Tag Archives: Mark Anderson

The Shakespeare Chronology Recalibrated: Excellent Review by William S. Niederkorn of “Dating Shakespeare’s Plays” Published by the De Vere Society in the U.K.

Kudos to William Niederkorn for writing an excellent, insightful review of Dating Shakespeare’s Plays.  And kudos to editor Kevin Gilvary and the many other contributors to this landmark work.  I shouldn’t (and won’t) reprint the entire review here.  Several paragraphs follow.  To read the entire review, which was published in the April 2011 edition of The Brooklyn Rail,  please click on this link now or click on READ MORE at the bottom on this post.

http://www.brooklynrail.org/2011/04/books/the-shakespeare-chronology-recalibrated

As anybody who has delved into the Shakespeare authorship mystery in any detail knows all too well, the issue of the chronology of the plays is a major point of contention between the orthodox camp and skeptics of various stripes.  The traditional Stratfordian chronology has always struck doubters as more or less arbitrary, arranged to neatly fit into the lifespan and presumed career of the Stratfordian Candidate — one William of Stratford.  Dating Shakespeare’s Plays tackles this vexing issue with a great deal of skill and refreshing even-handedness.  As Niederkorn puts it in his review:  “[R]egardless of one’s position on the authorship question, Dating Shakespeare’s Plays is a most informative and useful book on a subject at the center of the Shakespeare labyrinth. It is not the last word, but rather an advantageous starting point.”

I couldn’t agree more.  Niederkorn’s review is highly recommended reading … as is Dating Shakespeare’s Plays itself.

Matthew Cossolotto

The Shakespeare Chronology Recalibrated

by William S. Niederkorn

Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: A Critical Review of the Evidence
edited by Kevin Gilvary
(Parapress, 2010)

Determining the chronology of Shakespeare’s plays has been both central and problematic since Shakespeare studies originated in the 18th century. Edmond Malone, whose work is regarded as the cornerstone of Shakespeare scholarship, made the first serious attempt. Malone’s initial Shakespeare achievement was his essay An Attempt to Ascertain the Order in which the Plays attributed to Shakespeare were written, included in the second edition of the Johnson-Steevens Shakespeare in 1778. This was “pioneering research,” as Peter Martin called it in his 1995 biography.

In 1875, Edward Dowden, in his Shakespeare: A Critical Study of his Mind and Art, divided Shakespeare’s career into four periods, based on what he deemed appropriate to the playwright’s age and mood, a division that Shakespeare academics still widely affirm. Dowden vastly expanded on Malone’s use of stylistic data, like frequency of rhyme, to support his chronology with statistics.

E. K. Chambers thoroughly reviewed the full scope of dating research in his William Shakespeare: A Study of Facts and Problems, published in 1930, and laid out a chronology derived largely from Malone and Dowden. Of the 36 plays in the First Folio, Chambers’s dating exactly matches Malone’s on 14 plays and deviates from it by only one year on eight more.

Then, in 1987, came William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion by Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor. Though Wells and Taylor admitted, “The existing or ‘orthodox’ chronology for all Shakespeare’s plays is conjectural,” their dates match Dowden and Chambers exactly for 24 plays and differ on average by less than two years for the rest.

All of this is recounted in the introduction to Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: A Critical Review of the Evidence. This new book, apparently several years in the making, goes on to review other aspects of the inherited tradition, and then lays out, play by play, the evidence put forward by scholars who believe that the plays were written by William Shakespeare of Stratford, followed by the evidence put forward by scholars who believe they are by Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford.

The book is a major comprehensive revision and re-envisioning of the Shakespeare chronology, but it does not set up a rigid chronology of its own. The new chronology is refreshingly diverse, like the world of Shakespeare authorship studies.

The main challenge to the Shakespeare orthodoxy for much of the past century has been Oxfordian, though Oxfordians, unlike Stratfordians, have made the effort inclusive and welcome into their conferences and journals advocates for Bacon, Marlowe, William Stanley, Edward Dyer, Mary Sidney, et al., including, of course, Stratfordians. As a result, a more open-minded approach to Shakespeare is developing outside the mainstream.

READ MORE

From The Oxfordian: Excellent Article Summarizing the Case for Oxford as Shakespeare Now Available Online

This excellent article, written by longtime Shakespeare Oxford Society member Ramon Jiménez, is must reading for anybody with an interest in Shakespeare generally and the Shakespeare Authorship Question in particular.  I’m pasting below a few of paragraphs from Ramon’s compelling article. A link is provided below so you can read the entire article which was recently posted on the Shakespeare Oxford Society’s website:

The Case for Oxford Revisited
Ramon Jiménez

In his recent biography of William Shakespeare, the critic Jonathan Bate writes: ‘Gathering what we can from his plays and poems: that is how we will write a biography that is true to him’ (xix). This statement acknowledges a widely recognized truth—that a writer’s work reflects his milieu, his experiences, his thoughts, and his own personality. It
was the remarkable gap between the known facts about Shakespeare of Stratford and the traits and characteristics of the author revealed in the Shakespeare canon that led an English schoolmaster to suppose that the real author was someone else, and to search for him in the backwaters of Elizabethan poetry.

This inquiry led him to conclude that ‘William Shakespeare’ was a nom de plume that concealed the identity of England’s greatest poet and dramatist, and that continued to hide it from readers, playgoers, and scholars for hundreds of years. In 1920, J. Thomas Looney published his unique work of investigative scholarship, demonstrating that the man behind the Shakespeare name and the Shakespeare canon was Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford (1550-1604).1 Since then, hundreds of books and articles have augmented the evidence that this unconventional nobleman and courtier not only wrote the plays and poems attributed to Shakespeare, but concealed the fact of his authorship throughout his life. It appears that after his death his descendants and those in their service deliberately
substituted an alternative author and fabricated physical and literary evidence to perpetuate the fable.

The web of evidence associating Oxford with the Shakespeare canon is robust and far-reaching, and grows stronger and more complex every year. Although he was recognized by his contemporaries as an outstanding writer of poetry and plays, he is the only leading dramatist of the time whose name is not associated with a single play. This fact, alone, about any other person would be sufficient to stimulate intense interest and considerable research. Yet the Shakespearean academic community has not only failed to undertake this research itself, it has willfully and consistently refused to allow presentations or to publish research on the Authorship Question by anyone who disputes the Stratford theory. What Oxfordian research it does not ignore, it routinely dismisses, usually with scorn and sarcasm, as unworthy of serious consideration.

READ ENTIRE ARTICLE

Ashland — Shakespeare Authorship Conference Schedule (Sept. 16-19, 2010)

Thought folks might want to see some additional details about the upcoming Shakespeare Authorship Conference schedule.  You can register online for the Shakespeare Fellowship/Shakespeare Oxford Society’s  SF/SOS Annual Conference — Sept. 16-19, 2010 in Ashland, Oregon at the online registration site: http://www.goestores.com/catalog.aspx?Merchant=shakespeareoxfordsociety

Shakespeare Fellowship
and Shakespeare Oxford Society

2010 Conference Schedule

On-site registration check-in will begin at 9:00 AM on September 16, and the education program will begin at 10:00 AM.

Conference registration includes an opening reception with appetizers on the 16th, buffet lunches on day two and three, and the annual awards banquet at the conclusion of the conference on the afternoon of the 19th.

Saturday afternoon will be dedicated to performances with music provided by the lute duet Mignarda, Ron Andrico and Donna Stewart, creators of My Lord of Oxenford’s Maske. OSF all-star Robin Goodrin-Nordli will present her original show, Bard Babes, and Keir Cutler will give an encore performance of his adaptation of Mark Twain’s satire, Is Shakespeare Dead? The afternoon will conclude with a signing ceremony for the ‘Declaration of Reasonable Doubt’.

Thursday: September 16

Music by Mignarda with Ron Andrico and Donna Stewart
Prof Tom Gage: The Bone in the Elephant’s Heart
Dr. Tom Hunter: The Invention of the Human in Shylock 
Dr. Earl Showerman: Shakespeare’s Shylock and the Strange Case of Gaspar Ribeiro
Cheryl Eagan-Donovan: Shakespeare’s Ideal: Sexuality and Gender Identity in The Merchant of Venice
Dr. Marty Hyatt: Teaching Heavy Ignorance Aloft to Fly
Conference Opening Reception – Ashland Springs Hotel Conservatory & Garden
Merchant of Venice at OSF Elizabethan Theatre

Friday: September 17

Shakespeare Fellowship Annual Meeting
Richard Whalen: ‘Goats and Monkeys!’ Othello’s Outburst Recalls a Fresco in Bassano, Italy
Dr. Frank Davis: The “Unlearned” versus the “Learned” Shakespeare
Prof Jack Shuttleworth: Hamlet and Its Mysteries: An Oxfordian Editor’s View
Merchant of Venice Panel: Tom Hunter, Tom Regnier & OSF Actors
Bill Rauch: Artistic Director of OSF and Director of Hamlet and Merchant of Venice
Prof Roger Stritmatter: The “Little Eyases” and the “Innovation” of 1589
Katherine Chiljan: Twelve “Too Early” Allusions to Shakespeare’s Hamlet
Tom Regnier: Hamlet’s Law
Prof Sam Saunders: The Odds on Hamlet’s Odds
Prof Helen Gordon: The Symbols in Hamlet: An Oxfordian Interpretation
Hamlet at OSF Bowmer Theatre

Saturday: September 18

Shakespeare-Oxford Society Annual Meeting
Hank Whittemore: The Birth and Growth of Prince Hal: Why did Oxford write The Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth?
Marie Merkel – “In the Fit of Miming”: A brief history of Sir John Falstaffe and the “whole school of tongues” in his belly
Lynne Kositsky: The Young Adult Novel Minerva’s Voyage and its Relationship to True Reportory and Minerva Britanna
Hamlet panel: Prof Ren Draya, Jack Shuttleworth & OSF Actors
Music by Mignarda
Robin Goodrin Nordli: Bard Babes
Keir Cutler: Is Shakespeare Dead?
“Declaration of Reasonable Doubt” Signing Ceremony with John Shahan, Paul Nicholson, Executive Director at OSF, and other signatories
1 Henry IV at OSF Elizabethan Theatre

Sunday: September 19

William Ray: Proofs of Oxfordian Authorship in the Shakespearean Apocrypha
Bonner Cutting: Let the Punishment Fit the Crime
John Hamill – Bisexuality, Bastardy, Avisa and Antonio Perez Revisited
Michael Cecil: Revisiting the 1st Baron Burghley’s Precepts for the Well Ordering and Carriage of a Man’s Life
Henry IV Panel: Felicia Londré & OSF Actors
2010 Annual Joint Conference Awards Banquet

For further information write to the local coordinator at earlees@charter.net

Angela Michelle’s Hubpages Article about Shakespeare Authorship Issue

Just calling your attention to this interesting article on Hubpages about the authorship issue and Edward de Vere.  Scroll down and you’ll find a survey question.  Scroll down even further and there’s a video of Mark Anderson’s TV interview about his book Shakespeare By Another Name.  Worth watching!  Matthew

Here’s the link:  http://hubpages.com/hub/Did-Shakespeare-Really-Write-His-Own-Stuff

William Shakespeare and The Authorship Debate: Did He Really Write His Own Stuff

// //

William Shakespeareis one of the most famous names of all time, due to his tremendous success as a playwright and poet. In fact, his success seems so incredible that many skeptics question the authorship of his sonnets and plays. Although a majority believe he was a legendary playwright and actor from Stratford-upon-Avon who was christened William Shakespeare. Others theorize that Shakespeare is actually a pseudonym for a group of playwrights. There are many theories in between, which name various men, such as Edward Bacon or Christopher Marlowe, as the true William Shakespeare. One of the more common beliefs is that the true authorof the Shakespearean works is Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford. He is believed to have used “William Shakespeare” as a pseudonym to mask his true identity. Evidence for this theory is based on the lack of evidence for Shakespearethe playwright, the credentials of the Earl of Oxford, and the similarities between the Shakespearean characters and Edward de Vere’s life.(Read More) 

 

 

Whalen reviews Hope & Holston

Review of The Shakespeare Controversy: An Analysis of the Authorship Theories, Second Edition by Warren Hope and Kim Holston. Jefferson NC: McFarland & Company, 2009.

Richard F. Whalen

This second edition of Hope and Holston’s Shakespeare Controversy expands and brings up to date their selective survey and analysis of the literature on the authorship issue over the past 280 years. Well-written and well-researched, this book is not only an entertaining, good read but also a valuable reference work.

At the outset, the authors state that they are Oxfordians and “. . . what we track in this book are the efforts of a number of people which culminated in that recognition of Shakespeare’s identity, and the consequences, thus far, of that recognition. . . . Our aim is to be critically selective, not exhaustive.”

To cover the years since their first edition, published in 1992, the authors have added three chapters and extended their “Chronological Annotated Bibliography” with selected books and articles published in the past seventeen years.

In the first of the new chapters, the authors expand on works treated briefly in their first edition. They devote five pages to an admiring review of Hamlet Himself (1997), Bronson Feldman’s booklet published in 1977 that is out of print and almost impossible to find. The first edition gave Feldman four paragraphs. They follow with reports on the 1987 debate before three justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and the Frontline Public Broadcasting System television program on the authorship controversy, “The Shakespeare Mystery”, that was first broadcast in 1989.

The second new chapter, “The Stratfordian Response,” contains new, post-1991 material, including books by Irvin Matus, an independent researcher, and by Alan Nelson, an English professor emeritus. The authors devote five pages to Matus’s earnestly Stratfordian Shakespeare In Fact (1994), a book rarely cited by Oxfordians today. In the end, they say, Matus aims “to urge ‘the actor’s Shakespeare’ at the expense of ‘the scholar’s Shakespeare.’”  Alan Nelson’s anti-Oxfordian, archival biography of the earl of Oxford, Monstrous Adversary (2003), gets four pages, mostly on Nelson’s handling of three minor characters in Oxford’s life, George Brown, Orazio Coquo and William Hunnis. “His book,” say Hope and Holston, “is a piece of propaganda posing as scholarship.”

The third of the three new chapters reports on the work of various contemporary researchers of various persuasions. They include:

  • Peter Moore on the circumstances and votes for Oxford for membership in the Knights of the Garter, The Lame Storyteller, Poor and Despised;
  • Daphne Pearson on Oxford’s inherited income, “Edward de Vere (1550-1604): The Crisis and Consequences of Wardship”;
  • Roger Stritmatter’s dissertation on Oxford’s Bible, “The Marginalia of Edward de Vere’s Geneva Bible”;
  • Elliott Baker’s shortened edition of Delia Bacon’s book, Shakespeare’s Philosophy Unfolded;
  • Diana Price’s biography of Shakespeare, Shakespeare’s Unorthodox Biography;
  • William Rubinstein and Brenda James’s case for Henry Neville, The Truth Will Out;
  • Robin Williams case for Mary Sidney, Sweet Swan of Avon;
  • Mark Anderson’s detailed and fully annotated biography of Oxford, Shakespeare by Another Name;
  • and Bill Bryson’s informal, popular defense of the Stratford man, Shakespeare: The World as Stage.

Two of the chapters carried forward from the first edition are valuable essays on important early figures in the authorship controversy. They are the book’s opening chapter on Delia Bacon, the often unfairly maligned first Groupist, followed by a chapter on Mark Twain, quoted at length, and Walt Whitman with his friend William O’Connor.

The flamboyant, Baconian cryptologist Ignatius Donnelly gets a twelve-page chapter. The skeptic Henry James shares a chapter with Joseph Skipsey, the disillusioned custodian of the Stratford Birthplace. Grouped together in the next chapter are the respected anti-Stratfordian George Greenwood and two writers they call “rebels:” Samuel Butler and Frank Harris, who are not often heard from. Then comes one chapter entitled “Many Candidates: Marlowe, Rutland, Derby, and So On,” and an excellent, full chapter on J. Thomas Looney’s life and ground-breaking identification of Oxford as Shakespeare.

The last of the original, pre-1991chapters covers works of numerous researchers and witnesses, including John Galsworthy, B. R. Ward and his son B. M. Ward, Gerald Rendall, Eva Turner Clark, Charles Wisner Barrell, S. Schoenbaum, Percy Allen, Gerald W. Phillips, Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn, and Ruth Loyd Miller. For whatever reason, Clark, the Ogburns and Miller — major, influential Oxfordian authors — are not treated as fully as some of the more obscure writers.

It is of course impossible to include every book and article or do justice to any of the writers in a short survey of the immense literature on the authorship controversy by Oxfordians, Stratfordians and others. In most cases, but not all, Hope and Holston select one or two aspects of the writer’s work for discussion, instead of providing a generalized summary of each. This makes it more interesting reading but at the expense of a more comprehensive, if brief, description of the work.  They do an admirable job, however, of weaving together claims by Stratfordians and Oxfordians, showing the back-and-forth of the debate over the centuries. They have little patience for most Stratfordian claims.

The “Chronological Annotated Bibliography” picks up in November 1991 with “The Nose Job,” an episode from the TV program, Seinfeld. (A landlord contends that “Shakespeare was an imposter.”) The longest entries from 1991 to 2008 are on books by Ian Wilson, Irving Matus, John Michell, Joseph Sobran, Jonathan Bate, Diana Price, William Rubinstein, Rodney Bolt (a conjectural Marlovian,) Mark Anderson, Scott McCrae, and Robin Williams. The extended chronology also includes entries on the Harper’s Magazine (April 1999) collection “The Ghost of Shakespeare” that includes five articles by Stratfordians and five by Oxfordians and The Tennessee Law Review Vol. 72, No. 1 (Fall 2004) devoted to the authorship debate. (Full disclosure: This reviewer’s books and articles are included.)

Readers new to the book and its organization would do well to start with the chapters on Delia Bacon, Whitman, Twain and Looney; then browse here and there; and then keep the volume handy as a reference tool, consulting the index to find information on a specific author. Hope and Holston are especially good on biographical background.

Oxfordian readers will find anomalies. Some notable works receive scant attention while some obscure works are treated at length. Some bibliographic entries seem less than consequential. Major authors are covered in both chapter narratives and annotated bibliographic entries that sometimes run to several hundred words, so both should be consulted. Missing are any of the more significant Oxfordian research papers published in the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, the De Vere Society Newsletter, Shakespeare Matters, The Oxfordian annual journal, and the book Great Oxford, published in 2004 by the De Vere Society.

The chronological sequence is unusual for a bibliography. Rarely will readers have occasion to seek works published in a specific year. Nor does the sequence of entries convey any particular insights.

But these are quibbles. The authors state at the outset that they do not aim to be exhaustive. The book’s idiosyncrasies and the sidelights that caught the authors’ attention are a large part of its appeal. The book’s achievement, the result of an incredible amount of reading and thoughtful interpretation, is impressive. Warren Hope and Kim Holston have produced a worthy, if quite selective, survey of an immense subject — 280 years of literature on the Shakespeare authorship controversy in 227 pages.

Egan defends Oxford on BBC

In an extensive report on BBC today, Shakespeare Oxford Society Oxfordian Editor Michael Egan defends the Oxfordian thesis of Shakespearean authorship.

“Edward de Vere: the Bard or not the Bard? Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, was one of the leading patrons of the Elizabethan age, but was he also William Shakespeare?” by Dave Gilyeat was featured this morning on BBC Oxford.

The report led with the announcement of the publication of Kurt Kreiler’s book Der Mann der Shakespeare Erfand (The Man Who Invented Shakespeare) and offered a lengthy exposition of the Oxfordian thesis with long and multiple quotes from Egan.

“Nature and intellectual life abhor a vacuum,” added Dr Egan.
“We don’t know enough about Shakespeare’s biography.
“There are huge gaps and because we know so little about him – despite his being one of the most researched lives in literary history – the situation calls for alternative explanations.
“The real key to the authorship debate is the mismatch between what we know of Shakespeare of Stratford and what we can infer about the author of the plays when we read them.
“When you look at the plays without preconceptions of the author we’d have to say this is a highly educated person, well travelled, with intricate knowledge of the courts and aristocratic life.
“So the question is where did an obscure provincial boy gain all this information and knowledge?”

Shakespeare by Another Name author Mark Anderson was also quoted extensively. Anderson was able to elucidate his insight that Oxford’s 1604 death is a positive point for Oxfordian authorship.

“The chronology is ironically a solid piece of evidence for de Vere,” insisted Mark Anderson.
“In fact the proponents of the evidence actually suggest that the Shakespeare factory shut down in 1604.
“There are no new Shakespeare plays that appear in print after 1604 with two exceptions.
“There’s a brief period in 1608 and ’09 when de Vere’s widow sold the house where they lived and I think it stands to reason there was some house cleaning going on.
“An orthodox scholar would say there was a shipwreck in 1609 that The Tempest refers to.
“In fact there’s some really good scholarship published that suggests that it was a different shipwreck that was referenced in a couple of 16th century books that were in de Vere’s father-in-law’s library.”

The Stratfordian viewpoint was defended in Gilyeat’s article by Alan Nelson and Emma Smith.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/oxford/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8380000/8380564.stm

Deutschlandradio Kultur on Kreiler

Robert Detobel sends this translation of a report on Kurt Kreiler’s new book, broadcast from Deutschlandradio Kultur yesterday (Nov. 11, 2009)

Kurt Kreiler: “The man who invented Shakespeare: Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford” (published by) Insel Verlag

Any educated European knows Shakespeare. Yet it is not certain who he was. The greatest literary genius Europe has ever seen, whose plays and sonnets still today continue shaping our thoughts – and still an enigma. That he was the glover’s son from Stratford upon Avon, this belief has long run out its course.  . . .  Today the majority of trackers opt for Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford. Four years ago Mark Anderson submitted his argument in a 600 page book.  In 1994 a Germanophone author, Walter Klier, has already defended the cause of de Vere. This year another Germanophone author, Kurt Kreiler, joins this side. His book, intelligently written and stuffed with a wealth of facts, also makes clear that the search for the mysterious bard is not only thrilling but also important. For if de Vere, this scion of the European peerage, was Shakespeare, then the “godly ” is not the morning star of the Illumination but the sunset of the European aristocratic culture, the last minstrel.

Hanno Wember review of Der Mann

German correspondent Hanno Wember offers an extensive review of Kurt 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: http://shakespearebyanothername.blogspot.com/2009/10/news-from-germany-ein.html

Wember discussed Kreiler’s earlier work in the Anderson post:

Kreiler published earlier “The Poems of Edward de Vere” (Verlag Laugwitz, 2005), a bilingual English – German edition. By this he proved to be an excellent translator of poetry.

“Fortunatus im Unglück, Die Aventiuren des Master F.I” (Insel, 2006) . A German translation of the anonymous “The Adventures of Master F. I.” In an 80 p. comment he shows that it is an early work of Edward de Vere. This was really something new and in “Der Mann…” Kreiler referred several times to this finding.

In 2003 he wrote a feature-essay (a satire) “Der Mann mit dem Eber” (“The man with the Boar”) in “Neues Shake-Spear Journal”, a German Oxfordian yearbook, published since 1997, (editors Laugwitz and [Robert] Detobel).

Wember said he would expect more reviews during the Frankfurt Book Fair, Oct. 14-18, because Kreiler’s publisher, Suhrkamp/Insel is “first rank”.

Detobel tranlates Mulot review of Der Mann

Robert Detobel reports that the Rheinischer Merkur (Rhineland Mercury — world news for Germany) published a review of Kurt Kreiler’s biography of Oxford, Der Mann, der Shakespeare erfand: Edward de Vere Earl of Oxford (1550-1604) (The Man who Invented Shakespeare: etc.). The review was written by German author Sibylle Mulot on September 24, 2009:
http://www.merkur.de/2009_39_Vergesst_Shakespe.37385.0.html?&no_cache=1

Detobel has provided a partial translation of the article, having left out portions of “. . . well-known retrospective, mainly on Looney.”

Robert Detobel partial translation of “Vergsst Shakespeare!” (Forget Shakespeare!) by Sibylle Mulot in the Rheinischer Merkur September 24, 2009:

BIOGRAPHIC RESEARCH / Is the world famous name of the poet from Stratford-upon-Avon but a pseudonym? Yes, Kurt Kreilers says, in an impressive study. In truth, the creator of Hamlet and and Macbeth was the Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere.

Forget Shakespeare!
VON SIBYLLE MULOT (Note: Sibylle Mulot is a German author, born in 1959.)

In the beginning was the suspicion. The trader and sometime player of Stratford-upon-Avon was illiterate. That’s the upshot after decades of frenetic research. Possibly he could write his name? Six scrawls on six deeds show him as “Shaksper”, then as “Shakspere” or “Shakspear”….

Therefore, Shakespeare admirers for a long time consider “Will Shaksper” from Stratford-upon-Avon to be a front and the poet’s name “William Shakespeare“ a pseudonym. Since 1850 Shakespeare research has split. The partisans of “the Man of Stratford“, in their majority middle-class professors, fight tooth and nail against the doubters of the theory of the miraculous petty bourgeois. Did not the name “William Shakespeare” appear on the title-pages of the first printed plays? Not really. Actually the name read “William Shake-speare” with a hyphen, a hint in those times that it was “a telling pseudonym”. This was first overlooked, then denied. Granted, it cannot be proved that Shakespeare went to school. But– in Stratford there was a Grammar School! How many things could he have learned there! Granted, he never left England, but how many things could he have seen there, had he been there! The great genius was just an unlearned petty bourgeois, basta. The petty trader had to be a genius because of the big business, the millions of visitors, pilgriming each year to their hero in Stratford or what they imagined him to be, at stake were festivals, world fame, uniqueness.

. . .

In 1920 Looney found the needle in the haystack . . .

In Germany it was possible to be informed on de Vere’s war adventures, his politic quarrels, his engagement in the theatre … since 1995 when Walter Klier for the first time summarized Looney’s findings. Ten years later the US author Mark Anderson presented old and new “evidence“ and came to the conclusion that Shakespeare was “one of the most autobiographical authors that ever were“.

Now a new, comprehensive book has appeared from the pen of the long-standing German Shakespeare researcher Kurt Kreiler, a historical-biographical-stylistical analysis provided with new findings and concentrating on de Vere’s cultural tradition, his individuality and his poetic art. A homage, also suitable as initial reading, to the “master of poetical self-reflection“, the artist of love rhetorics, a soul-knowing tragedian and an illusionsless illusionist. Reasonable doubts that de Vere is Shakespeare are no longer possible. But no really good myth will ever proceed from thence: the man is too complicated, his life already too well investigated, not appropriate as projection surface. Good myths ought to be simple, incredible and homely.

Kurt Kreiler: Der Mann, der Shakespeare erfand. Insel Verlag, Frankfurt 2009. 600 Seiten, 29,80 Euro. Mark Anderson:Shakespeare by Another Name. The Life of Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford, The Man Who Was Shakespeare. Gotham Books, NY 2005. 640 Seiten.

Note from Robert Detobel October 5, 2009:
The largest part of the (Rheinischer Merkur) review was not a review of Kreiler’s book but a retrospect of the Oxfordian case, mainly with reference to Looney. I translated the opening lines, the references to Klier and Anderson and, finally the last (and only) paragraph on Kreiler’s book. It was, however, a clear statement in favor of Oxford.

Dr. Andrew Hannas passed on

Ginger Renner, Andy Hannas, Sally Mosher in 1995.  Photo courtesy of Ginger Renner.

Ginger Renner, Andy Hannas, Sally Mosher in 1995. Photo courtesy of Ginger Renner.


Mark Anderson reported that Oxfordian researcher Dr. Andrew Hannas, 58, died accidentially September 24 at his home in Lafayette, Indiana. Information from the Soller-Baker Funeral Home website at http://www.soller-baker.com/ included the following:

Visitation:
1 to 2:00 pm
Soller-Baker Lafayette Chapel
Lafayette, IN 47909

Service:
2:30 PM Friday, October 02, 2009
Grandview Cemetery
1510 N. Salisbury ST.
West Lafayette, IN 47906

Dr. Hannas wrote articles for the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter. The following article appears on the Shakespeare-Oxford Society website:
The Rest Is Not Silence: On Grammar and Oxford in The Art of English Poesie by Andrew Hannas.
Content: “This communication responds to the article, “What Did George Puttenham Really Say About Oxford And Why It Matters”, appearing on the Shakespeare Authorship Page web site, . . . “