Here is my response to some great comments by Lee Crammond:
Hi Lee — First, again, congratulations on your findings about the two public dedications to Southampton, the means by which Oxford brought “Shakespeare” onto the printed page and into the world’s history.
[SEE BELOW]
When the paradigm of authorship finally shifts, your unique observations will be acknowledged by all — in the category of “Why didn’t I see (or say) that?”
On the movie “Anonymous” [see the Shakespeare Oxford Society – SOS – Blog for updated casting news] —
I know that Roland Emmerich had a copy of The Monument early on, in the fall of 2005, the year it was published; and that fall I did have a lunch meeting with him in London. We did not discuss any details of his then-developing script, other than the context of the Rebellion of 1601 and Southampton’s confinement in the Tower for 26 months until the Queen’s death and the proclamation of James of Scotland as King James I of England. And Robert Cecil’s key role in this history, which began with a performance of “Richard II” at the Globe, showing an English monarch handing over his crown — something being suggested for Elizabeth, who would say, it is reported, “I am Richard II, know ye not that!”
I expect in most movies to find some major distortions of history. I don’t know how it will turn out but I am hoping nonetheless that the movie calls attention to the topic itself. I’m hoping it will help open up the authorship topic for discussion. I’m hoping for a lot — Emmerich’s intentions are good — but it’s not up to me.
There is great irony in the practical suggestion that Edward de Vere is recognized as Shakespeare and then the PT (Prince Tudor) theory (of Southampton as son of Oxford and Elizabeth) brought in as sequel. The irony in my view is that it’s precisely the lack of Oxfordian acknowledgment of PT — or of Oxford’s political motives, even — that is preventing more swift acceptance of Oxford’s authorship. He had the means, he had the opportunity — but what’s the MOTIVE for adopting such a warrior-like pen name and then allowing his identity to be obliterated. The jury needs a motive to convict him not only of writing the works but of disappearing so completely.
The sonnets as a whole, as a sequence that was constructed at the far end of the story, supply the motive. The subject matter is the author’s disappearance — “My name be buried where my body is.” (71) The subject is also the pen name — the name “Shakespeare” was the force that rendered him speechless — “Was it his spirit by spirits taught to wright above a mortal pitch that struck me dead?” (86)
If there was a Prince Tudor who deserved the throne, and Robert Cecil was guiding James to the throne knowing that success made the difference for himself of life and death, and James knew the truth would destroy his peaceful succession and throw the country into the very civil war that it feared — would this not be a motive for silence?
The Oxfordian movement has been in existence for 90 years. It’s growing and I do hope the paradigm can change under any circumstances. I do think that it’s the History department where the change will occur more readily, since those folks have far less to lose. It’s the English department that has rolled out miles and miles of sheer baloney and whole careers and reputations have been built on it. What a mountain of b.s. will come tumbling down!
Ask those who profess to love Will of Stratford if they are at all interested in the two or three decades that led up to his entrance in 1593 and 1594 via those dedications. Ask if they are eager to learn about Shakespeare’s predecessors, nearly all of whom worked directly with Edward de Vere, dedicating their efforts to him and testifying that he was not only their patron but their leader. Ask if they are interested in the foreground of Shakespeare. One in ten might have studied this history. The others, who profess to have such love for Stratford Will, have no real interest whatsoever. I believe this is another strong route to the paradigm change — studying, for example, how the Queen’s Men of the 1580’s produced no less than six plays that “Shakespeare” had either written himself or [not!] stole from later. Famous Victories of Henry the Fifth – The Troublesome Reign of King John — and so on! — all written by the true “Shakespeare” in those years before he adopted that warrior-like pen name for reasons in the 1590’s that were, yes — political — that is, here was Oxford’s way of supporting Southampton in the power struggle against William and Robert Cecil to determine who would control the succession upon Elizabeth’s death.
That’s what any movie about Oxford as “Shakespeare” might be called – A MATTER OF SUCCESSION
All best,
Hank
On Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 9:36 am Lee Cramond Said:
Hi Hank,
Are you aware that Edward de Vere quite probably left a remarkable clue to his identity as the author of both Venus & Adonis and Lucrece, hidden in their dedications? One that lies in plain sight once you know where to look?
In V & A his name appears in lower case but in Lucrece, as if to re-assert his authorship he has shown his name beginning with a capital V. The two dedication references (in the bodies of text) are in the 2nd last line in V & A and the 4th last line in Lucrece. In fact, this latter reference could even plausibly be read as a mission statement…’Vere my worth greater, my duty would show greater’,…
Dedication of "Venus and Adonis" to Southampton - 1593
Knowing de Vere’s fascination with punning on his name, could this not be a valid reading of the text? It is unprovable of course, but it would amount to two more pieces of circumstantial evidence for de Vere.
I cannot find any references to this interpretation anywhere on the web, but I’m sure someone must have noticed it before.
Your thoughts on this theory are appreciated.
Regards, Lee
Dedication of "Lucrece" to Southampton - 1594
Hank Whittemore's Shakespeare Blog 