Oxfordian theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship holds that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, 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. Adherents to the Oxford theory are called Oxfordians. Those who defend the orthodox position are generally refered to as Stratfordians.

The Earl of Oxford, from the 1914 publication English Travellers of the Renaissance by Clare Howard. Oxford is the leading alternative candidate for the author behind the alleged pseudonym, Shake-Speare.

[edit] 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 striking 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^[1] and underlined passages in his Bible that correspond to quotations in Shakespeare's plays. ^[2]

[edit] History of Oxfordian theory

Looney's 1920 work, Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford ^[3] persuaded Sigmund Freud^[4], Orson Welles, Marjorie Bowen, and many other early 20th-century intellectuals of the case for Oxford's authorship [1]. Oxford rapidly became the favored alternative to the orthodox view.

In 1984, Charlton Ogburn Jr.'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". However Crinkley rejected Ogburn's thesis saying "The case made for Oxford in The Mysterious William Shakespeare leaves one unconvinced: plausible but unproved, possible but improbable, less satisfactory than the unsatisfactory orthodoxy it challenges."^[5]

[edit] Autobiographical evidence

There is no direct documentary evidence connecting Oxford (or any authorial candidate) 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, most 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.[[2]]

[edit] Parallels with the plays

According to Ogburn, Oxford's personal biography is strikingly similar to the plots and subplots of the plays themselves:

[edit] Hamlet

1) Oxford's father died suddenly in 1562, and his mother remarried several months later.

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 reminicient 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. In a speech that has no bearing on the play itself, Hamlet tells an identical story.

Additional plays and Oxford parallels cited by Ogburn, and other researchers [3], include:

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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 1 Henry IV, Falstaff and three roguish friends of Prince Hal also waylay unwary travelers—on the highway from Gravesend to Rochester.

[edit] 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.”

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.^[6]

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)^[7], 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 supports 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.’[4]

Stratfordians argue that the passage actually says the opposite - that there are anonymous poets whose identities have not been 'found out and made public with the rest', but then lists 'the rest' of the aristocratic authors whose names have been 'made public'. If so, Oxford thus appears in the list of known and acknowledged authors, which also includes Sir Philip Sidney, Sir Walter Ralegh, Fulke Greville and other well-known names. According to this reading, Oxford appears first, not because he was the most important author, but because he had the highest social rank. [5] Instead of being evidence that Oxford concealed his creative writing, Stratfordians suggest that the passage can thus been seen as evidence that he was open about it (as is the very fact that he was publicly named by Meres and the anonymous author of the Arte of English Poesy).

Oxfordians respond that opponents are misreading the passage both grammatically and contextually. Chiefly, they 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) [6].

[edit] Oxford as poet and playwright

There are three principal pieces of evidence that Oxford (or Oxenford) was praised as both poet and playwright:

1) Puttenham's 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. ^[9]

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.^[10]

[edit] The 1604 Problem

Dedication page from 1609 edition of SHAKE-SPEARES SONNETS, with the much disputed words "ever-living Poet".

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 scholars note that the words “ever-living” rarely, if ever, refer to someone who is actually alive.^[11] Further, some scholars cite 1604 as the year that Shakespeare “mysteriously” stopped writing. ^[12] It would give a boost to the Oxfordian candidacy, as both Bacon and Neville also lived well past the 1609 publication of Shake-speare's Sonnets.

[edit] 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”. ^[13]

[edit] 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 1604-04. ^[14], 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.^[15]And in the 1969 and 1977 Pelican/Viking editions of Shakespeare’s plays, Alfred Harbage shows that the likely composition of MacBeth, Timon of Athens, Pericles, King Lear and Antony and Cleopatra (all traditionally regarded as “late plays”), did not exceed 1604.^[16]

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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. Stratfordians reject that argument 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 [7]. However, literary scholar Kenneth Muir noted "the extent of verbal echoes of the (Bermuda] pamphlets has, I think, been exaggerated."^[17]Muir then cites 13 thematic and verbal parallels between The Tempest and St. Paul's account of his shipwreck at Malta. ^[18] In addition, Oxfordians point to previously acknowledged sources that show that some of the words and images in The Tempest 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 ^[19] as influencing the composition of The Tempest and Oxfordians point to new research that seems to confirms this.[8].

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", this time in 1663, when the play was over 50 years old.^[20]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.^[21]

Stratfordians also suggest that Macbeth represents the most overwhelming single piece of evidence against the Oxfordian position, asserting that play was written in the aftermath of Gunpowder Plot[9][10], which was discovered on November 5, 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.^[22] Oxfordians respond that the concept of "equivocation" was also the subject of a 1583 tract by Queen Eilzabeth'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 1590's.^[23] 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.^[24]Oxfordians also question the tradition that Macbeth was written in celebration of King James ascention to the English throne, suggesting that the play's depiction of the murder of a King would have been unsuitable for such an occasion.

Also, the publication of Shake-speares Sonnets in 1609, with its dedication reading:

are taken by Oxfordians to imply the author was dead by that time. Although some scholars (such as Donald Foster)^{[citation needed]} 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" [11]. 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.

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 the Oxfordian theory these plays were completed by another author after Oxford's 1604 death.^[25]

In addition, regarding the use of topical allusions to date the plays, Stratfordians have all but ignored a long-standing tradition in the theatre - that actors and acting companies will often alter a playwright's lines in order to better reflect a topical issue, or pay homage to a particular person, group, or political event.

[edit] 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 [12]; and that the markings in his Geneva Bible show little or no connection to Shakespeare's use of the Bible, with only 10% of Shakespeare's uses marked in the Geneva Bible.[13]. 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" ^[26].

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. Professional Shakespeare 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.^[27]

See the "Criticisms" section of the article on Baconian theory for additional discussion of authorship conspiracy theories.

[edit] External links

[edit] Oxfordian

[edit] 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

[edit] Stratfordian

• The Shakespeare Authorship Page
  • Why I'm Not an Oxfordian by David Kathman
  • The Ashbourne Portrait: Why It's Not the Earl of Oxford
• 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)

[edit] Baconian

• Why I'm Not an Oxfordian, by Jerome Harner

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Fowler, William P. Shakespeare Revealed in Oxford's Letters. Peter E. Randall Publisher. 1986.
2. ^ 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..
3. ^ 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
4. ^ John Mitchell "Who Wrote Shakespeare" (Thames & Hudson, London, 1996) pp.162-4
5. ^ 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
6. ^ Pressly, William L. The Ashbourne Portrait of Shakespeare: Through the Looking Glass. Shakespeare Quarterly, 1993, pp. 54-72
7. ^ Puttenham, George. "The Arte of English Poesie" 1589, Book I, Chapter 31. http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/16420
8. ^ http://www.elizabethanauthors.com/palladis.htm
9. ^ Alexander, M. and Wright, D. "A Few Curiosities Regarding Edward de Vere and the Writer Who Called Himself Shakespeare", Shakespeare Authorship Studies Conference, 2007.
10. ^ http://shakespeareauthorship.com/peachcg.html#3
11. ^ Miller/Looney, Volume 2, pgs 211-214
12. ^ Anderson, Shakespeare by Another Name, 2005, pgs 400-405
13. ^ Anderson, Shakespeare by Another Name, 2005, pgs 400-405
14. ^ Karl Elze, Essays on Shakespeare, 1874, pgs 1-29, 151-192
15. ^ Mark Anderson "Shakespeare by Another Name", 2005, pgs 403-04
16. ^ Alfred Harbage, The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, 1969
17. ^ The Sources of Shakespeaere's Plays (1978)
18. ^ Acts of the Apostles, chapters 27-28
19. ^ (Eden: Kermode 1958 xxxii-xxxiii; Erasmus: Bullough 1975 VIII: 334-339)
20. ^ Samuel Pepy's entry of Dec. 26, 1663
21. ^ Mark Anderson "Shakespeare by Another Name", 2005, pgs 403-04
22. ^ Frank Kermode, 'Macbeth', The Riverside Shakespeare (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974), p. 1308.
23. ^ Mark Anderson, Shakespeare By Another Name, 2005, pgs 402-403
24. ^ Braunmuller, Macbeth, 5-8.
25. ^ Mark Anderson, Shakespeare by Another Name, 2005
26. ^ 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
27. ^ Bate, Jonathan, The Genius of Shakespeare (London, Picador, 1997)