for reasonable doubt. De Vere is the latest and the hottest candidate. There is a convincing argument that only a nobleman like him could write of exotic settings and that William Shakespeare was a simple country boy ... I am fascinated by all the speculation." [UPDATE, May 13, 2009: The link to the Sunday Express news story is now dead ... click on it and you get a message that "The article you are looking for does not exist. It may have been deleted." with no further explanation. Word on my Internet grapevine is that the paper was asked to take it down and did. This link to the story on a different site still works. Stay tuned.]
.jpg)
Sir Derek Jacobi as Claudius (left) and Kenneth Branagh (center) as Hamlet in the 1996 film.
Well, welcome aboard Kenneth! Although we don't know at this point in time what the back story to all this is, there has been speculation for years that Branagh was sympathetic to the authorship debate but was hedging his bets and keeping mum on what he really thought. Perhaps all the recent news (the portrait, Jacobi and Rylance in the news saying they have doubts, the usual birthday hoopla) finally got him to commit. The comments were made during remarks at the US premiere of his BAFTA-winning Swedish detective series, Wallander.
In any event, this is big news and must be unsettling to the powers that be in the Shakespeare Establishment.
2009 Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference - Reporting from Portland (Part IV)
In the year of the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare's Sonnets there were several sonnet papers. Hank Whittemore, who led off the conference Thursday night performing his one-man show Shakespeare's Treason (based on the sonnets) was also on hand Saturday afternoon to talk about Sonnets 40-42. As Whittemore explained at the start of his presentation, his intention was to respond to what Mark Anderson had said about these same sonnets in his 2005 book Shakespeare By Another Name. In his book, while adopting some of what Whittemore had postulated about all the sonnets in his own 2005 book The Monument, Anderson took exception to these three sonnets and said they were clearly about a love triangle; Whittemore had included them among the middle 100 sonnets (26-125) as being all about a family triangle. In his talk he made the case for the middle 100 sonnets being all about the same three people, with no room for either "additional" characters and/or "additional" stories.
Also speaking on the Sonnets was Alex McNeil, who focused on Sonnets 153 and 154, the strange pair that concludes the entire sequence and have always seemed to many commentators to be tacked on at the end for some reason other than a logical conclusion to what immediately proceeds. McNeil noted how the two sonnets are really variations on the same theme, and how one (154) seems to be a later version of the first (153). McNeil, who was the editor of Whittemore's The Monument, agrees that in the Oxfordian view of things these sonnets do make sense coming at the end, and that they most likely are meant to recall and then echo a much earlier time than the 1590s.
Alex McNeil speaking on sonnets 153 and 154.
While not directly about the sonnets themselves, presentations by William Boyle and Prof. Maurice Holland (both following Whittemore's) were meant to expand on the basic premise of Whittemore's "Monument" theory of what the Sonnets are all about, namely: The Essex Rebellion and its aftermath. Boyle (full disclosure: that's me) continued on a theme he has covered over the past two years, that the succession crisis of the 1590s, Richard II, Essex, Southampton, and Shakespeare are all tightly interconnected, which explains much about how and why both the Essex Rebellion and the authorship problem came to be. Prof. Holland was on hand to talk specifically about the legal concept of "misprision of treason," which is an integral part of the Monument Theory's view of both the Rebellion and how the Sonnets are a record of the Rebellion (e.g., Sonnet 87 and line 12 "misprision"). Prof. Holland did not agree that Southampton had received misprision of treason as a plea bargain to save his life, saying there was no such thing as "plea bargains" in those days. He sided with those who said it was simply compassion that saved Southampton. All this is explained in much more detail on Whittemore's Shakespeare's Monument page.
For another view of the Sonnets we can turn to Prof. Sam Saunders (Washington State University, Kirkland WA), who used his mathematical expertise to ask, "Do Shake-speare's Sonnets Exhibit Harmonic Balance?" His answer was yes, but it may be a bit complicated to try to explain it here. In brief, he demonstrated how some studies of word use can reveal "harmonic balance" for any particular author and his works by calculating the total number of words used, and then breaking that total down into the most-used single word as a percentage of the total and the least-used single word as a percentage of the total. If the percentages align in a more or less straight line slope on an X-Y axis, then there is a "harmonic balance" in the work. And the sonnets examined by Saunders did just that.
Professor of Mathematics Sam Saunders on the Sonnets
Award-winning author Lynne Kositsky (Toronto, Canada) was on hand to present a brief (15 minute) bit of satire in the form of a story called, "The Mouse and the Lion: Responses from an Orthodox Source." A bit of background is needed here first to appreciate the story: Lynne and Prof. Roger Stritmatter have in recent years done research on The Tempest (e.g., "Shakespeare and the Voyagers Revisited," Review of English Studies, 2007) that has resulted in responses from such "Orthodoxy" as the Shakespeare Quarterly. Lynne's story was a hit that hit home, and enjoyed by all. And furthermore, with this audience, all agreed with it wholeheartedly.
Finally, as is always the case at the SASC, proponents of other authorship theories were welcome to present their cases. This year attendees heard from three presenters arguing for three alternative claimants to both the Stratford actor and the Earl of Oxford: Lamberto Tassinari, an editor and author from Montreal, made the case for John Florio ("Shakespeare's Poetry in the Words of John Florio"); Dr. Peter McIntosh, a senior scientist from the Forest Practice Services in Hobart, Tasmania, used the sonnets to make a case for Queen Elizabeth ("A Scientist Looks at Shakespeare's Sonnets"); and Robin Williams, author of Mary Sidney: The Swan of Avon, gave a presentation based on her book.
We should note right off the bat that just a day after Tassinari made his case for Florio, his name appeared in the Wall St. Journal article about Oxford, with Justice Ruth Ginsberg citing Florio as her choice. Florio is certainly a minority position, but you've got to tip your hat to Tassinari for his timing! Meanwhile, Dr. Peter McIntosh traveled all the way from Australia to present his analysis of the sonnets, which concentrated on systematically identifying persons talked of within the verses and then trying like a detective to find the best fit among those most likely in London and the Court to be in "Shakespeare's" circle. He comes down to the Queen herself as the most likely author, which like Florio (above) is definitely a minority position. Depending on one's point of view, a case can certainly be made for both Florio and the Queen (along with others) being involved somehow in the Shakespeare works as ones who knew the author, knew the work, may have even been able to get their two pence worth in, etc. But when it comes to arguing the "fit" with Hamlet and Lear, the fit is demanding (IMHO).
Robin Williams, who also received the 2009 conference's award for Excellence in Scholarship for her book Mary Sidney: Sweet Swan of Avon, gave an excellent PowerPoint presentation of her work. Of the three alternative candidates presented this year, Mary Sidney is probably the most interesting and probable candidate given her family history (sister of Sir Philip Sidney, mother of William Herbert ---maybe the W.H. in the Sonnets--- etc.), well-known literary traits, and various Shakespeare connections,
The SASC audience (overwhelmingly Oxfordian) found her presentation quite informative, especially some of the more obscure biographical facts about Mary Sidney and her rich, literary life.
Robin Williams makes the case for Mary Sidney as Shakespeare
2009 Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference - Reporting from Portland (Part III)
Well, in truth, I'm no longer reporting from Portland, 'cause I'm back home in Boston (and recovering from jet lag ... we got in after midnite).
Anyway, to continue with brief reports and accompanying pix about each presentation, let's look at some poetry and songs. Prof. Michael Delahoyde of Washington State University (Pullman, WA) and one of his graduate students there, Jacob Hughes, both gave presentations on Shakespeare and Chaucer Saturday morning. There are a number of instances of parallels between Shakespeare and Chaucer (anyone surprised?), but what caught my eye during these presentations was the instances of "pilgrims" and "pilgrimages" in Chaucer (and especially how one of these instances matched up with Richard II). In working on my own presentation for Saturday afternoon I had decided to bring The Passionate Pilgrim (1599) into a discussion about the politics of the succession crisis (which includes Richard II) and had just been wondering why the title "The Passionate Pilgrim." These presentations got me thinking, and I'll have more on that next week.
.jpg)
Prof. Michael Delahoyde (center) and graduate student Jacob Hughes (right) after answering questions on their presentations Saturday morning (Conference Director Daniel Wright is on the left).
Dr. Earl Showerman's presentation ("Bottom's Dream: Herculean Farce as Political Allegory") continued in the tradition of his presentations over the past several years at the SASC, concentrating on Shakespeare's use of ancient Greek and Roman myths, legends, stories and plays. There is fertile ground for finding such connnections (since they are merely all over the place, and other scholars have written about them also). But the wealth of detail in Shakespeare's use does raise that troubling question again ...you know, the one about Shakespeare's education and how he gained (and apparently became obsessed with) such knowledge. And for this blogger, it is interesting to see how often such use had a political agenda in it.
Dr. Earl Showerman presenting "Bottom's Dream"
Prof. Ren Draya (Blackburn College, Calinville, IL) is another presenter who has become a regular at the SASC in recent years. She has done joint presentations with Prof. Delahoyde several times, focusing on Othello. This year Prof. Draya gave a talk on "Shakespeare's Songs, with Special Attention to Othello." Her talk focused on another well-know attribute of Shakespeare, i.e. that some of his poetry was meant to be song lyrics, and that those lyrics can sometimes be poetry just as pointed as any play dialogue.
Prof. Ren Draya of Blackburn College
I will continue with this report later today or tomorrow.
Anyway, to continue with brief reports and accompanying pix about each presentation, let's look at some poetry and songs. Prof. Michael Delahoyde of Washington State University (Pullman, WA) and one of his graduate students there, Jacob Hughes, both gave presentations on Shakespeare and Chaucer Saturday morning. There are a number of instances of parallels between Shakespeare and Chaucer (anyone surprised?), but what caught my eye during these presentations was the instances of "pilgrims" and "pilgrimages" in Chaucer (and especially how one of these instances matched up with Richard II). In working on my own presentation for Saturday afternoon I had decided to bring The Passionate Pilgrim (1599) into a discussion about the politics of the succession crisis (which includes Richard II) and had just been wondering why the title "The Passionate Pilgrim." These presentations got me thinking, and I'll have more on that next week.
Prof. Michael Delahoyde (center) and graduate student Jacob Hughes (right) after answering questions on their presentations Saturday morning (Conference Director Daniel Wright is on the left).
Dr. Earl Showerman's presentation ("Bottom's Dream: Herculean Farce as Political Allegory") continued in the tradition of his presentations over the past several years at the SASC, concentrating on Shakespeare's use of ancient Greek and Roman myths, legends, stories and plays. There is fertile ground for finding such connnections (since they are merely all over the place, and other scholars have written about them also). But the wealth of detail in Shakespeare's use does raise that troubling question again ...you know, the one about Shakespeare's education and how he gained (and apparently became obsessed with) such knowledge. And for this blogger, it is interesting to see how often such use had a political agenda in it.
Dr. Earl Showerman presenting "Bottom's Dream"
Prof. Ren Draya (Blackburn College, Calinville, IL) is another presenter who has become a regular at the SASC in recent years. She has done joint presentations with Prof. Delahoyde several times, focusing on Othello. This year Prof. Draya gave a talk on "Shakespeare's Songs, with Special Attention to Othello." Her talk focused on another well-know attribute of Shakespeare, i.e. that some of his poetry was meant to be song lyrics, and that those lyrics can sometimes be poetry just as pointed as any play dialogue.
Prof. Ren Draya of Blackburn College
I will continue with this report later today or tomorrow.
2009 Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference - Reporting from Portland (Part II)
Picking up where I left off yesterday, here are several pix and brief notes on other presentations from the 2009 SASC in Portland.
Prof. Roger Stritmatter (Coppin State College, Baltimore, Maryland) presented the case for the island in The Tempest being an obscure little island in the Mediterranean ("Where in the World? Geogrpahy and Irony in The Tempest"). But even though obscure in one sense of the word, the island was well-documented in ancient days as a way station for sailors and pirates of the day. Stritmatter also made his case for this island based on parallels between Orlando Furioso and The Tempest.
Prof. Roger Stritmatter giving his presentation
Continuing on the theme of geography, Oxfordian author Richard Whalen presented a paper on connections between Othello and Cyprus ("Othello's Harbingers on Cyprus Suggest in Their Dramatic Poetry that The Dramatist Had Been There."). Whalen compared details from the play with maps of sections of Cyprus to make his case.
Richard Whalen on Othello and Cyprus
That's all for today (got to get to the airport soon and back to Boston). I will pick up with my conference report in a few more days.
Prof. Roger Stritmatter (Coppin State College, Baltimore, Maryland) presented the case for the island in The Tempest being an obscure little island in the Mediterranean ("Where in the World? Geogrpahy and Irony in The Tempest"). But even though obscure in one sense of the word, the island was well-documented in ancient days as a way station for sailors and pirates of the day. Stritmatter also made his case for this island based on parallels between Orlando Furioso and The Tempest.
Continuing on the theme of geography, Oxfordian author Richard Whalen presented a paper on connections between Othello and Cyprus ("Othello's Harbingers on Cyprus Suggest in Their Dramatic Poetry that The Dramatist Had Been There."). Whalen compared details from the play with maps of sections of Cyprus to make his case.
That's all for today (got to get to the airport soon and back to Boston). I will pick up with my conference report in a few more days.
