Who Was Shakespeare?

The recent visit of King Charles III  of Great Britain brought to mind one of my favorite subjects:  the authorship of the plays and poems of William Shakespeare, the greatest author in the English language.  I confess that I am a Shakespeare denier. I believe that the great plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare, the man of that name from Stratford on Avon, were not written by him, but by an aristocratic contemporary, Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, one of the most prominent, best educated, and notorious noblemen in Elizabethan England. Below is an essay on the subject that originally appeared on The Weekly Bystander on April 6, 2016.

 

Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, 1575

 I am an advocate of the theory that the true identity of the greatest writer in the English language has been hidden for more than 400 years. I am not alone. Great writers like Walt Whitman, Mark Twain, and Henry James, as well as great Shakespearean actors like Orson Welles and Derek Jacobi believed that the plays and poems were written by someone other than the simple commoner from Stratford. Even Sigmund Freud agreed. 

While many names have been put forward as the true author, I believe that the aristocratic background, unique education, and life experience of the Earl of Oxford makes him the prime candidate for the true author of the Shakesperean canon. When it comes to Shakespeare, I agree with those who are called by scholars, with a certain degree of contempt, “Oxfordians”. These would include the unfortunately named J. Thomas Looney, an English high school teacher whose groundbreaking 1919 book, Shakespeare Identified in Edward de Vere, the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, has never received the attention it deserves.

Oddly enough, it was on my first trip to Italy back in 1997 that I saw the light. My wife and I attended a little symposium on the Renaissance held that year in Gardone Riviera, a resort town on the coast of beautiful Lake Garda. We stayed in an old pensione up the hill from Gardone that had a spectacular view of the lake. 

Before the trip I had happened to read a book by Joseph Sobran* that also questioned the authorship of the man from Stratford, and promoted the cause of the Earl of Oxford, but I found it hard to believe given the overwhelming scholarly tradition. Italy changed my mind. Many of the plays are set in Italy, and the playwright seems to have a first hand knowledge of the customs, language, and geography of the country.

The man from Stratford never traveled outside of England. Scholars are reduced to saying that he got his extensive knowledge of things Italian by listening to Italian seamen in London pubs. On the other hand, shortly after he turned 21 and took his seat in the House of Lords, the young Earl of Oxford left England to spend a year and a half traveling on a kind of grand tour, most of which was spent in Italy. Is it a coincidence that practically every town he visited in Italy is featured or at least mentioned in the plays? Venice, Verona, and Padua come immediately to mind. Places he did not visit, like Turin and Bologna, receive no mention in the plays. 

Moreover, my own brief first visit to Italy convinced me that it would be impossible to describe the beautiful countryside, and the fabled cities without having actually seen them. Even today, after many subsequent visits, I find it almost impossible to describe the breathtaking scene of the Tuscan countryside, or a ride in a water taxi down Venice’s Grand Canal.

The young Edward de Vere spent a fortune on his Italian journey and had to borrow heavily to pay his enormous bills. He arrived back in England deeply in debt and even stark naked, having been stripped of his clothes by pirates in the English Channel, in the same manner as Prince Hamlet in the famous play. This incident is just one of many where the life of the Earl of Oxford is mirrored in the plays and poems of Shakespeare.**

Edward de Vere was born in 1550, fourteen years before the man from Avon.  The de Vere’s were one of England’s great aristocratic families, and could trace their lineage back over 400 years. After the death of his father, when Edward was only twelve, he was taken from his mother and made a ward of the Crown. His property and wealth were managed by Queen Elizabeth’s favorite, Sir Robert Dudley, and his education and upbringing were put into the hands of Sir Robert Cecil the Queen’s chief minister, who even non-Oxfordians believe to be the prototype of Polonius in Hamlet. Edward de Vere grew up in the highest circles of English society, and studied under some of the greatest scholars of his time.

On the other hand, it would appear that the man from Stratford on Avon received no more than the barest elementary education. His father was a butcher and his family was illiterate. Scholars are hard pressed to find any evidence that he received even an elementary education. He left no books or manuscripts behind but only a handful of copies of his signature on legal documents that indicate that he could hardly write his own name.

Throughout his life Edward de Vere was associated with the theater. He sponsored and promoted plays and companies of players. However, at the time it was considered disgraceful for someone of his status to associate with plays and players. For this reason Oxfordians believe that he used the name of the man from Avon to cover his tracks. There is evidence that the young man from Avon was amply compensated. After all, what’s in a name?

The greatest objection to the authorship of de Vere is the fact that he died in 1604. Although it is difficult to date the plays, the traditional belief has been that some, like the Tempest, were written between 1604 and 1616, the date of the death of the man from Stratford. However, in recent years scholars have reduced the number of post-1604 plays to one or two and even their dates are questionable. One recent author has even argued that the whole “Shakespeare project” seems to shut down after 1604. 

The other objection involves a kind of reverse snobbery. We live in the age of the underdog and people like to believe that the greatest author in the English language was a common man possessed with great natural genius. We do not like aristocrats and shows like Downton Abbey make us aware of their follies and weaknesses. Nevertheless, greatness in any field still requires education and life experience. Every author writes himself. The plays of Shakespeare are all about Kings, Queens, and other aristocrats. In those plays Edward de Vere wrote about a world of which he was intimately acquainted and in which he played a major role. 

Written around 1604, Hamlet was one of the last plays. The dying words of Hamlet could well apply to Edward de Vere.

O God, Horatio, what a wounded name,
Things standing thus unknown, shall live behind me!
If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart
Absent thee from felicity a while,
And in this harsh world draw thy breath in pain
To tell my story.

### 

* Joseph Sobran, Alias Shakespeare, 1997.

**Mark Anderson, Shakespeare by Another Name, 2005, provides an exhaustive account of the similarities between the life of Edward de Vere and the characters in both the plays and poems of Shakespeare.  

Assassins

 

The recent attempt by a self-proclaimed assassin to enter the White House Correspondents dinner and possibly kill President Trump and other members of his administration marked the third attempt on Donald Trump’s life in the last twelve months. 

It makes you wonder why Donald Trump is such a target. The question was put to the President in the brief press conference held right after the incident. He replied that he had studied assassinations and claimed that the Presidency has always been a high-risk job, especially if the President has achieved much.  According to him there is little reason to target an inconsequential President like his predecessor.

I suspect that there is some truth in his remarks, but I think there is something more involved in the attacks aimed at him. I do not agree with those who think the problem will be solved by toning down the “rhetoric.” The rhetoric itself stems from something deeper. I do not believe that the people who claim that Trump is a dictator, a fascist, or another Hitler are lying or hypocritical. They really believe it. In a way, they can’t help themselves. It is as if they have been programmed. Let me give an example.

An incident occurred in our home during President Trump’s first administration that was strange. For years a window cleaner had been coming to our home to clean our windows. He was a nice guy who always did a good job, and my wife really liked him. While chatting with him on one occasion, she mentioned that she liked Trump. Immediately, he picked up his equipment and walked out of the house leaving the job half done. It was as if his psychological immune system had sprung into action and he could not help reacting. 

I thought of this trivial incident while trying to understand why three attempts have been made on the life of President Trump so far. What are the assassins like, and what do they believe?

The case of Luigi Mangione provides some clues. This young man deliberately shot a man in the back in broad daylight, a killing that in former times would have been considered craven cowardice. Yet, Mangione apparently thought he was doing a good deed in shooting the CEO of a large health care insurance company. Moreover, instead of being vilified, he is regarded by many as a kind of hero, even a saint. The CEO he killed was a successful Businessman who somehow deserved to die.  

In the eyes of his haters Donald Trump is the epitome of the Big Bad Businessman. He is rich and flaunts it. He is arrogant and self-assured. He brooks no criticism or insult. He is the personification of the villains of innumerable movies and TV series that I have witnessed over my long lifetime. For years, Law and Order, to name one, has been among TV’s most popular shows. Inevitably, the original murder suspect is usually a poor young Black or Puerto Rican, but then the murderer turns out to be a wealthy businessman.

The pandemic alerted us to the workings of our immune system: how it is programmed to immediately spring into action against harmful invaders. We also learned that sometimes the immune system can overreact and cause even more damage.

I have come to believe that we also have a psychological immune system that has largely been conditioned by what we have been watching over our lifetimes. Any rational person must admit that from the age of the robber barons to our current tech tycoons, the cultural bias has been largely left wing and anti- business.

The opinion page of my local newspaper has no conservative commentators. It cannot afford to offend the sensibilities of its readers or remaining advertisers. The mainstream news media is notoriously biased. The staff at NPR is overwhelmingly Democratic. It’s not much different online. It turns out that over 70% of Wikipedia sources are left wing, and only 1% come from the right. For every conservative on the Yale faculty, there are 36 liberals.  

I admit that I have my own psychological immune system, but I have never hated anyone or thought of killing anybody even if it would benefit humanity.  I can’t bear to watch or read left leaning news but do not hate the Democrats who for years have dominated politics here in Connecticut. I disagreed with many of the things that former Democratic Presidents Biden and Obama did, but I never hated them. 

In thinking about it, I believe that there were some institutions that kept my psychological immune system from over-reacting even when I was a young man. First, there was my marriage. My wife certainly would not have allowed me to be an assassin. Our shared beliefs, background, and values also helped. There were our children. We had to raise them, and I had to work to support them. There were our extended families who supported us and who we had to support in turn. There was our Church whose teaching, culture, and long history were in our blood.

I certainly don’t think that I am unique. On the contrary, I believe that most people still are supported by institutions like these that keep them from doing harm. Unfortunately, over my long lifetime I have seen most of these institutions ridiculed, bitterly attacked, or just regarded as irrelevant. Marriage, children, family, and religion are no longer the ideal. Young men especially are on their own.

###

Anti--Catholicism

  HistoriaFamed 

Famous American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Sr.  once claimed that anti-Catholicism is "the deepest held bias in American history." It began in the days of the Puritan colonial founders, continued through the era of massive Catholic immigration of over a hundred years ago, and persists today in Protestant evangelicals, Progressive atheists, and even lapsed Catholics.

One of its signs is the animus, sometimes comical but often venomous, directed against Catholic nuns. Just last week an editorial in the Wall Street Journal decried the efforts of New York State officials to force the Dominican Sisters of Hawthorne to comply with State LGBTQ rules. This religious order, whose founder was Rose Hawthorne, the daughter of the famed American novelist, is noted for its work in caring for the dying in its hospice at Rosary Hill in New York. It is an exemplary institution not only because the sisters accept no payment but also because they do the work themselves even to the point of scrubbing the floors on their hands and knees.

I personally know people whose parents spent their last days there in peace and dignity. They have nothing but praise for these self sacrificing nuns and their work. Unfortunately, the idea of self sacrifice seems to have gone our of favor today. 

The incident at Rosary Hill brought to mind my review of the film adaptation of Somerset Maugham's novel, The Painted Veil, that also dealt with the idea or ideal of self sacrifice. See below. 

The Painted Veil is a 2006 American film adaptation of a novel written in 1925 by W. Somerset Maugham, one of the most popular novelists of the first half of the twentieth century. Although an atheist, Maugham’s novel expressed his deep interest in religion. The book’s protagonist is Kitty, a young English socialite who enters into a marriage of convenience with a man she doesn't love. Things get worse when her husband's work takes her from England to the British colony of Hong Kong where she has an affair with a married British official. Upon discovery, the husband insists she accompany him to an inland Chinese city where he intends to study and deal with a raging cholera epidemic. She suspects that he is taking her there in hopes that she will catch the dreaded disease.

 

I will not divulge much more of the story but just introduce what I consider to be a very significant detail. In the stricken city, Kitty is left largely alone while her husband does his medical research among the sick and dying. To pass the time she visits a Catholic orphanage run by a handful of French nuns who care for children abandoned by their parents. Irreligious herself, she is impressed by the nuns and their work.

 

Maugham’s novel is all about the transformation of the selfish heroine during the cholera epidemic by her encounter with true self-sacrifice: first on the part of the small group of French nuns who have left their homes forever to care for the needy in China, and second, on the part of her unloved husband who ultimately succumbs to cholera himself in trying to help fight the disease. 

 

The modern film version, starring Naomi Watts and Edward Norton, tries to remain faithful to the novel. You can’t blame them for turning it into a love story and altering Maugham’s convoluted ending. Such changes, I believe, alter the letter but not the spirit of the original. Nevertheless, in one respect the filmmakers do violate the spirit of the novel with a gratuitous injection of modern sensibilities. 

 

At one point in the film, Kitty tells her husband how impressed she is with the nuns. Her husband, who in the book has real respect for the nuns and their work, snidely replies that they are merely buying children from their impoverished parents in order to make them little Catholics. This insert of modern cant and prejudice is entirely gratuitous. 

 

The filmmakers go even further. The Mother Superior, played by Diana Rigg, is portrayed as having a kind of crisis of faith. Her initial ardor, that made her give up home and family, has waned and she admits to a kind of spiritual burn out. Again, this is an injection of modern prejudice that totally violates the spirit of Maugham’s novel.

 

Here is an excerpt from the novel that expresses both Kitty’s and Maugham’s real feelings.

 

“Your first thought when looking at the Mother Superior was that as a girl she must have been beautiful, but in a moment you realized that this was a woman whose beauty, depending on character, had grown with advancing years. … But the most striking thing about her was the air she had of authority tempered by Christian charity: you felt in her the habit of command. To be obeyed was natural to her, but she accepted obedience with humility. You could not fail to see that she was deeply conscious of the authority of the church which upheld her. But Kitty had a surmise that notwithstanding her austere demeanor she had for human frailty a human tolerance; and it was impossible to look at her grave smile when she listened to Waddington, unabashed, talking nonsense, without being sure that she  had a lively sense of the ridiculous.”

Later, Kitty relates her feelings to Waddington, a skeptical and agnostic British official who has been stationed in China for many years.

“I can’t tell you how deeply moved I’ve been by all I’ve seen at the convent. They’re wonderful, those nuns, they make me feel utterly worthless. They gave up everything, their home, their country, love, children, freedom; and all the little things which I sometimes think must be harder still to give up, flowers and green fields, going for a walk on an autumn day, books and music, comfort, everything they give up, everything. And they do it so that they may devote themselves to a life of sacrifice, poverty, obedience, killing work, and prayer. To all of them this world is really and truly a place of exile. Life is a cross which they willingly bear, but in their hearts all the time is the desire—oh, it’s so much stronger than desire, it’s a longing, an eager and passionate longing for the death which shall lead them to life everlasting. …

Supposing there is no life everlasting? Think what it means if death is really the end of all things. They’ve given up all for nothing. They’ve been cheated. They’re dupes.”

Waddington reflected for a little while.

“I wonder. I wonder if it matters that what they have aimed at is an illusion. Their lives are in themselves beautiful. I have an idea that the only thing which makes it possible to regard this world we live in without disgust is the beauty which now and then men create out of chaos. The pictures they paint, the music they compose, the books they write, and the lives they lead. Of all these the richest in beauty is the beautiful life. That is the perfect work of art.”

Kitty sighed. What he said seemed hard. She wanted more.

“Have you ever been to a symphony concert?” he continued,

Every member of the orchestra plays his own little instrument, and what do you think he knows of the complicated harmonies which enroll themselves on the indifferent air? He is concerned only with his own small share. But he knows that the symphony is lovely, and though there’s none to hear it, it is lovely still, and he is content to play his part.”

Toward the end, as the widowed and pregnant Kitty plans to return to England, the Mother Superior bids her adieu. 

 “Good-bye, God bless you, my dear child.” She held her for a moment in her arms. “Remember that it is nothing to do your duty, that is demanded of you and is no more meritorious than to wash your hands when they are dirty; the only thing that counts is the love of duty; when love and duty are one, then grace is in you and you will enjoy a happiness which passes all understanding.” 

Despite my caveats, The Painted Veil is a serious film with a compelling story. the acting and cinematography are excellent. A 1934 adaptation is also worth watching especially since it stars Greta Garbo in one of her magnificent performances. Interestingly, this version, coming so soon after the publication of the novel, gives little notice to the nuns and the orphanage.

 ###

Today's Quote: When people cease to believe in God, they will believe in anything. G.K. Chesterton.

Just War Theory and Practice

  

 

The recent disagreement between Pope Leo and President Trump over the war in Iran is unfortunate, mainly because I think they could and should be on the same side. Let me explain.

Pope Leo is an Augustinian, a member of that famous religious order that traces its origins to St. Augustine, a fifth century bishop generally regarded as one of the two most influential philosopher/theologians of Christianity. He lived during the time of the barbarian incursions into the Roman Empire that led to the famous sack of the city of Rome in 410 A.D, and his famous book, The City of God, attempted to demonstrate that the supplanting of the ancient Roman gods by the God of Christianity did not cause Rome’s military disasters. In doing so, Augustine created what is still known as the “just war theory” to explain under what circumstances Christians could depart from pacifism. 

Coincidentally, I have been slowly working my way through Augustine’s lengthy book and found the following description of what Augustine obviously considered a just war. He told the story of Radagaisus, king of the Goths, a conspicuous worshipper of pagan gods, who had led his army into the Italian peninsula and was besieging the city of Fiorentia in the year 406 until a Roman relieving force won an overwhelming victory. Here is an excerpt from Augustine’s account.

 

"When Radagaisus, king of the Goths, having taken up his position very near to the city, with a vast and savage army, was already close upon the Romans, he was in one day so speedily and so thoroughly beaten, that, whilst not even one Roman was wounded, much less slain, far more than a hundred thousand of his army were prostrated, and he himself and his sons, having been captured, were forthwith put to death, suffering the punishment they deserved. For had so impious a man, with so great and so impious a host, entered the city, whom would he have spared? what tombs of the martyrs would he have respected? in his treatment of what person would he have manifested the fear of God? whose blood would he have refrained from shedding? whose chastity would he have wished to preserve inviolate?"

Warfare has changed since the time of Augustine. It is no longer possible to wait until the enemy is at the gates now that missiles can cross oceans and destroy whole cities. Nevertheless, just war principles can still be applicable and despite his critics I believe President Trump actions qualify on a number of counts. 

In the first place, he has shown a remarkable concern for human life not only American but also Iranian lives. From the first he has refrained from attacking civilian targets, and advanced technology has enabled our forces to strike only military targets with pinpoint accuracy. This achievement is truly remarkable and praiseworthy. We would do well to compare his policy with that of the Iranian regime that recently killed more than 30,000 Iranian protestors.

Second, he has shown an incredible desire to negotiate a settlement before the attack began and still continues to the present day. No one can say the Iranian regime was not warned, but a combination of foolishness, and fanaticism led them to think President Trump would back down as other Presidents have done.

Finally, the President’s repeatedly stated goal is peace, and not destruction or conquest. He has expressed no desire to occupy Iran, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, or even change its regime. He does not need or want Iran’s oil reserves. He just wants Iran to be a normal nation with no ability to attack us or its neighbors now and in the future. Remember that Iranian negotiators had claimed that they had enough enriched uranian to make not one but eleven nuclear bombs.

###

Today's Quote: The urge to save humanity is almost always a face for the urge to rule it. H.L. Mencken