The following comment comes from a reader in response to a recent post on this blog site that began, “There is a delicious irony in the discovery, claimed this week by British botanist and historian Mark Griffiths, that an engraving on the inside title page of the 1597 book The Herball, or General History of Plants by horticulturist John Gerard (1545-1612) contains a portrait of ‘William Shakespeare.’ Based on the evidence so far, Griffiths is probably correct! And it all points not only to ‘Shakespeare’ but, equally, to Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.”
Click for Larger View
One of the major points is that the portrait in question, showing a “fourth man” dressed as a Roman and meant to signify the poet who wrote Venus and Adonis (1593) by “William Shakespeare,” does not (necessarily) resemble the physical appearance of any real person. Instead the portrait points symbolically to “Shakespeare” while other evidence, biographical and historical, connects it to Edward de Vere. Here is the relevant part of the comment from Joanne Mary Gray at the Marketing and Communications Department of the University of Toledo:
“I agree with Mark Griffiths that the lower right hand drawing on the Gerard’s Herball title-page is that of the author ‘Shakespeare’ theatrically portraying a character. I also believe this drawing is based on the real Shakespeare, Edward de Vere.
“The bays around his head indicate he is a poet. The flower in his right hand (to our left) is a ‘snakes’ head fritillary’ and it does point to the author Shakespeare and his first signed poem of Venus and Adonis. [From the blood of Adonis on the ground, ‘A purple flower sprung up, checkered with white’ (1168), to whom Venus says, ‘Here was thy father’s bed, here in my breast;/ Thou art the next of blood, and ’tis thy right.’ (1183-84)] Mr. Griffiths is correct. I think that the other figures are also shown as ‘theatrical’ character portrayals—such as Lord Burghley as King Solomon.
“Some people have voiced concern/confusion as to why the fourth man in the far right corner, believed to be the author, would be holding an ear of corn in his other hand. The corn actually clinches the identity of the fourth-man portrayal as Adonis, because Ovid in his Metamorphoses (Book X) has King Cinyras and his daughter Myrrha in an incestuous encounter during the festival of Ceres, the Corn Goddess, and that encounter resulted in her giving birth to Adonis.
(C)Guy Ackermans 2005
“The corn clinches the identity as Adonis, conceived during the Festival of the Corn Goddess.”
“I felt a bit sorry for Mr. Mark Griffiths, who as a loyal Stratfordian honestly had no idea how the other half (anti-Stratfordians) are treated on a regular basis whenever they find or point out something that in any way threatens or questions the orthodox faith. Oxfordians were as unamazed as Mr. Griffiths was amazed by the immediate snap-back from the orthodox side when he rolled out his new Shakespeare find.
Ceres – Goddess and Mother of Corn
“It might be interesting to write an alternative-universe story about what would have happened if he had vetted it first through the Stratford Birthplace Trust. I have to think that had he done that, there would have been a far different roll-out that would have only taken place once he had a supposition that could hold a bridge (no matter how meager) to Lord Burghley — because there is no way they wouldn’t have seen all the blinking red lights screaming ‘danger’ at the close proximity between the fourth man as ‘Shakespeare’ and Lord Burghley across each other on the same page!”
[Of course, Edward de Vere Earl of Oxford and William Cecil Lord Burghley are directly tied to each other. Oxford was a royal ward in Cecil’s custody — living at Cecil House during the 1560s, when his uncle Arthur Golding would have been translating Ovid’s Metamorphoses! — and then marrying his daughter Anne Cecil.]
“Griffiths had naively believed that when he presented what he had honestly discovered, his fellow Shakespearean brethren would embrace him; instead he found himself immediately attacked by the Stratford orthodoxy, and found his only allies among the infidels outside the Stratford temple.
“No Oxfordian was surprised to see on May 22nd an updated article on the Country Life online site, in which Mr. Griffiths gave his full-throated self-defense and no-holds-barred damnation of the Oxfordians and Edward de Vere. The heat came from his sincere bid to regain entrance among the faithful. He made his case:
“‘It is impossible that the Fourth Man standing gloriously opposite Burghley on the 1597 title page of The Herball is his hated and estranged son-in-law, the Earl of Oxford. In any case, this realistically portrayed figure doesn’t resemble the known portraits of Oxford, and he certainly doesn’t look like a hard-living 47-year-old, which the Earl was in 1597.’”
“It appears that after finding himself somewhere he never imagined, his panic led him to forget that his premise was that the figures were theatrically portraying characters. The character that Shakespeare was portraying was Adonis—the eternally handsome youth. [And the ‘father’ of the purple-and-white checkered flower.] It didn’t matter the age of the real model—be he ‘a hard-living 47-year-old” [Oxford] or a 33-year-old businessman [Shakspere] from Stratford!
“Griffiths also made the unfortunate remark about the ‘realistically portrayed figure’ — an obvious exaggeration that came, no doubt, because of his shock and the belief that he needed to push back forcefully. The drawings are no more realistic than Lord Burghley’s is. And the last part of his comment, that he (de Vere) ‘doesn’t resemble the known portraits of Oxford,’ is a bit embarrassing for him, because the Stratford side says that both the Droeshout (an obvious caricature) and the present last iteration of the Stratford monument effigy are the only ‘authentic’ portrayals of the author. I’ll put de Vere’s portraits up against those two ‘portraits’ any day to stand in comparison to the Herball title-page drawing.
“So the artist would not have portrayed Edward de Vere as the 47-year-old, but as the more youthful man he was, as Adonis; and no Oxfordian will be surprised to learn that in the final and longest denunciation in this updated May 22nd article — after dealing with the two lesser candidates that people had brought up for the fourth man, Raleigh and Drake — Griffiths saved the longest (60 lines) and harshest (to put it mildly) ending to the piece (building to a crescendo of truly biblical denunciation, to prove his bona fides as true member of the Stratford church) for Oxford — sealing it with: ‘Far from proving the theory that the Earl wrote Shakespeare’s canon, my discoveries kill it once and for all.’
“He is pleading to be readmitted to the temple because he will manage to accomplish what all before him have failed to achieve. He will kill, once and for all, that cursed Oxford heresy and all its pesky and persistent heretics and their unworthy candidate.”
Thanks to Joanne Gray for these lively and insightful remarks. Stay tuned for more on this one!
Hank Whittemore's Shakespeare Blog 
It’s curious to think of de Vere as a kind of professional liar in keeping hidden his identity as author of the works of Shakespeare. This lie can only be maintained today by an entire field of professional liars (and dupes), the Stratfordians, who seem so grotesquely and laughably venal. They are professionals lying about a kind of professional lie, centuries old. To perpetuate the lie, they must deny and denigrate the accomplishments of the original liar.
I suppose de Vere’s lie is as much or more of a “state” lie than a professional one, though both de Vere and the Stratfordians found use in lying to advance their political and intellectual or artistic pursuits, and to save (while continuing to risk) their necks – one literally, the others not so much. The Stratfordians are far from the only intellectuals and scholars lying for status and on behalf of kingdoms and states today and throughout history. In fact, lying for status and on behalf of power has been a role, probably the central role, of intellectuals throughout history. The Stratfordians’ lie may be much less pernicious than the lies of other contemporary intellectuals, being much less of the day directly and much less of bloody consequence. But oh how easily, how readily the lie has fit into the academy, and for how long. It’s scarcely as much what you know as whom you serve, in considering an intellectual pursuit and career. Young scholars should choose wisely, look for decent openings, try to advance the common good rather than prostitute to power or for position. For the latter role, professional lies come with the course.
De Vere was lying about his own name, the lie of a pen name, a lie into which he was forced by the Realm; whereas, the Statfordians lie of their own accord about the name and accomplishments of another person, another place, another time, though a time not so very different from today. They lie professionally, in scholarship, about scholarship and history, politics and art … about civilization and human nature. Such is their professing, their professionalism, and too much their profession. Such is the lure of ideology and power, of position and comfort, such is some part of human nature. Shakespearean. The Stratfordian Bullshit, a kind of farce of the refined asinine, ought to be taught as a central part of the Shakespeare canon, going forward. To lie, or not to lie, that is the question: Whether ’tis Nobler to shit on the clear truth … and so on, starring the Stratford Gang. A Western farce writ small, though for added dramatic kick and cultural import it could be paired with the far more destructive lies of the political and economic rulers in the West and beyond. A war-mongering, climate change denying, financially rapacious English prime minister who is also a Stratfordian devotee. Notice that the literary establishment is not leaping up to write it with any great alacrity.
Well said. Thanks.
What if respected SOF members/leaders are not leaping up with any great alacrity? From my own experience, the situation is much worse than your comment would imply.
Just one addition: apart from Hank, the best words I’ve ever received for my pioneering discoveries, I’ve received from Mr. Andrew Gurr. Go figure.
That should have been in reply to Sandy.
I’ve registered a great part in the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office. You may suspect that the whole might represent a true value, so it’s not open. I delivered a lecture to the Hungarian Shakespeare Society. I’ll deliver a lecture at my country’s very famous cultural festival, the link to which find below:
http://www.ordogkatlan.hu/2015/05/a-shakespeare-rejtely-nyomaban.html
A report will be published in a country-wide respected newspaper, and an interview will be broadcast in a famous radio-channel.
But it’s so ground-breaking, so ‘not-mainstream”, that presently I no longer see any point in sending documents to anybody. I hope that I’ll have the chance to SHOW and EXPLAIN them to some highly regarded forum somewhere in England ore the USA. Andrew Gurr called my results to be “interesting and intriguing”, Say, I’m sure I’ve solved the mystery of the Hathaway-sonnet – but Alexander Waugh wanted to stop my harmful activity, which “proves nothing, let alone the authorship of Oxford” – OK, maybe he’s right. Mr. Don Rubin found them to be “fantasy”, maybe he’s right.
Personally I would show everything. But no documents to send now.
Well good for you Sandy. I look forward to hearing more in the future.
Sandy have you written up or linked your finds anywhere? Would love to read more.
Thanks Mystikel. My results divide people to the extreme, so I kind of understand those people I mentioned earlier. The expert at the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office almost shouted excitedly: “Man, this will mean greater hype for Hungary that did the Rubic’s Cube!” But I’m modest. It would be a giants step for me not te be regarded as a miserable mountebank.
Stay tuned, that’s all I can ask – and promise.