A Critical Review of Two Entries (Vol. 56, pp. 286-89) in the 2004 ed. of The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (DNB)

for "Vere, Edward de" by Dr. Alan H. Nelson, English Dept. Berkeley and "Vere, Anne de" by Dr. Steven W. May, English Dept. Georgetown College

Transcription & Corrections-Notes-Criticisms by Beorn S. Hall

Primary ref. source: http://home.earthlink.net/~beornshall/index.html

Vere, Edward de, seventeenth earl of Oxford (1550-1604), courtier and poet... Until his father's death he was known as Lord Bulbeck.

[1] The "courtesy title" for an heir presumptive to the earldom of Oxford was "Viscount Bulbeck," named for an Essex village. Elsewhere in the text, we'll see many places where Dr. Nelson has made unnecessary added comments which at their best gave gratuitously misleading impressions. Here, lacking the information in this note, by omission he gave the impression that "Lord Bulbeck" was an abnormal title or even insulting. Yet, the title may have been a factor in the 17th Oxford's later self-perception, and perhaps in a family tradition of great relevance. There was a similarly-pronounced village in Normandy near Harfleur called "Bolebec," a feature in Henry V's siege of that port during his Agincourt campaign. It so happens that Bolebec was the traditional home town of the Arthurian hero "Sir Lancelot." And though it's uncertain when the "Bolebec lion" first appeared on the DeVere crest, if the 17th Oxford used it, the crest displayed a golden lion on a red background, shaking a broken spear (i.e., "Shake-spear"; II, frontis.).

[2] How long the future 17th Oxford studied at Cambridge U. (and later at Oxford U.) and when he first studied under Sir Thomas Smith are unclear from the evidence available. Other sources indicate he was first placed with Smith circa age 4, was at Cambridge from ages 8 to 12, and was making sufficient visits to Cambridge U. and Oxford U. during ages 12 to 16 to warrant his B.A. and two M.A.'s. In any case, Smith was one of the greatest men of power and learning in that age, with a wonderful library of sources used by Shakespeare (I, 55; II, 33, 49, 364).

[3] The hereditary post of "Lord Great Chamberlain" was important during state ceremonies of pomp, and in authentication of prospective monarchs (I, 259-61). Although it was not to be confused with the Lord Chamberlain of the Royal Household, both posts were often referred to as simply "Lord Chamberlain." From 1573 to 83 and again from 1594 to 1603, the greatest acting companies in England were called "Lord Chamberlain's Men," and during both periods the patrons of those companies were likely close allies of the 17th Oxford. The earlier period was under Oxford's political mentor the 3rd Earl of Sussex (I, 261-90). The second period began under Oxford's cousin's father-in-law, and another likely ally, the 1st Baron Hunsdon (I, 290-91). From 1596 to 1603 there is uncertainty about whether the "Lord Chamberlains" of record were as actively engaged with affairs of the actors bearing their colors as Sussex or Hunsdon had been (the Lord Mayors and Privy Council could be seen to trample on the Lord Chamberlain's purvey over his troupe). Notably, in 1599 Robert Armin, one of the Lord Chamberlain's Men troupe, wrote that he "serves a master in Hackney" (Lord Great Chamberlain Oxford's residence; II, 226, 263, 508). Then, from 1603 to 41 (except for a brief period in 1614) all Lords Chamberlain of the Household were Oxford's relatives by blood or marriage, having some measure of authority over the Publishing Industry and over London play companies (II, 512, 514-15, 518).

[4] One of Oxford's poems ("The Honor of My Name xyz") may originate from this challenge to his legitimacy, when he was only 14 years old. Oxford's uncle A. Golding was more likely the "Receiver" of Wm. Cecil, in whose house both Golding and Oxford were residing, and Cecil also actively participated in Oxford's legal defense of his legitimacy (II, 94). Golding was about to engage in several years of translating Ovid's Metamorphoses, the first part published in 1567, and from the imaginative, non-literal style (in contrast to Golding's later Puritan works), some have argued that teenaged Oxford contributed to the effort (II, 116-17). In any case, Golding's Ovid was used by Shakespeare more than any other source except for the Bible (I, 24, 47, 55, 87).

[5] Dr. Nelson neglected the likelihood that Oxford learned Italian, which he used in his excursion abroad in 1575-76. Nelson's book disparaged Oxford's Latin for various reasons; yet here he seems to acknowledge Oxford's mastery of it at an early age; and critics of Nelson's arguments about Oxford's Latin have shown that he has only belied his own poor mastery of that language, the "lingua franca" of Oxford's age (I, 87). Also, Nelson failed to note that Oxford in 1565 paid for a Geneva Bible, which is extant at the Folger Library, and Dr. Roger Stritmatter has argued that it has in its margins and underlining Shakespeare-relevant clues. In any case, Oxford owned a Geneva Bible, which was Shakespeare's greatest source of all (I, 87; II, 71)!

[6] There's little doubt Dr. Nelson earned his degrees, so it's amazing he should pretend to question that Oxford earned his. In all likelihood, Oxford frequently visited the campus of his Cambridge U. alma mater, near to his Essex estates and Sir Thomas Smith's home (so at least those 2 degrees seem "earned"); he may have visited Oxford U. en route to his Bilton or Cornish estates and/or was placed there for some time by Cecil (though this degree may have been "unearned"). Nelson has used incomplete evidence to pretend there was evidence of absence, and such false certainty is contradicted by the degrees in fact earned by Oxford (I, 55). Then he minimized Oxford's depth of tutoring from some of the best minds in Europe, book dedications made to Oxford while he was yet a teenager, testimony from one tutor that Oxford had little to be added to his education, etc. Instead, Nelson invidiously presented possibly-false information to support his apparent bias.

[7] Dr. Nelson is nowhere more clearly biased and anti-historical than in his discussion of the unfortunate undercook. All documentary evidence paints a portrait of Oxford as a party to an accident (I, 86; II, 59-63, 314). And yet, Nelson used "red-letter words," and has projected onto Elizabethan times such inappropriate modern opinions as "grotesque," in order to paint an unfairly lurid portrait. His pretense of knowing Oxford's and Cecil's psychiatric records is ridiculous! In particular, there were few instances of Cecil ever "forgiving or forgetting" anything. Nelson's retro-diagnoses were more illustrative of his own psychology than of his subjects' states.

[8] Another "red-letter word," why was "begged" more descriptive than "asked" or "urged?" Cecil was a major mover of Elizabethan politics for most of his adult life, particularly circa 1588 to 95 when he had outlived most of his political enemies (I, 5, 28-29). As Cecil's son-in-law, and with an extraordinary number of surviving letters to him, Oxford can be made to look like a "beggar" if one must take the evidence out of context, or with undue bias. In the 1569 context, Oxford had just recovered from a serious illness, and Nelson failed to note that the letter had a certain measure of boredom from confinement mixed with youthful urgency to see "action" before suppression of the Northern Rebellion and Purging of Scotland was finished. When Oxford served under Sussex, he did so with his cousin Charles Howard (2nd Effingham), Howard's father-in-law Henry Carey (1st Hunsdon), George Carey (2nd Hunsdon), Oxford's brother-in-law Thomas Cecil (2nd Burghley), and others later influential in Sussex's politics opposing the Queen's favorite, the Earl of Leicester (I, 263-64). Moreover, the first 3 and Sussex later held the Lord Chamberlain's post, and were active in the 1570s-90s Shakespeare-relevant London and Court stages (II, 499, 502, 508, 509). These family-political-cultural links were largely ignored by Nelson's biased account of Oxford.

[9] The tournament of 1571 was almost certainly intended to celebrate Oxford's coming of age, he won the event, and was awarded a tablet of diamonds by Q. Elizabeth. On Oxford's "team" in the joust was his cousin and lately a comrade in arms, Howard of Effingham (II, 499). There are many other evidences that Effingham was one of Oxford's best friends, and the two collaborated closely in Sussex's anti-Leicester alliance (I, 277-80). Later, as Lord Admiral, Howard was to be patron of the Admiral's Men actors, sharing with the troupe of Howard's father-in-law Lord Chamberlain Henry Carey (Lord Hunsdon) a "duopoly" over the London and Court stage during the period when Shakespeare's works began to appear (indeed, the Chamberlain's Men today is often called "Shakespeare's Company"). These connections for Oxford are lacking for Mr. Shakspere, for whom nearly all evidence lies in Stratford petty financial records, not in London (I, 1-6, 13-16).

[10] The Duc d'Anjou in 1571 was the future Henri III (King after 1574). Oxford's appointment to greet the French envoy was important because it showed that: 1) despite Dr. Nelson's inferences in his book and webpage, Oxford was deemed adept in the French language (likely also in Latin, used for treaties); 2) Oxford in 1571 was high in the confidence of his Queen; 3) the "foreign marriage" policy of Oxford's father-in-law Cecil (after 1571 Lord Burghley) and Oxford's mentor Sussex was at that time favored over Leicester's anti-marriage policy (Oxford was identified with the marriage side for the rest of the 1570s); 4) Oxford was already beginning to build a network of foreign acquaintances & likely correspondents; and 5) contrary to Nelson's attempts to paint Oxford as a no-account wastrel, Oxford was occasionally involved in important matters of state, even if (for reasons we can infer) he was forced to do so in a stealthy or restrained fashion (II, 165-75). The 1571-72 French negotiations failed due to Henri's religious scruples, which he underlined during the Aug. 24, 1572 St. Bartholomew's massacre. In 1573-81 the French suggested a switch in negotiations with his less rigid brother Hercule Francois, Duc d'Alencon.

[11] Records of Oxford's betrothal to "Juliet-like" Anne Cecil depend on Burghley's accounts, which were likely biased by what Burghley wished posterity to see. The delay from July to December 1571 for the marriage goes with other evidence showing that Oxford was much-conflicted, and may have even tried to "escape" from the nuptials (II, 130). Why he was constrained to marry a commoner's daughter is much a mystery, but it was followed by an obvious loathing for his wife which haunted his biography and helped inform many Shakespeare plot elements (reasonably assuming that Shakespeare knew Oxford's life well). One possibility is that since Oxford and Anne were raised together in her father's house during the 1560s, they may have had a "heavy petting" episode that Oxford could not deny; yet, since no child was soon forthcoming, it would appear that Anne might have had a "false pregnancy" which ensnared her hero (II, 131-34). Or perhaps a hidden birth ensued, helping to explain the 1587 "Frances Vere" mystery (II, 134-36)? In any case, Nelson's "the marriage was a disaster" would be more accurate as "...began disastrously," since it did later result in at least: 5 pregnancies, 3 daughters, and 1 joint poetic exercise (the 1584 Pandora). Nelson's gratuitous personal opinions were nearly all misleading and unhelpful.

[12] Another reason why Oxford married Burghley's daughter may have been as a quid pro quo to save his cousin Norfolk's life. One biographer of Q. Eliz. suggested that Oxford held Burghley responsible when Norfolk was executed, even vowing to "ruin" his own estate in order to hurt Burghley through his daughter (II, 136). The Calendar of State Papers showed Norfolk writing thanks to Burghley for his efforts to free him, so it may be that such a quid pro quo did exist and Burghley was just unable to convince the Queen to pardon Norfolk, whose efforts to marry the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots would always be a threat to her's and Burghley's Protestantism.

[13] Dr. Nelson's "...openly flirted with the Queen" ignored the age difference (Oxford was 23, Q. Eliz. 40) and the Queen's notorious flirtatiousness. So, it was much more likely that she admired his qualities, and there's little evidence of Oxford reciprocating. This is the likely meaning of the phrase "fickle head," in that Oxford did not appropriately notice or adequately take advantage of his queen's admiration. As usual, Nelson implied the worst about Oxford; his biased opinion "Talbot knew his man" was unqualified (there's no evidence Talbot was close to Oxford!). But Talbot did notice Sussex's involvement in this as a political matter. Had Nelson not curiously truncated his quotation (i.e., anti-historically biased his evidence), it would have continued:

"My Lady Burghley, unwisely, has declared herself, as it were, jealous, which is come to the Queen's ear, whereat she has been not a little offended with her, but now she is reconciled again. At all these love matters my Lord Treasurer winketh and will not meddle in any way."

This made it clear the episode was rooted in Sussex's and Burghley's politics (i.e., using Oxford to lure the Queen's affections from Leicester). They failed, but this simple piece of gossip has been used for poorly-supported theories that a child did result from the "fickle headedness," perhaps H. Wriothesley, 3rd Southampton, later Shakespeare's patron (born 5 months later in Oct. 1573).

[14] In a biased effort to paint Oxford as a traitor in domestic politics, Dr. Nelson warped his geography and ignored the larger context. Oxford traveled through Flanders only to get to Brussels, seat of the Spanish Governor General of the Netherlands. In the prior January, Oxford was noted as having dealt with Antonio DeGuaras (II, 321), an agent for Don Juan of Austria (illegitimate half-brother of Philip II of Spain and the Vicar-General of Philip's Italian domains: Naples, Sicily, & Milan). Until only a few months earlier, Louis Requesens, the Governor in Brussels, was Governor of Milan and a subordinate of Don Juan's. Also earlier in service to Don Juan was Bernardino Mendoza, a captain under Requesens. When Oxford returned to London, Mendoza arrived there too, and so the two may have traveled together. The whole episode seems rooted in Don Juan's famous "knight-errant" personality, for there was a great tournament planned for August in Piacenza, Italy, and invitations went to many princes across Europe (one went to Henri III, then traveling through Venice en route to Paris from Krakow; II, 324-25). Per reports of the English spy-master F. Walsingham, Oxford's "bolting" to Brussels had nothing to do with English expatriate traitors, and thus we can better understand it as improving English-Spanish relations, and perhaps responding to a heroic challenge from Don Juan. Mendoza negotiated a 3 year-long detente with England, and soon departed, with Oxford not far behind him (II, 324-26).

[15] Exactly when Oxford left for Paris is unclear, though his license to travel may not have been executed until after his departure if he'd already gotten verbal royal permission. Nelson's asserted in his book (120), that Oxford was still in England on Jan. 30, 1574/5 because that was when his book of entayles was dated (dubious, since the book may have been drawn up by Oxford weeks earlier and was thereafter in the hands of his retainer E. Hubbard and Burghley, who thereafter failed to properly register it). One matter pending was his apparent denial before the Queen that his wife was pregnant, and possibly also to his cousin Henry Howard (just when is in doubt, since Burghley's memo-to-self of April 1576 did not specify when Oxford spoke with Howard -- i.e., he may have done so before leaving for Italy -- and with Howard's unsavory record it may have been nothing more than Howard's malicious fictional gossip!). Yet, within a few weeks of Oxford's departure, Anne was examined by the Queen's physician, who reported to Her Majesty with a tale of Anne's moans about her father and husband ordering her to be silent about the pregnancy. On Mar. 17 Oxford wrote to Burghley just before departing Paris, making it clear that he approved of the prospective child (repeatedly calling it his "son"). Plus, he laid-out an ambitious agenda of travel to Greece and the Aegean, possibly to take "service against the Turk," which could only have meant joining Don Juan's anti-Turkish crusade (after Venice & the Empire had made separate peace, only Don Juan remained at war with the Turks; II, 330-36). Since Burghley was in the thick of these matters, it seems clear that he was aware of Oxford's larger mission, its vital importance to England, that the mission would be aborted should the Queen use Anne's condition to recall Oxford, and that the mission related to engaging Don Juan. In any case, in the "1581 Libels" Oxford's enemies reported he'd been recalled prematurely by the Queen before being able to execute a matter apparently related to hoodwinking Don Juan's garrison in Milan into aggressive moves against Genoa that would have touched-off a Spanish-French war much to England's advantage (I, 110)! This was echoed in a 1606 poem by Oxford's traveling companion Nathaniel Baxter (dedicated to Oxford's daughter Susan, by then Countess of Montgomery), which depicted Oxford as a knight-errant adventuring in the "Italian spring" of Ariosto's Orlando Furioso (II, 161-64).

[16] Dr. Nelson said "other cities," likely including Naples, Genoa, Florence, and Rome (II, xlvi, 344-59, 391-94). In 1581 Oxford's enemies accused him of having been promised money from Don Juan (and Philip II) in Naples, and on Sept. 23, 1575 Burghley's banker-informer in Venice informed him Oxford had come "from Genoa" after he had "hurt his knee in one of the Venetian galleys" (I, 110; II, 354). This would have put Oxford in Genoa just when Don Juan, acting on Philip's orders, had sailed 40 galleys up to Genoa to intimidate the French-backed "New Nobility" into reinstalling government by the "Old," and then forgiving Philip the interest on his debts as the Spanish crown entered bankruptcy for the 3rd time in his reign (II, 352-54). In Feb. 1575/6, a convocation in Rome was chaired by Don Juan's assistant, Cardinal Granvella, bringing together 10 leading English expatriate traitors to discuss how best to prepare an invasion by Don Juan into England (II, 357-59, 391-94). Just then, Don Juan disappeared after supposedly passing from Naples to Loreto to visit the shrine of the Virgin (II, 358), and Oxford disappeared after visiting Florence (per Aubrey's report of a century later) and writing to Burghley from Siena, likely heading to Rome (II, 357). Because Don Juan was under orders from the Pope and Philip to prepare such an invasion (I, 123-27), and he desperately needed someone like Oxford to draw-together the fractious expatriate groups (II, 358), it's not too much of a presumption that the two were at the convocation in disguise. The convocation dissolved after 3 distinct groups could not agree, but the Pope sent a half-hearted invasion in 1578 anyway (I, 111, 118; II, 391-94).

[17] Dr. Noemi Magri (of Mantua, Italy) examined the MSS "Inquisition" of Orazio (translated from Latin in Dr. Nelson's book, 155-57) and found Nelson was wrong about "Cogno" as the boy's surname (see her article in Great Oxford, 45-49, ISBN # 1-898594-79-1). The "Inquisition" was in Latin where the surname is "Coquo" (= "I cook"), but since the 15 year-old boy was Italian his surname was "Cuoco." So, when Oxford's enemies in 1581 libeled him with claims of buggering an "Auracio" and "the cooke" (Nelson, 213), they had expanded one malicious accusation into two perjured ones, illegitimating Nelson's persistent attempts to use them to sully Oxford's reputation! Indeed, Nelson's book abandoned "Cogno" for "Coquo," oblivious to mixing the languages. Again Nelson overstretched by referring salaciously to the cultured Venetian courtesan, V. Padoana, as if Oxford had fond memories of her (is Nelson setting up a school of "Para-psychological mind reading?"). In fact, the source from 1587 reported the retired courtesan "honoreth all our nation for my Lord of Oxfords sake" (138), not that he'd been one of her sex clients. To gain her respect, just an exchange of books or "comedia" scripts may have occurred.

[18] Dr. Nelson's disjointed sentence conveys several mischiefs. The "souvenirs" were likely presents Oxford had brought back for his wife and members of the Court, as per custom (Nelson did mention gloves for the Queen). The pirates were Dutch, and this was the opening salvo in a 7 months' undeclared war between England and the Dutch, not to end until the two parties were driven into each others' arms by the Nov. 1576 "Spanish Fury" that terminated England's detente with Spain (II, 362-63, 395). The "avoid meeting Anne," should read instead "avoid Burghley, Anne, and Thomas Cecil," though Oxford was shortly to show peevishness with Anne. Most likely it was a continuing dispute (over money) begun with Burghley 5 months before, when Oxford wrote him from Padua with complaints of Burghley's failure to send him money as promised, and still referring (favorably) to his newborn "son." The dispute between Oxford and his father-in-law involved L800 that in July 10, 1576 Burghley wrote about having sent him, but which Oxford had still not received even then (II, 79-93). There was also the matter of Anne's (and Burghley's) failure to conceal her pregnancy, such that Oxford's mission had been truncated prematurely. Oxford upped the ante in a note to Burghley stipulating that Anne was not to be at Court at the same time as himself. This did not mean Oxford believed his daughter Elizabeth was not his own, but almost certainly he felt he'd been lied to about the gender of the child (II, 145-51).

[19] Dr. Nelson wished to convey the most salacious meaning about Burghley's reference to Oxford's "lewd friends," but more likely these were the literati whom Oxford had already begun to gather around him in writing projects, which may already have included "origination" of many of the Shakespeare works (II, 298-99). As to Nelson's salacious suggestion that Oxford engaged in "pederasty," the only evidence given was the 1581 Libels (discussed above, and shown to be self-perjured). Nelson's own transcription of the "Inquisition" of Orazio had not a hint of pederasty in it, the boy's discontent having centered on Oxford's failure to be Catholic in his home. Rather than crediting Nelson's guffaw that Oxford brought an Italian choirboy to England for sex, we should examine Oxford's longtime interest and proficiency in music, including Madrigal (I, 320-29).

[20] Dr. Nelson's list of Oxford's Italianate fopperies only make Oxford's character more of a match for the exquisite personality pervading Shakespeare's works. The "early" plays exhibit "Euphuism," or a flowery Latinate overindulgent prose originated in the late-1570s and early-80s by Oxford's servants John Lyly and Anthony Munday, arguably intended to reform the English language.

[21] More accurate: "Dr. Nelson's anti-historical biases grew with every claim he made!" Look at Oxford among contemporaries (Sidney, Leicester, Coryat, etc.), all of whom were eccentrics when examined; e.g., in 1577 Sidney lectured the Emperor in a long diatribe about how he should join Protestants in an alliance against his cousin Philip of Spain! Nelson pretended Oxford was a "monstrous adversary" in an obvious agenda to present a man too bizarre to have written the works of "gentle Shakespeare." Yet, whoever wrote Titus Andronicus was eccentric indeed!

[22] Dr. Nelson neglected to mention that also at the table were Francis Earl of Southwell and Oxford's cousin Charles Howard of Effingham, who took much of the gab to be just good fun. There is much reason to believe that Oxford's role in what was described (and exaggerated) in the 1581 Libels was to entrap his conspiratorial "Marianist" friends H. Howard, C. Arundell, and F. Southwell, who wished to displace Q. Eliz. with Mary Stuart on the throne (II, 59-62).

[23] Dr. Nelson was wrong to call Harvey's 1578 Gratulationes "conventional compliments" of Oxford, and it may be Nelson hasn't bothered to read the text itself. Most Oxfordians are aware of the short passage variously translated from the Latin as "thine eyes darts shoots" or "thy glance spears shakes," but are unaware that the entire section it is found in was a prediction that Oxford was preparing to save England by destroying Don Juan of Austria, "the Hannibal at England's gates." And, scarcely more than 2 months later Don Juan was dead (I, 132-38).

[24] Dr. Nelson's "about the same time" was incorrect, since Speculum was more likely written 2 years after the 1578 Gratulationes by most reckoning (it was published among other letters and works in 1580). Since Nelson was concerned with Harvey's denials, he should have mentioned that Harvey later denied Speculum was really about Oxford, though most scholars assume Harvey was only being prudent. In 1578 Harvey had painted Oxford as a super-hero about to save his country, but in 1580 his Speculum caricatured Oxford as an Italianate Machiavel of foppish ways but sinister power (II, xxvi). Harvey's aligning against Oxford's anti-Puritan circle (Lyly, Nashe, Greene, & Munday) in the 1588-92 "Marprelate controversy" should show that Speculum was really part of power-politics by a religious fanatic. Another matter is that Nashe's charge was made about "Apis Lapis" (= "bull stone" = Bulbeck = Oxford's viscount title), but orthodox scholars normally demure (proposing a fictional "Bee stone" instead). Let's welcome Nelson aboard in this matter, for what Nashe says about "Apis Lapis" is at once comical and most sinister, weilding his "dudgeon dagger" against Puritan Harvey, and thus likely a leader of anti-Martinist activities in the "Marprelate" matter that led to several executions (II, 19-20, 48, 505-06).

[25] Dr. Nelson's favorite game was to pretend that anything favorable to Oxford was "unearned," "conventional compliments," or due to his social rank; whereas anything negative was "fact," worthy of emphasis no matter what the context was. The 1581 Libels involved 3 men accused by Oxford, whose first act upon discovering that they'd been betrayed was to seek political asylum from Spain, and who were kept in the Tower for months (vs. Oxford's several weeks). They believed their lives were in jeopardy and their best defense was to coordinate attacks on Oxford's personality, depicting him as a "monstrous adversary." They also said many things which actually buttress the case for Oxford having written Shakespeare's works, but you won't find much of those in Nelson's book, webpage, or his DNB entry. Yes, Oxford was accused of having ordered the murders of numerous men, and among them were some of his ex-servants (Raleigh served him circa 1574-79, was close enough to him afterwards to have been his second in a duel, and was reported to have been a member with Oxford in a literary group that also included Oxford's "Fighting Veres" cousins). But from 1579 to 82, Raleigh's career benefitted from his association with Oxford's great enemy, the Earl of Leicester. So, it's not surprising to find both Raleigh's and Leicester's names on the imagined "hit list" Oxford was accused of contracting to his "cutters." Similar accusations were made against Leicester (e.g., Leicester's Commonwealth of circa 1575-77). Even if many charges against Oxford were true, he was aligned against a world-class monster (II, 46-62). Yet, many accusations against Oxford seem to have been merely "warning shots," such as 1573 Deny the Frenchman at "Gads Hill" firing shots in the air or shooting the hat off a man in a later incident, each likely meant to frighten the victims rather than kill them (II, 16-28). Sidney was a nephew of both Sussex (Oxford's mentor) and Leicester (Oxford's & Sussex's enemy), and was often set against Sussex's & Oxford's pro-French marriage position; so Sidney was included in the hit list imagined by Oxford's enemies. Yet, there are clues that after his 1579 tennis court brawl with Sidney, Oxford shortly reconciled with him as ordered by Q.Eliz. This was apparently assisted by Sidney's poetic sister, Mary Countess of Pembroke (mother of Oxford's future son-in-law, Philip Herbert, who with his brother William were "the incomparable paire" to whom Shakespeare's 1623 F1 was dedicated). After Sidney's 1586 death, Oxford's poetry was found in tributes to Sidney, such as the 1591 Astrophil & 1593 Phoenix Nest (II, 286, 458-59).

[26] Oxford's initial brief incarceration may have been more of a "debriefing" after his confession before the Queen prior to Christmas 1580 that he'd been luring Howard, Arundel, and Southwell into treasonous activities. He was said to have attempted to trap Southwell into trusting Oxford's abilities to smuggle him out of the country. As to the others, they fled to the home of Spanish Ambassador Mendoza and pled for asylum (as in a note to Henri III by the French Ambassador). Oxford had in 1577 urged his servant Anthony Munday to leave off an apprenticeship in John Allde's printing shop, take foreign language lessons from the expensive Thomas Hollyband (who would dedicate 2 poems to Munday as his "scholar" in Munday's 1579 Mirror of Mutabilitie, which Munday would elaborately dedicate to Oxford), and then undertake a hazardous and expensive trip down to Milan, Venice, and Rome, following Oxford's own footsteps into the heart of Catholic Italy. Munday briefly attended a Jesuit academy for English expatriates then returned to England and betrayed many of his fellow students to Burghley. In the 1579-81 timeframe surrounding the 1581 Libels, Munday helped destroy Father Edmund Campion, writing several books crowing about Campion's hanging in 1581. So, are we to assume that Oxford's conduct with Howard et alia was any different? It appears that Oxford was engaged in "trapping traitors" as Munday had been, and this was a life-long pattern (II, 46-74). But what are we to make of the tournament, its honors shared by Oxford and his 2nd cousin Philip Howard Earl of Arundel, nephew of the same Henry Howard Oxford had betrayed only a few weeks before? Mr. Hess' forthcoming Vol. IIIA, Appen. I, argues the jousting had a dark agenda in which Oxford was elaborately luring someone to destruction, fully aware his own disgrace was soon to be born.

[27] Per E.K. Chambers, Anne (or Nan) Vavasour may not have been the same young woman who in the 1590s was rented from her husband as a live-in mistress by Sir Henry Lee (II, 252). Oxford's reconciliation with his wife did not stop him from taking some responsibility for raising his illegitimate son, the future Sir Edward Vere, who wrote to his father late in Oxford's life. Dr. Nelson failed to mention that the birth took place in the Queen's chambers at Court, so obviously Anne had been brought to that MOST embarrassing time & place by Oxford's and Sussex's enemies. Thus, it's interesting that in his will, Edward Flowerdew (1534-86, a parliamentary ally of Leicester's) left plate to Leicester & Sir Thomas Knyvet (Anne's uncle and Oxford's 1582 dueling opponent). The point is that as usual Nelson ignored the broader socio-political context to focus on the salacious.

[28] Knyvet and Anne Vavasour's brother issued challenges to Oxford and Fencing Master Rocco Bonetti (to whom Oxford subleased a floor under the Blackfriars Theater in 1583-4), and men fell on both sides in a prolonged vendetta reminiscent of the rapier duels in Romeo & Juliet.

[29] Harwich was part of the East Anglian region traditionally part of the military perimeter the DeVere's had defended for centuries (I, 254-61), and thus Leicester's suggestion that Oxford defend his own backyard while the Spaniards kicked-in the front door was a transparent insult. Besides, Oxford had a better offer to serve with his cousin and good friend, Lord Admiral Charles Howard. The "propaganda pamphlet" Dr. Nelson mentioned was apparently a 1589 anonymous poem depicting Oxford "in the mind of Pallas" (= Greek "Spear-shaker") as Howard's companion vs. the Armada, of which Nelson's doubts of authenticity were inadequately explained (II, 161). But note how readily Nelson could accuse Burghley of fraud when it suited his own biases.

[30] Oxford got no more votes after she died too! Dr. Nelson's listing of yearly votes on a tally sheet failed to give adequate, useful context. He neglected to note that Burghley was normally the one who nominated Oxford for the Garter, and so the ceasing of votes for Oxford after Burghley's daughter died in 1588 wasn't really linked to the Queen as much as to his father-in-law. And other factors were at play, such as that Leicester's secretary E. Dyer was an official in the Garter Order. Another context, in 1588 Leicester's son-in-law Essex was voted the garter, and the April 1588 Palladine of England ("Palladine" = "of the Spear-shaker") that in January Munday had promised to dedicate to Oxford was instead dedicated to Essex (possibly in deference to Oxford's wife's illness?; II, 503). Yet it would be wrong to link this to Oxford as hypothetically in disgrace, since Munday later dedicated several works to Oxford and his close relatives (II, 504, 510, 515-16, 519). Likely Oxford's social-political troubles were due more to the Queen's sentimentality for Leicester (the closest she ever had to a husband) and for Anne (among her favorite Maids of Honor), who each died in 1588. Since Oxford had long been one of Leicester's political opponents, Q. Eliz. was disinclined to question Burghley's antipathy for his former son-in-law, whom he'd long disapproved of and disagreed with over financial affairs (where records don't always exonerate Burghley; II, 79-92). Thus, Oxford's hopes for a public military career and preferment at Court were tabled after 1588 in favor of less visible pursuits. His nearly-bankrupt relatives Lord Willoughby and "the Fighting Veres" were supported somehow, possibly with smuggled munitions, since Burghley's cupidity and incompetence often left them at the mercy of swindles by the Treasurer's cronies (II, 93-97, 104-120). The "Marprelate tracts" of 1588-92 involved Oxford's circle and likely Oxford too (II, 20). And then there were the maneuvers of the "Shakespeare Enterprise" and the "Jacobean succession" that soon transpired.

[31] Dr. Nelson implied that seeking preferment for service to his country was a demeaning attribute unique to Oxford. Yet, his applications had arguments about how the matters in question were being inefficiently administered for the Queen, and how Oxford proposed to improve them! And Nelson passed by the fact that Oxford's homes seemed to be near to theater districts. Oxford House in central London was near the "Boars Head Eastcheap," Blackfriars, and other London theaters; Fisher's Folly just outside Bishopsgate was near the "Boars Head Aldgate" and the Shoreditch theaters, as were his later domiciles northeast of London in Stoke Newington and Hackney (I, 344). So, if Oxford's abodes indicated his priorities, then ingratiating himself at Court took a decidedly lower priority than being in the thick of the drama world of his time!

[32] Dr. Nelson's imputation that Oxford bore a grudge against the King of Scots is based on the extremely flimsy evidence of the "Lincoln Interview" a few days before Q. Eliz's death in 1603. Once again we see Oxford's life-long pattern of baiting potential traitors, as he had done in 1577-78 with his dispatching of Munday to Italy, in 1579 with his libels of Leicester, in 1580-81 with his exposure of Howard, Arundel, & Southwell, in 1588 with his circle harrying the Martinists, and with his 1603 attempt to get Lincoln to declare against the inevitable succession of James VI and in favor of Lincoln's relative Lord Hastings (II, 72-73). If Oxford opposed James, why did he not instead back the excellent claims of his own son-in-law, the 6th Derby (whose mother was the granddaughter of the sister of Henry VII)? Why would he have advanced James' rights in the Succession Great Council of 1603? Nelson can be very probing and insightful, so why would he advance the groundless claim that Oxford was in "bitter" treason?

[33] The extending of Oxford's L250 quarterly annuity in 1603 was evidence against Dr. Nelson's earlier "bitter" treason charge. And it was good evidence against the sometimes-broached notion that the annuity had been granted in 1586 simply to mend a broken patrimony, since James failed to extend it to Oxford's son and widow on Oxford's death. Much more likely, the annuity was connected to some service Oxford had performed, most likely in support of the "Jacobean" alliance that ultimately brought James to the throne (I, 291-300).

[34] Did Oxford really die just as the Mid-Summer Night's Eve Festival was being held in Havering Forest? In the October 2004 The Oxfordian, Christopher Paul has listed a surprising number of documents that failed to acknowledge Oxford's death until circa 1609-10, and may have indicated Oxford lived on in seclusion at a lodge in Havering. Yet, C. Paul does acknowledge there was an "Inquisition Post Mortem" in Sept. 1604 and legal documents flowing from that inspection of his estates rights which did declare him deceased. This oddity (which Mr. Hess has fondly dubbed "Oxford's Gotterdammerung" = twilight of the gods) was even praised for its thoroughness by Dr. Nelson after C. Paul presented it at the Oct. 2003 Conference of the "Sh. Oxford Soc." Even more important, was Nelson correct about where Oxford was buried? Oxford's first-cousin Percival Golding, in his circa 1619-20 Armes, Honours... family of Veer MSS, reported that Oxford "lieth buried at Westminster," neatly comparing to W. Basse's circa 1622 call for Shakespeare to be put in Westminster Abbey's "Poet's Corner" (in Hess' forthcoming Vol. IIIC, Appen. V). Contrast this with Mr. Shakspere's unnoticed burial in Stratford, only a few weeks after the lesser poet-playwright Francis Beaumont had died in the provinces and been conducted to a Westminster Abbey burial by tens of thousands of mourners (I, 2)!

[35] Another "red-letter word" was Dr. Nelson's "notorious," though Oxford's enemies no doubt pointed to those things among his other peculiarities. Any man who would have brought Italian poetry, song, dress, and other styles back to England and the narrow world of the Court would have been seen as peculiar as long as his new tastes remained unfashionable. So, it's true that geniuses like Oxford-Shakespeare often do have eccentricities that invite scorn. Still, Munday's 1619 dedication of a work to Oxford's son glowingly praised Oxford, as did Baxter's 1606 poem to Oxford's daughter, so he was well-remembered by those who'd served him. The devastation to the finances of many English noblemen of that time has been studied in L. Stone's 1967 The Crisis of the Aristocracy, where Oxford was but one example. Yet Oxford's "notoriety" from the L12,000 in debts he left on his death was small compared to the L20,000 debts of E. Dyer, L40,000 of C. Hatton, L60,000 of Leicester, and ruinous L450,000 of "the Virgin Queen" (II, 119).

[36] Dr. Nelson never failed to make a sow's ear out of a potential silk purse. When Oxford invested L3,000 on overseas ventures under Frobisher (patriotically trying to expand the "British Empire"), Nelson saw him as naive and wasteful with his money (ignoring the similarities to "Antonio's" venturing 3,000 ducats in Merchant of Venice). Yet, when Oxford was willing to allow speculators to take options on his properties and then maneuvered them into having to pay off some of his debts for him or else lose their investments, instead of a shrewd bargainer astute in the law, Nelson pronounced him unscrupulous.

[37] Dr. Nelson failed to mention Q. Eliz.'s role in the Churchyard-Penn fiasco, and Mrs. Penn's truculence in the matter. As to Churchyard, the great man of letters was still in the 1590s referring to Oxford as his master, having served the Vere family for five decades, sometimes as his spy abroad.

[38] Below in the last note for Dr. May's article on Anne DeVere, we'll see that Dr. Nelson's use of "Southern" for the author of Pandora created a masking of the true author. Since we'll see Oxford = "Soothern," Nelson's "doubtless..." effusion accidentally hit near the mark.

[39] As argued below for Dr. May's article, the identification of "Frances Vere" as a child of Oxford's may be in error. In any case, her hidden existence may relate to a marital mystery that Hess dubs "Oxford & Burghley's girl in the iron mask" (II, 129-36).

[40] Dr. Nelson passingly noted the praises for Oxford as "the best for comedie" in 1589 and 98 by two different sources, and the praise for Oxford in 1586 as "the best among" courtier poets. Yet, although Nelson abundantly offered his personal opinions in every other sphere of Oxford's life (often based on inferior evidence or analysis), for these important literary praises of Oxford in drama and poetry, Nelson failed to provide the appropriate historical context that biographers owe to their readers. So, specially focusing on the two claims about "comedie," let's ask WHAT body of comedies it is that Dr. Nelson (and Dr. May) believe would be a good match for Oxford's, and if it might be reasonable that when Oxford was twice called "the best for comedie" during the time when Shakespeare's comedies were beginning to appear on stage, it would be natural to credit Oxford with at least some of the 14 comedic masterpieces of "Shake-speare?" If they intend for us to believe that ALL of Oxford's praiseworthy comedies have been "lost," they should provide a reasonable context by naming other greatly-praised playwrights who had all of their comedies lost then too. But, perhaps Oxford's comedies were not "lost." To make this analysis easy for Nelson and May, let's assume that there were several bodies of comedies back in that period from which to choose, and that one of them MUST be Oxford's comedies, and let's list what would be appropriate attributes to identify Oxford's body of comedies. They would have been:

[41] The tally of how many poems should be credited to Oxford varies according to who does the counting, and ultimately according to the taste of the evaluators. Currently Dr. May is the anointed "expert" on Oxford's poetry, adding-in 3 poems missed earlier, and yet dismissing much of the best material Oxford was credited with by earlier analysts (e.g., Puttenham 1589, Grosart 19th cent., Miller & Looney 20th cent.), even dismissing some bearing the "E.O." signature that most have accepted as evidence of Oxford's authorship. Mr. Hess challenged May and Dr. Nelson at the Apr. 19, 2003 Smithsonian debate to review his article, "The Challenge of 'Another Rare Dreame,'" which is scheduled to be in the Oct. 2005 The Oxfordian (the original version is posted on Hess' webpage). If the 1593 ARD is accepted as by Oxford, it will more than double the number of high quality Shakespeare-comparable lines of poetry in his portfolio (and Mr. Hess is building a strong case for adding-in the 1584 Pandora too, as we'll see below). Otherwise, after gutting the best credited to Oxford, May has been able to quite rightly say, "I just don't see any comparison between Oxford's poetry and Shakespeare's." How Dr. Nelson dated composition of the "amateurish verses" to early-1572 is unclear, but since their quality was poor, they logically "originated" earlier than the 7 Oxford poems (signed "E.O.") in Paradyse of Dainty Devices, which were themselves likely written when Oxford was a teenager. This was because even though Paradyse was first published in 1576, it's editor was Richard Edwards (possibly Oxford's Professor at Oxford U.), who died in 1566 when Oxford was 16. One of the silly games Nelson and Dr. May enjoy playing is to arrange to compare Shakespeare's 1593-1609 poems against Oxford's poems originated in the 1560s or 70s (i.e., 20-40 years earlier), when maturity, style, themes, spelling, punctuation, and other conventions were vastly different (I, 41). After this "apples vs. oranges" game, they declare "No match, Mr. Shakspere wins by default!" Yet, since there's no writing at all clearly left by Mr. Shakspere (possibly excluding the doggerel on his tombstone or six sloppy signatures, none matching the others), he's gotten-off scot-free with an illogical presumption of authorship, even as he was most likely illiterate (I, 2-3, 13-15)!

[42] Dr. Nelson amusingly used "surreptitious" when "pirated" was more accurate. This edition was printed by John Charlewood (founder of the printing house that would print Shakespeare's 1623 F1 and 1632 F2, and very closely linked to Oxford and Munday projects) with much of Sir Philip Sidney's material missing, supplemented by material from T. Nashe, T. Campion, Oxford, and others. A scandal ensued as Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke, took umbrage over her brother Sidney's material being pirated. So, she took steps to have the publisher Thomas Newman switch printers to John Danter (also Oxford and Munday linked, but also to become an important Shakespeare printer), and she then applied her own poetic skills to editing her brother's MSS to complete Sidney's Astrophel & Stella the way it deserved. A&S was important for understanding the later Shakespeare publishing chaos, for had it not been pirated, it likely would have remained as intended by Sidney's family: privately circulated, enjoyed only among friends (A&S concealed the secret of Sidney's [= "Astrophel's"] platonic affair with the married Lady Rich [= "Stella"], a secret not revealed until documents & clues were compared in the 20th cent. [as with Oxford = Shakespeare!]; see Peter Moore in the Winter 1993 Sh. Oxford Soc. Newsletter). This insight is important for understanding the Herbert family's involvement in later Shakespeare publications, most importantly the 1623 F1, dedicated to Mary's sons William & Philip as "the incomparable paire," and of course Philip was Oxford's son-in-law (II, 505, 512, 514-17).

[43] The 1593 Phoenix Nest is where a 6-stanza "E.O." poem beginning "What cunning can express" contained within it some eleven themes represented as well in the 60-stanza anonymous poem "Another Rare Dreame" (ARD), as argued in Mr. Hess' article "Challenge of 'Another Rare Dreame.'" And ARD has been previously identified as Shakespeare-quality, published in the same year as Venus & Adonis, thus not the same old "Apples vs. Oranges" game if it can be established as by Oxford. The year 1600 was a glorious year for Oxford, his close associate Munday, and Shakespeare. There were four "good" 1st Quartos (Q1s) of Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice, Much Ado, Midsummer Night's Dream, and Henry IV, Pt. 2, plus a "good" Titus Andronicus 2nd Quarto (Q2); "bad" quartos of Henry V Q1 ("Chronicle History"), Henry VI, Pt. 2 Q2, and Henry VI, Pt. 3 Q2; and Shakespeare was even credited as the author in 3 of the "good" Q1's, all others anonymous. On Jan. 3, 1599/0, was entered in the Stationer's Registry (S.R.) "a book called Amours by J.D. with certen o[th]yr sonnetes by W.S." (as noted by Dr. Nelson at the Oct. 2004 convention of the "Sh. Fellowship"), which Hess' forthcoming Vol. IIIC, Appen. V has identified as the circa 1595 Epigrammes and Elegies by J.D. & C.M. (the future Sir John Davies and the late Christopher Marlowe), with a bit more than 3 sonnets-worth of "Ignoto" (= Oxford-Shakespeare?) couplet material sandwiched in between J.D.'s Epigrammes and C.M.'s Elegies. That is, "Ignoto" = the "W.S." of the registry, and his pieces scolded Q. Eliz. for her "sacred chastity... perfections throane to sit... Intombing Cupid with sad obsequies... that I am thy servile Asse...," perhaps foretelling some themes of the 1609 Sonnets. Munday's Sir John Oldcastle, Pt. 1 (from 1619-85 attributed to Shakespeare) and The Weakest Goeth to the Wall (acted by Oxford's Men) were first published. And John Bodenham, possibly a brother of Oxford's former Gray's Inn classmate Roger B. (as identified by Catherine Chiljan), published the last two of his celebrated four "chapbook" or "miscellany" collections of others' poetry, Bel-vedere (edited by Munday, a perfect anagram of "Bel DeVere" or "good Oxford"; II, 425-69) claiming to have poetry of K. James VI, Oxford, Shakespeare, and a host of others, but few verses were individually linked to authors; and Englands Helicon a 150 poem anthology of 30 poets, including Munday, Henry Chettle, Walter Raleigh, and other poems such as by "Ignoto" (= Oxford?) that had been credited to Shakespeare in Passionate Pilgrim the year before. Then there was the great chapbook Englands Parnassus with 60 poets, including K. James VI, Oxford, Shakespeare, Thomas Kyd, and others, edited by "R.A." who is often identified with Robert Allot (whose likely nephew was a later associate of Munday's and co-publisher of Shakespeare's 1632 F2; II, 510, 518). This long note has pointed to the complex "context" for Oxford, Munday, & Shakespeare; all of it lacking from Nelson's perfunctory recitation, which could not have possibly crammed so much into the limited space available, nor have begun to grasp the true richness of what Hess calls the "Shakespeare Enterprise."

[44] The 1589 Arte was identified in 1614 as "by Puttenham, one of her majesties pensioners," and Charles M. Willis (see ISBN # 1-84375-078-3) has identified George Puttenham as possibly in Oxford's circle as an in-law of Oxford's half-sister Catherine Vere Windsor. Yet, scholars have identified George's brother Richard P. as an equally promising candidate. Nelson earlier only briefly noted that Puttenham's Arte and Meres' 1598 Palladis Tamia both labeled Oxford as "the best for comedy," as if to do so might cause astute readers to ask how many commentators in his home town noted Mr. Shakspere of Stratford as being literate, let alone a man of literary attainments. As to Nicholas Breton, Hess has questioned whether the great number of "N.B." works attributed to him might instead be at least partly due to Oxford's former servant and traveling companion, Nathaniel Baxter, author of the 1606 Sir Philip Sydney's 'Ourania' that had in it the poem to Oxford's daughter Susan Vere Herbert celebrating Oxford as a knight-errant adventuring in Italy (II, 158-164). Should Bower of Delights be settled on Baxter too?

[45] Apparently Oxford as "the most excellent" among "courtier poets" in Webbe's 1586 discourse holds little weight with those who wish to denigrate Oxford as the best way to protect the orthodox Mr. Shakspere's identification as Shakespeare. Yet such "unearned" honorifics were notably absent from Mr. Shakspere's world as best we can tell, only surfacing some years after his death!

[46] More works may be added; e.g., the 1603 Anagrammata broadside was dedicated to Oxford and Lord Admiral Howard among others apparently in the "Jacobean alliance" heralding K. James' accession. As an extension of Hess' "Shakespeare Enterprise" concept, his Vol. IIIC, Appen. V details who wrote what; dedicated to whom; who printed, published, and sold them; and who cleared them for entry into the S.R. The intricate patterns and links most tightly focus on Oxford, Munday, and Shakespeare, plus scores of key Stationers and officials, most of the former linked to Munday or Oxford projects and the latter relatives of Oxford's by blood or marriage. There are even odd linkages between family pedigrees of Oxford & Mr. Shakspere through the Ardens, and Munday's "kinsmen" & Mr. Shakspere's son-in-law through the Halls (I, 7-8, 35-39; II, 501).

[47] Oxford's circle of literati were among the best in England's "Golden Age of Literature." Hess' forthcoming Vol. IIIA, Appen. K addresses the fact that of all the dozens of high courtiers that Spenser wrote dedications to in Fairie Queene (FQ), only Oxford has not been identified as allegorized in the text of the mammoth epic, written to provide England with a rival to Italy's Orlando Furioso, Rome's Aeneid, and Greece's Odyssey. Spenser was first showing drafts of FQ to his friends in 1579-80 before he left for Ireland 1581-90, and Spenser and his friend Gabriel Harvey were among those in circa 1577-79 who were attempting to join Oxford's circle, even "having gold" from him, as Harvey admitted. So Hess ponders, at a time when Harvey was portraying Oxford as the super-hero who would save England by destroying the terrifying Don Juan of Austria, was Spenser portraying Oxford as a heroic knight who came to dominate FQ's story? The focus is on Oxford's 1570s servant, the future Sir Walter Raleigh, Spenser's friend and principal dedicatee, portrayed in FQ as the squire to a super-hero knight. Knowing all this, analysis of WHAT Spenser said about Oxford's allegorized character is very revealing.

[48] Although articles by Sally Mosher (in the 1998 The Oxfordian) and others have explored Oxford's role in the music of his time, Hess touches on Oxford's likely role in bringing the Madrigal form to England, among other musical topics which show how Shakespeare's Art likely developed in the private salons of the nobility, years before emerging in public venues and print (I, 320-37).

[49] Dr. Nelson's improper injection of unqualified opinion, that the Oxfordian theory is "without merit," belies his own activities. He and Dr. May have often joined in scholarly debates on the subject, and haven't yet "wiped the floor" with their Oxfordian opponents (though of course there were times when they've done well). For example, in the day-long Apr. 19, 2003 panels debate at the Smithsonian Institution (C. Chiljan, W.R. Hess, & J. Sobran vs. I. Matus, S. May, & A. Nelson, introduced by D. Price and moderated by W. Causey), the proceedings were not at all one-sided, and if a vote of the audience had been taken before and after, any movement in opinion might well have been in favor of the Oxfordian side. So, when a reasonable measure of "merit" is made, the Oxfordian case often acquits itself well, and Nelson's opinion is itself "without merit."

[50] Nelson's list of "sources" had a misquoted title for Looney's important book (likely accidental, it might make it difficult to locate). He failed to offer up Oxfordian titles that might be more easily obtained, so in addition to Mr. Hess' work (his webpage lists other titles and webpages), here are two good summaries: 1] Sobran, Joseph, Alias Shakespeare: Solving the Greatest Literary Mystery of All Time, NY, 1997, Free Press.; and 2] Whalen, Richard, Shakespeare: Who Was He? (The Oxford Challenge to the Bard of Av