Wonder of Our Stage: Volume 6: The Real Shakespeare Incandesced the Elizabethan Stage and Still Illuminates Our Own - Softcover

Altrocchi, Paul Hemenway

Softcover

ISBN 10: 1491736704 ISBN 13: 9781491736708

Publisher: iUniverse, 2014

Synopsis

Few are aware that the actual identity of William Shakespeare, a pseudonym, represents our culture's greatest literary mystery. Even fewer realize that William Shaksper of Stratford-on-Avon, the person annointed by most Professors of English as the Great Playwright, was an uneducated, illiterate businessman who never wrote a single word of prose or poetry. In fact, Will Shakspere was the front man of a conspiracy perpetrated by England's leading politician, Robert Cecil, who, for reasons of greed and power, forced Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford-the true genius playwright-into anonymity. The astonishing power of Conventional Wisdom has kept the ruse going since the early 1600s. Outstanding authorship research in the past century, however, has shown convincingly that de Vere was indeed Shakespeare. The best of that research is now assembled in the present anthology series, "Building the Case for Edward de Vere as Shakespeare" It's an exciting story, dramatically presenting powerful evidence of murder-of the name of the world's greatest writing genius, Edward de Vere-and substituting a fraudulent impostor.

About this title

Excerpt. © Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.

Wonder of Our Stage

The Real Shakespeare Incandesced the Elizabethan Stage and Still Illuminates Our Own

By Paul Hemenway Altrocchi

iUniverse LLC

Copyright © 2014 Paul Hemenway Altrocchi, MD.
All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-1-4917-3670-8

Contents

Part 1 Early Shakespeare Oxford Society Newsletters, 
Preface: Brief History of Early (SOS) Newsletters, 1, 
1. Francis Carmody, 1965: A Legal Case Relevant to the Authorship Question, 3, 
2. Richard C. Horne, Jr. 1970: Progress Report, 8, 
3. Gordon Cyr, 1975: An Oxfordian Reply to Two Harvard Professors, 35, 
4. Charlton Ogburn, Jr., 1979: Henry Clay Folger's Memorial, 55, 
5. Warren Hope, 1984: A Celebration of Charlton Ogburn's, 65, 
Part 2 SOS Newsletter Tidbits 1965 - 1981, 
Preface: President-Editors, 71, 
6. Richard Horne, 1966: The Flower Portrait, 72, 
7. Julia Cooley Altrocchi, 1971: Hamlet: "Here's Metal More Attractive", 75, 
8. Craig Huston, 1973: The Earl of Oxford's Ewer, 78, 
9. Gordon Cyr, 1976: In Memoriam Richard C. Horne, Jr., 82, 
10. Harold W. Patience, 1978: The 13th Earl of Oxford in Henry VI, Part 3, 84, 
Part 3 Selected SOS Newsletter Articles 1976 - 1990, 
Preface, 89, 
11. Charlton Ogburn, Jr.: President's Message, 1976, 90, 
12. Rhoda Messner, 1976: Rhoda Messner Answers Dr. Marder, 94, 
13. Gordon Cyr, 1977: A Post Mortem on the Messner-Marder Exchange, 107, 
14. J. Thomas Looney, 1941: "Shakespeare": A Missing Author, 112, 
15. Gordon Cyr, 1978: Prejudice and Shakespeare, 119, 
16. Gordon Cyr, 1978: Famous People Comment, 123, 
17. Charlton Ogburn, Jr.: The How Many Guises of Edward de Vere, 125, 
18. Gordon Cyr, 1980: Latest "Sir Thomas More" Findings Point to Lord Oxford as "Shakespeare", 131, 
19. Warren Hope, 1980: Delia Bacon, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and The Shakespeare Authorship Question, 135, 
20. H.W. Patience, 1981: The Mystery of the Dugdale Engraving, 141, 
21. Bronson Feldman, 1981: Bunk and the Bust, 145, 
22. Warren Hope, 1981: Obituary of Dorothy Stevens Ogburn (1890-1981), 149, 
23. Warren Hope, 1982: Abraham Bronson Feldman—1914-1982, 151, 
24. Richard C. Horne Shakespeare's Jester—Oxford's Servant, 156, 
25. Bronson Feldman, 1982: Oxford's Sole Acrostic, 165, 
26. Bronson Feldman, 1982: Shakespeare Worship, 167, 
27. Bronson Feldman, 1982: A Decalog for Idolaters, 182, 
28. Warren Hope, 1982: Morse Johnson: Oxfordian Man of Letters, 185, 
29. Harold W. Patience, 1982: The Water Bearer, 188, 
30. Louis J. Halle, 1982: On the Man from Stratford, 193, 
31. Gordon Cyr, 1982: A Book Review, 194, 
32. Warren Hope, 1982: The Earl of Venice, 198, 
33. William Addison, 1973: History of de Vere Family, 200, 
34. William Plumer Fowler, 1982: Shake-speare's Heart Unlocked, 209, 
35. Warren Hope, 1983: A Veritable Land of Bleak Bard Fields: Shakespeare, De Vere, and Ireland, 221, 
36. Bronson Feldman, 1969: Shakespeare and Patriotism, 232, 
37. William P. Fowler, 1983: Knyvet's Knife, 236, 
38. Warren Hope, 1983: Morse Johnson Strikes Again, 237, 
39. Rhoda Messner, 1983: How I Became an Oxfordian, 240, 
40. Harold Feldman, 1983: How I Became an Oxfordian, 242, 
41. Harold W. Patience, 1983: The "Ashbourne" Portrait, 244, 
42. Warren Hope, 1983: De Vere Memorials at Wivenhoe, 246, 
43. Morse Johnson, 1983: The World's Most Baffling Literary Mystery, 248, 
44. Phillip Proulx, 1983: How I Became an Oxfordian, 254, 
45. Harold Patience, 1984: The Mysterious Swan of Avon, 257, 
46. Charlton Ogburn, 1983: Oxford and the Avon, 258, 
47. Harold Patience, 1983: The Second Printing of the Sonnets, 262, 
48. Warren Hope, 1984: A Celebration of Charlton Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare, 264, 
49. Gordon Cyr, 1984: "Firing Line" Debate between Charlton Ogburn and Professor Charney, 271, 
50. Harold Patience, 1985: A Significant Eulogy, 274, 
51. Gordon Cyr, 1985: Stratfordian Methods of Controversy, 276, 
52. Gordon Cyr, 1986: Historical Fallacies and Historical Methods: A Key to the Authorship Controversy, 287, 
53. Charlton Ogburn, 1986: Professor May on Oxford's Annuity, 296, 
54. Morse Johnson, 1987: "It is Probable.", 298, 
55. Morse Johnson, 1987: Minos and Ruth Miller Acquire Barrell Archive, 300, 
56. Barbara Westerfield, 1987: A Light On Wivenhoe, 301, 
57. Anonymous, 1987: Shake-speare, We Must Be Silent In Our Praise 'cause Our Encomions Will But Blast Thy Bays, 303, 
58. Morse Johnson, 1987: In the High Court of Public Opinion "In Re William Shakespeare", 309, 
59. Morse Johnson, 1988: Stay Stratfordian, Why Goest Thou By So Fast?, 319, 
60. Charlton Ogburn, 1988: Some "Facts" and Fancies Invented by Professor James A. D. Boyle for his Brief As Counsel for Will. Shakspere in the Debate September 15, 1987 before Three United States Supreme Court Justices, 330, 
61. Minos Miller, 1988: The Dating of The Tempest and "Ostler v. Hemings", 338, 
62. Charlton Ogburn, Jr., 1952: This Star of England (Dorothy & Charlton Ogburn), 342, 
63. Morse Johnson, 1988: "The Oxfordian Position", 351, 
64. Morse Johnson, 1988: "It is chiefly literary amateurs—doctors, generals and lawyers—who have raised questions about the authenticity of Shakespeare's authorship.", 354, 
65. Morse Johnson, 1988: William Shakespeare: A Tale of Silences Which Resound and Records Which Have Vanished, 357, 
66. Louis Bénézet, 1950: "If We Accept Oxford as 'Shakespeare,' Most of the Mysteries Vanish", 366, 
67. Claude W. Sykes, 1989: Why Anonymity?, 370, 
68. Charlton Ogburn, 1989: Charlton Ogburn's The Mysterious William Shakespeare vs. James C. McManaway's The Authorship of Shakespeare, 374, 
69. Al Austin, 1989: "Who Wrote Shakespeare?", 379, 
70. Walter Goodman, 1989: "The Shakespeare Mystery: Who Was He?, 383, 
71. Warren Hope, 1989: "It was the Bard of Oxford, not Avon", 385, 
72. Noel Holston, 1989: "Frontline" Makes Much Ado Over Shakespeare, 388, 
73. John Carmen, 1989: "Was Shakespeare the Real Thing?", 391, 
74. Lydia Bronte, 1989: The Shakespeare Mystery, 393, 
75. David Lloyd Kreeger, 1989: "Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters or priests.", 396, 
76. John Louther, 1989: Shakespeare's Missing Manuscripts, 399, 
77. Gordon Cyr, 1989: Shakespeare Never Played the Rose, 406, 
78. Morse Johnson, 1989: Rose Theatre: Something Missing, 408, 
79. Gary Goldstein, 1989: Hamlet's Art of Falconry, 410, 
80. Peter R. Moore, 1990: The Symbolism of Iago's Name, 414, 
81. Stephanie Caruana, 1990: Hamlet's "True-Penny": A New Coined Word for Oxford's Father, 415, 
82. George G. Greenwood, 1911: A few passages from The Vindicators of Shakespeare: A Reply to Critics (1911), 416, 

CHAPTER 1

A Legal Case Relevant to the Authorship Question

by Francis Carmody, Editor SOS Newsletter, January, 1965

Trusts and Trustees. Charitable #375. Advance of Education #86.

A gift to promote research as to the authorship of the plays attributed to Shakespeare and to discover the original manuscripts is charitable. It improves the literary heritage of the nation and is educational and for community benefit. Re Hopkins Will Trusts 1964. Vol. #3. All England Reports pg. 46. Naish and another v. Francis Bacon Society, Inc. and others. Chancery Division (Wllberforce, J.) June 16-17, July 8 1964.

In 1957 a Miss Hopkins, a member of the Francis Bacon Society, Inc. of England, died leaving a will, which, among other bequests, left one third of the residual estate in trust for the benefit of the Francis Bacon Society, to search and research for the original manuscripts of the plays attributed to William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon. She believed the author was Bacon. The sum involved was £6,500. Her heirs, not unnaturally, preferred that this sum go to them, and sought to have the provision declared invalid. In this endeavor, they had the help and assistance of the "experts", English Professors and professional literary critics who, almost without exception, adhere to the orthodox and conformist revelation that William of Stratford is unquestionably the author, that this attribution has never been doubted by sane men, in fact no question exists, and that research on authorship or search for manuscripts, is illegal, immoral and against the public interest.

The executors of the will applied to the Court of Chancery (Equity) for instructions and a ruling on the contentions of the heirs and the Literary Establishment. In 1964, the Justice handed down his opinion. He stated that there was "no attempt or intention to settle, or rather, pass upon, the question of true authorship, but he would decide the question of legality on the basis of agreed facts and the record before him. In stating the facts as shown by the record before him, the Court said as follows: (Note. The pertinent paragraphs are set out below, omitting technical discussions of definitions of charitable trusts etc. Italics have been supplied.)

Court. "Although William Shakespeare died in 1616, the First Folio was not published until l623 and it contains a number of plays not published during his lifetime. This seems to show that manuscripts of some plays, later published under Shakespeare's name, must have been in existence, probably at the place where the Folio was produced, in, or shortly before, 1623.

Counsel for the next of kin describe it as a wild-goose chase; but wild geese can, with good fortune, be apprehended. This search is to be for real manuscripts, once in existence, of existing plays, believed to be capable of being found ... Before I come to the legal question (Charitable Trust) it is convenient to deal with an argument put forward on behalf of next of kin that the bequest is made for a purpose so manifestly futile, that it does not qualify for a charitable gift ... The authorship of Shakespeare's plays, as one would expect, has been the subject of extensive enquiry over many years. The evidence before the court is of an economical character; it does not enter into any detail into the facts for or against the authorship of the various pretenders (I use this expression though the pretensions are those of their supporters and might well have been repudiated by the candidates themselves), it merely states, in some cases dogmatically, the outline of the contentions that have been made. The court cannot go outside this evidence. I summarize it as follows:

(1) The orthodox opinion, which at the present time is unanimous, or nearly so, among scholars and experts in 16th and 17th century literature and history, is that the plays were written by William Shakespeare of Stratford -on-Avon, actor;

(2) The evidence in favor of Shakespeare's authorship is quantitatively slight. It rests positively, in the main, on the explicit statements in the First Folio of 1623, and on continuous tradition; negatively on the lack of any challenge to this ascription at the time. The form in which scholars express this evidence is, not that it proves Shakespeare's authorship, but that there is no reason to doubt it.

(3) There are a number of difficulties in the way of the traditional ascription. There is no existing manuscript of any of the plays or poetry. There is no mention of any manuscripts or of anything to do with plays in Shakespeare's will. Some find difficulty in understanding how a man with the antecedents and known character of William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon could have developed the literary qualities required to compose the plays. There are a number of known facts which are difficult to reconcile with William Shakespeare's authorship; some of them are referred to in Commander Pares's affidavit. Moreover, as Prof. Trevor-Roper of Oxford points out, so far from these difficulties tending to diminish with time, the intensive search of the 19th has widened their evidentiary gulf between William Shakespeare the man, and the author of the plays;

(4) A number of alternative authors have been suggested by evident cranks, or supported by intelligent amateurs, but none of these have been accepted by scholars, little solid fact has been found to support any of them, and serious objections must be overcome before any of them can be considered as possible candidates;

(5) As regards Bacon's own claims, the evidentiary material before the court is somewhat unsatisfactory ... I was told by counsel for the Society, that the Society had not thought it necessary or right to set out the full evidence at their disposal in their affidavits. On the other side, the two experts, Prof. Muir and Mr. Crow, without traversing Commander Pares's evidence in detail, consider it "certain" that Bacon could not have written the "Shakespeare" Plays and Poems. They base this on consideration of the literary style, temperament, cast of mind, and attitude to life of Francis Bacon. Prof. Trevor-Roper, in a judicious affidavit, takes a more cautious line. While keeping his own position firmly in the ranks of the orthodox and stating that he definitely does not believe that the works of "Shakespeare" could have been written by Francis Bacon, he also considers the case for William Shakespeare rests on a narrow balance of evidence and that new material could upset it; that though almost all professional scholars accept "Shakespeare's" authorship, a settled scholarly tradition can inhibit free thought, that heretics are not necessarily wrong. His conclusion is that the question of authorship cannot be considered as closed. I read this to mean at least that new material might show some person other than "Shakespeare" to have written the plays and poems, and it may mean that it is conceivable, though unlikely, that Francis Bacon may turn out to be the author.

What then of the practical possibility of discovering any manuscript, "Shakespeare" or "Bacon", or of other authorship? The experts who have given evidence on the side of the next of kin are not encouraging, but then are also not very specific. Prof. Muir says that is very remotely possible that a manuscript of one of "Shakespeare's" plays may be discovered, but that a wide search has been made in all probable places and he is at a loss to imagine where any useful search could now be made.

Mr. Crow also says that search has vigorously been made since the 18th century and that all other "probable places for their probable finding" have long since been examined. Both experts direct specific attention to the prospects of finding a manuscript in "Shakespeare's" or some other person's grave, but summarily dismiss this both on the grounds that it is extraordinary to suggest that any manuscript should ever have been placed in a grave, and if it had, it would long ago have disintegrated, "Shakespeare's" grave in particular being close to the bank of the River Avon. The latter point is challenged, with some authority, and with the use of some scientific terminology, by Mr. Edward Pyddoke, Fellow of the Royal Society of Antiquities, and the more general issue, as to the utility of a further search for manuscripts is taken up by Mr. Roderick Eagle, by profession a marine insurance adjuster but evidently an enthusiastic amateur of "Shakespearean" questions of "Baconian" inclination, who witnessed an abortive "attempt to excavate Spenser's tomb in 1938. He otherwise disagrees with the views of the experts that all likely places have been searched and gives a list of six unexplored monuments where manuscripts of the plays might be found. He adds that there are many chests of documents in country houses which have never been properly examined, though as to them he limits his hopes to the discovery of private correspondence which might prove the identity of the plays and poems. Commander Pares refers to the establishment in 1962 of a "Shakespearean" Action Committee, which hoped, before the quarter-centenary, to investigate "Shakespeare's" Tomb and monuments at Stratford-on-Avon.

On this evidence, should the conclusion be reached that the search for the Baconian-Shakespeare manuscripts is so manifestly futile that the court should not allow this bequest to be spent on it as an object devoid of the possibility of any result. I think not. The evidence shows that the discovery of any manuscript of the plays is unlikely; but so are many discoveries before they are made. (One may think of the Codex Sinaiaticus, or the Tomb of Tutankhamun, or the Dead Sea Scrolls.) I do not think that the degree of improbability has been reached which justifies the court in placing an initial interdict on the testatrix' benefaction. I come to the only question of law; is the gift of a charitable character? (Holds that it is.)

It would seem to me that a bequest for the purpose of search, or research, for the original manuscripts of England's greatest dramatist (whoever he was) would be well within the law's conception of charitable purposes. The discovery of such manuscripts, or one such manuscript, would be of the highest value to history and literature. It is objected against this, that as we already have the text of the plays, from a contemporary date, that the discovery of a manuscript would add nothing worthwhile. This I utterly decline to accept. Without any undue exercise of the imagination, it would surely be a reasonable expectation that the revelation of a manuscript would contribute, probably decisively, to a solution of the authorship problem, and this alone is benefit enough. It might also lead to more accurate dating ...

This gift is not that (referring to Re Shakespeare Memorial Trust case) but it is in the same field, for the improving of our literary heritage, and my judgment is for upholding it. Declaration accordingly.

CHAPTER 2

Progress Report by Richard S. Horne, Jr.

SOS Newsletter, March 31, 1970

Dear Fellow-Members of Shakespeare Oxford Society:

This News-Letter contains a report on our progress in carrying out the purposes stated in our charter; a brief review of one of the Folger Library Booklets "The Authorship of Shakespeare" (1962), ostensibly by James G. McManaway and edited by Dr. Louis B. Wright, together with a more extensive review of a 1969 edition of Hamlet, edited by Dr. Wright.

In addition there is an account of a very real and important discovery through recent research of your society, showing the important position that the Earl of Oxford occupied in the latter part of Queen Elizabeth's reign. This effectually gives the lie, as it were, to the libels so assiduously spread-and-invented by present-day purveyors of the Aubrey-Stratford Mythos. Also a short account of 1969 developments at the "Shrine" of Stratford-on-Avon, which so many equate with Shakespeare.

The rate of our progress in recent years toward gaining recognition of Lord Oxford as Shakespeare among the uncommitted and open-minded, can best be described as one small step forward and two giant steps backward. It has long been recognized that there would, and could, be no change in the attitude of those who have a vested interest in maintaining the Stratford Myth—both monetary and a natural reluctance to admit crass credulity and gross gullibility. It was hoped, however, that open, or at least unpoisoned, minds might be found among high, or secondary, school students, and, perhaps, their teachers who had not committed themselves publicly to a degree that would preclude examining facts and evidence without embarrassment or loss of face. That this hope was a vain and idle one is putting it mildly, as will be only too apparent from one of the two reviews below.

Meanwhile Back at The "Shrine" ...

In 1969 the Shakespere Birthplace business at Stratford-on-Avon had a banner year and, though flourishing financially, encountered a small fly in the ointment. A Mr. Francis Carr, a Baconian who once published a magazine, Past and Future, formed an ad hoc committee around 1963, called the Shakespeare Action Committee, with four or more members, whose purpose was to try to get the "grave" and "monument" opened by the quarter-centennial in 1964 to see if there was anything there that would throw any light upon whom the real author was. The Life Members of the Birthplace Trust took a dim view of this, justifiably feeling that it would not be good for business. Mr. Carr and his Committee got exactly nowhere. While his magazine later suspended publication, Mr. Carr persisted: in fact, he seems to take an unholy delight in annoying the Trustees and their Executive Director who he claims are operating a dishonest swindle upon unwary tourists, local and foreign. He does this upon every occasion that presents itself, and when one does not present itself, he does not hesitate to make an occasion. In the summer he told the Press that the operators were violating an English Statute designed to protect the public from such as they. Most of the newspapers wrote this up with a semi-humorous approach. The following clipping is one sent us from England:

Daily Mirror, August 15, 1969. "Businessman Francis Carr is trying to prove that there is no difference between claims made about Shakespeare and the words written on a tin of baked beans. He wants the people who run the Shakespeare tourist industry to be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act. That is the act which says, for example, that a tin marked "baked beans" must actually contain baked beans. Mr. Carr, Chairman of the Action Committee, which is trying to get the bard's tomb opened, said yesterday: 'The public is being charged to visit a house where Shakespeare is supposed to have been born. But there is no written evidence at all of where he was born, or even when. This, I believe, is a clear breach of the Trade Descriptions Act and I am asking that the Board of Trade investigate. The Shakespeare legend is being marketed to the public inaccurately.' Millions of people have visited the house at 2s.6d. a time. Last night Dr. Levi Fox, Director of the Shakespeare Trust, said: 'Shakespeare is not a piece of ironmongery or merchandise to come under this Act. The move of Mr. Carr to prosecute is quite ridiculous.'"

Elsewhere Mr. Levi Fox was quoted to the effect that the whole thing was preposterous; "Shakespeare is not Baked Beans. Shakespeare is not a piece of ironmongery, etc." (Note. Just who said he was is not clear, but if past experience is any guide, we can reasonably expect to hear from "professional historical scholars" that there is nothing to the Oxford theory of authorship, and that the Aubrey-Stratford Attribution is proved, because other ignoramuses claim that "Baked Beans" and "Lord Ironmongery" were the true authors.)

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Wonder of Our Stage by Paul Hemenway Altrocchi. Copyright © 2014 Paul Hemenway Altrocchi, MD.. Excerpted by permission of iUniverse LLC.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

Edition details

• Publisher: iUniverse
• Publication date: 2014
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 1491736704
• ISBN 13: 9781491736708
• Binding: Paperback
• Number of pages: 452