العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolOXFORDIAN THEORY
The 'Oxfordian theory' of Shakespearean authorship holds that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604), wrote the plays and poems conventionally attributed to William Shakespeare. Oxford is presently the most popular of several anti-Stratfordian candidates for the actual author of Shakespeare's works.[1][2] Adherents to the Oxford theory are called ''Oxfordians''. Those who defend the orthodox position are often referred to as ''Stratfordians''.
The Oxford theory was first proposed by J. Thomas Looney in 1920, and was bolstered considerably by Charlton Ogburn Jr. in 1984. The case for Oxford's authorship is substantially based on allegedly similarities between Oxford's biography and numerous events in Shakespeare's plays, as well as Oxford's connections to London theatre and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day. Oxfordians also point to the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries regarding his talent as a poet and a playwright; his closeness to Queen Elizabeth I and Court life; his extensive education and intelligence; numerous documented parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Oxford's letters and the Shakespearean canon[3] and underlined passages in his Bible that may correspond to quotations in Shakespeare's plays.[4]
Looney's 1920 work, ''Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford''[5] persuaded Sigmund Freud,[6] Orson Welles, Marjorie Bowen, and many other early 20th-century intellectuals of the case for Oxford's authorship.[7] Oxford rapidly became the favoured alternative to the orthodox view. In 1921, Looney joined with Sir George Greenwood and other proponents of the anti-Stratfordian perspective to found The Shakespeare Fellowship, an organization dedicated to the discussion of alternative views of authorship.
In 1984, Charlton Ogburn's ''The Mysterious William Shakespeare'' not only renewed the case for Oxford's authorship with an abundance of new research but also engaged in a critique of the standards and methods used by the orthodox school. In his ''Shakespeare Quarterly'' review of Ogburn's book, Richmond Crinkley, former Director of Educational Programs at the Folger Shakespeare Library, acknowledged the appeal of approaches such as Ogburn's: "Doubts about Shakespeare came early and grew rapidly. They have a simple and direct plausibility", and that the dismissive approach of conventional scholarship encouraged such doubts: "The plausibility has been reinforced by the tone and methods by which traditional scholarship has responded to the doubts." Although Crinkley rejected Ogburn's thesis, believing that "The case made for Oxford leaves one unconvinced: plausible but unproved, possible but improbable, less satisfactory than the unsatisfactory orthodoxy it challenges," he also concluded that "a particular achievement of ... Ogburn is that he focused our attention so effectively on what we do not know about Shakespeare. .. [Problems that he identifies] cast a shadow over the traditional received theory of authorship."[8]
There is no direct documentary evidence connecting Oxford (or any authorial candidate other than Shakespeare[9]) to the plays of Shakespeare. However, Oxfordians argue that the numerous parallels between Oxford's life, family, and the plays prove such a connection.
For example, the three dedicatees of Shakespeare's works (the earls of Southampton, Montgomery and Pembroke) were each proposed as husbands for the three daughters of Edward de Vere. (''Venus and Adonis'' and ''The Rape of Lucrece'' were dedicated to Southampton and the First Folio of Shakespeare's plays was dedicated to Montgomery (who married Susan de Vere), and Pembroke (who was once engaged to Bridget De Vere). Oxford was a leaseholder of the first Blackfriars Theatre and produced grand entertainments at court; he was the son-in-law of Lord Burghley, who is often regarded as the model for Polonius; his daughter was engaged to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, the dedicatee of Shakespeare's narrative poems (indeed, many scholars believe Southampton to have been the Fair Lord of the ''Sonnets''); his mother, Margory Golding, was the sister of the Ovid translator, Arthur Golding; and Oxford's uncle, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, was the inventor of the Shakespearean Sonnet (or English Sonnet) form.[10]
According to Ogburn, Oxford's personal biography is strikingly similar to the plots and subplots of the plays themselves:
1) Oxford's father died suddenly in 1562, and his mother remarried shortly thereafter.
2) Oxford was made a royal ward and was placed in the household of Lord Burghley, the Lord High Treasurer, a member of Queen Elizabeth I's Privy Council, and her closest and most trusted advisor. Burghley is often regarded as the prototype for the character of Polonius in ''Hamlet''.
3) On 23 July 1567, the seventeen-year old Oxford killed an unarmed under-cook by the name of Thomas Brincknell while practicing fencing with Edward Baynam, a merchant tailor, in the backyard of Cecil's house in the Strand. Oxfordians note that Brincknell's "accidental" death is reminiscent of the accidental murder of the spying Polonius.
4) On his return across the English Channel, Oxford's ship was hijacked by pirates, who stripped him naked, apparently with the intention of murdering him, until they were made aware of his noble status, upon which he was allowed to go free, albeit without most of his possessions. Hamlet tells a similar story when he recounts to Horatio how he freed himself from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. But the logic of coincidence that is being applied here dictates that we also acknowledge a similar story that Plutarch tells of Julius Caesar (Plutarch's Life of Julius Caesar was the principal source for the play by the same name, which was written several years before Hamlet).
Additional plays and Oxford parallels cited by Ogburn, and other researchers,[11] include:
When Oxford traveled through Venice, he borrowed 500 crowns from a Baptista Nigrone. In Padua, he borrowed from a man named Pasquino Spinola. In Shakespeare's ''Taming of the Shrew'', Kate's father is described as a man "rich in crowns." He, too, is from Padua and his name is Baptista Minola—a conflation of Baptista Nigrone and Pasquino Spinola.
Peregrine Bertie, Lord Willoughby, successfully courted Oxford's sister, Mary de Vere in 1577. Though the couple met the resistance of Oxford and others, they were married within a year. Bertie and his mother Kate are lampooned, not only in ''The Taming of the Shrew'', but in the ''Winter's Tale'', and ''Twelfth Night''.
In May 1573, in a letter to William Cecil, two of Oxford's former employees accused three of Oxford's friends of attacking them on "the highway from Gravesend to Rochester." In Shakespeare's ''Henry IV, Part 1'' Falstaff and three roguish friends of Prince Hal also waylay unwary travelers—on the highway from Gravesend to Rochester.
1) On 19 December 1571, in an arranged wedding similar to that of Bertram and Helena, Oxford married Lord Burghley's fifteen-year-old daughter, Anne Cecil — an equally surprising choice as in the play since Oxford was of the oldest nobility in the kingdom whereas Anne was not originally of noble birth, her father having only been raised to the peerage that year by Queen Elizabeth to enable the marriage of social inequals.
2) Francis Osborne (1593–1659) included a bed-trick anecdote about Oxford in his ''Historical Memoires on the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James'' (1658). According to Osborne (who had been a servant to the Herberts), Philip Herbert, then earl of Montgomery (and later Pembroke), was struck in the face by a Scottish courtier named Ramsey at a horse race at Croydon. Herbert, who did not strike back, “was left nothing to testifie his Manhood but a Beard and Children, by that ''Daughter'' of the last great ''Earl of Oxford'', whose ''Lady'' was brought to his Bed under the notion of his ''Mistress'', and from such a vertuous deceit she [that is, Pembroke’s wife] is said to proceed.”
Oxford's illicit congress with Anne Vavasour led to a prolonged quarrel with Sir Thomas Knyvett, her uncle, resulting in three deaths and several other injuries. Oxford himself was lamed in one of the duels. The imbroglio was put to an end when the Queen threatened to jail all those involved.
Oxford was undoubtedly known as a dramatist and court poet of considerable note, but not one example of his plays survives under his name. A major question in Oxfordian theory is whether his works were published anonymously or pseudonymously. Anonymous and pseudonymous publication was certainly a common practice in the sixteenth century publishing world, and a passage in the ''Arte of English Poesie'' (1589),[13] the leading work of literary criticism of the Elizabethan period and an anonymously published work itself, alludes to the practice of concealed publication by literary figures in the court. Oxfordian researchers believe that these passages support their claim that Oxford was one of the most prominent "suppressed" writers of the day:
Andrew Hannas in “On Grammar and Oxford in The Art of English Poesie” paraphrased the passage: "In earlier days these writers’ poetry (Phaer, Golding, etc.) found their way into print, and now we have many in our own Queen’s time whose poetry would be much admired if the extent of their works could be known and put into print as with those poets I have just named [”made publicke with the rest”], poets from Chaucer up through Golding and Phaer, translators of Ovid and Vergil. And here are the NAMES of the poets [Oxford, Buckhurst, Sidney, et al.] of our Queen’s time who deserve such favorable comparison “with the rest” [the Chaucer et al. list] But still, “of them all” [everyone named in the paragraph], I would give highest honours to Chaucer because of the learning in his works that seems better than any of all of the aforementioned names [”aboue any of the rest”], and special merit to the other poets in their respective genres."[14]
Oxfordians note that at the time of the passage's composition (pre-1589), the writers referenced were themselves concealed writers. First and foremost, [Sir Philip Sydney], none of whose poetry was published until after his death. Similarly, by 1589 nothing by Greville was in print and none of Walter Raleigh’s works had been published (except one commendatory poem 12 years earlier in 1576).[15]
There are three principal pieces of evidence that Oxford (or Oxenford) was praised as both poet and playwright:
1) The anonymous 1589 ''Arte of English Poesie'', in a passage that appears in the same chapter that details the practice of concealed publication by figures from the court, lists Oxford as the highest praised for comedy:
2) Francis Meres' 1598 ''Palladis Tamia'', which refers to him as Earle of Oxenford, and lists him among the "best for comedy". Interestingly, Shakespeare's name appears further down in the same list.
Stratfordians believe that Shakespeare's appearance on the same list proves that Oxford and Shakespeare were two different writers, however Oxfordians contend that, as of 1598, Meres simply wasn't aware of Oxford's use of the Shakespeare pseudonym.
3) Henry Peacham's 1622 ''The Compleat Gentleman'', praised Oxford as one of the leading poets of the Elizabethean era, saying:
— and his list makes no mention of any William Shakespeare.[16]
Stratfordians disagree with this interpretation of Peacham's work. They point out that the Peacham copied large parts of Puttenham's work but did not use the names of those writers who would not have been considered "gentlemen", a title that Peacham felt should not be applied to actors. They also argue that the list is only of poets and that Peacham does not list playwrights, neglecting others such as Christopher Marlow.
Oxfordian scholars have cited various examples they say imply that the writer of the plays and poems was dead prior to 1609, when Shake-Speare’s Sonnets first appeared with the enigmatic words “our ever-living Poet” on the title page. These researchers claim that the words “ever-living” rarely, if ever, refer to someone who is actually alive.[18] Oxfordians also assert that 1604 is the year that Shakespeare “mysteriously” stopped writing.[19] If either claim proved true, it would give a boost to the Oxfordian candidacy, as Bacon, Derby, Neville and Shakespeare of Stratford[20]) lived well past the 1609 publication of the Sonnets.
Regarding dates of publication, Mark Anderson, in ''Shakespeare by Another Name'', stresses the following: from 1593-1603 “the publication of Shake-speare’s plays appeared at the rate of 2 per year. Then, in 1604, Shake-speare fell silent” and stopped publication for almost 5 years. Anderson also states “the early history of reprints …also point to 1604 as a watershed year,” and noting that during the years of 1593-1604, when an inferior or pirated text was published, it was typically followed by a genuine text that was “newly augmented” or “corrected”. Anderson summarizes, “After 1604, the “newly correct(ing) and augment(ing) stops. Once again, the Shake-speare enterprise appears to have shut down”.[21]
Regarding dates of composition, Oxfordians note the following evidence: In 1756, in “Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Ben Jonson”, W.R.Chetwood concludes that on the basis of performance records “at the end of the year of [1603], or the beginning of the next, 'tis supposed that [Shakespeare] took his farewell of the stage, both as author and actor.” In 1874, German literary historian Karl Elze dated both ''The Tempest'' and ''Henry VIII'' — traditionally labeled as Shakespeare’s last plays — to the years 1603-04.[22], In addition, on dating of ''Henry VIII'', the majority of 18th and 19th century scholars, including notables such as Samuel Johnson, Lewis Theobald, George Steevens, Edmund Malone, and John Halliwell-Phillipps all placed the composition of ''Henry VIII'' to before 1604.[23] And in the 1969 and 1977 Pelican/Viking editions of Shakespeare’s plays, Alfred Harbage shows that the composition of ''MacBeth'', ''Timon of Athens'', ''Pericles'', ''King Lear'' and ''Antony and Cleopatra'' (all traditionally regarded as “late plays”), likely did not occur later than 1604.[24]
Anderson also notes that while Shakespeare made reference to the latest scientific discoveries and events right through the end of the 16th century, “yet Shakespeare is mute about science after De Vere’s (Oxford’s) death in 1604”. Anderson cites, among other examples, that neither a spectacular supernova that appeared in October of 1604, nor Kepler’s revolutionary 1609 study of planetary orbits, cause even a mention in all of Shakespeare’s works.
The primary objection to Oxfordian theory is that Oxford died in 1604, after which, according to Stratfordians, a number of Shakespeare plays are conventionally believed to have been written. Oxfordians respond that the conventional dates for the plays were developed by Stratfordian scholars, and are, therefore, inconclusive and self-serving. Oxfordians also note that a number of the so-called "later plays", such as ''Henry VIII'', 'Timon of Athens'' and ''Pericles'' have all been described as "unfinished", whereas under one version of the Oxfordian theory these plays were completed by another author after Oxford's 1604 death.[25]
Stratfordians reject these arguments and cite examples to support their point:
★ ''The Tempest'' is considered by many mainstream scholars to have been inspired by a description of a shipwreck written in 1610. However, literary scholar Kenneth Muir noted "the extent of verbal echoes of the (Bermuda] pamphlets has, I think, been exaggerated."[26] Muir then cites 13 thematic and verbal parallels between ''The Tempest'' and St. Paul's account of his shipwreck at Malta.[27] In addition, Oxfordians point to previously acknowledged sources that show that some of the words and images in ''The Tempest'' may actually derive from Eden's "The Decades of the New Worlde Or West India" (1555) and Erasmus' "Naufragium”/”The Shipwreck" (1523). Both sources are mentioned by previous scholars[28] as influencing the composition of ''The Tempest'' and Oxfordians point to new research that they believe confirms this.[29]
★ Stratfordians believe ''Henry VIII'' was described as a new play in 1613. However, this distinction may simply be the result of Elizabethan marketing, as London diarist Samuel Pepys also referred to ''Henry VIII'' as being "new" in 1663, when the play was over 50 years old.[30] In addition, many 18th and 19th century scholars, including Samuel Johnson, Lewis Theobald, George Steevens, Edmund Malone, and John Halliwell-Phillipps placed the composition of ''Henry VIII'' to before 1604.[23]
★ Stratfordians suggest that ''Macbeth'' represents the most overwhelming single piece of evidence against the Oxfordian position, asserting that the play was written in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot,[32][33] which was discovered on 5 November 1605, a year after Oxford died. In particular, Stratfordians claim the porter's lines about "equivocation" may allude to the trial of Father Garnet in 1606.[34] Oxfordians respond that the concept of "equivocation" was also the subject of a 1583 tract by Queen Elizabeth's chief councillor Lord Burghley as well as the 1584 ''Doctrine of Equivocation'' by the Spanish prelate Martin Azpilcueta that was disseminated across Europe and into England in the 1590s.[35] In addition, A.R. Braunmuller in the New Cambridge edition finds the post-1605 arguments inconclusive, and argues only for an earliest date of 1603.[36] Oxfordians also question the tradition that Macbeth was written in celebration of King James's accession to the English throne, suggesting that the play's depiction of the murder of a King would have been unsuitable for such an occasion.
★ The publication of ''Shake-speares Sonnets'' in 1609, with its dedication reading "by our ever-living poet" is taken by Oxfordians to imply the author was dead by that time of publication. Although some scholars (such as Donald Foster) have disputed the meaning of this phrase, when applied to a person rather than a deity, "ever-living" was generally understood to mean that person was deceased. Nevertheless, it remains debatable whether the phrase, in this context, refers to Shakespeare or to God. In this interpretation the phase is taken to read as wishing upon Mr. W.H. the "Happienesse and that eternitie promised" to him by God. One Stratfordian, however, has recently cited a poem published in 1598, which specifically refers to Shakespeare — presumably still alive at that early date — as follows "Live ever you, at least in Fame live ever: Well may the Body die, but Fame dies never". Stratfordians, however, have been unable to provide any examples where the term "ever-living" referred to an individual who was not deceased at the time.
Aside from the problem of the author's date of death, supporters of the standard view dispute all contentions in favor of Oxford. In particular, they assert that the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural; that the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries for his poetic and dramatic skill was distinctly modest ; and a method of textual comparison developed by the Claremont Shakespeare Clinic compared the styles of Oxford with Shakespeare and found the odds of Oxford having written Shakespeare as "lower than the odds of getting hit by lightning".[37] Other critics, notably Jonathan Bate, invert one of the key assumptions of Oxfordians (and Baconians): that Shakespeare couldn't have written the plays because he had too little learning and was not familiar with court life. They argue that Shakespeare most certainly was familiar with life at court (he acted there often enough, and had noble patrons- the same level of experience as all of his other contemporaries who depict court life), but that neither Oxford nor Sir Francis Bacon would have had much chance to develop Shakespeare's acknowledged ear for the language of ordinary people. Oxfordians respond that Oxford is known for traveling in wide circles and was certainly surrounded throughout his life by a variety of servants, representing a wide range of Elizabethean society.
In addition, some Shakespearean academics argue that Thomas Looney's Oxford theory is based on simple snobbishness: anti-Stratfordians cannot bear the idea that the son of a mere tradesman could write the plays and poems of Shakespeare. In fact, ''all'' the major Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theories promote an aristocrat in favour of Shakespeare of Stratford.Bate, Jonathan, ''The Genius of Shakespeare'' (London, Picador, 1997) Contrasting this is the statement of Professor The Revd. V. A. Demant, Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, who stated "This was not a matter of social class, or education or even of ideas. It concerned the unconscious attitudes of the world and life. Quite early on Looney had to meet the criticism that his was a "snob" view, holding that a man who had not been to a university and was of bourgeois origin could not be a literary giant. Looney somewhat resented the stupidity of this criticism. Certainly, he maintained, genius arises in any social milieu and is quite independent of formal education (witness Burns). But some background and peculiar personal attitudes indeliberately colour a man’s work, and another man without them cannot produce counterfeits."[38]
See the "Criticisms" section of the article on Baconian theory for additional discussion of authorship theories.
Although it lacked, and explicitly so, the empirical basis appealed to in academic discussions, the two angelic figures in Gary Renard's quasi-New Age book ''The Disappearance of the Universe'' discuss the Oxfordian theory in passing as true. In their narrative they assert de Vere's family crest bore a lion shaking a spear and he was toasted, "Your countenance shakes a spear", but that Elizabeth I forbade plays' publication, though not composition, by nobility as ''infra dignitate''. De Vere by this account was excited to find an actor named Shakespeare and contrived a deal to publish in the latter's name, in effect publishing his name in code, though only modestly enriching the actor and resulting in catalog publication only after the actor's death.[39]
1. Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
2. Hunting for good Will: Will the real Shakespeare please stand up? Michael Satchell
3. Fowler, William P. ''Shakespeare Revealed in Oxford's Letters''. Peter E. Randall Publisher. 1986.
4. Stritmatter, Roger A. 'The Marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential Discovery, Literary Reasoning, and Historical Consequence' (PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 2001). Partial reprint at Mark Anderson, ed. ''The Shakespeare Fellowship'' (1997-2002) (Oxfordian website). Accessed April 13, 2006..
5. Looney, J. Thomas, ''"Shakespeare" Identified in Edward de Vere the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford'' (1920), repr. Mark Anderson, ''The Shakespeare Fellowship'' (1997-2002). (Oxfordian website). Accessed 13 April, 2006
6. John Mitchell "Who Wrote Shakespeare" (Thames & Hudson, London, 1996) pp.162-4
7. http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/skeptic.htm
8. Crinkley, Richmond. "New Perspectives on the Authorship Question" Shakespeare Quarterly. 1985. Vol 36. pgs 515-522. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-3222%28198524%2936%3A4%3C515%3ANPOTAQ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23
9. Title page of the First Folio http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:First_Folio.jpg
10. http://clicknotes.com/romeo/Sonnet.html
11. http://www.deverestudies.org/articles/oxford_shakespeare.cfm
12. Pressly, William L. ''The Ashbourne Portrait of Shakespeare: Through the Looking Glass''. Shakespeare Quarterly, 1993, pp. 54-72
13. Puttenham, George. "The Arte of English Poesie" 1589, Book I, Chapter 31. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16420
14. http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=99 ?
15. http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=99
16. Alexander, M. and Wright, D. "A Few Curiosities Regarding Edward de Vere and the Writer Who Called Himself Shakespeare", ''Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference'', 2007.
17. For a detailed account of the anti-Stratfordian debate and the Oxford candidacy, see Charlton Ogburn's, "The Mystery of William Shakespeare", 1984, pgs86–88
18. Miller/Looney, Volume 2, pgs 211-214
19. Anderson, "Shakespeare by Another Name", 2005, pgs 400-405
20. Shakespeare's death recorded in Stratford Parish Registry http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/life/death.html
21. Anderson, "Shakespeare by Another Name", 2005, pgs 400-405
22. Karl Elze, Essays on Shakespeare, 1874, pgs 1-29, 151-192
23. Mark Anderson "Shakespeare by Another Name", 2005, pgs 403-04
24. Alfred Harbage, The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, 1969
25. Mark Anderson, "Shakespeare by Another Name", 2005
26. The Sources of Shakespeaere's Plays (1978)
27. Acts of the Apostles, chapters 27-28
28. (Eden: Kermode 1958 xxxii-xxxiii; Erasmus: Bullough 1975 VIII: 334-339)
29. http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/tempest/kositsky-stritmatter%20Tempest%20Table.htm
30. Samuel Pepy's entry of Dec. 26, 1663
31. Mark Anderson "Shakespeare by Another Name", 2005, pgs 403-04
32. http://www.stjohns-chs.org/english/PAPERTOPICS/brooner.html
33. http://www.rsc.org.uk/macbeth/about/dating.html
34. Frank Kermode, 'Macbeth', ''The Riverside Shakespeare'' (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974), p. 1308.
35. Mark Anderson, "Shakespeare By Another Name", 2005, pgs 402-403
36. Braunmuller, ''Macbeth'', 5-8.
37. Elliott, Ward E. Y. and Robert J. Valenza. "Oxford By The Numbers". Tennessee Law Review. 2004. Vol 72. pgs 323-453. http://govt.claremontmckenna.edu/welliott/UTConference/Oxford_by_Numbers.pdf
38. http://ruthmiller.com/looney_bio.htm
39. Renard, Gary, ''The Disappearance of the Universe'', pp. 330-331. Hay House, 2004.
★ The Shakespeare Fellowship current research on the Oxfordian theory
★
★ Articles by Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter, challenging the methods and conclusions of Stratfordian David Kathman
★
★ State of the Debate - Oxfordian vs. Stratfordian
★
★ A Beginner's Guide to the Shakespeare Authorship Problem
★
★ Oxfordian reviews of Alan H. Nelson's orthodox biography of Oxford, ''Monstrous Adversary'' (2001)
★ Oxfordian response to David Kathman's "historical record" by Joseph Sobran
★ Shakespeare Oxford Society
★ The Case for Oxford in the Atlantic Monthly, 1991 (subscription required).
★ The Shakespeare Mystery (Website for a PBS documentary; includes several articles)
★ Joseph Sobran, ''The Shakespeare Library'' (collection of Joseph Sobran's Oxfordian columns. Sobran's ''Alias Shakespeare'' is mentioned here, also.)
★ The Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference A yearly academic conference at Concordia University in Portland, Oregon on Oxfordian theory
★ The De Vere Society of Great Britain
★ Dr. Michael Delahoyde's summary of Oxfordian theory
★ 'The Man Who Wrote Shakespeare' a narrative poem by Michael J. Farrand that makes the case for Oxford.
★ The Shakespeare Authorship Page — Dedicated to the Proposition that Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare
★ The Bard's Beard — A ''Time'' Article
★ Arguments against Oxford's Authorship by Irvin Leigh Matus
★ Original-spelling transcripts of Edward de Vere's letters prepared by Dr. Alan H. Nelson (an Oxford biographer not supportive of Oxfordian Theory)
Edward de Vere - 17th Earl of Oxford - from an engraving by J. Brown after G.P. Harding 1575. Oxford is the leading alternative candidate for the author behind the alleged pseudonym, Shakespeare.
Overview
The Oxford theory was first proposed by J. Thomas Looney in 1920, and was bolstered considerably by Charlton Ogburn Jr. in 1984. The case for Oxford's authorship is substantially based on allegedly similarities between Oxford's biography and numerous events in Shakespeare's plays, as well as Oxford's connections to London theatre and the contemporary playwrights of Shakespeare's day. Oxfordians also point to the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries regarding his talent as a poet and a playwright; his closeness to Queen Elizabeth I and Court life; his extensive education and intelligence; numerous documented parallels of language, idiom, and thought between Oxford's letters and the Shakespearean canon[3] and underlined passages in his Bible that may correspond to quotations in Shakespeare's plays.[4]
History of Oxfordian theory
Looney's 1920 work, ''Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford''[5] persuaded Sigmund Freud,[6] Orson Welles, Marjorie Bowen, and many other early 20th-century intellectuals of the case for Oxford's authorship.[7] Oxford rapidly became the favoured alternative to the orthodox view. In 1921, Looney joined with Sir George Greenwood and other proponents of the anti-Stratfordian perspective to found The Shakespeare Fellowship, an organization dedicated to the discussion of alternative views of authorship.
In 1984, Charlton Ogburn's ''The Mysterious William Shakespeare'' not only renewed the case for Oxford's authorship with an abundance of new research but also engaged in a critique of the standards and methods used by the orthodox school. In his ''Shakespeare Quarterly'' review of Ogburn's book, Richmond Crinkley, former Director of Educational Programs at the Folger Shakespeare Library, acknowledged the appeal of approaches such as Ogburn's: "Doubts about Shakespeare came early and grew rapidly. They have a simple and direct plausibility", and that the dismissive approach of conventional scholarship encouraged such doubts: "The plausibility has been reinforced by the tone and methods by which traditional scholarship has responded to the doubts." Although Crinkley rejected Ogburn's thesis, believing that "The case made for Oxford leaves one unconvinced: plausible but unproved, possible but improbable, less satisfactory than the unsatisfactory orthodoxy it challenges," he also concluded that "a particular achievement of ... Ogburn is that he focused our attention so effectively on what we do not know about Shakespeare. .. [Problems that he identifies] cast a shadow over the traditional received theory of authorship."[8]
Autobiographical evidence
There is no direct documentary evidence connecting Oxford (or any authorial candidate other than Shakespeare[9]) to the plays of Shakespeare. However, Oxfordians argue that the numerous parallels between Oxford's life, family, and the plays prove such a connection.
For example, the three dedicatees of Shakespeare's works (the earls of Southampton, Montgomery and Pembroke) were each proposed as husbands for the three daughters of Edward de Vere. (''Venus and Adonis'' and ''The Rape of Lucrece'' were dedicated to Southampton and the First Folio of Shakespeare's plays was dedicated to Montgomery (who married Susan de Vere), and Pembroke (who was once engaged to Bridget De Vere). Oxford was a leaseholder of the first Blackfriars Theatre and produced grand entertainments at court; he was the son-in-law of Lord Burghley, who is often regarded as the model for Polonius; his daughter was engaged to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, the dedicatee of Shakespeare's narrative poems (indeed, many scholars believe Southampton to have been the Fair Lord of the ''Sonnets''); his mother, Margory Golding, was the sister of the Ovid translator, Arthur Golding; and Oxford's uncle, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, was the inventor of the Shakespearean Sonnet (or English Sonnet) form.[10]
Parallels with the plays
According to Ogburn, Oxford's personal biography is strikingly similar to the plots and subplots of the plays themselves:
Hamlet
1) Oxford's father died suddenly in 1562, and his mother remarried shortly thereafter.
2) Oxford was made a royal ward and was placed in the household of Lord Burghley, the Lord High Treasurer, a member of Queen Elizabeth I's Privy Council, and her closest and most trusted advisor. Burghley is often regarded as the prototype for the character of Polonius in ''Hamlet''.
3) On 23 July 1567, the seventeen-year old Oxford killed an unarmed under-cook by the name of Thomas Brincknell while practicing fencing with Edward Baynam, a merchant tailor, in the backyard of Cecil's house in the Strand. Oxfordians note that Brincknell's "accidental" death is reminiscent of the accidental murder of the spying Polonius.
4) On his return across the English Channel, Oxford's ship was hijacked by pirates, who stripped him naked, apparently with the intention of murdering him, until they were made aware of his noble status, upon which he was allowed to go free, albeit without most of his possessions. Hamlet tells a similar story when he recounts to Horatio how he freed himself from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. But the logic of coincidence that is being applied here dictates that we also acknowledge a similar story that Plutarch tells of Julius Caesar (Plutarch's Life of Julius Caesar was the principal source for the play by the same name, which was written several years before Hamlet).
Additional plays and Oxford parallels cited by Ogburn, and other researchers,[11] include:
Taming of the Shrew
When Oxford traveled through Venice, he borrowed 500 crowns from a Baptista Nigrone. In Padua, he borrowed from a man named Pasquino Spinola. In Shakespeare's ''Taming of the Shrew'', Kate's father is described as a man "rich in crowns." He, too, is from Padua and his name is Baptista Minola—a conflation of Baptista Nigrone and Pasquino Spinola.
Peregrine Bertie, Lord Willoughby, successfully courted Oxford's sister, Mary de Vere in 1577. Though the couple met the resistance of Oxford and others, they were married within a year. Bertie and his mother Kate are lampooned, not only in ''The Taming of the Shrew'', but in the ''Winter's Tale'', and ''Twelfth Night''.
Henry IV, Part 1
In May 1573, in a letter to William Cecil, two of Oxford's former employees accused three of Oxford's friends of attacking them on "the highway from Gravesend to Rochester." In Shakespeare's ''Henry IV, Part 1'' Falstaff and three roguish friends of Prince Hal also waylay unwary travelers—on the highway from Gravesend to Rochester.
Alls Well That Ends Well
1) On 19 December 1571, in an arranged wedding similar to that of Bertram and Helena, Oxford married Lord Burghley's fifteen-year-old daughter, Anne Cecil — an equally surprising choice as in the play since Oxford was of the oldest nobility in the kingdom whereas Anne was not originally of noble birth, her father having only been raised to the peerage that year by Queen Elizabeth to enable the marriage of social inequals.
2) Francis Osborne (1593–1659) included a bed-trick anecdote about Oxford in his ''Historical Memoires on the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James'' (1658). According to Osborne (who had been a servant to the Herberts), Philip Herbert, then earl of Montgomery (and later Pembroke), was struck in the face by a Scottish courtier named Ramsey at a horse race at Croydon. Herbert, who did not strike back, “was left nothing to testifie his Manhood but a Beard and Children, by that ''Daughter'' of the last great ''Earl of Oxford'', whose ''Lady'' was brought to his Bed under the notion of his ''Mistress'', and from such a vertuous deceit she [that is, Pembroke’s wife] is said to proceed.”
Romeo and Juliet
Oxford's illicit congress with Anne Vavasour led to a prolonged quarrel with Sir Thomas Knyvett, her uncle, resulting in three deaths and several other injuries. Oxford himself was lamed in one of the duels. The imbroglio was put to an end when the Queen threatened to jail all those involved.
Was Oxford a concealed writer?
This image, known as the Ashbourne Portrait, was long believed to depict William Shakespeare. It was analyzed by Charles Wisner Barrell, an expert in the use of infra-red photography, for an article in the January 1940 issue of Scientific American. Barrell determined that the portrait was an overpainting of the Earl of Oxford. Later research has led other scholars to suggest that the portrait depicts Sir Hugh Hamersley, a mayor of London whose Coat of Arms, these scholars contend, is visible beneath the overpainting.[12]
Oxford was undoubtedly known as a dramatist and court poet of considerable note, but not one example of his plays survives under his name. A major question in Oxfordian theory is whether his works were published anonymously or pseudonymously. Anonymous and pseudonymous publication was certainly a common practice in the sixteenth century publishing world, and a passage in the ''Arte of English Poesie'' (1589),[13] the leading work of literary criticism of the Elizabethan period and an anonymously published work itself, alludes to the practice of concealed publication by literary figures in the court. Oxfordian researchers believe that these passages support their claim that Oxford was one of the most prominent "suppressed" writers of the day:
Andrew Hannas in “On Grammar and Oxford in The Art of English Poesie” paraphrased the passage: "In earlier days these writers’ poetry (Phaer, Golding, etc.) found their way into print, and now we have many in our own Queen’s time whose poetry would be much admired if the extent of their works could be known and put into print as with those poets I have just named [”made publicke with the rest”], poets from Chaucer up through Golding and Phaer, translators of Ovid and Vergil. And here are the NAMES of the poets [Oxford, Buckhurst, Sidney, et al.] of our Queen’s time who deserve such favorable comparison “with the rest” [the Chaucer et al. list] But still, “of them all” [everyone named in the paragraph], I would give highest honours to Chaucer because of the learning in his works that seems better than any of all of the aforementioned names [”aboue any of the rest”], and special merit to the other poets in their respective genres."[14]
Oxfordians note that at the time of the passage's composition (pre-1589), the writers referenced were themselves concealed writers. First and foremost, [Sir Philip Sydney], none of whose poetry was published until after his death. Similarly, by 1589 nothing by Greville was in print and none of Walter Raleigh’s works had been published (except one commendatory poem 12 years earlier in 1576).[15]
Oxford as poet and playwright
There are three principal pieces of evidence that Oxford (or Oxenford) was praised as both poet and playwright:
1) The anonymous 1589 ''Arte of English Poesie'', in a passage that appears in the same chapter that details the practice of concealed publication by figures from the court, lists Oxford as the highest praised for comedy:
2) Francis Meres' 1598 ''Palladis Tamia'', which refers to him as Earle of Oxenford, and lists him among the "best for comedy". Interestingly, Shakespeare's name appears further down in the same list.
Stratfordians believe that Shakespeare's appearance on the same list proves that Oxford and Shakespeare were two different writers, however Oxfordians contend that, as of 1598, Meres simply wasn't aware of Oxford's use of the Shakespeare pseudonym.
3) Henry Peacham's 1622 ''The Compleat Gentleman'', praised Oxford as one of the leading poets of the Elizabethean era, saying:
— and his list makes no mention of any William Shakespeare.[16]
Stratfordians disagree with this interpretation of Peacham's work. They point out that the Peacham copied large parts of Puttenham's work but did not use the names of those writers who would not have been considered "gentlemen", a title that Peacham felt should not be applied to actors. They also argue that the list is only of poets and that Peacham does not list playwrights, neglecting others such as Christopher Marlow.
The 1604 Problem
Title page from the 1609 edition of ''SHAKE-SPEARE'S SONNETS''. The hyphenated name appears on ''The Sonnets'', ''A Lover's Complaint'' and on 15 plays published prior to the First Folio, where it was hyphenated on 2 of the 4 dedicatory poems.[17]
Dedication page from The Sonnets. Both the hyphenated name and the Sonnet's dedication, specifically the words "ever-living poet", have fueled controversy within the authorship debate.
Oxfordian scholars have cited various examples they say imply that the writer of the plays and poems was dead prior to 1609, when Shake-Speare’s Sonnets first appeared with the enigmatic words “our ever-living Poet” on the title page. These researchers claim that the words “ever-living” rarely, if ever, refer to someone who is actually alive.[18] Oxfordians also assert that 1604 is the year that Shakespeare “mysteriously” stopped writing.[19] If either claim proved true, it would give a boost to the Oxfordian candidacy, as Bacon, Derby, Neville and Shakespeare of Stratford[20]) lived well past the 1609 publication of the Sonnets.
Publication
Regarding dates of publication, Mark Anderson, in ''Shakespeare by Another Name'', stresses the following: from 1593-1603 “the publication of Shake-speare’s plays appeared at the rate of 2 per year. Then, in 1604, Shake-speare fell silent” and stopped publication for almost 5 years. Anderson also states “the early history of reprints …also point to 1604 as a watershed year,” and noting that during the years of 1593-1604, when an inferior or pirated text was published, it was typically followed by a genuine text that was “newly augmented” or “corrected”. Anderson summarizes, “After 1604, the “newly correct(ing) and augment(ing) stops. Once again, the Shake-speare enterprise appears to have shut down”.[21]
Composition
Regarding dates of composition, Oxfordians note the following evidence: In 1756, in “Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Ben Jonson”, W.R.Chetwood concludes that on the basis of performance records “at the end of the year of [1603], or the beginning of the next, 'tis supposed that [Shakespeare] took his farewell of the stage, both as author and actor.” In 1874, German literary historian Karl Elze dated both ''The Tempest'' and ''Henry VIII'' — traditionally labeled as Shakespeare’s last plays — to the years 1603-04.[22], In addition, on dating of ''Henry VIII'', the majority of 18th and 19th century scholars, including notables such as Samuel Johnson, Lewis Theobald, George Steevens, Edmund Malone, and John Halliwell-Phillipps all placed the composition of ''Henry VIII'' to before 1604.[23] And in the 1969 and 1977 Pelican/Viking editions of Shakespeare’s plays, Alfred Harbage shows that the composition of ''MacBeth'', ''Timon of Athens'', ''Pericles'', ''King Lear'' and ''Antony and Cleopatra'' (all traditionally regarded as “late plays”), likely did not occur later than 1604.[24]
Science
Anderson also notes that while Shakespeare made reference to the latest scientific discoveries and events right through the end of the 16th century, “yet Shakespeare is mute about science after De Vere’s (Oxford’s) death in 1604”. Anderson cites, among other examples, that neither a spectacular supernova that appeared in October of 1604, nor Kepler’s revolutionary 1609 study of planetary orbits, cause even a mention in all of Shakespeare’s works.
Stratfordian objections
The primary objection to Oxfordian theory is that Oxford died in 1604, after which, according to Stratfordians, a number of Shakespeare plays are conventionally believed to have been written. Oxfordians respond that the conventional dates for the plays were developed by Stratfordian scholars, and are, therefore, inconclusive and self-serving. Oxfordians also note that a number of the so-called "later plays", such as ''Henry VIII'', 'Timon of Athens'' and ''Pericles'' have all been described as "unfinished", whereas under one version of the Oxfordian theory these plays were completed by another author after Oxford's 1604 death.[25]
Stratfordians reject these arguments and cite examples to support their point:
★ ''The Tempest'' is considered by many mainstream scholars to have been inspired by a description of a shipwreck written in 1610. However, literary scholar Kenneth Muir noted "the extent of verbal echoes of the (Bermuda] pamphlets has, I think, been exaggerated."[26] Muir then cites 13 thematic and verbal parallels between ''The Tempest'' and St. Paul's account of his shipwreck at Malta.[27] In addition, Oxfordians point to previously acknowledged sources that show that some of the words and images in ''The Tempest'' may actually derive from Eden's "The Decades of the New Worlde Or West India" (1555) and Erasmus' "Naufragium”/”The Shipwreck" (1523). Both sources are mentioned by previous scholars[28] as influencing the composition of ''The Tempest'' and Oxfordians point to new research that they believe confirms this.[29]
★ Stratfordians believe ''Henry VIII'' was described as a new play in 1613. However, this distinction may simply be the result of Elizabethan marketing, as London diarist Samuel Pepys also referred to ''Henry VIII'' as being "new" in 1663, when the play was over 50 years old.[30] In addition, many 18th and 19th century scholars, including Samuel Johnson, Lewis Theobald, George Steevens, Edmund Malone, and John Halliwell-Phillipps placed the composition of ''Henry VIII'' to before 1604.[23]
★ Stratfordians suggest that ''Macbeth'' represents the most overwhelming single piece of evidence against the Oxfordian position, asserting that the play was written in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot,[32][33] which was discovered on 5 November 1605, a year after Oxford died. In particular, Stratfordians claim the porter's lines about "equivocation" may allude to the trial of Father Garnet in 1606.[34] Oxfordians respond that the concept of "equivocation" was also the subject of a 1583 tract by Queen Elizabeth's chief councillor Lord Burghley as well as the 1584 ''Doctrine of Equivocation'' by the Spanish prelate Martin Azpilcueta that was disseminated across Europe and into England in the 1590s.[35] In addition, A.R. Braunmuller in the New Cambridge edition finds the post-1605 arguments inconclusive, and argues only for an earliest date of 1603.[36] Oxfordians also question the tradition that Macbeth was written in celebration of King James's accession to the English throne, suggesting that the play's depiction of the murder of a King would have been unsuitable for such an occasion.
★ The publication of ''Shake-speares Sonnets'' in 1609, with its dedication reading "by our ever-living poet" is taken by Oxfordians to imply the author was dead by that time of publication. Although some scholars (such as Donald Foster) have disputed the meaning of this phrase, when applied to a person rather than a deity, "ever-living" was generally understood to mean that person was deceased. Nevertheless, it remains debatable whether the phrase, in this context, refers to Shakespeare or to God. In this interpretation the phase is taken to read as wishing upon Mr. W.H. the "Happienesse and that eternitie promised" to him by God. One Stratfordian, however, has recently cited a poem published in 1598, which specifically refers to Shakespeare — presumably still alive at that early date — as follows "Live ever you, at least in Fame live ever: Well may the Body die, but Fame dies never". Stratfordians, however, have been unable to provide any examples where the term "ever-living" referred to an individual who was not deceased at the time.
Further criticism
Aside from the problem of the author's date of death, supporters of the standard view dispute all contentions in favor of Oxford. In particular, they assert that the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural; that the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries for his poetic and dramatic skill was distinctly modest ; and a method of textual comparison developed by the Claremont Shakespeare Clinic compared the styles of Oxford with Shakespeare and found the odds of Oxford having written Shakespeare as "lower than the odds of getting hit by lightning".[37] Other critics, notably Jonathan Bate, invert one of the key assumptions of Oxfordians (and Baconians): that Shakespeare couldn't have written the plays because he had too little learning and was not familiar with court life. They argue that Shakespeare most certainly was familiar with life at court (he acted there often enough, and had noble patrons- the same level of experience as all of his other contemporaries who depict court life), but that neither Oxford nor Sir Francis Bacon would have had much chance to develop Shakespeare's acknowledged ear for the language of ordinary people. Oxfordians respond that Oxford is known for traveling in wide circles and was certainly surrounded throughout his life by a variety of servants, representing a wide range of Elizabethean society.
In addition, some Shakespearean academics argue that Thomas Looney's Oxford theory is based on simple snobbishness: anti-Stratfordians cannot bear the idea that the son of a mere tradesman could write the plays and poems of Shakespeare. In fact, ''all'' the major Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theories promote an aristocrat in favour of Shakespeare of Stratford.Bate, Jonathan, ''The Genius of Shakespeare'' (London, Picador, 1997) Contrasting this is the statement of Professor The Revd. V. A. Demant, Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, who stated "This was not a matter of social class, or education or even of ideas. It concerned the unconscious attitudes of the world and life. Quite early on Looney had to meet the criticism that his was a "snob" view, holding that a man who had not been to a university and was of bourgeois origin could not be a literary giant. Looney somewhat resented the stupidity of this criticism. Certainly, he maintained, genius arises in any social milieu and is quite independent of formal education (witness Burns). But some background and peculiar personal attitudes indeliberately colour a man’s work, and another man without them cannot produce counterfeits."[38]
See the "Criticisms" section of the article on Baconian theory for additional discussion of authorship theories.
Popular culture
Although it lacked, and explicitly so, the empirical basis appealed to in academic discussions, the two angelic figures in Gary Renard's quasi-New Age book ''The Disappearance of the Universe'' discuss the Oxfordian theory in passing as true. In their narrative they assert de Vere's family crest bore a lion shaking a spear and he was toasted, "Your countenance shakes a spear", but that Elizabeth I forbade plays' publication, though not composition, by nobility as ''infra dignitate''. De Vere by this account was excited to find an actor named Shakespeare and contrived a deal to publish in the latter's name, in effect publishing his name in code, though only modestly enriching the actor and resulting in catalog publication only after the actor's death.[39]
See also
Notes
1. Edward de Vere, 17th earl of Oxford Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
2. Hunting for good Will: Will the real Shakespeare please stand up? Michael Satchell
3. Fowler, William P. ''Shakespeare Revealed in Oxford's Letters''. Peter E. Randall Publisher. 1986.
4. Stritmatter, Roger A. 'The Marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential Discovery, Literary Reasoning, and Historical Consequence' (PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 2001). Partial reprint at Mark Anderson, ed. ''The Shakespeare Fellowship'' (1997-2002) (Oxfordian website). Accessed April 13, 2006..
5. Looney, J. Thomas, ''"Shakespeare" Identified in Edward de Vere the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford'' (1920), repr. Mark Anderson, ''The Shakespeare Fellowship'' (1997-2002). (Oxfordian website). Accessed 13 April, 2006
6. John Mitchell "Who Wrote Shakespeare" (Thames & Hudson, London, 1996) pp.162-4
7. http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/skeptic.htm
8. Crinkley, Richmond. "New Perspectives on the Authorship Question" Shakespeare Quarterly. 1985. Vol 36. pgs 515-522. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0037-3222%28198524%2936%3A4%3C515%3ANPOTAQ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23
9. Title page of the First Folio http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:First_Folio.jpg
10. http://clicknotes.com/romeo/Sonnet.html
11. http://www.deverestudies.org/articles/oxford_shakespeare.cfm
12. Pressly, William L. ''The Ashbourne Portrait of Shakespeare: Through the Looking Glass''. Shakespeare Quarterly, 1993, pp. 54-72
13. Puttenham, George. "The Arte of English Poesie" 1589, Book I, Chapter 31. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16420
14. http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=99 ?
15. http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=99
16. Alexander, M. and Wright, D. "A Few Curiosities Regarding Edward de Vere and the Writer Who Called Himself Shakespeare", ''Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference'', 2007.
17. For a detailed account of the anti-Stratfordian debate and the Oxford candidacy, see Charlton Ogburn's, "The Mystery of William Shakespeare", 1984, pgs86–88
18. Miller/Looney, Volume 2, pgs 211-214
19. Anderson, "Shakespeare by Another Name", 2005, pgs 400-405
20. Shakespeare's death recorded in Stratford Parish Registry http://internetshakespeare.uvic.ca/Library/SLT/life/death.html
21. Anderson, "Shakespeare by Another Name", 2005, pgs 400-405
22. Karl Elze, Essays on Shakespeare, 1874, pgs 1-29, 151-192
23. Mark Anderson "Shakespeare by Another Name", 2005, pgs 403-04
24. Alfred Harbage, The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, 1969
25. Mark Anderson, "Shakespeare by Another Name", 2005
26. The Sources of Shakespeaere's Plays (1978)
27. Acts of the Apostles, chapters 27-28
28. (Eden: Kermode 1958 xxxii-xxxiii; Erasmus: Bullough 1975 VIII: 334-339)
29. http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/tempest/kositsky-stritmatter%20Tempest%20Table.htm
30. Samuel Pepy's entry of Dec. 26, 1663
31. Mark Anderson "Shakespeare by Another Name", 2005, pgs 403-04
32. http://www.stjohns-chs.org/english/PAPERTOPICS/brooner.html
33. http://www.rsc.org.uk/macbeth/about/dating.html
34. Frank Kermode, 'Macbeth', ''The Riverside Shakespeare'' (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974), p. 1308.
35. Mark Anderson, "Shakespeare By Another Name", 2005, pgs 402-403
36. Braunmuller, ''Macbeth'', 5-8.
37. Elliott, Ward E. Y. and Robert J. Valenza. "Oxford By The Numbers". Tennessee Law Review. 2004. Vol 72. pgs 323-453. http://govt.claremontmckenna.edu/welliott/UTConference/Oxford_by_Numbers.pdf
38. http://ruthmiller.com/looney_bio.htm
39. Renard, Gary, ''The Disappearance of the Universe'', pp. 330-331. Hay House, 2004.
External links
Oxfordian
★ The Shakespeare Fellowship current research on the Oxfordian theory
★
★ Articles by Lynne Kositsky and Roger Stritmatter, challenging the methods and conclusions of Stratfordian David Kathman
★
★ State of the Debate - Oxfordian vs. Stratfordian
★
★ A Beginner's Guide to the Shakespeare Authorship Problem
★
★ Oxfordian reviews of Alan H. Nelson's orthodox biography of Oxford, ''Monstrous Adversary'' (2001)
★ Oxfordian response to David Kathman's "historical record" by Joseph Sobran
★ Shakespeare Oxford Society
★ The Case for Oxford in the Atlantic Monthly, 1991 (subscription required).
★ The Shakespeare Mystery (Website for a PBS documentary; includes several articles)
★ Joseph Sobran, ''The Shakespeare Library'' (collection of Joseph Sobran's Oxfordian columns. Sobran's ''Alias Shakespeare'' is mentioned here, also.)
★ The Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference A yearly academic conference at Concordia University in Portland, Oregon on Oxfordian theory
★ The De Vere Society of Great Britain
★ Dr. Michael Delahoyde's summary of Oxfordian theory
★ 'The Man Who Wrote Shakespeare' a narrative poem by Michael J. Farrand that makes the case for Oxford.
Stratfordian
★ The Shakespeare Authorship Page — Dedicated to the Proposition that Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare
★ The Bard's Beard — A ''Time'' Article
★ Arguments against Oxford's Authorship by Irvin Leigh Matus
★ Original-spelling transcripts of Edward de Vere's letters prepared by Dr. Alan H. Nelson (an Oxford biographer not supportive of Oxfordian Theory)
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
