THE SHAKESPEARE GUIDE TO ITALY
Richard Roe (Harper Collins 2011)
‘SHAKESPEARE’ BY ANOTHER NAME
Mark Anderson (Gotham 2005)
LITERARY FOLIOS AND IDEAS OF THE BOOK IN EARLY MODERN ENGLAND
Francis X. Conner (Palgrave McMillan 2014)
THE MEDIA PLAYERS: SHAKESPEARE, MIDDLETON, JONSON, AND THE IDEA OF NEWS
Stephen Wittek (Univ of Michigan Press, 2015)
SHAKESPEARE IN COURT
Alexander Waugh (2015)
GREAT OXFORD: ESSAYS ON THE LIFE AND WORK OF EDWARD DE VERE
Richard Malim (available in the UK for £5 from email@example.com)
THE CASE FOR EDWARD DE VERE AS SHAKESPEARE
Geoffrey Eyre (2015)
THE MAN WHO WAS NEVER SHAKESPEARE
Tony Pointon (2011)
This book fills a gap caused by the failure to recognize De Vere as a primary contributor to the history and development of English literature: the consensus is that, although there were stirrings in the literary scene, there was very little real development until the advent of Sidney, Marlowe, Greene and Peele in the mid 1580s. Then a few years later, out of the blue, along comes Shakespeare.
But clearly a Revolution occured in the five-or-so years around 1575, when English evolved into a language of eloquence. This came about, as C.S. Lewis indicates, because of the leadership and example of the plays of the period. As one of the book’s academic reviewers (not a Society member and previously unknown to us) puts it, “We are thus left gaping at the projected brilliance and secondary effects of a supernova that exploded before our time and has since disappeared; at its centre today lies a ‘black hole’ the source not only of the unsurpassed drama and poetry but of English as a respectable and esteemed literary vehicle.”*
This book attempts to chart that Revolution or “black hole”, and Oxford’s career as the leader of it. It examines the plays he could have written before he went to Italy in 1575 and the 15 years after his return, citing not only topical and biographical references, but how the arguments of ‘orthodox’ critics support the thesis, and how Marlowe and company are his followers, not his exemplars.
Evidence is explored for what is called the Bard’s ‘dark’ period—12 years earlier than that postulated for Shaksper of Stratford (‘orthodox’ scholars cite c.1600)—that affected Oxford for the rest of his life. The book reviews developments in the reputation of “Shakespeare” after Oxford’s death in 1604, and finally from the Restoration in 1660 to Malone in 1790.
Critics have accepted “Shakespeare’s” paramountcy as author, as having no exemplars, as being the revolutionary lone creator of the modern theatre. Malone adhered to this misconception and never came to grips with evidence regarding the many “anonymous” plays of the 1570s and ’80s, which renders his 1590-and-after dating scheme for the Shakespeare plays useless (Coleridge in effect acknowledges this). The book also combats current ‘orthodox’ objections to Oxford’s poetic skills and presents evidence for Oxford’s hands-on dramatic experience, along with refutations of recent fads favoring collaboration and ‘stylometrics’.
These are vital matters for the Oxford case, and essential for the ‘orthodox’ critic to consider to truly understand the development of poetry, literature, drama, and the language itself in its evolution and perhaps apex.
An Appendix offers a critique of the claims of William Shakespere as the author, “The Irrelevant Life”, also featured on this website.
From the reviewer quoted above: “I don’t believe anything further needs to be written: for those who are open the conclusion becomes self-evident.” *However, the case needs constant updating. Please see the Schedule of ADDENDA, which also incorporates comment on Oxfordian (and other) scholarship revealed since original publication.
- See for reference page 265 n.3 of the Schedule and the Bibliography. Questions on content, text etc including items in the Addenda and Corrigenda may be sent to Richard Malim. Other reviews may be found on Amazon.com Richard Malim or Amazon.co.uk Richard Malim