Oxfordian theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This image, known as the Ashbourne Portrait, was long believed to depict William Shakespeare. It was analyzed by Charles Wisner Barrell, an expert in the use of infra-red photography, in a 1940 Scientific American article. Barrell determined that the portrait was an overpainting of the Earl of Oxford.
Enlarge
This image, known as the Ashbourne Portrait, was long believed to depict William Shakespeare. It was analyzed by Charles Wisner Barrell, an expert in the use of infra-red photography, in a 1940 Scientific American article. Barrell determined that the portrait was an overpainting of the Earl of Oxford.

The Oxfordian theory of Shakespearean authorship holds that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote the plays conventionally attributed to William Shakespeare. Oxford is presently the most popular of several anti-Stratfordian candidates for the actual author of Shakespeare's poems and plays. (see Shakespeare authorship).

Contents

[edit] Terminology

Adherents to the Oxford theory generally call themselves Oxfordians. They call those who defend the orthodox position Stratfordians.

Oxfordians prefer to distinguish between Shakespeare, which they consider a pen name for the author of the plays, and Shaksper, the actor from Stratford-on-Avon who lived close to the time that the plays were written. They point out that most references to the man from Stratford in legal documents usually spell the first syllable of his name with only four letters, Shak- or sometimes Shag- or Shax-, whereas the dramatist's name is consistently rendered with a long "a" as in "Shake".[1]

This distinction has been criticised for implicitly suggesting that the names of the Stratford man and the playwright were always spelled differently, when in fact they were not [2]. Oxfordians respond that while Shaksper of Stratford's name was, indeed, spelled in numerous ways, the author of the plays was always spelled "Shakespeare" or "Shake-speare".

[edit] Overview

The Oxford theory was first proposed by J. Thomas Looney in 1920. Oxfordians base their arguments on what they consider to be striking similarities between Oxford's biography and numerous events in Shakespeare's plays. Oxfordians also point to the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries regarding his talent as a poet and a playwright; his closeness to Queen Elizabeth I and Court life; underlined passages in his Bible that correspond to quotations in Shakespeare's plays [3]; parallel phraseology and similarity of thought between Shakespeare's work and Oxford's extant letters and acknowledged poetry (Fowler 1986); and his extensive education and intelligence.

[edit] History of Oxfordian theory

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

In 1984, Charlton Ogburn Jr.'s The Mysterious William Shakespeare not only renewed the case for Oxford's authorship with an abundance of new research but also engaged in a critique of the standards and methods used by the orthodox school. In his Shakespeare Quarterly review of Ogburn's book, Richmond Crinkley, then the Director of Educational Programs at the Folger Shakespeare Library, acknowledged the appeal of approaches such as Ogburn's: "Doubts about Shakespeare came early and grew rapidly. They have a simple and direct plausibility", and that the dismissive approach of conventional scholarship encouraged such doubts: "The plausibility has been reinforced by the tone and methods by which traditional scholarship has responded to the doubts" (36: 518).

[edit] Oxford as playwright

The principal evidence that Oxford was a playwright is Francis Mere's 1598 Palladis Tamia, which lists him among the "best for comedy". However, Shakespeare appears further down in the same list as an entirely separate person:

"so the best for comedy amongst us bee, Edward Earle of Oxenforde, Doctor Gager of Oxforde, Maister Rowley once a rare Scholar of learned Pembroke Hall in Cambridge, Maister Edwardes one of her Majesty's Chapel, eloquent and witty John Lilly, Lodge, Gascoyne, Greene, Shakespeare, Thomas Nash, Thomas Heywood, Anthony Munday our best plotter, Chapman, Porter, Wilson, Hathway, and Henry Chettle."

[edit] Autobiographical evidence

There is no direct documentary evidence connecting Oxford (or any authorial candidate) to the plays of Shakespeare. However, Oxfordians argue that the numerous parallels between Oxford's life and the plays prove such a connection. For example, Oxford was the son-in-law of Lord Burghley, who is often regarded as the model for Polonius. His own daughter was engaged to Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, hypothetically the dedicatee of Shakespeare's narrative poems, at the time that most believe the first of the Sonnets were written; indeed, many believe Southampton to have been the Fair Lord of the Sonnets. Also, Shakespeare's folio was published by two of Oxford's son-in-laws. Finally, the recent discovery of Oxford's Geneva Bible, containing underlined passages that correspond to Shakespeare quotes, has given the Oxfordian theory a considerable boost.

[edit] The 1604 Problem

Oxfordian scholars have cited various examples they say imply that the writer of the plays and poems was dead prior to 1609, when Shake-Speare’s Sonnets first appeared with the enigmatic words “our ever-living Poet” on the title page. These scholars note that the words “ever-living” rarely, if ever, refer to someone who is actually alive.[5] Further, some scholars cite 1604 as the year that Shakespeare “mysteriously” stopped writing. [6] If either proposition proved true, it would be extremely awkward for orthodox Stratfordian scholars, as Shakespeare of Stratford lived until 1616 and there would have been no reason from him to give up a lucrative career at the height of his (alleged) fame. On the other hand, it would give a boost to the Oxfordian candidacy, as both Bacon and Neville also lived well past the 1609 publication of Shake-speare's Sonnets.

[edit] Publication

Regarding dates of publication, Mark Anderson, in “Shakespeare by Another Name” stresses the following: from 1593-1603 “the publication of Shake-speare’s plays appeared at the rate of 2 per year. Then, in 1604, Shake-speare fell silent” and stopped publication for almost 5 years. Anderson also states “the early history of reprints …also point to 1604 as a watershed year,” and noting that during the years of 1593-1604, when an inferior or pirated text was published, it was typically followed by a genuine text that was “newly augmented” or “corrected”. Anderson summarizes, “After 1604, the “newly correct(ing) and augment(ing) stops. Once again, the Shake-speare enterprise appears to have shut down”. [7]

[edit] Composition

Regarding dates of composition, Oxfordians note the following evidence: In 1756, in “Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Ben Jonson”, W.R.Chetwood concludes that on the basis of performance records “at the end of the year of [1603], or the beginning of the next, tis’ supposed that [Shakespeare] took his farewell of the stage, both as author and actor.” In 1874, German literary historian Karl Elze dated both The Tempest and Henry VIII – traditionally labeled as Shakespeare’s last plays – to the years 1604-04. [8], In addition, on dating of Henry VIII, the majority of 18th and 19th century scholars, including notables such as Samuel Johnson, Lewis Theobald, George Steevens, Edmund Malone, and John Halliwell-Phillipps all placed the composition of Henry VIII to before 1604.[9]And in the 1969 and 1977 Pelican/Viking editions of Shakespeare’s plays, Alfred Harbage shows that the likely composition of MacBeth, Timon of Athens, Pericles, King Lear and Antony and Cleopatra (all traditionally regarded as “late plays”), did not exceed 1604.[10]

[edit] Science

Anderson also notes that while Shakespeare made reference to the latest scientific discoveries and events right through the end of the 16th century, “yet Shakespeare is mute about science after De Vere’s (Oxford’s) death in 1604”. Anderson cites, among other examples, that neither a spectacular supernova that appeared in October of 1604, nor Kepler’s revolutionary 1609 study of planetary orbits, cause even a mention in all of Shakespeare’s works.

[edit] Was Oxford known as a secret poet?

Oxford was undoubtedly known as a dramatist and court poet of considerable note. Late in Oxford's career, in 1598, Francis Meres referred to him in his Palladis Tamia as among the "best for comedy," but no examples of his comic drama survive under his name. A major question in Oxfordian theory is whether these works were published anonymously or pseudonymously, or whether Meres is referring to manuscript plays that Oxford distributed under his own name but have since been lost.

Anonymous and pseudonymous publication was certainly a common practice in the sixteenth century publishing world, and a passage in the Arte of English Poesie (1589), the leading work of literary criticism of the Elizabethan period, alludes to the practice of concealed publication by literary figures in the court:

"I know very many notable gentlemen in the Court that have written commendably, and suppressed it again, or else suffered it to be published without their own names to it: as if it were a discredit for a gentleman to seem learned" (37).

According to Oxfordians, Oxford is prominently mentioned as one of those whose work was concealed:

"And in her majesty's time that now is are sprong up another crew of courtly makers, Noblemen and Gentlemen of her Majesty's own servants, who have written commendably well as it would appear if their doings could be found out and made public with the rest, of which number is first that noble gentleman Edward Earl of Oxford". (75) The publication then goes on to list several other aristocratic writers "who have deserved no little commendation."

Oxfordians believe that these passages supports their claim that Oxford was the most prominent "suppressed" writer of the day.

However, opponents argue that the passage actually says the opposite: it states that there are anonymous poets whose identities have not been 'found out and made public with the rest', but then lists 'the rest' of the aristocratic authors whose names have been 'made public'. If so, Oxford thus appears in the list of known and acknowledged authors, which also includes Sir Philip Sidney, Sir Walter Ralegh, Fulke Greville and other well-known names. According to this reading, Oxford appears first, not because he was the most important author, but because he had the highest social rank. [1] Far from being evidence that Oxford concealed his creative writing, opponents suggest that the passage can thus been seen as evidence that he was open about it (as is the very fact that he was publicly named by Meres and the author of the Arte of English Poesy).

Oxfordians respond that opponents are misreading the passage both grammatically and contextually. They note that the list of aristocratic authors referenced in the passage does not, in fact, include Oxford, who appears in a separate sentence. Further, they note that at the time of the passage's composition, the writers referenced were themselves concealed writers, for example [Sir Philip Sydney], the bulk of whose poetry remained unpublished until after his death. [2]

[edit] Stratfordian arguments against Oxfordian theory

[edit] The problem of dating

The most obvious objection to Oxfordian theory is that Oxford died in 1604, when, according to Stratfordians, a number of Shakespeare plays are conventionally believed to date after that year. Oxfordians respond that the conventional dates for the plays were developed by Stratfordian scholars, and are, therefore, inconclusive and self-serving. Stratfordians reject that argument and cite examples to support their point:

The Tempest is considered by many mainstream scholars to have been inspired by a description of a shipwreck written in 1610 [3]. However, literary scholar Kenneth Muir noted "the extent of verbal echoes of the (Bermuda] pamphlets has, I think, been exaggerated."[11]Muir then cites 13 thematic and verbal parallels between The Tempest and St. Paul's account of his shipwreck at Malta. [12] In addition, Oxfordians point to previously acknowledged sources that show that some of the words and images in The Tempest actually derive from Eden's "The Decades of the New Worlde Or West India" (1555) and Erasmus' "Naufragium”/”The Shipwreck" (1523). Both sources are mentioned by previous scholars [13] as influencing the composition of The Tempest and Oxfordians point to new research that seems to confirms this.[4].

Stratfordians claim Henry VIII was described as a new play in 1613. However, this distinction may simply be the result of Elizabethan marketing, as London diarist Samuel Pepys also referred to Henry VIII as being "new", this time in 1663, when the play was over 50 years old.[14]In addition, many 18th and 19th century scholars, including Samuel Johnson, Lewis Theobald, George Steevens, Edmund Malone, and John Halliwell-Phillipps placed the composition of Henry VIII to before 1604.[15]

Stratfordians also suggest that the most overwhelming single piece of evidence against the Oxfordian position is the writing of Macbeth. There's a great deal of evidence for that play having been written in the aftermath of Gunpowder Plot[5][6], which was discovered on November 5, 1605, a year after Oxford died. In particular, Stratfordians claim the porter's lines about "equivocation" may allude to the trial of Father Garnet in spring, 1606.[16] However, the concept of "equivocation" was also the subject of a 1583 tract by Queen Eilzabeth's chief councillor Lord Burghley as well as the 1584 Doctrine of Equivocation by the Spanish prelate Martin Azpilcueta that was disseminated across Europe and into England.[17] In addition, A.R. Braunmuller in the New Cambridge edition finds the post-1605 arguments inconclusive, and argues only for an earliest date of 1603.[18]

Oxfordians also note that a number of the so-called "later plays", such as Henry VIII , Timon of Athens and Pericles have all been called "unfinished", whereas under the [Oxfordian theory] these were actually plays that were finished by another author after Oxford died in 1604.[19] In addition, Stratfordians have all but ignored a long-standing tradition in the theatre - that actors and acting companies will often alter a playwright's lines in order to better reflect a topical issue, or pay homage to a particular person, group, or political event.

Also, the publication of Shake-speares Sonnets in 1609, with its dedication to "OVR.EVER-LIVING.POET.", would seem to imply the author was dead by that time. Although some scholars (such as Donald Foster)[citation needed] have disputed the meaning of this phrase, when applied to a person rather than a deity, "ever-living" was generally understood to mean that person was deceased. Nevertheless, it remains debatable whether the phrase, in this context, refers to Shakespeare or to God.

Aside from the problem of his date of death, supporters of the standard view further dispute all of the contentions in favor of Lord Oxford. In particular, they assert that the connections between Oxford's life and the plots of Shakespeare's plays are conjectural; that the acclaim of Oxford's contemporaries for his poetic and dramatic skill was distinctly modest [7]; and that the markings in his Geneva Bible show little or no connection to Shakespeare's use of the Bible.[8].

Other critics, notably Jonathan Bate, invert one of the key assumptions of Oxfordians (and Baconians): that Shakespeare couldn't have written the plays because he had too little learning and was not familiar with court life. They argue that Shakespeare most certainly was familiar with life at court (he acted there often enough, and had noble patrons - the same level of experience as all of his other contemporaries who depict court life), but that neither Oxford nor Sir Francis Bacon would have had much chance to develop Shakespeare's acknowledged ear for the language of ordinary people. Professional Shakespeare academics argue that Thomas Looney's Oxford theory is based on simple snobbishness: anti-Stratfordians cannot bear the idea that the son of a mere tradesman could write the plays and poems of Shakespeare. In fact, all the major Shakespeare authorship conspiracy theories promote an aristocrat in favour of Shakespeare of Stratford.[20]

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

[edit] External links

[edit] Oxfordian

[edit] Stratfordian

[edit] Baconian

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Justice John Paul Stevens "The Shakespeare Canon of Statutory Construction" UNIVERSITY of PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW (v.140: no. 4, April 1992)
  2. ^ Kathman, David. 'The Spelling and Pronunciation of Shakespeare's Name'. The Shakespeare Authorship Page (Orthodox website). Accessed April 16, 2006.
  3. ^ Stritmatter, Roger A. 'The Marginalia of Edward de Vere's Geneva Bible: Providential Discovery, Literary Reasoning, and Historical Consequence' (PhD diss., University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 2001). Partial reprint at Mark Anderson, ed. The Shakespeare Fellowship (1997-2002) (Oxfordian website). Accessed April 13, 2006.
  4. ^ Looney, J. Thomas, "Shakespeare" Identified in Edward de Vere the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford (1920), repr. Mark Anderson, The Shakespeare Fellowship (1997-2002). (Oxfordian website). Accessed 13 April, 2006
  5. ^ Miller/Looney, Volume 2, pgs 211-214
  6. ^ Anderson, Shakespeare by Another Name, 2005, pgs 400-405
  7. ^ Anderson, Shakespeare by Another Name, 2005, pgs 400-405
  8. ^ Karl Elze, Essays on Shakespeare, 1874, pgs 1-29, 151-192
  9. ^ Mark Anderson "Shakespeare by Another Name", 2005, pgs 403-04
  10. ^ Alfred Harbage, The Complete Works of William Shakespeare, 1969
  11. ^ The Sources of Shakespeaere's Plays (1978)
  12. ^ Acts of the Apostles, chapters 27-28
  13. ^ (Eden: Kermode 1958 xxxii-xxxiii; Erasmus: Bullough 1975 VIII: 334-339)
  14. ^ Samuel Pepy's entry of Dec. 26, 1663
  15. ^ Mark Anderson "Shakespeare by Another Name", 2005, pgs 403-04
  16. ^ Frank Kermode, 'Macbeth', The Riverside Shakespeare (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1974), p. 1308.
  17. ^ Mark Anderson, Shakespeare By Another Name, 2005, pgs 402-403
  18. ^ Braunmuller, Macbeth, 5-8.
  19. ^ Mark Anderson, Shakespeare by Another Name, 2005
  20. ^ Bate, Jonathan, The Genius of Shakespeare (London, Picador, 1997)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/x/f/Oxfordian_theory.html"
In other languages