I have excerpted the following from the Summer 2025 issue of the Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter:
"Where do you begin when, at a dinner party, someone says to you, “What’s this authorship nonsense all about? Who is this Oxford anyway?” Have you ever wished for a conversational aid; a simple statement to which you could refer that succinctly describes why you are an Oxfordian? The Shakespeare Authorship Question (SAQ) is horrifically complicated and requires real commitment, deep reading and thoughtful analysis to have a full appreciation of the issues. It’s difficult to explain quickly to people unfamiliar with the topic.What if we could consolidate and summarize “The Case for Oxford?” What if we tried to winnow down all the research, wisdom and weight of circumstantial evidence accumulated over the past hundred years into a clear set of statements? Is it even possible to declare what all Oxfordians agree on? This spring, a group of Oxfordians in England, the United States and around the world attempted to do just that...The Oxfordian Narrative was deliberately kept to one page with six statements. This core principles section is supported by a few Frequently Asked Questions, all composed from information available in more detail on the SOF and DVS websites...The following set of statements has been compiled to provide speaking and written prompts for Oxfordians engaging externally with the media and more widely. The core principles are concise, positive and authoritative, and are supported by a section of Frequently Asked Questions. They form the basis of the Oxfordian narrative and represent the common ground that is respectful of the many differing views held by our members."
In the early 1990s I picked up an excitable bubbly wild-eyed sunburned redheaded man hitchhiking who called himself Oliver Elfhost. He supported himself by collecting metal in shopping carts. Over the next many years he wrote for my paper, and later for my radio show, and still later for his own radio show, offering an endlessly reshuffled riff on the connections he saw between 1. events in singer Roy Orbison's life, 2. lines from Max Brand western novels, and 3. Sir Edward de Vere who, Oliver insisted, actually wrote all the plays and poetry that we had formerly, in our ignorance, attributed to William Shakespeare. He also believed in angels and space aliens and spiritual yoga and said namaste a lot. There was innuendo around town about how his first child became a vegetable (they say he strangled her), but his second child, that we know of, this one with a bird-rescue woman who eventually had to keep Oliver away with a restraining order because of mostly verbal violence /but not only verbal/, more recently died, of recreational drugs, I think. Oliver predeceased him, by heart ailment. Whenever I think of Oliver Elfhost now I fondly remember a typewriter I loaned him, a top-condition gray bulldog of a 1950s Army-issue electric Smith-Corona, that I'd got from the thrift store for peanuts, that he didn't return but either threw away or sold, he wouldn't say, but he did say the reason: the purring sound its motor made set his teeth on edge.
ReplyDeleteDoes not sound like a typical "Oxfordian," I would say. But if you can recall any links between de Vere and Roy Orbison, I would be interested...
DeleteMinnesotastan, what is YOUR take on this debate? I'm by no means a Shakespearean expert, but I do tend to go with Occam's Razor on such things. And for me, it seems that taking things at face value here...works.
DeleteThere are three sets of works that I have consumed (and still do regularly on the first...and at opportune times the rest): The Bible, the complete works of O. Henry (the best $5 I ever spent was buying the book at a flea market probably 30+ years ago), and all of the original Sherlock Holmes.
I am interested in what are the works which are major placeholders in your life?
I am absolutely convinced that the Stratford Shaksper was not the author of the plays bearing his name. It's true that any person can be a "genius", but being a genius does not endow a person with knowledge of Greek and Latin, with information about falconry, with understanding of the workings of the royal court etc etc. The Stratford man had almost illegible handwriting, signed his name in different ways, and when he died there were no books in his possession. There is no absolute proof that de Vere was the author, but he was a royal court insider, educated by scholars, had traveled to Italy, and his personal Bible and other books have underlinings and annotations that parallel phrases used in the Shakespeare canon.
DeleteIf you seriously want to learn more about this point of view, go to the text of this post and look at the bottom and click the label "Shakespeare" (or look for such in the "categories" in the right sidebar), and browse some of the 20+ articles I've written about Shakespeare.
If you are happy "taking things at face value" (i.e. the Stratford man wrote the plays), that's fine. I won't berate or belittle you. But there is fascinating stuff to learn from the other point of view.