Henry Peacham on Oxford and Shakespeare
February 27, 2006
Is the scholar’s 1622 decision unimpeachable evidence for Oxford as Shakespeare? by Peter W. Dickson (© 1998) This article was first published in the Shakespeare
Shake-Speare
Oxford’s Literary Reputation in the 17th and 18th Centuries
February 27, 2006
This brief article — originally an appendix to “Henry Peacham on Oxford and Shakespeare” — provides some rarely seen references to Edward de Vere as a poet and playwright, mostly from 18th century sources.
The Queen’s Worm
February 27, 2006
The most frequently-asked question in the authorship debate is, “What difference does it [i.e. knowing who the true author is] make anyway?” A perfect example of the difference that knowing the truth can make is illustrated in this article by Richard Whalen — adapted from his presentation at the 1998 Edward de Vere Studies Conference. Whalen takes a small scene from Antony and Cleopatra and brings it to new life with the simple observation that in French the word for worm is “ver.”
Are British scholars erasing two heroic earls from Jacobean history to protect the Shakespeare industry?
February 27, 2006
Peter Dickson reports on some incredible findings that have resulted from his recent researches into the 1620s and the life and times of King James I. When checking recent 1990s biographies of James, looking to see what new facts and insights may have been added, Dickson found instead that some critical information now appears to be missing!
Oxford as “The Knight of the Tree of the Sunne”
February 27, 2006
Prof. Daniel L. Wright gives us a glimpse of the “theatricality” of Edward de Vere in comparison to those around him. This description of how de Vere responded to a challenge to participate in a jousting tournament before Queen Elizabeth in 1581 is clear proof that he was indeed “a man apart” among his peers.
The Art of The Art of Shakespeare’s Sonnets
February 27, 2006
Shakespeaere Oxford Newsletter columnist Mark Anderson took a look at Helen Vendler’s celebrated book on the sonnets in 1998, de-constructing the artful dodges that make up any Stratfordian attempt to understand them while ignoring the author.
Shake-speare’s Sonnets – Book Reviews
February 27, 2006
Richard Whalen reviewed three recent sonnet books in the Spring 1998 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter (Helen Vendler’s, Katherine Duncan-Jones’, and G.Blakemore Evans’.), and finds they have in common what we already knew: without knowing the true author, the sonnets can mean anything and nothing.
Review of Shake-speare’s Sonnets and the Court of Navarre by David Honneyman
February 27, 2006
Long-time Oxfordian Ramon L. Jimenez reviews a little known book by David Honneyman (1997) that again illustrates the Stratfordian dilemma with the Sonnets. Honneyman’s solution is quite startling, though. In his book he invents the “Ur-Sonnets,” originally written in France in the 1570s, and has our Stratford hero merely translating them into English later. We kid you not. Check it out.
Shake-speare’s Sonnets are Stratfordians’ Achilles’ Heel
February 27, 2006
Joseph Sobran based his 1997 book Alias Shakespeare on his Oxfordian reading of the Sonnets, and he re-states here what he said in his book: the Sonnets are indeed an “Achilles’ heel” for Stratfordians, since any acceptance of their reality virtually blows the Stratford actor out of the water as their author.
Hollywood’s the thing…
February 23, 2006
Shakespeare In Love: With the Oscar winning movie due out on video by the end of August 1999, we provide here for out Internet Oxfordians some recent commentary from Shakespeare Oxford Society members Gerit Quealy (from the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter) and Joe Eldredge, in a piece written for The Ever Reader.
Shakespeare In Love
February 23, 2006
Joe Eldredge, like most movie-goers and most Oxfordians, found Shakespeare in Love a typical, fun Hollywood movie. But, he wonders, just what were the writers and producers thinking about as they put this wonderful film together.
Teaching the next generation Oxford was Shakespeare
February 23, 2006
Last year (in the Winter 1999 Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter) Roger Stritmatter wrote about one such teacher — Robert Barrett, a secondary school English teacher in the state of Washington — and told our newsletter readers about his personal story of the joys and rewards — and risks — of bringing the Oxfordian view of Shakespeare into the classroom.
An Interview with Robert Barrett
February 23, 2006
The man taking the heat in the Northwest for bringing authorship into the classroom is interviewed by Roger Stritmatter.
This interview was published along with the article “Teaching the next generation Oxford was Shakespeare”.
Reading by the Lamp of Biography
February 23, 2006
Andrew Werth, a recent graduate of Concordia University (in Portland, Oregon, home of the Edward de Vere Studies Conference), writes about his perspectives on studying literature in conjunction with an author’s biography, and how such study stands in stark contrast to the conventional views of and conventional teaching of Shakespeare. (This essay was published in Volume II (1999) of the Society’s annual journal, The Oxfordian, and is also available on the Oxfordian website.)
Rumors of disaster, premonitions of war
February 23, 2006
In a 1989 Shakespeare Oxford Society Newsletter article, Oxfordian Tom Goff wrote about the intersection of affairs of state and the historical dramas of the 1580s (such as Henry IV and Henry V), making an interesting Oxfordian case for how the early Oxford/Shakespeare was most likely writing historical dramas in the service of the state at a time of impending war.
Vladimir Nabokov and William Shakespeare
February 23, 2006
Questions have been raised from time to time as to why Oxfordians claim that Vladimir Nabokov doubted the Stratford story… after all, the argument goes, there is no clear indication in his works, nor in his biography. As it turns out, we were privileged ten years ago (1990) to publish in the Shakespeare Oxford Society Newsletter an obscure 1924 Nabokov poem — translated by his son in 1988 — that should, once and for all, settle any doubts about Nabokov’s Stratford doubts.
