Monthly Archives: February 2010

Joan Leon appointed to SOS board

At the February 21, 2010 Shakespeare Oxford Society (SOS) board meeting, trustees named Joan Leon as an interim trustee to fill one of the positions left by the resignation of husband-and-wife board members Toni Downs and Stephen Downs.

“I have been a member of SOS since 1994 when I attended the conference in Carmel,” Leon said. “I went to that meeting because my husband, Ramon Jimenez, was fascinated with the topic and I wanted to share in it with him. I kept going because I loved the search for answers, enjoyed the people, and became convinced that Edward de Vere was Shakespeare.

“I have been involved in non-profit fundraising and program development my entire career and have kept seeing opportunities for the SOS to fundraise which weren’t being pursued. I look forward to doing so in the near future with the Board and the membership.”

SOS President John Hamill said Leon is valued for her fund-raising and public-relations expertise.

  • Leon is director of fundraising for Ed Roberts Campus, a collaborative effort of seven disability organizations located in Berkeley, California.
  • She works as a development consultant for the Center for Independent living and the World Institute on Disability on transition campaigns to raise funds for their move to the Ed Roberts Campus and she is developing a major donor campaign to raise $250,000 in unrestricted funds for each organization.
  • Leon also advises Abilicorp, Inc. — a for-profit company — on the development of seed funding for a new business venture that it is pursuing with a nonprofit organization.
  • And as a consultant for a consortium of cities in southern California, she wrote a successful proposal for $10-million for communications technology to benefit their police forces.
  • She also acts as public relations consultant for her daughters’ — Ann Leon and Susan Leon Peterson – restaurant Leon Bistro in Chico, California.

“Joan has much experience in fundraising and obtaining grants, and her expertise will be a great asset to the SOS,” Hamill said. “She is also a new member of the membership and fundraising committee. Membership and fundraising will be priorities for the SOS. The board of trustees is looking at other potential candidates to fill the other interim board vacancy.”

Toni Downs and Stephen Downs resigned from the SOS board in late January 2010, according to SOS Public Relations Chairperson Matthew Cossolotto.

“Both deeply regretted their decision but they are simply too busy with other projects including writing and producing a musical on Broadway, and several other music and writing projects,” Cossolotto said. “They remain committed to the Oxford cause and hope to become more active again in the future when their schedules permit.”

According to SOS bylaws, the board may appoint an SOS member in good standing to fill any vacancy on the board of trustees created by the death, resignation, removal or inability of a trustee to serve until the next annual meeting of the membership — at which time the membership may elect a replacement to complete the remaining term of the vacancy.

Stephen Downs served from mid-2008 and Toni Downs joined the board a few months later in the fall of 2008. Both were serving three-year terms, ending in 2011. Joan Leon will serve as an interim trustee until the next SOS general meeting in September 2010.

Other members whose terms are up in 2010 are: Michael Pisapia, Virginia Hyde, and Brian Bechtold. SOS President John Hamill’s term ends in 2010. He will have served the maximum of nine years in succession on the board and will not be eligible for re-election until he has spent at least one year off the board.

Board members terms ending in 2011: Jim Sherwood, Susan Grimes Width, Toni Downs (Resigned 2010), Stephen Downs (Resigned 2010)

Board members terms ending in 2012: Matthew Cossolotto, Richard Joyrich, Richard Smiley

SOS Committee Chairpersons 2010
By-laws: Susan Grimes Width
Membership/Fundraising and Joint Conference: Richard Joyrich
Merchandising: Virginia Hyde
Nominations: Michael Pisapia
Publications/Public Relations and Library Task Force: Matthew Cossolotto
Youth Outreach Task Force: Brian Bechtold

To contact board members, send email to <>

Joan Leon information resources:
Joan Leon:
Ed Roberts Campus:
Leon Bistro:

U of Bamberg sponsors authorship event

U of Bamberg sponsors authorship event in response to Kreiler’s Der Mann der Shakespeare erfand: Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford

from German correspondent Hanno Wember

More than 25 reviewers (with only two exceptions) of Kurt Kreiler’s book — Der Mann der Shakespeare erfand: Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford 1550-1604 (The Man who Was Shakespeare. . .) released October 2009 by publisher Suhrkamp/Insel in German-speaking print media, radio, TV and web sites agreed in no longer believing the Stratford myth. Some still hesitated to accept Oxford as the true author, but the debate has reached a new level.

After a reading at Literaturhaus Basel in Switzerland on February 20, Kreiler takes another step. The University of Bamberg Centre for British Studies with Professor Dr. Christa Jahnson is the first German University to respond to Kreiler’s book and announce a reading and discussion with Dr. Kreiler on June 8, 2010. The announcement reads:

The poet William Shakespeare has nothing to do with the player and moneylender William Shakespeare from Stratford-upon-Avon. Behind the literary pseudonym William Shakespeare is hidden the learned aristocrat Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, who frequented Queen Elizabeth I’s court. Therefore, the plays of the “spear shaker” were not written for the Globe theater but were intended for staging at court. Kurt Kreiler has reopened the “Shakespeare case”.

Note: Visit Hanno Wember’s German-language, Oxfordian website at: Shake-speare Today. Read Wember’s October 10, 2009 review of Kreiler’s Der Mann, der Shakespeare erfand: Edward de Vere Earl of Oxford (1550-1604) (The Man who Invented Shakespeare: etc.) on Mark Anderson’s Shakespeare by Another Name blog at:

Ifans will play Oxford in Emmerich’s Anonymous

Empire reports today that Rhys Ifans, 41, — who was Hugh Grant’s bizarre roommate, Spike, in the 1999 movie Notting Hill — will play Edward de Vere as Shakespeare in Roland Emmerich’s new film about the Shakespearean authorship intrigue, Anonymous.

In the Empire article, “Exclusive: Emmerich On Anonymous: Thewlis, Redgrave and Ifans Sign Up”, reporter Phil de Semlyen quotes Emmerich on the cast of Anonymous:

“We have Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Elizabeth; David Thewlis as William Cecil, old and young; and Rhys Ifans as The Earl Of Oxford. It’s a true English cast and I’m really proud of it. There’s 12 main characters and 20 or 30 other characters, and each of the characters is really good.”

Emmerich describes the film that will begin production in Berlin next month:

“It’s a mix of a lot of things: it’s an historical thriller because it’s about who will succeed Queen Elizabeth and the struggle of the people who want to have a hand in it. It’s the Tudors on one side and the Cecils on the other, and in between [the two] is the Queen. Through that story we tell how the plays written by the Earl of Oxford ended up labelled ‘William Shakespeare’.”

Ifans played Robert Reston in the 2007 film Elizabeth: the Golden Age and he will be Xenophilius Lovegood in the latest Hogwarts horror movie due out this year, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I. (Ifans photo above is from the set of HP & DH: Part I)

Note 2.26.10:

It would be difficult to overestimate the exposure that Emmerich’s venture will bring to the topic of Shakespeare authorship. Here is a list of some sites reporting on casting for Anonymous. (Click on names to read articles.)

London Evening Standard said February 19, 2010:

Jamie Campbell Bower, one of the stars of Twilight: New Moon, will be playing the role of the young Oxford when filming starts in March, while Rhys Ifans will act the courtier playwright as a grown-up. In an ingenious piece of casting, it seems Emmerich has secured mother-and-daughter actors Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson to play Elizabeth I at various stages of her life.


March 1, 2010

March 2, 2010

Hughes on Merkel’s Mousetrap

Stephanie Hopkins Hughes has published a review and commentary on Marie Merkel’s online work-in-progress, The First Mousetrap & the Tudor Massacre of the Howards: With the wrongful deaths of Anne Boleyn, Queen of England (beheaded 1536); Catherine Howard, Queen of England (beheaded 1542); Henry Howard, poet earl of Surrey (beheaded 1547); Thomas Howard, fourth Duke of Norfolk (beheaded 1572); & several other unfortunate Howards never before deciphered.

Hughes’ commentary, “Merkel’s View of Titus Andronicus”, published February 17, 2010 on Hughes’ blog politicworm, confirmed her qualified approval of Merkel’s thesis:

Having promised to read your material online (The First Mousetrap) and consider your theory that Titus Andronicus is an allegory for the fate of the Howard family, I am half convinced that you’re right, even more than half.  I have to hold off a bit because I don’t see the kind of clearcut connections between the play and the Howards, the kind we can see with some of the other plays, but that doesn’t mean you’re not right, or at least on the right track.

. . .

I don’t see that you claimed anywhere in your chapters or introduction that the author was the Earl of Oxford (did you and I missed it?).  In fact, you make a few comments that seem to connect its creation with William of Stratford.  Once Oxford is seen as the author, a possible connection with the Howards becomes much stronger.  They were his family, he was in their camp from his early 20s to his early 30s, and with Sussex and then Hunsdon as his patron (1572-’82) he had every reason to write a play in their defense.  Also, with Oxford as the author, he would have no need of Holinshed.  His primary source would be his Howard cousins, who would have had their family history at the tips of their tongues.

Merkel responded with a comment added to the Hughes’ review:

This is a first book for me, and I may not have chosen the right approach. I wrote it entirely from the Oxfordian perspective, but always with a general audience of Shakespeare lovers in mind. My goal was to offer these readers a new view of the Bard as a passionately engaged commentator on his times. I didn’t want to start out by saying, in effect, “Look, Oxford really is the right answer, just read this book and you’ll see why!”

Each chapter builds on minutely observed historical connections with the words of the play, introducing the Howard and de Vere family members as their parallel characters appear. I begin with Act One, and work chronologically forward through the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI and Mary I. By the time the reader gets to chapter 15, when the story completely intersects with Edward’s childhood, I’m hoping that without my prompting, they’ll be furiously scribbling in the margins, “Oxford, and no one else, MUST have written this play!”


Publishers Weekly stars Contested Will review

Publishers Weekly printed this laudatory starred review of James Shapiro’s Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? in its Nonfiction Reviews section today.

Contested Will: Who Wrote Shakespeare? James Shapiro. Simon & Schuster, $26 (352p) ISBN 978-1-4165-4162-2

Shapiro, author of the much admired A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare: 1599, achieves another major success in the field of Shakespeare research by exploring why the Bard’s authorship of his works has been so much challenged. Step-by step, Shapiro describes how criticism of Shakespeare frequently evolved into attacks on his literacy and character. Actual challenges to the authorship of the Shakespeare canon originated with an outright fraud perpetrated by William-Henry Ireland in the 1790s and continued through the years with an almost religious fervor. Shapiro exposes one such forgery: the earliest known document, dating from 1805, challenging Shakespeare’s authorship and proposing instead Francis Bacon. Shapiro mines previously unexamined documents to probe why brilliant men and women denied Shakespeare’s authorship. For Mark Twain, Shapiro finds that the notion resonated with his belief that John Milton, not John Bunyan, wrote The Pilgrim’s Progress. Sigmund Freud’s support of the earl of Oxford as the author of Shakespeare appears to have involved a challenge to his Oedipus theory, which was based partly on his reading of Hamlet. As Shapiro admirably demonstrates, William Shakespeare emerges with his name and reputation intact. 16 pages of b&w photos. (Apr.)

I don’t know what is meant when the reviewer says: “Actual challenges to the authorship of the Shakespeare canon originated with an outright fraud perpetrated by William-Henry Ireland in the 1790s and continued through the years with an almost religious fervor.” I don’t think that Shapiro makes this claim in his book.

Feb. 25, 2010 Addition
Contested Will reviewer Richard Whalen said:

Shapiro does not say that Ireland’s forgeries were the first challenge to the authorship of Shakespeare’s works. He says that the forgeries might be considered the first authorship controversy in that they supported what people were hoping to find — a man of letters — just as people in the future would hope that they could find an alternative author. He says Ireland’s forgeries “. . . established a precedent for future claims about the identity of the author of the plays, which would turn out to be no less grounded in fantasy, anachronism, and projection.” (27) A rather subtle analogy.

Laser inventor Nelson touts Oxfordianism in Worchester interview

Declaration of Reasonable Doubt signatory Donald F. Nelson, PhD brought Shakespearean authorship into the conversation in an article celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the invention of the laser published today in the Worchester, Massachusetts News Telegram.

The article titled, “A eureka! moment: Worchester man helped create first laser” dated Feb. 21, 2010 reported:

A true Renaissance man, he (Nelson) also has published articles on the link between lung cancer and minute amounts of radon gas in homes, and also has done extensive research on William Shakespeare.

In a 2005 Worcester Torch Club magazine article, Mr. Nelson makes a case that the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, and not the actor and theater owner William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon, was the revered playwright and poet known as William Shakespeare. Edward de Vere, a darling of Queen Elizabeth I’s court, gifted writer, experienced soldier, sailor and world traveler, could have used the pen name “William Shakespeare” with the cooperation of the actor of that stage name.

Mr. Nelson said he is looking forward to a movie, being cast by Roland Emmerich, director of such blockbusters as “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow,” that makes the case that Edward de Vere is the real Shakespeare.


Showerman speaks on Folger edu-blog

Shakespeare Fellowship President Earl Showerman posted a comment about Greek influences in Hamlet to the Folger Shakespeare Library’s Making a Scene: Shakespeare in the Classroom educational blog on February 14, 2010. Showerman’s commentary supported a February 12, 2010 post by Folger Education Programs Administrative Assistant Caitlin Smith titled, “The Greeks and Shakespeare”.

In her discussion of Orestes in the February 12 post, Smith said:

Shakespeare’s plays, too, have a certain je ne sais quoi which allows them to stay present in the public eye, and even Shakespeare may have been influenced by Greek Tragedy.  Take, for example, HAMLET and ORESTES: They both involve the murder of a king by a relative. The protagonists find themselves denied their fathers’thrones by newly wedded couples. Both Orestes and Hamlet experience periods of madness, and their revenge takes the lives of both the mother and her new husband. Also, both stories place great emphasis on the importance of faithful friendship (in Plyades and Horatio) vs. seeming friendship (in Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, and Menelaus).

Showerman augmented Smith’s post with a lengthy and specific commentary on Hamlet‘s Greek influences, and closed with the request:

Is it not time that Jonson’s misleading claim of Shakespeare’s ‘lesse Greek’ as regards Euripides’ influence on the playwright be broadly challenged by the academy?


Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference call for papers on Shakespeare’s loose ends

The Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference 2010 has put out a call for papers on the topic of Shakespeare’s “Loose Ends” for the conference to be held October 14-16 at Owens College, Toledo campus. 

According to the call for papers (complete document included at end of this post):

The planning committee of the Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference is seeking abstracts and paper proposals that investigate the gaps, lacunae, indeterminacies, omissions, silences and “undecidabilities” in the work of Shakespeare and/or his contemporaries. Papers can focus on individual works (E.g. what happened to Lear’s Fool? Why is Isabella silent?), or on cultural, dramaturgical, cinematic, theoretical and editorial issues. How do actors, directors and editors deal with the inevitable gap between players and performers? How do biases and the historical treatment of Shakespeare reflect and affect appreciation? How have biographers dealt with Shakespeare’s early years?

This seemed like a topic that might lend itself to authorship issues, so SOS News Online contacted OVSC 2010 director and Owens College professor, Dr. Russ Bodi.

SOS-NO: Our readers are interested in the question of authorship and we wondered if you cared to make a comment on whether the topic of this year’s conference might lend itself to authorship issues.

Dr. Bodi:

The OVSC is always open to the free exchange of ideas, but our membership does not seem to be inclined to doubt Shakespeare’s authorship.   So, we are open to submissions by anyone, and we can understand why the authorship question people might see an opportunity in our topic. However, it is not a topic we have designed into the conference, but as open-minded scholars, we do not exclude it as an option. 

Since we are looking to fill “gaps” and “inconsistencies” we cannot patently rule out the authorship question. However, our scholarly interest lies more in the works themselves than in who wrote them. We also welcome all submissions that deal with cultural issues of the times. We will nevertheless judge proposals on their scholarly merits.

I will be happy to receive any inquiries from your group.

SOS-NO: Do you have any information about registration to the conference by non-presenters who want to hear the papers and perhaps attend the performance?

Dr Bodi:

We do not have registration information yet. I am still working on the details. However, if you go to the following link, you will be able to access all the present and future updates.


Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference 2010

A Call for Papers
Shakespeare’s “Loose Ends”
Owens College, Toledo, Ohio Campus
October 14-16, 2010

The planning committee of the Ohio Valley Shakespeare Conference is seeking abstracts and paper proposals that investigate the gaps, lacunae, indeterminacies, omissions, silences and “undecidabilities” in the work of Shakespeare and/or his contemporaries. Papers can focus on individual works (E.g. what happened to Lear’s Fool? Why is Isabella silent?), or on cultural, dramaturgical, cinematic, theoretical and editorial issues. How do actors, directors and editors deal with the inevitable gap between players and performers? How do biases and the historical treatment of Shakespeare reflect and affect appreciation? How have biographers dealt with Shakespeare’s early years?

Abstracts or proposals are due by June 4, 2010 (early decision) or August 27th (final deadline). All inquiries should be directed to: Russ Bodi/ English Department/PO Box 10,000/Toledo, OH 43699-1947 or e-mail E-mail abstracts to Please include academic affiliation, if any, and status: independent, faculty, grad student, or undergrad.

Plenary Address: Katherine E. Maus, Author, Inwardness and Theater in the English Renaissance, Four Revenge Tragedies of the English Renaissance, Soliciting Interpretation: Literary Theory and Seventeenth-Century Poetry, (ed. with Elizabeth Harvey), and Ben Jonson and the Roman Frame of Mind.

National Players will present a live performance of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. “America’s longest running classical touring company, has now reached its 60th consecutive season of touring.”

Toledo Repertory Theater’s Staged Reading of A Merry Regiment of Women. Six of Shakespeare’s women discuss the availability and quality of women’s roles in Shakespeare’s plays.

OVSC invites graduate and undergraduate students to compete for the M. R. Smith Prize. Conference proceedings are published in a juried, online journal.

Visit our website (which will soon be updated):

Is that play by Shakespeare?

Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship, published by Cambridge University Press in September 2009, is not about the authorship question in the sense of questioning the traditional Stratfordian attribution. The book is about the possibility of multiple authors of works attibuted to Shakespeare, and the question of what plays might be included in the Shakespearean canon.

If today’s play-going public were aware of how mutable is our knowledge of that canon, they might be less inclined to accept the Stratfordian authorship attribution as written in stone instead of lemon juice. Any discussion that highlights the limits of our knowledge — such as this technical endeavor edited by Hugh Craig and Arthur Kinney — enhances public skepticism of the traditional Stratfordian attribution. That benefit exists in addition to the hope that linguistic analysis may yet provide insight into attribution to an authentic candidate, such as Edward de Vere, for Shakespearean authorship.

An L.T. Merriam review of Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship in the January 15, 2010 issue of Notes & Queries says:

. . . (the book) makes an incisive case for Shakespearean co-autorship. Despite and enormous hinterland of computerized data on tap, its authors demonstrate co-authorship with skill and elegance of presentation. The analogy that springs to mind is key-hole surgery.

The Cambridge University Press website says, “Craig, Kinney and their collaborators confront the main unsolved mysteries in Shakespeare’s canon through computer analysis of Shakespeare’s and other writers’ styles.” They say the book:

• Presents a detailed examination of a series of attribution problems in the Shakespeare canon, providing a reliable guide to authorship for students and scholars

• Demonstrates several different methods for attribution, which can also be applied by students to other problems

• Fosters a wider understanding of the way individuals create their own distinct patterns within a shared language.

More than fifty searchable pages of the book including the first two chapters — Introduction and Methods — and the complete index are available online at the Cambridge University Press website.

Readers have access to the specialist software for humanities computing used by the researchers in Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship through the Shakespeare Computational Stylistics Facility at the Centre for Literary and Linguistic Computing at the University of Newcastle/Australia. The center is directed by Shakespeare, Computers, and the Mystery of Authorship editor, Hugh Craig. The site introduction says:

The Computational Stylistics Facility presents a set of Shakespeare play texts with a ready-made apparatus for computational-stylistics exploration. Within its parameters, users can define any number of variations on what is analysed and how. The system has been designed for use by those with no experience in computational stylistics, and is set out so as to work intuitively as far as possible.

Postscript: The cover of the book features an image of the Stratford man’s will. The graphic intrigue of sixteenth-century handwriting makes this an excellent marketing choice. But, that image sends a message that the text analyzed within the covers is similarly handwritten — when, in fact, no such manuscripts linking the Stratfordian hand to Shakespearean production exist. When, in fact, only six meagre scrawls link the Stratfordian to any literary production whatsoever.

Update February 16, 2009
Reply from Shakespeare, Computers . . . editor Hugh Craig to SOS query

SOS: Could you tell us if your methods would be applicable to analyzing letters of Edward de Vere for Shakespearean characteristics?

Hugh Craig: You asked about analysing letters by a given writer for Shakespearean characteristics. This could certainly be done. One would have to be wary about the differences between modes (letters and dramatic dialogue) but one could ask the question, is there anything about the language usage of these letters that puts them closer to Shakespeare dramatic dialogue than to the dialogue of other playwrights of the time? That might avoid the problem of simply seeking resemblances between the letters and the plays — and of course if one looks hard enough one is bound to find *some* resemblances.

Charlton speculates on Greville monument connectons to Oxford

Derran Charlton reports from England about the inspection of Fulke Greville’s monument at Collegiate Church of St. Mary, Warwick:

Professor James Stevens Curl of Cambridge University has discovered what he claims to be powerful evidence that Fulke Greville had several manuscripts buried in his ornate memorial. This is no idle speculation. A radar scan of the monument that stands in the chapter house of the Collegiate Church of St. Mary, Warwick, has revealed three “box-like” objects that are sealed within. Researchers have also uncovered evidence suggesting that the remaining two boxes might contain a previously unseen biography of James I and appreciating that Greville`s most famous work is his Life of the Renowned Sr. Philip Sidney, the priceless literary remains of Sir Philip Sidney. But that is, perhaps, wishful thinking.

In an article titled “A murdered spy and coded messages from beyond the grave . . . Will opening this tomb prove Shakespeare didn’t write his plays?” by Richard Price published February 11, 2010 in the London daily Mail Online, Curl said:

“Until we look inside we cannot know for sure what it is. What is absolutely certain is that the size, cost and magnificence of the monument are intended to speak to us. There are plenty of clues about what it might be, and they suggest this is an incredibly exciting find.”

The discovery has resulted in great excitement, with academics positing that the boxes may contain the holy-grail of English dramatic history — an original manuscript of a Shakeseare play.

The initial search, using ground penetrating radar, has been approved by the local diocese. Under the expert guidance of Professor Rodwell the team of investigators now want to use an endoscope – a tiny video camera on a long thin tube, similar to the type commonly used in surgical procedures.

In a major development last week, Chancellor Stephen Eyre of the Consistory Court of the Diocese of Coventry granted permission for an endoscope to be used to examine the monument. A stringent set of conditions have stipulated that the work must be carried out within the next few months. However, those involved expect the work to begin, almost certainly, with the next six weeks.

Greville, four years younger than Oxford, was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in 1554, ten years before the official birth date of Shaksper. Greville and Shaksper lived on the same street.

According to a mid-seventeenth century biography Greville wished to be known to posterity as Shakespeare`s master. (See Note.)

Greville spent the equivalent of £300,000 on his monument, but his body was placed in the crypt below the church – not in the monument itself. Ben Jonson referred to his friend William Shakespere as “a monument without a tombe”, a precise description of Greville`s monument.

Although Curl posits Greville as a candidate for Shakespeare’s work, I do not think that non-Oxfordians are aware of the possible Oxford connections:

I have always been fascinated by the fact that Sir Fulke Greville (1554-1628), poet, renowned scholar, statesman, soldier, spy, judge, and Army captain, was appointed by Queen Elizabeth as treasurer of the navy, and that James I made Greville chancellor of the exchequer in 1614 and granted him Warwick Castle.

I was particularly interested by the fact that Greville purchased King`s Place (previously known as Kingshold) and re-named Brooke House by Greville following the death of Edward de Vere, seventeenth Earl of Oxford who had resided there. I speculate that Shakesperean documents might have been located there following the death of the earl, and that they may later have been acquired by Greville.

Appreciating that no Shakespearean manuscripts are extant, and appreciating that Oxford most probably wrote them and constantly polished them until his death in 1604, I reasoned that it is not beyond possibility that manuscripts could have been located at King’s Place.

Derran Charlton

The title and author of the biography in which Greville referred to Shake-speare’s master was: Statesmen and Favourites of England since the Reformation, 1665, by David Lloyd. The full quote is: “He desired to be known to posterity under no other notions than of Shakespeare’s and Ben Johnson’s master, Chancellor Egerton’s patron, and Sir Philip Sidney’s friend.” The quote that “He lived on Shaksper’s street in Stratford.” is from The Master of Shakespeare by A.W.L. Saunders.