Dave’s Midlife Blog

Hi Dave,

I have recently rediscovered my passion for the authorship question after eschewing the claim for seemingly more important projects like making a living. But as I teach my two young boys to follow their dreams, I realize I must set the example. Hence, my foray back into the exciting world of Edward de Vere.

I buzzed through Mark’s book like a termite on a twig. I, too, was troubled by his use of conjecture. Even still, the amount is miniscule compared to the Everest of conjecture from the Stratfordians.

I am currently reading Paul Streitz’s Oxford: Son of Queen Elizabeth. It’s fascinating if not uneven in parts (which the Stratfordians latch onto, as well as its numerous proofing errors, to dismiss the effort entirely. It’s as if one could dismiss the Bard’s work because of uneven plotting).

My goal is to read as much Oxfordian literature as possible and synthesize it into a coherent basis of knowledge for me so that I can make truly informed choices. It amazes me how so many people — on both sides of the debate — latch onto one or two facts or seeming facts and present such forceful arguments pro or con. Like de Vere himself, the subject is rife with many shades of gray, many nuances, many disparate pieces that must be laid out and pieced together like a huge historical puzzle. Mark Anderson and predecessors like the Ogbornes do a good job. But I want to go to the source material as much as possible and look for the nuance that might resonate with me and possibly bear fruit toward a new or stronger interpretation which in turn helps the Oxfordian case.

It’s interesting and plausible that even within the Oxfordian camp they diverge on many points. Serious research by so many has been lacking for so long. The more people pour over source materials the better we all are for it.

I have also been reading A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres, edited by Ruth Lloyd Miller, and have waiting in the wings B.M. Ward’s biography of de Vere.

I was recently in DC for business (I live in Philly) and almost went to The Taming of the Shrew, but logistically couldn’t make it happen. If I could afford the expense and time away from my family, I’d love to see the Marlow plays and Antony and Julius Caesar at the DC Shakespeare theatre. It’s not often that Tamburlane and Edward II are playing.

I hope you can write some critical reviews of the plays after you see them. Bob Bows, a theatre critic in Denver, does a wonderful job of reviewing the local Shakespeare productions from an Oxfordian perspective. He’s the only one I know of that does such.

Anyway, I enjoy these two entrees on Shakespeare and I look forward to more.

Chris, thanks very much for that thoughtful comment. I am especially grateful for the couple of titles you offer on Oxfordian studies and books about de Vere.

I feel as though I would like to dig deeper into the existing scholarship about this. I, like you, am not utterly and finally wedded to the Oxfordian argument, but it certainly seems to make the most sense of any of the possibilities.

To be sure, I have yet to see any Oxfordian argument that is laden with the emotional freight carried by the Stratfordian position. Whereas in yesterday’s post I expressed skepticism about Mark Anderson’s use of the subjunctive mood, the Stratfordians have nothing but subjunctive-mood statements at their disposal. To support them, they have blind, emotional faith. The only fact they seem to offer is that William Shakespeare’s name (or, let us say, the name “William Shakespeare”) appears on the printed plays.

That’s not a lot of evidence, as far as I see it. When I was in the seventh grade, I tried to take on the moniker “Shakespeare,” just as a smart-assy early-adolescent affectation. It didn’t stick. But it could have, and then, three centuries from now, somebody could have supposed that I wrote all those plays. After all, “my name” would have been on them.