New Ebook from Keir Cutler: “The Shakespeare Authorship Question: A Crackpot’s View”

Three cheers for Keir Cutler and his new ebook!  Here’s the description in his own words on Amazon, where it can be ordered on Kindle:

keir-cutlerI am a “crackpot.” More accurately, I have a “psychological aberration.” I am also “ignorant,” “a snob” and “a publicity hound.” I “have a poor sense of logic,” “refuse to accept evidence” and am “certifiably mad.”

Who calls me (and people like me) by those terms? The Shakespeare Birth Trust in Stratford-upon-Avon, England. Why? Because I do NOT believe the man from Stratford wrote the famous plays and poems. And even crazier, I also contend that to many teachers and professors, Shakespeare has become a religion, and most schools would no more question Shakespeare’s authorship than the Vatican would question Jesus Christ’s divinity.
There exists an impressive army of “crackpots” who doubt the traditional story of Shakespeare: Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, Charles Dickens, James Joyce, Orson Welles, John Gielgud, Derek Jacobi, Michael York, Vanessa Redgrave, Jeremy Irons, Mark Rylance, former U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O’Connor, and the great writer and critic Henry James, who wrote: “I am haunted by the conviction that the divine William is the biggest and most successful fraud!”

Are people who doubt Shakespeare crackpots, or is it just that most of the world hasn’t yet caught up with the truth we are imparting? Decide for yourself.
“The Shakespeare Authorship Question: A Crackpot’s View” is a quick, fun read that will leave you wondering why schools, and colleges aren’t teaching both sides of the story…

“A Pleasant Conceit of Vere Earl of Oxford, Discontented at the Rising of a Mean Gentleman…” – Malvolio in “Twelfth Night” as Christopher Hatton – Part One of Reason 68 to Believe Oxford was Shakespeare

In 1732 the antiquary Francis Peck published a book called Desiderata Curiosa or a Collection of divers Scarce and Curious Pieces relating chiefly to matters of English History, consisting of Choice Tracts, Memoirs and so onThis was Volume I, which ended with a list of items to be included in Volume II, among them an intriguing manuscript described as “A pleasant Conceit of Vere Earl of Oxford, discontented at the Rising of a mean Gentleman in the English Court, circa 1580.”  (Note: the list is not online, but survives in the volume in the British Library.)

DESIDERATA CURIOSAEdward de Vere was thirty in 1580 and had served for a decade as the highest-ranking nobleman at the Court of Elizabeth.  He had enjoyed Her Majesty’s continuous royal favor, with gossip in the early 1570s that he was the Queen’s lover.  During that decade, however, he had been increasingly “discontented” at the “rising” in fortune of his rival Sir Christopher Hatton, Captain of the Queen’s Bodyguard, whom he regarded with disdain as “mean” – inferior by birth, as a commoner, but also in terms of his conniving and duplicitous character as well as his mawkish personality.

Christopher Hatton      1540-1591

Christopher Hatton
1540-1591

Peck noted that the “pleasant conceit” by Oxford (likely a satire for the stage) was within the sixteenth-century collection of Abraham Fleming, one of the earl’s secretaries and literary protégés.  Was it in Edward de Vere’s own hand?  Or perhaps Fleming had copied it from his master’s original manuscript or from dictation.  Given that Oxford would be cited in the 1580s as “best for comedy,” it appears this was one of his plays and he was making fun of Hatton, strictly for the merriment of the Queen and insiders at the court.  Alas, however, Peck never published his second volume and those papers from Fleming’s folders are missing.

Only after 1920, when John Thomas Looney identified Edward de Vere as “Shakespeare,” would anyone have likely wondered about the earl’s “pleasant conceit” in relation to the Shakespeare plays.  Only then would anyone have realized, surely with sudden excitement, that the earl’s “pleasant conceit” must have been the earliest version of Twelfth Night, Or What You Will, and that the character of Malvolio is no less than a blistering, hilarious caricature of Christopher Hatton!

twelfth-nightOne of the amazing aspects of the Shakespeare authorship question is that within each play is an entire world, which, however, remains invisible until returned to its true context of time and circumstance.  Suddenly the curtain opens on Twelfth Night and we see the world of the English royal court in the 1570s and 1580s.  Now we can see Malvolio-Hatton in relation to Olivia, who represents Queen Elizabeth, and Edward de Vere portraying himself as Feste, the jester or clown in service to Olivia-Elizabeth, who calls him her “allowed fool” – an expression, Eva Turner Clark wrote in 1931, which “Elizabeth probably applied to Oxford, for he would never have dared to include the many personal allusions in his plays had not the Queen permitted, even encouraged, him to do it.”

Traditional scholars still view this comedy as written circa 1600, with a performance at the Middle Temple in 1602 recorded as “a play called Twelve night or what you will.”  But it was never published in quarto and appeared in print only as part of the First Folio of Shakespeare plays in 1623 – a sign it was one of Oxford’s “comedies” that began, in its earliest form, as a “private” entertainment at court.  As such it would have contained material that, if printed too soon, would have been embarrassing to either Elizabeth or King James and to various noble families whose relatives had been satirized.

Elizabeth & Courtiers

Elizabeth & Courtiers

I have often imagined the performances during the 1570s and 1580s within those Elizabethan palaces – Whitehall, Richmond, Greenwich, Nonsuch, Windsor Castle, Hampton Court, and so on – as being staged for a small but powerful group of “cousins” who have been stranded there by a snowstorm (or some other disruption) for several days.  In that context, Oxford was providing much needed entertainment by mercilessly “roasting” many of these same well-known individuals, among them Hatton and even the Queen as well as himself; and much later he would have revised these political satires, adding new layers of material, for public consumption.

This is just the beginning of Reason No. 68 to believe Oxford was Shakespeare; more to follow.

Endnote:  Oxfordian researchers have done a ton of work on the subject of Twelfth Night in the context of its authorship as by Edward de Vere, in works such as:

Hidden Allusions in Shakespeare’s Plays (1931) by Eva Turner Clark; third revised edition by Ruth Loyd Miller, editor, in 1974, pp. 364-392

This Star of England (1952) by Dorothy and Charlton Ogburn, pp. 266-294

Shakespeare by Another Name (2005) by Mark Anderson, pp. 69; 153-156

De Vere as Shakespeare (2006) by William Farina, pp. 82-87

(Other sources to be added in Part Two)

Reason 67 of 100 Why the Earl of Oxford was “Shakespeare”: Following the Trail of Three Plays of King John

PART ONE: John Bale’s “King Johan” & the Earls of Oxford

Elizabeth Tudor embarked on her royal progress in the summer of 1561, less than three years after her ascendency to the throne at age twenty-five, and in early August the court spent a week at Ipswich, where the Queen attended a performance of King Johan (King John), the first known historical verse drama in English and the first play to present a King of England on stage.

John Bale

John Bale

The author, minister-scholar John Bale (1495-1563), had written the first version of the play by 1537 while in the service of Henry VIII’s chief minister Thomas Cromwell, who helped engineer an annulment of the King’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon so that Henry could marry Anne Boleyn.  An active member of Cromwell’s stable of propagandists, Bale managed to turn King John – for centuries a despised monarch, who had surrendered England to the power of the papacy – into a Protestant hero.

A quarter century later, in 1561, the daughter of Anne Boleyn was on the throne and her own chief minister, William Cecil, was just as eager to use the stage for Reformation propaganda; and by now Bale had updated his King Johan in time for the arrival of Elizabeth at Ipswich.  A crucial link between the old morality plays and the new style of drama to come later in the sixteenth century, Bale’s version of John’s reign (1199-1216) presented him as a “good” king struggling against the Pope and the Church of Rome on behalf of England – just as Henry VIII had done and as Elizabeth was doing now.

        King JohnReigned 1199-1216

King John
Reigned 1199-1216

At this point Bale was writing plays for John de Vere, sixteenth Earl of Oxford, whose company of actors performed King Johan for Elizabeth at Ipswich.  Jesse W. Harris, in his 1940 biography of Bale, writes that he was “in the service of Oxford, for whom he wrote a series of plays intended for use as Reformation propaganda.”

Elizabeth’s progress continued to the Vere seat of Castle Hedingham in Essex for a visit of five nights (August 14-19, 1561).  In the great hall of the castle, John de Vere’s players again performed for the royal entourage, most likely with plays Bale had written under the earl’s patronage, including his newly revised play about King John.

On hand for the royal festivities was eleven-year-old Edward de Vere, the future seventeenth Earl of Oxford, who keenly watched  the twenty-seven-year-old Queen’s reactions to the performances; and historians of the future may judge whether this moment marks the true birth of “William Shakespeare” – who, after all, would write plays of English royal history mirroring current political issues.

Hedingham

Hedingham

A year later, upon John de Vere’s death, William Cecil had young Edward brought to London as a royal ward of the Queen in his care.  As Master of the Royal Wards, Cecil also “took possession of all the young noble’s assets,” reports Ruth Loyd Miller (1922-2005) in Oxfordian Vistas, adding:

“Cecil, who had standing orders for his agents on the Continent to supply him with copies of books and publications of interest, would not have failed to appreciate the sixteenth Earl of Oxford’s collection of Bale’s dramatic works, and to move them for safekeeping to Cecil House on the Strand.  Even before Bale’s death (in 1563), Archbishop Matthew Parker and Cecil were aware of the value of Bale’s work, and were involved in efforts to retrieve Bale’s manuscripts from various sources.  Undoubtedly ‘Shakespeare’ saw Bale’s manuscript plays, and undoubtedly he saw them through the eyes of Edward de Vere, who owned many of them, in the Library at Cecil House.”

PART TWO: The Anonymous “Troublesome Reign” & Shakespeare’s “King John”

The next phase of this story begins with the formation of Queen Elizabeth’s Men in 1583 at the instigation of secret service head Francis Walsingham, who knew the power of the stage as a means of spreading political propaganda.   Edward de Vere, thirty-three, contributed some of his adult players to the Queen’s Men along with John Lyly, his personal secretary, as stage manager.  And among the company’s history plays – up through 1588, when England defeated the Spanish armada and the Pope – was the anonymous Troublesome Reign of King John, printed in 1591 as “publicly acted by the Queen’s Majesty’s Players.”

Troublesome Reignof King John - 1591

Troublesome Reign
of King John – 1591

Seven years later, in late 1598, Francis Meres announced in Palladis Tamia that “Shakespeare” was not only the poet of Venus and Adonis and Lucrece, but, also, a playwright.  Meres listed six comedies and six tragedies, the latter including “King John” plus five others, all printed anonymously in this order:  Titus Andronicus in 1594; Romeo and Juliet, Richard II and Richard III in 1597; and Henry IV in 1598.

When Meres listed Shakespeare’s play as King John, wasn’t he referring to the anonymous Troublesome Reign of King John printed in 1591?  We might well think so, given that each of the other Shakespeare plays listed “for tragedy” was printed without any author’s name.  So why not the one about King John?  Well, the simple answer is because that play’s previous existence in the 1580’s is too early for William Shakspere of Stratford, the traditional author, to have written it.

Therefore, to make things fit, orthodox scholars tell us that Shakespeare’s play of King John was not the one published in 1591, but, rather, the one printed in the First Folio of 1623 as The Life and Death of King John.  It’s a different text, but virtually all scholars agree – if reluctantly – that the great author surely based his own King John on the earlier anonymous one, Troublesome Reign … which means that he must have been guilty of substantial plagiarism!

Oxfordian researcher Ramon Jimenez writes in the annual Oxfordian of 2010 that both the anonymous Troublesome Reign of King John and Shakespeare’s Life and Death of King John “tell the same story in the same sequence of events, with only minor variations … The same characters appear in both plays … [and] Shakespeare’s play contains the same scenes in the same order.”

The only logical conclusion is that both plays were written by the same author, who could not have been the Stratford fellow and must have been Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, who first appears in this story at age eleven.

Castle Hedingham -- an interior view

Castle Hedingham — an interior view

Jimenez reports “substantial evidence” that “Shakespeare” wrote Troublesome Reign “at an early age” and then “rewrote it in his middle years” to complete the text of King John printed eventually in the Folio of 1623.  And at this point we might be tempted to announce these facts as “smoking gun” evidence of Oxford’s authorship of Shakespeare’s plays, but we’ll refrain from that temptation while making one other point:

“No scholar has suggested “that Shakespeare depended on or even knew of John Bale’s King Johan,” writes James A. Morey in The Shakespeare Quarterly of autumn 1994, but, it turns out, “The accounts of the death of John by Shakespeare and Bale are significantly alike” and, for other reasons, it does appear that “Shakespeare” must have had firsthand knowledge of Bale’s play performed by John de Vere’s players for Elizabeth back in 1561 … three years before William of Stratford would be born!