Among the important books and articles by independent-minded scholars that have been published over the years on websites, in newsletters and in The Oxfordian are some that are crucial to the authorship argument (in general) and my scenario (in particular). Those available online can be found through links in blogs and articles; those less easy to locate off-site can be located here, either directly, or through in-text links.
Alexander, Mark Andre. Shakespeare’s Knowledge of Law: A Journey through the History of the Argument. A detailed look at the most telling aspect of the early authorship discussion, fueled from the start by the 19th century jurists who claimed that the Bard’s knowledge was that of a trained lawyer. This testimony by men of such high calibre was the first step towards the acceptance of the issue among persons of education and intelligence. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 4, 2001, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Alexander, Mark Andre with Daniel Wright. A Few Curiosities Regarding Edward de Vere and the Writer who Called Himself Shake-speare. The best brief on the authorship argument. Perfect for introducing the argument in nutshell form to those unfamiliar with it.
Delahoyde, Michael. De Vere’s Lucrece and Romano’s Sala di Troia. Dr. Delahoyde, English Professor at Washington State University and an editor of the Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature, details the origin of the heretofore unexplained long and involved interpolation in The Rape of Lucrece to a series of paintings by Giulio Romano in a room the Palazzo Te in Mantua, a palace famed for its art and architecture which Oxford could easily have visited during his year in Italy. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 9, 2006, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Detobel, Robert. Authorial Rights in Shakespeare’s Time. German scholar, translator, and co-editor of the Neues Shakespeare Journal in Frankfurt, Detobel shows that contrary to received wisdom, authors of EM works did have certain rights over their works, and that Oxford’s authorship of Merchant of Venice is revealed by the wording of its entry to printer James Roberts in the Stationers’ Register of July, 1598. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 4, 2001, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Detobel, Robert. Authorial Rights in Shakespeare’s Time, Part II. German scholar, translator, and co-editor of the Neues Shakespeare Journal in Frankfort, Detobel continues his detailed examination of the rights of authors to decide when to publish and who should publish their work. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 5, 2002, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Egan, Michael. Did Samuel Rowley write Thomas of Woodstock? Dr. Egan earned his PhD at Cambridge University where he edited the Cambridge Review. Currently the editor of The Oxfordian, in 2006 Dr. Egan published The First Part of the Tragedy of King Richard the Second: A Newly Aurthenticated Play by William Shakespeare (Edwin Mellen, 2006), which won the Adele Mellen Prize for Distinguished Contribution to Scholarship that year. In this article he deconstructs a current Stratfordian attempt to avoid the Shakespearean overtones in the early play Thomas of Woodstock, more accurately termed Richard II Part One. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 10, 2007, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Gidley, Fran. Shakespeare in Composition: Evidence of Oxford’s Authorship of “The Book of Sir Thomas More.” Independent scholar Gidley identifies Oxford as the author of this early play, showing how his connection to his uncle, the Poet Earl of Surrey, informs our understanding of the play and when it was written. The method by which it was written, through dictation to four different scribes (one Oxford’s then secretary Anthony Munday), suggests his methods of working, and therefore the extreme unlikelihood that we’ll ever find a copy of a Shakespeare play in his own hand. Published first in The Oxfordian, vol 6, 2003, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Green, Nina. An Earl in Bondage. Green details the vicious financial cycle, triggered by the 16th Earl’s will, the Queen’s greed, Leicester’s cruelty, and Burghley’s laissez-faire, that led inexorably to Oxford’s bankruptcy. Located here on Green’s website; published first in the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, Summer 2004, and The SOS 50th Anniversary Anthology, page 124.
Hughes, Stephanie Hopkins. Articles and lectures published over the years.
Hurstfield, Joel. Lord Burghley as Master of the Court of Wards: 1561-98. A reprint of a 1949 article in the Transactions of the Royal Society by the expert on the Elizabethan Court of Wards in which he addresses more directly than in his books the issue of how Oxford’s “guardian,” William Cecil feathered his nest with bribes and fees while arranging for the distribution of lucrative wardships, some of them for himself and members of his family. Reprinted in The Oxfordian, vol 3, 2000, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Jiménez, Ramon L. “Edmond Ironside, the English King”: Edward de Vere’s Anglo-Saxon History Play. Historian Jiménez examines this early play in detail, identifying the characteristics that suggest that it’s an early Shakespeare play, plus others that connect it to the life and works of the Earl of Oxford. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 6, 2003, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Jiménez, Ramon L. Shakespeare in Stratford and London: Ten Eye-witnesses Who Saw Nothing. Historian Jimenéz details how 10 people who should have known that their Stratford neighbor, father-in-law, fellow poet, etc., was the great playwright were obviously completely unaware of it during the period of his works’ greatest popularity. First published in the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter, Fall, 2002 and Winter, 2005; and again in The Shakespeare Oxford Society 50th Anniversary Anthology (2008): pp 74-86.
Jimenez, Ramon L. “The True Tragedy of Richard III”: Another Early History Play by Edward de Vere. Historian Jiménez shows how what we know about the Earl of of Oxford helps clarify the connection beween The True Tragedy and its later rewrite as Shakespeare’s Richard III, a problem for academics forced see them as separate plays due to the time limits imposed by the Stratford biography. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 7, 2004, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Looney, John Thomas. Shakespeare Identified as Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford. The book that started it all and, though out of date in some respects, still one of the best. Made available online by the Shakespeare Fellowship.
Miller, Eric. “Sonnet 107: Shakespeare and the “Mortal Moone.” Eric Miller is an independent scholar, journalist, playwright and poet based in San Diego, CA. Since Sonnet 107 is the one sonnet that seems to state a particular date, Miller’s article makes a signficant contribution to the ongoing discussion of when the Sonnets were written. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 9, 2006, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Moore, Peter R. Oxford and the Order of the Garter. Independent scholar Peter Moore adds one more piece to the puzzle of Oxford’s life by showing how deeply he was in trouble in his community through the sudden disappearance of any votes for him by the Knights of the Garter Assembly from 1590-1603. Moore offers no explanation for this, nor is there anything satisfactory as yet. It’s obvious the Poet of the Sonnets felt a deep remorse about something, and certainly there were many things that Oxford had cause to regret, but why so thoroughly rejected by his community? First published in the SOS Newsletter, Spring 1996, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society, and again in the SOS 50th Anniversary Anthology, 2008.
Moore, Peter R. The Rival Poet of “Shake-speare’s Sonnets.” Independent scholar Moore gives all the right reasons why the Rival Poet of the Sonnets had to have been Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, one more important insight that only Oxford as author makes possible. First published in The Shakespeare Oxford Society Newsletter, Fall 1989, and again in the SOS 50th Anniversary Anthology, 2008.
Paul, Christopher. Monument Without a Tomb: The Mystery of Oxford’s Death. A truly yeoman piece of scholarship from independent scholar Chris Paul, whose detailed examination of the facts, or rather lack of facts, surrounding Edward de Vere’s death, force the question of whether he actually died on that date. All of the evidence that he died when the historians say he did comes from official documents, none from letters or other more personal documents. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 7, 2004, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Paul, Christopher. The “Prince Tudor” Dilemma: Hip Thesis, Hypothesis, or Old Wives’ Tale? Independent scholar Chris Paul delves into the myth that’s become popular in some authorship circles in which Oxford is cast as either the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth or the father of her bastard children (or both). Here Paul does a great service for those interested in the AQ who take history seriously. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 5, 2002, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Paul, Christopher. Review: Shakespeare’s Lost Kingdom, by Charles Beauclerk. Genuine historians tend to steer clear of the Prince Tudor or Bastard Heir theory as tiresome nonsense on the order of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Unfortunately this tends to leave the field to the fantasists, so we’re grateful that Chris has turned his meticulous eye on Beauclerk’s version of the Oxford as Seymour’s son portion of this notion. For those who find something inviting about the PT view of history as driven by incest, Paul’s close look at the actual evidence may bring a glimpse of reality. First published in Brief Chronicles, Vol 2, 2011.
Rollett, John. Secrets of the Dedication to Shake-Speare’s Sonnets. Independent scholar Rollett nails the identification of the author that lies buried in the oddly worded and even more oddly formulated Dedication to Shakespeare’s most personal work. Although Rollett has since turned away from his early insights, they remain an important part of the authorship argument. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 2, 1999, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Simpson, Richard L. The Decay of the Nobility as Reflected in Shakespeare’s History Plays. Richard Simpson (1820-1876), was an English linguist educated at the Merchant Taylor’s School and Oriel College Oxford. As an Anglican vicar who later converted to Catholicism, his viewpoint stands clear of “the region cloud” that continues to make it so hard for the British Academy and their American cohorts to see the politics involved in the creation of Shakespeare’s history plays, and the intensely political nature of his company, the Lord Chamberlain/King’s Men. This article from 1874 is crucial to a clear understanding of the political background to the history plays.
Stritmatter, Roger. The Marginalia of Edward de Vere’s Geneva Bible. (2001). Table of Contents plus a selection of chapters. Stritmatter’s work on the marginalia in Oxford’s own copy of the Geneva Bible is crucial to the study of Oxford’s authorship of Shakespeare. Made available online by The Shakespeare Fellowship.
Stritmatter, Roger. On the Chronology and Performance Venue of “A Midsummer Night’s Dreame.” Dr. Stritmatter got his PhD in CompLit in 2001 from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, MA. His The Marginal Annotations of Edward de Vere’s Geneva Bible, won him a nomination for the Bernheimer award for the best dissertation in Comparative Literature. Here he gives evidence showing for what event A Midsummer Night’s Dreame was originally written. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 9, 2006 by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Swan, George. “The Woman’s Prize”: A Sequel to “The Taming of the Shrew.” Law Professor George Swan makes an important contribution to the Oxford as Shakespeare theory by convincingly identifying the model for the protagonist of the 1604 John Fletcher play, The Woman’s Prize, or the Tamer Tamed, as the aging Earl of Oxford. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 10, 2007 by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Usher, Peter. Advances in the Hamlet Cosmic Allegory. Professor Emeritus of Astro-Physics at Penn State, Dr. Usher penetrates some of the most opaque language in Hamlet to show that, contrary to “expert” opinion, Shakespeare was well aware of the Copernican theory, which he discussed via Hamlet’s seemingly pointless wordplay. Usher reveals Thomas Digges, the mathematition who first published on the Copernican theory in English, as a likely source for Hamlet’s information. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 4, 2001, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Usher, Peter. Shakespeare’s Support for the New Astronomy. Dr Usher, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy at Penn State, gives a detailed look into some of the more arcane wordplay in Hamlet, revealing that, contrary to current opinion that Shakespeare was ignorant of the Copernican Revolution, he used this means to show his knowledge and his opinion of the subject. Why? Because anything that cast doubt on the Biblical version of cosmology was dangerous to speak of in a public forum. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 5, 2002, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Werth, Andrew. Shakespeare’s “Lesse Greek.” Werth, a mere undergraduate student of Dr. Daniel Wright’s at Concordia University when he wrote this brilliant essay, has defined the central issue of the debate over Shakespeare’s education. Could Shakespeare’s plays, many of them based on fairly arcane works of classical antiquity not yet translated into English, have been written by someone who had had no more than a provincial grammar school education (if that)? First published in The Oxfordian, vol 5, 2002, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
Whalen, Richard F. The Stratford Bust: A Monumental Fraud. Journalist and historian Richard Whalen gives a brief rundown of the circumstances that led to the present bust in the monument in Stratford’s Trinity Church. After reading Whalen’s article there simply can be no argument that the present bust is the original, or that it was originally made for the playwright. First published in The Oxfordian, vol 8, 2005, by the Shakespeare Oxford Society.
politicworm 