Oxfordian Shakespeare Series: Richard Whalen’s Second Edition of “Macbeth” Published

The second edition of “Macbeth” — edited, fully annotated and with a new introduction and much expanded line notes — has been published in the Oxfordian Shakespeare Series by Richard F. Whalen.  Whalen is co-general editor of the series with Dan Wright of Concordia University in Portland, Oregon.

Whalen states that his second edition and all the editions in the series are intended for “the general educated reader who has an interest in Shakespeare plays and who might be curious to know what an Oxfordian edition of a Shakespeare play would look like.”  Of course, he hopes that Oxfordians might also be curious.

“Macbeth” and “Othello” are the first two plays in the Oxfordian series, with eight more — all edited by university professors — in the pipeline.  These are the first editions of Shakespeare plays ever produced by Oxfordian scholars. “Othello” (2010) was co-edited by Richard and Ren Draya of Blackburn College.

Whalen has kindly has granted permission to the Shakespeare Oxford Society’s Online News to publish the opening paragraphs of his new introduction to “Macbeth.”

From the introduction:

“The Tragedy of Macbeth” explores the agonizing predicament and downfall of a courageous warrior who triumphs on the battlefield but fails in the arena of power politics and court intrigue.  He knows he is not cut out by experience or temperament to seize the throne by assassinating the king, but he fails to resist the evil scheming of the courtier-like Thane of Ross whose lying eliminates a potential rival and clears the way to the throne for him.  When the time comes to assassinate King Duncan, Macbeth is conscience-stricken but fails to stand firm against it and yields to the bullying of Lady Macbeth, who covets the throne much more than he does.

His tragic flaw is not overweening ambition, as is usually posited by traditional scholarship.  To the contrary, he exhibits a surprising lack of ambition. When the Weird Sisters (a.k.a. the witches) prophesy that he will be king, he does not exult.  He finds it hard to believe.  He fears what lies ahead for him and tries to screw up his courage, but falters. Before murdering the sleeping king he tells his wife, “We will proceed no farther in this business,” and afterwards, he says, “I am afraid to think what I have done.”  This character trait of fearful, reluctant ambition seems to have eluded commentators on the play.

Macbeth is induced to seize the throne against his better judgment, fearing the moral and political consequences.  Once in power, he finds he must lie and deceive those around him in court.  He fails to use good judgment as a monarch, ordering the murders of Banquo, Fleance and Macduff’s family.  Tormented by self-doubts and in spite of himself, the hero of the battlefield has become a furtive assassin and cruel tyrant.  For the reader and spectator, Macbeth’s struggle with his conscience and his self-inflicted assaults on his sense of honor, loyalty and self-respect evoke fascination with his plight, even a measure of sympathy for him.  Macbeth is essentially an honorable man corrupted by politics.

A close reading of “Macbeth” informed by the view that Edward de Vere, seventeenth Earl of Oxford, was the author reveals a play about court intrigues and power politics and the danger of irresolute ambition by someone ill-suited to kill by assassination and practice Machiavellian duplicity.

As a nobleman in Queen Elizabeth’s court, Oxford had an insider’s knowledge of the maneuvering of ambitious courtiers and pretenders to the Crown.  He could weigh the contending theories of royal succession that are found in the play. And he was in a position to know details of the assassination in 1567 of the consort king of Scotland by a rival — details that are echoed in the play.  The play also evinces knowledge of Scotland, including its law, language, geography, weather and witches; and Oxford served with the English military in northern England and Scotland in 1570, when he was twenty.  Other correspondences between the play and Oxford’s life experience range from witchcraft in sixteenth century Scotland to the influence of Greek tragedy.”

(The second edition of Macbeth has just been issued by Llumina Press and copies are available from them at www.llumina.com/store/macbeth.htm or by Googling  ‘Llumina store’  or at Amazon in the US and UK, generally for $13.95 plus shipping.)

Many thanks to Richard Whalen for providing the above excerpt from the second edition … and congratulations to him on the publication of this important work of Oxfordian scholarship.

To read a bit more from Richard Whalen about the topical allusions and possible dates of composition of “Macbeth” from an Oxfordian perspective, here’s a link to the online version of Whalen’s article from The Oxfordian:

http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=533

Pasadena Shakespeare Authorship Conference, October 18-21 — More Info About Speakers and Activities. Be Sure To Register and Book Your Hotel Room

The eighth annual joint authorship conference of the Shakespeare Fellowship and the Shakespeare Oxford Society will convene in Pasadena, California October 18-21, 2012 at the Courtyard Pasadena Old Town by Marriott. For special conference room rates, call 888-236-2427 or reserve rooms on line at: www.marriott.com/hotels/travel/laxot-courtyard-los-angeles-pasadena-old-town.

More details below about the outstanding lineup of activities, speakers and performers at the Pasadena Shakespeare Authorship Conference, October 18-21.  Be sure to register and book your hotel room soon.  Visit: http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=138 or our main website: http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com.

Opening the conference on Thursday, 10/18 are Alex McNeill, Jamieanne Reinelt, Linda Taylor, and Professors Helen Gordon and Don Rubin. Tour of the Huntington Library at 1:00 pm.

On Friday, Jennifer Newton, creator of The Shakespeare Underground, will open the conference, followed by Sabrina Feldman, author of The Apocryphal William and then Professor Roger Stritmatter. During our hosted lunch, James Ulmer will present a program on Shakespeare in Hollywood Film.

John Hamill will open the afternoon session, followed by a group exhibit of 16th century Oxfordian titles at the Huntington Library. The afternoon session will conclude with performances by Alan Green, author of The Holy Trinity Solution, as well as Sylvia Holmes and Betzi Roe. Friday evening will be dedicated to a screening of Lisa Wilson and Laura Wilson Mathias’ documentary, Last Will. and Testament.

Saturday morning will begin with a screening of outtakes from Last Will. & Testament, followed by presentations by Bonner Cutting and Professor Jack Shuttleworth, who has recently completed editing of the Oxfordian Hamlet edition.

After a hosted Lunch, the conference keynote address will be delivered by Professor Tony Pointon, author of The Man Who Was Never Shakespeare. The afternoon will also feature Cheryl Eagan-Donovan’s new documentary, Nothing is Truer than Truth, as well as Katherine Chiljan, author of Shakespeare Suppressed, and John Shahan, Chairman of the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition.

Sunday presentations will focus on Shakespeare’s medical knowledge with presentations by Dr. Lance Fogan and Dr. Earl Showerman, and on Shakespeare’s legal knowledge with Tom Regnier. The conference will conclude with a  hosted awards banquet and panel on new media and the authorship challenge.

Link to 1987 American University Moot Court — Shakespeare: Author or Pseudonym?

Here’s the link to the video of the November 25, 1987, moot court held at American University.    Here’s the description on the website:

“Three U.S. Supreme Court Justices heard a moot court debate over the authorship of Shakespeare’s plays. The mock trial was organized to explore the theory that Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was the actual author of the plays, writing under the pseudonym of Shakespeare.”

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/618-1

BBC’s Shakespeare Uncovered: Sir Derek Jacobi Discusses the Politics of Shakespeare’s Richard II, Visits Castle Hedingham, and Touts Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, as the Author

See below for the short story (click on link for more information) as it appears on the BBC website.  As part of this Episode on Richard II, Sir Derek Jacobi visited Castle Hedingham, the ancestral home of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford.

A press release from Castle Hedingham reads, in part, as follows:

Press Release for Hedingham Castle

http://www.hedinghamcastle.co.uk/blog/index.php/2011/11/sir-derek-jacobi-visits-hedingham-castle

On Friday, November 25, Sir Derek Jacobi visited Hedingham Castle, as part of a BBC Documentary series on Shakespeare’s plays.

The episode presented by Sir Derek will focus on Richard II, one of Shakespeare’s most beautiful and moving plays. It is the only history play written entirely in verse.

Sir Derek was filmed in the keep, the ancestral home of the Earl of Oxford, and in the grounds. As well as discussing the play with the current owner, Jason Lindsay, the pair exchanged views on the “Oxfordian” debate, which questions whether the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare. It is well known that Sir Derek is a supporter of the Oxfordian cause.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01km7f9

Derek Jacobi on Richard II

Episode 3 of 6

Duration: 1 hour

Shakespeare Uncovered: Derek Jacobi looks at Richard II and returns to a role he played 30 years ago. He helps actors at the Globe with aspects of the play, reveals why it might have cost Shakespeare his life, and shares some of the extraordinary political parallels within the play that still resonate today.

Derek first played Richard II for the BBC in 1978 – now 34 years later Ben Whishaw is starring in a new BBC film of the play. Derek spans those dates and uncovers what is so special about this play. Although written entirely ‘in verse’, it is nonetheless one of the most resonant and relevant of all of Shakespeare’s plays. Its understanding of power and its inevitable tendency to corrupt and distort the truth are continually repeated in current affairs.

Derek visits Shakespeare’s Globe and shares his thoughts with actors rehearsing the play – but he also looks at his own performance and those of other actors who have over the last 30 years tried this taxing role. Richard is both a king and a man who knows he is acting the role of a king. It makes him an extraordinary character for any actor to play. But was this play written by the actor William Shakespeare? Derek is one of those who doubt that and he visits the ancestral home of the man he thinks might very well be the true author of ‘Shakespeare’s’ plays.

Richard II is a politically sensitive play, with a monarch having the crown taken from them. Derek goes on to tell of the attempted coup against Queen Elizabeth led by the Earl of Essex, and how that involved Shakespeare’s company of actors. The Earl persuaded them to put on the play to encourage his ‘plotters’ and it could have cost Shakespeare his life.

With contributions from both the director and leading actor – Rupert Goold and Ben Whishaw – and clips from the new film, Derek uncovers the continuing resonance of this extraordinary play.

Save The Date: 2012 Shakespeare Authorship Conference in Pasadena, CA — October 18-20, 2012

The Shakespeare Oxford Society and The Shakespeare Fellowship Society Present

The 2012 annual Shakespeare Authorship Conference will be held in Pasadena, CA on October 18-20. The conference venue is the Courtyard Pasadena Old Town by Marriott and a block of rooms in the hotel has been reserved for attendees.

Phone Reservations: 888-236-2427

Internet Reservations: http://cwp.marriott.com/laxot/shakespeare/

Proposals for conference papers are now being accepted. Because the sponsoring organizations are dedicated to academic excellence, guidelines for presentation of papers for the joint have been prepared and are available here. Presenters are expected to consult these guidelines prior to submission of a proposal. Proposals should be accompanied by an abstract of not more than 250 words and a brief one-paragraph biography.

Proposals must be submitted to Bonner Cutting, John Hamill, or Earl Showerman. The deadline for submissions is July 15, 2012.

The conference committee will be sending out updates as papers are accepted and included on the agenda.

The Pasadena theatre company, A Noise Within, will have a fall program in production during the authorship conference. Last fall the company produced Twelfth Night and this spring Antony and Cleopatra will be in production. Their fall schedule will be released by June 1 at which time a group order for tickets will be secured if the production contributes to the goals of the conference.

It’s April 23rd …Happy Birthday William Shakespeare? The Shakespeare Oxford Society Says “Toast But Verify” and Issues Two Top Ten Lists

The Society issues the top ten reasons to doubt the traditional Strafordian theory and the top ten reasons to consider the Earl of Oxford as the true Bard 

YORKTOWN HEIGHTS, NY – April 23, 2012 – Traditional Shakespeare biographers claim the great poet and playwright, William Shakespeare, was born on April 23, 1564.

But before you raise your glass to salute the Bard’s 448th birthday this April 23^rd, consider this:  You just might be paying tribute to the wrong person.

The Shakespeare Oxford Society reiterates its position that traditional scholars have been “Barding up the wrong tree” in Stratford-upon-Avon.   Consequently, the Society recommends that Shakespeare lovers around the world should adapt former U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s famous “Trust but Verify” dictum.

The Society calls it “Toast but Verify” and explains that we should toast the peerless works but also attempt to verify the author’s true identity.

There is a long and distinguished history of doubting the traditional “Stratfordian” attribution of the “Shakespeare” works. Noted doubters over the years include Mark Twain, Henry James, Orson Welles, Charlie Chaplin, and Sigmund Freud. More recent skeptics include U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and former Justice John Paul Stevens along with renowned Shakespearean actors Derek Jacobi, Michael York, Jeremy Irons, and Mark Rylance, former artistic director at the Globe Theatre in London.

In 1996, the great Shakespearean actor Sir John Gielgud, while serving as president of the World Shakespeare Congress, signed the following petition:

“We, the undersigned, petition the Shakespeare Association of America, in light of ongoing research, to engage actively in a comprehensive, objective and sustained investigation of the authorship of the Shakespeare Canon, particularly as it relates to the claim of Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford.”

In 2007, the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition (SAC) began collecting signatures on a compelling “Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare.”   Concordia University in Portland, Oregon, and Brunel University in West London have launched degree programs in Shakespeare authorship studies.

To resolve the Shakespeare authorship mystery once and for all, the Shakespeare Oxford Society has called for the creation of an independent, blue ribbon commission composed of distinguished, internationally recognized experts in relevant fields – including historians, biographers, jurists, and other esteemed writers and scholars. All members of the proposed Commission should be unbiased.

The Two Top Ten Lists

Top Ten Reasons To Doubt The Conventional Theory That

William Shakspere of Stratford Wrote the Works of “Shakespeare”

10) Illiteracy ran in William of Stratford’s family – his parents and wife seem to have been illiterate. His two daughters were either illiterate or functionally illiterate at best. Why should we believe the greatest writer in English history, perhaps the greatest writer ever, would raise two functionally illiterate daughters? Wouldn’t he want his own daughters to read his works?

9) No evidence exists that adequately explains how William of Stratford acquired the educational, linguistic and cultural background necessary to write the “Shakespeare” works. Where did his extensive knowledge of history, languages, geography, and aristocratic manners and lifestyle come from – divine intervention?

8) The Name Game. The few barely legible signatures of William of Stratford show that he did not even spell his own name “Shakespeare.” Moreover, with very few exceptions records dealing with William of Stratford’s personal and business activities (birth, wedding, taxes, court documents, and will) frequently spell his family name Shakspere, Shaksper, Shacksper, or Shaxper whereas the name on the poems and plays is almost invariably spelled Shakespeare (with an “e” after the “k”) and often hyphenated, which suggests a pseudonym.

7) William of Stratford took no legal action against the pirating of the “Shakespeare” plays or the apparently unauthorized publication of “Shake-speare’s Sonnets” in 1609.

6) The 1609 Sonnets paint a portrait of the artist as a much older man. The author of the Sonnets at times is clearly aging and seems to be anticipating his imminent death. The publisher’s dedication refers to Shakespeare as “our ever-living poet” – a term that implies the poet was already dead. William of Stratford lived until 1616.

5) With the hyphenated “Shake-speare” name on the cover, the Sonnets also suggest strongly that “Shakespeare” was a penname and that the author’s real identity was destined to remain unknown. In Sonnet 72 “Shakespeare” asks that his “name be buried where my body is.” Sonnet 81: “Though I, once gone, to all the world must die.” Sonnet 76: “Every word doth almost tell my name.”

4) Unlike other writers of the period, not a single manuscript or letter exists in Shakspere’s own handwriting. Nothing survives of a literary nature connecting William of Stratford (the man) with any of the “Shakespeare” works.

3) There is no evidence of a single payment to William of Stratford as an author. No evidence of patron-author relationship and no personal, contemporaneous evidence of a relationship with a fellow writer.

2) William of Stratford’s detailed 1616 will makes no mention of anything even vaguely literary – no books, unpublished manuscripts, library or diaries. Not even a family bible is mentioned.

1) William of Stratford’s death in 1616 was a singular “non-event,” despite the fact that “Shakespeare” the author was widely recognized at the time as one of England’s greatest writers. Why was no notice taken of his death if he was such a literary luminary? Reprints of Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece published after his death do not mention his recent passing.

 

***

 

Top Ten Reasons to Consider Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford,

as the author known to history as “William Shakespeare”

10) Many Shakespeare plays contain characters and details that relate directly to Oxford’s life and foreign travels, creating a strong circumstantial case for his authorship. Orson Welles said: “I think Oxford wrote Shakespeare. If you don’t, there are some awfully funny coincidences to explain away.”

9) Act II, scene 2 includes this stage direction: “Enter Hamlet reading on a book.” Hamlet’s book is widely considered by scholars to be Cardanus Comfort, translated from Italian into English and published in 1573 at the behest of Oxford. Plus, the character Polonius in Hamlet is widely regarded as a parody of William Cecil, Lord Burghley – who was Oxford’s guardian and father-in-law.

8) “Shakespeare” displayed an intimate knowledge of a wide range of subjects, including the law, Italy, foreign languages, heraldry, music, navigation, court manners and intrigues, and warfare. Oxford’s known educational background, foreign travels and life experiences match the knowledge base displayed in “Shakespeare’s” writings. In fact, the Italian cities used as settings in Shakespeare’s plays were the very cities that Oxford is known to have visited, while William of Stratford never left England.

7) Oxford was praised during his lifetime as the best of the courtier playwrights for comedy and he was known to have used a pseudonym. While a small number of Oxford’s acknowledged poems survive –probably written when he was very young — no plays exist. Were these later published under the Shakespeare name?

6) Oxford was a leading patron of the arts, widely known to support a large circle of fellow writers with money and lodgings, including Anthony Munday, John Lyly, and Robert Greene. They also worked for him as secretaries and possible collaborators. Conventional scholars have long recognized these writers as having influenced the work of “Shakespeare.”

5) Ovid’s Metamorphoses, translated into English in 1565 by Arthur Golding, had a profound influence on “Shakespeare’s” writing. Golding was Oxford’s maternal uncle, and some scholars believe Oxford translated some or all of Metamorphoses when he was still a teenager.

4) The 1623 First Folio was financed by William Herbert, 3rd Earl of Pembroke, and his brother Philip Herbert, 1st Earl of Montgomery (later 4th Earl of Pembroke). Philip Herbert was married to Oxford’s daughter, Susan Vere, and William Herbert was once engaged to another Oxford daughter, Bridget.

3) Beginning in 1586, Oxford was granted a substantial annuity £1,000 by the notoriously parsimonious Queen Elizabeth for unspecified services. It’s possible he used the money to support the production of patriotic history plays later known as Shakespeare’s.

2) The 1609 volume called Shake-Speare’s Sonnets contains numerous autobiographical details that link directly to what is known about Oxford’s life including the poet’s advancing age, his preoccupation with the ravages of time and his own imminent death, his lameness, his shame, and his “outcast state.” Another Oxford uncle, Henry Howard, the Earl of Surrey, was the first to introduce what would later become known as the “Shakespeare” sonnet form.

1) The publisher’s 1609 Sonnets dedication refers to Shakespeare as “our ever-living poet” – a term that implies the poet was already dead. Oxford died in 1604 and William of Stratford lived until 1616.

About The Shakespeare Oxford Society
Founded in 1957, the Shakespeare Oxford Society is a nonprofit, educational organization dedicated to exploring the Shakespeare authorship question and researching the evidence that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford (1550 – 1604) is the true author of the poems and plays of “William Shakespeare. The homepage of the Society also says the group is “Dedicated to Researching and Honoring the True Bard.”  Visit www.shakespeare-oxford.com and www.shakespeareoxfordsociety.wordpress.com for more information.  SOS on Facebook.  Join SOS or renew your membership online here: http://www.goestores.com/catalog.aspx?Merchant=shakespeareoxfordsociety&DeptID=27020.

Oxfordian Author Robert Brazil’s Childhood Friend, Jefferson Foote, Publishes Brazil’s Groundbreaking Book: Edward de Vere and The Shakespeare Printers

Here’s a link to an excellent post by Linda Theil on the Oberon Shakespeare Study Group site. The post includes a revealing interview with Jefferson Foote, Robert Brazil’s childhood friend who recently published Brazil’s book about Edward de Vere (the 17^th Earl of Oxford) and the printers behind the Shakespeare works.

Click here to visit the Oberon Shakespeare Study Group site and read Linda Theil fascinating account of Jefferson Foote’s friendship with Brazil and his decision to publish his friend’s book posthumously.

http://oberonshakespearestudygroup.blogspot.com/2012/01/jefferson-foote-publishes-brazil.html

The book is available for sale on Amazon.com.  Here’s the link:

Robert Brazil's Edward de Vere and the Shakespeare Printers

Edward DeVere and the Shakespeare Printers by Robert Sean Brazil:
http://www.amazon.com/Edward-Shakespeare-Printers-Robert-Brazil/dp/1467951552/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1325962685&sr=1-1-catcorr

You can search inside the book on Amazon, and I encourage you to do so.  In Chapter Two you can read almost 19 of Brazil’s 33 reasons to doubt the traditional Stratford attribution of the Shakespeare works.  Even that partial list is worth reading.  To get the whole list of 33, you’ll have to buy the book – which is worth doing.

Here’s just a taste of what Linda Theil writes in her excellent post:

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Jefferson Foote publishes Brazil — electronic version to follow soon
Robert Brazil’s childhood pal, Jefferson Foote, published Brazil’s book, Edward DeVere and the Shakespeare Printers, as an act of friendship. When Foote – a research scientist in Seattle, Washington – learned of Brazil’s death in 2010, he also learned of Brazil’s interest in the Shakespeare authorship question.

“I found out he had written this book and he had published it as a Kinko copy (in 1999),” Foote said in a telephone interview on January 8. “And I’m not prepared to let this slip away – it is his life’s work and I wanted to see it preserved.”

Although he had been long out of contact with Robert Brazil, Foote contacted Brazil’s brother, Tony Brazil, and received a copy of the contents of Brazil’s computer along with permission to publish Shakespeare Printers under the copyright of Brazil’s son and heir Jessie Brazil.

“I had no trouble at all getting approval from the brother and sons,” Foote said. “They were delighted that I picked that up.”

Foote also enlisted the aid of Robert Brazil’s friend, Lisa Duff — owner of the audio-book publishing firm, Wetware Media, LLC — who advised Foote on the publishing process. He used the Amazon print-on-demand company CreateSpace as printer of the volume and published under the name of his Seattle research firm, Cortical Output, LLC. The book was released on Brazil’s birthday, November 19, 2011, with all profits going to Brazil’s heirs: Jessie Brazil and David Brazil. “We want to keep the price moderate; their priority is to get the widest circulation,” Foote said.

###

Again, here’s the link to read the entire post by Linda Theil.

http://oberonshakespearestudygroup.blogspot.com/2012/01/jefferson-foote-publishes-brazil.html

Actor Michael York and Shakespeare Authorship Coalition challenge Stratford’s Shakespeare Birthplace Trust with new reasons to doubt the identity of author William Shakespeare in the wake of Sony Pictures’ heretical film, “Anonymous.”

Note: This story is embargoed until the date specified in the release: November 21, 2011. Los Angeles, CA., Nov. 21, 2011 - amidst all the controversy surrounding Sony Pictures’ recently-released film Anonymous, actor and author Michael York, O.B.E., launched a powerful, multi-pronged counter-offensive against the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust (SBT) in Stratford-upon-Avon, and its “60 Minutes with Shakespeare” authorship campaign, initiated in response to the film. York also announced a monumental breakthrough in the controversy – detailed evidence that Shakespeare traveled all over Italy. The problem for orthodox Shakespeare scholars is that the traditional author, Mr. William “Shakspere” of Stratford-upon-Avon, never left England. During a briefing at the Los Angeles Press Club’s Steve Allen Theater in Hollywood (10:00 a.m.  to ~noon at 4773 Hollywood Blvd. - one block west of Vermont Avenue on the north side of street) Michael York, Hilary Roe Metternich, daughter of the man who discovered the new evidence, and John M. Shahan, Chairman of the California-based Shakespeare Authorship Coalition (SAC) lambasted the SBT for its Orwellianattacks against doubters, and for poor scholarship in its “60 Minutes with Shakespeare” website, featuring 60 SBT supporters, each giving a 60-second audio-recorded response to one of 60 questions posed by the SBT. Michael York, in language echoing that which brought down Senator Joseph McCarthy, castigated Professor Stanley Wells, Honorary President of the SBT, and Paul Edmondson, Head of Learning and Research at the SBT, for suggesting that the authorship controversy is merely another “conspiracy theory,” and for labeling doubters ”anti-Shakespeareans.” “Have you no sense of decency sirs, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”* York asked. “Or, as Shakespeare put it in Hamlet, ‘O shame! Where is thy blush?’” he added. “Doubters are not ’anti-Shakespeare,’” York insisted, “but your behaviour is most un-Shakespearean.” SAC Chairman John Shahan announced that a coalition of a dozen authorship organizations, based in the U.S., U.K., and Germany, has rebutted each point in the SBT “60 Minutes.” The rebuttal document, titled Exposing an Industry in Denial: Authorship Doubters Respond to “60 Minutes with Shakespeare,“ is at the SAC website at doubtaboutwill.org. “The SBT erred in coming down from their ivory tower to attack,” Shahan said, “This rebuttal document makes clear that the best of our scholars are far superior to theirs.” Shahan challenged the SBT (online petition) to write a declaration of the reasons why they claim there is “no room for doubt” about the identity of ”Shakespeare” and post it with the names of those who have endorsed it. He noted that the SAC wrote and posted a statement of its own position, the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt About the Identity of William Shakespeare, in 2007. It has now been signed by over 2,200 people – over 800 with advanced degrees, and nearly 400 current or former college/university faculty members. Hilary Roe Metternich announced the discovery of powerful new evidence in the controversy, contained in the newly-released book,  The Shakespeare Guide to Italy: Retracing the Bard’s Unknown Travels, by Richard Paul Roe (HarperPerennial). Ms. Metternich, the daughter of the author, a prominent Pasadena attorney who died late last year, said that her father spent more than 20 years traveling in Italy, his only guide being the texts of Shakespeare’s 10 “Italian Plays” (not counting three plays set in ancient Rome). “The clues were all right there in the plays” Metternich said. “My father found the locations of nearly every scene in all 10 of these plays – locations unnoticed by Shakespeare scholars and biographers for 400 years.” “His great chronicle - a tour de force of travel, analysis and discovery - paints with amazing clarity a picture of what the author ‘Shakespeare,’ whoever he was, almost surely witnessed before writing his Italian plays.” Contact persons: Re: Coalition and rebuttals: John Shahan at (909) 896-2006;  jmshahan@verizon.net Re: The Shakespeare Guide to Italy: Hilary Roe Metternich: hrm3325@aol.com —————— *Question put to Senator Joseph McCarthy on June 9, 1954, at the Army-McCarthy Hearings.

John Orloff, Screenwriter of Anonymous, Responds to Shapiro in The Huffington Post

In case you missed John Orloff’s thoughtful response to Professor James Shapiro’s New York Times op-ed piece.  Orloff’s response highlights one of the perennial orthodox attacks against the Oxford theory — which Professor Shapiro employs in his New York Times piece — namely that Oxford died in 1604 before 10 or so Shakespeare plays were “written.”  This claim of post 1604 composition is at best an educated guess.  But it is frequently stated as if it is incontrovertible fact.  Like so much of the traditional Stratfordian theory, this post-1604 composition assertion is based on conjecture and assumption.  Yes there are some rather convoluted arguments for this assertion, but it’s a far cry from established by hard evidence.

In any event, here’s the link to the Huffington Post followed by a few graphs from Orloff’s article.  Enjoy, Matthew

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-orloff/shakespeare-anonymous_b_1034885.html

The Shakespeare Authorship Question

As the screenwriter of the upcoming Elizabethan drama Anonymous, I read Columbia Professor James Shapiro’s opinion piece (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/opinion/hollywood-dishonors-the-bard.html?_r=1) regarding our film in the NY Times last week with great interest. In it, Mr. Shapiro seemed to take great personal offense at the premise of our film; namely, that the works attributed to the actor William Shakespeare were in fact written by another man, Edward de Vere.

Not only did the NY Times decline to allow me to fully respond, but Mr. Shapiro refuses to be on the same stage with me at Q & A’s following screenings of the film — though he is happy to take questions from audiences as long as I am not present to defend myself or my film.

As the Shakespeare Authorship Question is a rather complex issue, I won’t attempt to prove my case that Shakespeare is not the man responsible for the works attributed to him in this forum.

SNIP

Again, here’s the link to the full article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-orloff/shakespeare-anonymous_b_1034885.html

New York Times Magazine Piece by Stephen Marche — Attacking Snobbery With Snobbery!

Here’s a wonderful example of someone with what appears to be a superficial grasp of the Oxfordian theory trashing that theory based on a few favorite straw men –  Oxfordians are snobs, Shakespeare “wrote” plays after Oxford’s death in 1604, Looney was “aptly named,” etc.

But the amazing thing to me about this piece is how much it depends on snobbery as a way to attack the snobbery of Oxfordians.  Maybe Marche should devise an exam for “undergraduates” that counts how many unfounded assumptions and appeals to snobbish expertise his article contains.  Anyway, it’s worth reading.  He does make several good points about the historical inaccuracies of Anonymous.  Hey, I’m not here to defend Anonymous the movie.

But attacking the movie’s flaws should not be allowed to be a substitute for attacking the Oxford theory in general.  That’s too broad a brush.  It continues to amaze me that the traditional assumption — and it’s nothing more than that — that “Shakespeare” continued to write plays after 1604 — some with partners? — is presented so often as the slam dunk refutation of the Oxford theory.  The hard evidence for this is … what exactly?

The fact that so many so-called experts accept the traditional “narrative’ as fact is not the same thing as real evidence.  And I love that Galileo is invoked without any sense of irony since Galileo was punished — forced to recant what he knew to be true — by an establishment view of the world that was … well … flat wrong.  Sometimes those who come up with alternative theories that challenge orthodox opinion turn out to be right after all.  Not always.  But sometimes.  And resorting to emotional appeals, reckless ad hominem attacks, branding them as heretics, etc. is neither constructive or productive.

It’s not particularly helpful to make an argument based on historical analogies.  Those can easily cut both ways and don’t really advance the state of the debate.  They usually inflame the debate and only serve to generate much more heat that light.  There may be lots of legitimate reasons to question the validity of the Oxfordian theory, but the alleged snobbery of Oxfordians, Rick Perry’s anti-climate change or anti-evolutionary views, the “aptly named” proponent of the theory, or the unfounded assertion that Shakespeare “wrote” plays after 1604 are not among them.  Why do anti-Oxfordians so often stoop to these specious lines of attack?  Can’t they muster a real case against Oxford without injecting these bogus and logically challenged arguments?  Apparently not.

the good news about this article … and other reviews of the movie … is that the authorship question is being discussed widely in the media.  It would be a shame if various parties to the debate simply resort to their tried-and-true arguments to put down the other side.  This isn’t an election campaign.  We don’t have to “go negative” to get votes.  We should be evaluating and assessing evidence, not trying to score debate points.  Maybe one day we’ll evolve to that stage in this discussion.  Matthew

Wouldn’t It Be Cool if Shakespeare Wasn’t Shakespeare?

By STEPHEN MARCHE

Published: October 21, 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/magazine/wouldnt-it-be-cool-if-shakespeare-wasnt-shakespeare.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&emc=eta1

“Was Shakespeare a fraud?” That’s the question the promotional machinery for Roland Emmerich’s new film, “Anonymous,” wants to usher out of the tiny enclosure of fringe academic conferences into the wider pastures of a Hollywood audience. Shakespeare is finally getting the Oliver Stone/“Da Vinci Code” treatment, with a lurid conspiratorial melodrama involving incest in royal bedchambers, a vapidly simplistic version of court intrigue, nifty costumes and historically inaccurate nonsense. First they came for the Kennedy scholars, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Kennedy scholar. Then they came for Opus Dei, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Catholic scholar. Now they have come for me.

[SNIP]

In the movies, a few mistakes don’t matter, but the liberties with facts in “Anonymous” become serious when they enter our conception of real history. In scholarship, chronology does matter. And the fatal weakness of the Oxfordian theory is chronological, a weakness that “Anonymous” never addresses: the brute fact that Edward de Vere died in 1604, while Shakespeare continued to write, several times with partners, until 1613. “Macbeth” and “The Tempest” were inspired by events posthumous to the Earl of Oxford: the gunpowder plot in 1605 and George Somers’s misadventure to Bermuda in 1609. How can anyone be inspired by events that happened after his death?

[SNIP]

The original Oxfordian, the aptly named J. Thomas Looney, who proposed the theory in 1920, believed that Shakespeare’s true identity remained a secret because, he said, “it has been left mainly in the hands of literary men.” In his rejection of expertise, at least, Looney was far ahead of his time. This same antielitism is haunting every large intellectual question today. We hear politicians opine on their theories about climate change and evolution as a way of displaying how little they know. When Rick Perry compared climate-change skeptics like himself to Galileo in a Republican debate, I dearly wished that the next question had been “Can you explain Galileo’s theory of falling bodies?” Of all the candidates with their various rejections of the scientific establishment, how many could name the fundamental laws of thermodynamics that students learn in high school? Healthy skepticism about elites has devolved into an absence of basic literacy.

# # #