Shakespeare’s Mentor: the Earl of Oxford?
[OK,
I hate the Shakespeare Authorship debate. I firmly believe that William
Shakespeare, from Stratford, the actor and son of a glove maker wrote the
plays. I find most people who engage in either side of this argument,
especially those that suggest that someone other than William Shakespeare wrote
the plays, to be bores, elitists and zealots. Arguing with them is a waste of
breath. And, don’t even get me going on how wretchedly inaccurate the movie Anonymous was.
And
yet, there is an area around the authorship question that seems a little fuzzy and
warrants consideration. How did Shakespeare become the writer capable of
writing these plays? Who wrote the plays that Shakespeare later adapted into
his masterpieces? Below is my thought experiment on the authorship question. It
is not based on true research or scholarship, it is a conjecture based on some unanswered
questions. Please treat it with lightness it is intended. This idea can be
wrong.]
Some
people are convinced that the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere,
wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare. I have often dismissed this claim as
elitism since the argument against William Shakespeare, son of a Glove maker
from Stratford, often begins with “there’s no way a commoner could be the
world’s greatest poet . . .” Oxford has been their chief alternative candidate for
author of the plays since the 1920’s, even though he died before many of the
plays were written.
While
I think these folks are deluded, they might have a point that influences the
authorship question. Here is an alternative theory that explains why there is
an authorship question and why people point to Oxford:
The
Earl of Oxford was a published poet and known playwright. This was cited in
William Webbe’s Discourse of English
Poetry stating that:
I may not omit the deserved
commendations of many honourable and noble Lords and gentlemen in her Majesty's
court which in the rare devices of poetry have been and yet are most excellent
skilful, among whom the right honourable Earl of Oxford may challenge to
himself the title of the most excellent among the rest.
And
in The Arte of Poesie, often
attributed to George Puttenham:
And in her
Majesties time that now is are sprung up another crew of Courtly makers
Noblemen and Gentlemen of her Majesties own servants, who have written
excellently well as it would appear if their doings could be found out and made
public with the rest, of which number is first that noble Gentleman Edward
Earle of Oxford . . .
The
writer of The Arte of Poesie also considered Oxford among the best comic
playwrights of his day.
While
we have poems written by a young Oxford, none of his mature works or the plays
attributed to him has survived with his name attached.
He
became a patron of his own company of players in 1580 and was patron of a Boy’s
company. When the Queen formed her own company, the Queen’s Men, she took the
best players from the other companies. This was in part to put a stop to the
rivalry between Leicester and Oxford, whose companies competed for playing at
court.
Oxford
was rumored to have a greater hand in the productions of his company of players
than most patrons. This possibly extended to offering his plays to be played under
a pseudonym. He was known as a patron of several writers and playwrights during
the 1580s, including John Lyly, Robert Greene and Author Golding. It is strongly suspected that Oxford had a hand in the development of the Queen’s Men.
The
Queen’s Men was the foremost company of players from 1583 until it dissolved
into the Admiral’s Men and the Lord Chamberlain’s Men in the early 1590s. The
company set the stage for the work of Kyd, Marlowe, Shakespeare and Johnson. They
developed historical drama, in part because their charge was to educate (or
propagandize) the citizenry on what it was to be English.
Many
of the Queen’s Men hit plays were later adapted by Shakespeare:
The Famous Victories of Henry V
The Troublesome Reign of King John
The True Tragedy of Richard III
King Leir – The most famous Chronicle
history of Leir King of England and his Three Daughters
And
possibly,
The lost Ur-Hamlet
The Taming of a Shrew
These
plays were written between 1585 and 1592.[i] The
author of these plays is unknown.
What
if they were written by Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford? It would fit. This would
be why the plays remain unclaimed. [ii]
It
was rumored that William Shakespeare got his start in theater with the Queen’s
Men. The company toured extensively. The suggestion is that he hooked up with
them in Stratford and continued with the company as a bit player to London.
It
is possible that Edward de Vere took an interest in this country bumpkin with
some talent for writing. Could he have become Shakespeare’s mentor? Could he
have taught him not only playwriting, but about the court, battle, law and
travelling? The very information that the Oxfordians, the name for those who
believe that Oxford wrote Shakespeare’s plays, say Shakespeare lacked could
have been learned from Oxford. The facts Shakespeare gets wrong, especially
geographical facts, are the very things that Oxford couldn’t teach him. It can
only be learned only from first-hand experience.[iii] Oxford
mentored him, though could not teach him what it was to be on a ship at war, to
walk from Pisa to Verona or that Bohemia was land locked.
We
also know that Shakespeare was a better adapter than originator of stories. He
adapted Thomas North extensively for his English Histories and Roman Dramas
(Plutarch by the way of North’s translations). He adapted other’s plays and
popular books, such as Plautus and Thomas Lodge. Only two of the plays by
Shakespeare are considered original and not coming from previous source
material: Midsummer Night’s Dream and
The Tempest. Even these could have
originated with lost source material.
When
Shakespeare’s players, Heminges and Condell, wrote in the First Folio:
His mind
and hand went together: And what he thought, he uttered with that easiness,
that we have scarce received from him a blot in his papers.
I’ve
always believed that they protest too much. Shakespeare was a chronic re-writer.
It is hard to believe that any of the plays that have come down to us were
written at one time. When plays were revived, it was practice to spruce them
up.
Here’s
what I imagine: Shakespeare joined the Queen’s Men in Stratford around 1588. He
traveled to London and met Oxford. Over the next few years, Oxford mentored
Shakespeare. They wrote together. Shakespeare added text to the Queen’s Men
plays written primarily by Oxford. In turn, Oxford added text to parts one and
two of Shakespeare’s Henry VI play
and possible Titus Andronicus.
There
was a split between the two men around 1592 or 1593. The protégé surpassed the
mentor. Shakespeare no longer needed Oxford’s instruction. He became known and
famous by his own right. Shakespeare proved this by rewriting the plays by
Oxford and having more success with them. His Richard III was Shakespeare’s first blockbuster. With this success,
he was able to buy a share into the newly forming Lord Chamberlain’s Men.
Oxford,
who was broke and in trouble with the Queen, went another way.
Edward
de Vere did have a large hand in the plays written by Shakespeare. Oxford
mentored Shakespeare and helped create the best playwright in the English
Language.
[i] These plays are not very good
compared with Shakespeare’s re-tellings. They do hold really interesting clues to
Shakespeare’s mind, intent and process. It is fascinating what he kept and what
he changed. I recommend anyone doing one of the plays to review this source
material.
[ii] People
often ask how a secret like this can be concealed. I was working at Actors
Theatre of Louisville when Jane Martin wrote many hit plays. Jane Martin was described
as a Kentucky playwright who wanted to remain anonymous. While there were many
rumors as to who was Jane Martin, it was never conclusively proven, even within
the company. As an insider, I can make an educated guess and have seen some “proof”,
though I don’t know for sure.
[iii] Oxford is known to have traveled extensively through Europe
and to have fought in the army and navy. Shakespeare supposedly did not. This shows
up in the details that Shakespeare gets wrong. Oxfordians use his experience as
an argument for his authorship of the plays and against Shakespeare. However, they
fail to see how much the writer got wrong. The writer gets things wrong no one
with first-hand experience would.
