Why was “Shakespeare” Anonymous for so Long? Explanation, Anyone? » Richard II quarto 1597 no Shakespeare name

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://hankwhittemore.com/2012/12/29/why-was-shakespeare-anonymous-for-so-long-explanation-anyone/richard-ii-quarto-1597-no-shakespeare-name/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Hi Hank,
    as I was reading through this page, something came to my mind. I can’t remember if this can be found in The Monument – if so, all the better 🙂
    About 12 years ago I read a news in a hungarian newspaper, which stated that “the Shakespeare authorship question is solved”. I try to translate the content. Here’s the original:

    http://ujember.katolikus.hu/Archivum/000910/0503.html

    A certain Robert Detobel found a registration in the Book Of Publishers concerning The Merchant Of Venice. This book contained all the registrations of manuscripts to be published from 1554 to 1708, for the property rights of the authors. This drama was registered on the 22nd July 1598, with the unusual remark, that it’s not allowed to be printed until the Lord Chamberlain would allow it. It was proved that it was only the author who had the right to determine the time of the printing.
    At that time there were only the persons with the ‘simple’ title of Chamberlain – de Vere and George Carey. But a certain Robert Armin, from the Chamberlain’s actors wrote that they visited in Hackney “the Master” on the 25th december 1599. And it was only de Vere, who lived in Hackney. So of the two chamberlains it’s proved that de Vere was the author of The Merchant Of Venice.
    I’m eager to know your opinion 🙂

    • Yes, Sandy, I’ve known Robert Detobel for many years via the internet communications, and believe he found something wonderful, which you now make clearer to me than ever:-)! Also I have come to the strongest possibility that Oxford himself was in charge of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men behind the scenes — that the references to Shakespeare before the succession of 1603 are all to him — and Detobel’s finding would add to that possibility in the strongest way. It’s a topic I may try to revisit and write about, because we Oxfordians tend to become too afraid to put forth suggestions that are not iron-clad and supported by absolute fact. The circumstantial evidence is that Oxford was behind the LCM from day one, and originally had thought to use the Swan playhouse for his “Shakespeare” plays. His leadership of the LCM made it possible for his plays to get out to the public without being censored or suppressed. He had to survive the attempt by Robert Cecil to control the “media,” that is, to limit the play companies and play houses and apply the strictest censorship. And, a most important item, which Oxfordians tend to overlook, is the necessity of getting a manuscript from his hands into the hands of Burbage, or Kempe, etc. There had to be only one intermediary, unless he handed the manuscript of “Romeo and Juliet” directly. Looney suggested that Southampton was the agent between Oxford and the play company, “Shakespeare’s Company,” as they say. I would think that could be only part of the answer, since Southampton was quite active in the 1590s — which reminds me to ask of you or anyone, Did Southampton go on the Cadiz voyage of 1596 or did he not? Also: Did Southampton go over to France in 1591 or 1593 to try to join up with Essex? Ah, but I digress…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.