Oxfordian Musings on Medical Matters

W. Ron Hess (BeornsHall@earthlink.net)

            Oxfordians are aware that four books on medicine were dedicated to Oxford or his first wife. [1]  Excellent articles have been written about Shakespeare's medical knowledge, and whole books exist on the topic. [2]  Sadly, although the 17th Earl of Oxford seems to have been interested in medicine, we have only a little about medicine in Oxford's letters and poems, which are meager comparison to Shakespeare's thoughts on medicine from his lengthy works.  The fact is that Oxford's letters and poems were aimed at narrow topics, often finances, whereas Shakespeare's works were aimed at universal loftier concerns, which more often touched on medicine and wellbeing. [3]  Lacking direct evidence, our case that Oxford and Shakespeare had similar medical interests needs more circumstantial evidence from other avenues, such as medical interests of his first wife, and from his ever-loyal servant, Anthony Munday.  Note, this article is less about Medicine itself than the Elizabethan publishing associated with it; and other curiosities!

Oxford's First Wife And Her Medicine:

            A friend discovered a reference to the "Countisse of Oxenford" during a browser search, and asked me to look into it (see the "Old and Sold" site).  Sadly, we have no more than the little bit that is posted on that strange auction site in the category of "Popular Superstitions," title "Ancient Book of Medical Recipes," and that beneath the title was the entry, "(Originally Published 1884)."  The article or letter ends with a name, Jacobus Hollerius, [4] and it may be that many of the remedies it cites came from Houllier's works.  The author in several places addressed his narrative to one "Mr. Urban," as the author began a list of folk remedies, saying that Urban's readers "may find amusement, in perusing and contrasting them with the science that guides the medical practitioners of the present day."  Let's call it "the letter to Urban" for convenience, and here is how it began (bold/italic/underlined emphasis mine):

"About twenty years since, I procured several curious MSS. from a mass of papers which had belonged to Mr. William Pickering, an apparitor of the Consistory Court, at Durham;  and among these was a neatly written folio book, with the title-page, 'EDWARD POTTER. ijs. iiijd.  HERE BEGINNETH A Booke of Phisicke and Chirurgery, with divers other things necessary to be knowne, collected out of sundry olde written bookes, and broughte into one order.  The several things herein contayned may bee seene in the bookes and tables following.  Written in the year of our Lorde God, 1610.'  The work commences with a list of the 'thirty-three evil days' of the year, and a general calender; and on folio 2 has 'A catalogue of all my books, and the prices they cost me, taken by me, Edward Potter, ye 30 of November, 1594.'  This catalogue is in a different hand and ink to the rest of the book.  Then follows seven folios, under the running title of 'A Prognostication,' which is a curious medley of rules about the weather, and astronomical calculations.  'The first booke' begins on folio II, a. and has this title 'A coppye of all suche Medicines wherewt the noble Countisse of Oxenford most charitably, in her owne person, did manye great and notable Cures upon her poore Neighbours.'  'The second booke..." [5]

The letter to Urban went on to describe more "bookes," and included a list of preposterous remedies and superstitions that makes it a wonder how anybody survived with such medical lore.  Such was medicine in Elizabethan times.

            Since the part about the "Countisse of Oxenford" was included in the "Edward Potter" material dated Nov. 30, 1594 (meaning it dated to before then), the Countess herself seemingly could be either Oxford's first or second wife.  The 17th Earl of Oxford remarried in 1592, after his first wife Anne DeVere (nee Cecil) had died in 1588.  Yet, the 1576 New Jewell book had been dedicated not to Oxford, but rather to his first wife.  Thus, it's almost certain that this short "first booke" in the letter to Urban referred to Anne DeVere, whose interest in medicine is known.  And what we learn from this short reference to her ("...in her owne person, did manye great and notable Cures upon her poore Neighbours") is that Anne was not only interested in medicine and folk remedies, but she actively practiced them "upon her poore Neighbours."  Charitably speaking, she was an amateur physician, or dispenser of medicines, similar to what we'd call an "herbalist" today.  Uncharitably, she may have been a bit of a "witch doctor."

            That leads us to my trilogy's Vol. II, pp. 137-44 & 151-53, in which I asked, "Was Oxford willingly amatory with his wife?" and "What did Oxford's wife think of his knight-errant persona?"  Not to get into too much detail, I explored (137-38) the compelling evidence that Shakespeare's plays have four instances of "the bed-trick" motif, which uniquely among his fellow playwrights depicted the wife tricking a wayward husband instead of the other way around.  And then I noted (139-42) that there were three traditions showing that, of Anne DeVere's five known pregnancies, three of them were notoriously associated with bed-tricks upon her husband. [6]  Ergo, Oxford's private life was peculiarly Shakespearean (or Shakespeare's output was uniquely Oxfordian), and his first wife was reputed in those separate traditions to be what I term a "serial bed-trickstress."  Certainly, records show that for much of their marriage, Oxford clearly loathed his wife. [7] I've even suggested a theory that since she was a child of England's rich and powerful Lord Burghley, she was possibly petulant and "bratty," and thus perhaps a model for "the Shrew" of the Shakespeare play. [8]  But closer to our discussion here, she may have been more like the unstable and witchlike "Lady Macbeth" or unhinged "Ophelia," unsexed gargoyles afflicting a sensitive man's libido.  In short, Oxford may have genuinely feared his first wife.  Was Burghley's daughter a woman to be safely crossed?  I seriously doubt it! [9]

            It was clear that Oxford and his wife had enough interest in medicine that two men dedicated medical books to them.  But, it also may be that Oxford had a special incentive.  How was he to counteract the brews of a wily (even witchlike?) wife with whom he was estranged, and who repeatedly contrived to insinuate herself into his bed?  More to the point, who were the "poore neighbours" she ministered to.  I suggest that since Bethlehem Hospital (the notorious "Bedlam") was just across the street from the main entrance into Oxford's "Fisher's Folly" estate, that at least some of her patients were Bedlam residents (and Shakespeare's King Lear celebrated as much by having "Edgar" choose the disguise of "Tom O' Bedlam"). But let's not be too uncharitable, his personal fears aside.  Likely she was only trying to fulfill the primary duty of any "Countisse," namely to provide her Earl with a male heir; although Anne repeatedly failed at that task, leaving only daughters.  The pressures on the poor lady would have driven even a stable person to extremities.  If so, how would Oxford-Shakespeare have reacted?

            And there was yet another angle about Oxford's wife's interest in medicine that should be noted.  Both Dr. Baker (to a mixed degree) and apothecary John Hester's Phioravanti (i.e., Leonardo Fioravanti, 1518-88, of Bologna and Venice, source of Hester's 1580 translation) were leading exponents of the new medicine of Paracelsus, [10] which emphasized chemical and herbal treatments handed down from alchemists along with "hermeticism" (= magic), hands-on experimentation and research, and encouraging laymen and women ("She-Doctors") to practice medicine.  Plus, the science of medicine in that time was dominated by the old schools of Galen and Hippocrates, and the Paracelsian school was actively persecuted in some areas on the continent and heavily criticized in England (Hoeniger, 287-93). Thus, Oxford and his first wife allowed themselves to be associated with books which celebrated the new school of medicine, and that school lost out for most of the next century, until times of Harvey and Newton. [11] 

            As with so much about Shakespeare's expressed attitudes and knowledge, in medicine Oxford was "ahead of his time!" [12]  Shakespeare was so aware of Paracelsian medicine that it influenced his All's Well, King Lear, and Rape of Lucrece. [13]  Also, given the gravitas of Baker's projects, and his lofty career, the most prestigious and likely way that Shakespeare got his awareness of the new medicine was either through reading Phioravanti's Italian and Gesner's German or Latin directly, or else one or more of the four translations that were dedicated to Oxford or his wife!

Munday And Medicine:  

            In 1579 Anthony Munday (1560 [or 53?] to 1633) published his first book of poems, Mirrour of Mutabilitie, Or Principal Part of the Mirrour for Magistrates, dedicated to Oxford in several obvious ways, and one hidden in Latin. [14]  What has been overlooked by Oxfordians was that Munday’s English dedication began:

"After that I had deliuered (Right Honorable) unto your courteous and gentle perusing, my book intituled Galien of Fraunce, ..."

It's been assumed that this referred to a lost work.  Even I thought it was the earliest of Munday’s many translations of epic romances (e.g., Amadis de Gaule).  Then I ran across references to two French translations of the ancient Greek works of Galen (or French Galien, 1470 Galien le restore in MS at Bibl. Nationale Fraunce and 1500 Galien rethore edited by Verard).  So, it struck me that Munday's Galien of France was a reference to a French translation, “Englished” in part or whole by Munday, and then dedicated to Oxford.  After further research, I discovered that the last 2/3 of Dr. Baker's 1574 Oleum Magistrale (dedicated to Oxford) was an English translation from French of Galen’s Greek (per the Short Title Catalog [STC] and the book's title-page Galenes third Book of the composition of medicens, Fol. 7 to 36).  It was later expanded under Baker's name with Galen's Bk. 4 into the last two parts of 1599 New and Old Physic (also dedicated to Oxford).  Was Baker's Galien translation really done substantially by young Munday?

            It's significant that 1574 Oleum, 1579 Joyfull, and 1579 Mirrour were all printed by John Allde, the Master Printer into whose shop Munday had in Sept. 1576 been entered as an apprentice printer for the term of 8 years (although he was never officially "freed," likely because Allde died in 1584). [15]  Munday would take most of his projects to Allde for printing until 1584, but not all.  In Nov 18, 1577 he began a peculiar partnership with printer John Charlewood, whom we'll see more of below, lasting to Feb 28, 1591/2, during which about half of Munday's projects went to Charlewood, constituting about a quarter of all of Charlewood's projects entered into the S.R. 

            It's also significant that until the early 1580s, many printers and publishers personally wrote or translated the projects that they published -- or at least they took the credit.  But why couldn't it work the other way around for a gifted translator/writer like Munday?  Thus, I theorize that much of what Munday wrote or translated, he would block, set, and prepare (possibly with the help of a team of compositors), then take it to whatever printer he was partnering with at the time -- even while officially J. Allde's apprentice!  As long as Munday had a powerful patron willing to help him operate as a secret printer (possibly using a shed on Oxford's "Fisher's Folly" estate, just outside of the gates of London), he could hire and train unemployed journeymen for type-setters, and either run a secret press of his own or take advantage of curfew times when it was technically illegal for even official presses to operate (nights, Sundays, or holidays).  An idle press wasn't making anybody money!  Ironically, from c.1586-1604, Munday would be employed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and other officials to hunt down pirate printers doing illegal activities, among other anti-extremists duties!

            So, was it possible that Munday in 1574, at either age 14 or 21, was the actual translator of a major part of the French Galen work, that it was credited to Dr. Baker, and in 1579 Munday thought it would be appropriate to remind Oxford of the fact? [16] This theory is actually made more credible by another discovery of mine, showing that Munday was indeed translator for at least one major medical publishing effort.

            The Stationers Registry (S.R.) entry for June 5, 1600 shows: "... Booke of phisicke, wherein throughe commaundement of Lord Lodowick Duke of Wittenberge Erle of Mompelgart &c. translated out of Highe Dutche [= German] by Dr. Battus, and translated out of Low Dutche [= Dutch, or possibly Walloons-French?] into English by A.M. [Anthony Munday], printed at Dort [Dordrecht, Ger.] by Isaacke Caen 1599."  The entry was made for E. Bolifant and A. Hatfield, and peculiarly no Warden's name was associated with permitting the entry.  Since Bolifant had been listed by the Archbishop as a pirate in a June 1599 edict, we should suspect that this project was not entirely on the up-and-up.  Both were members of the "Eliot's Court Press" printers' syndicate, which I theorize was often a front for unlicensed printers (as Munday appears to have been) to secretly bring in already blocked and ready projects for printing during curfew.  It was allegedly published in Germany in 1601 (possibly a "false imprint"), and may never have been printed in England.  A link to Shakespeare is Merry Wives of Windsor's (V1:78) use of "Gar-mombles" as a reference to the 1592 visit to London of Count Mompelgart.

Patterns From Stationers' Projects:

            So, from the evidence given above, we should be able to conclude that Oxford, Anne, and Munday were in a circle who were unusually concerned with medicine, so much so that they allowed themselves to be involved in medicine-related publications.  But medicine was certainly a popular subject.  So, I believe we should look at the list of Oxford-Munday-Shakespeare related stationers who involved themselves with medicine projects, compiled from my searches in Arber's transcription of the S.R., and from the STC (searching on the words "Phisicke" and "Chirurgery" in the book titles).  The result is Table A, a partial alphabetical list that I've drawn up of medical-related projects. [17] 

            From Table A, we see that there were many stationers who were involved with Munday-, Oxford-, or Shakespeare-related publishing projects, and we can see that there was no shortage of patterns pointing us to those three categories and to medicine-related publishing projects.  It's possible that a much more elaborate study than we have room for here might discover that Stationers involved in Shakespeare-related projects had a disproportionate tendency to also be associated with medicine-related projects, and Oxford-related, and Munday-related, among other attributes of interest.  In short, this is a field that Oxfordians simply haven't explored yet, where we might try to discover, analyze, and exploit patterns leading to meaningful interconnectedness. [18]

            Still, one pattern that jumps out from Table A is this: Nearly all stationers dealing with medicine-related projects who also dealt with Shakespeare-related, can be seen to have dealt with Munday-related projects too, or were Drapers like Munday.  That is, Munday and the Drapers working within the Stationers Company may have been in some ways a key gateway for stationers to get to Shakespeare-related projects.  Or, as I've described, Munday was "the Publishing Shepherd of the Shakespeare Enterprise!" [19]

            Part of that sweeping description is based on the most obvious of Munday's stationer associates.  In Sept 1576, as Munday began his 8-year apprenticeship as a printer in John Allde's shop, there were three who served their terms with him:

1. Edw. Allde (J. Allde's son, after 1589 head of his own shop, with 2 legal presses);

2. John Windet (after 1592 partner to John Wolf, the London City Official Printer, after 1600 his successor, later succeeded by Wm. Jaggard); and

3. Wm. Hall (Munday's own "kinsman" per a dedication of his to Munday in 1579 Mirrour of Mutability, by 1608 a shady recently married book procurer, and the best choice for the "Mr. W. H. ALL" to whom the pirated 1609 Sonnets were dedicated). [20]

From the codes listed by their names in Table A, it goes without saying that the first two were printers of Munday- and Oxford-related projects.  But we can tell that Windet had a healthy business interest in medicine projects (in 1586, 89, 1603, 09, 10), and from the STC an eclectic interest in printing Shakespeare-related projects (the apocryphal 1594, 96, & 1609 Willobie His Avisa, 1594 Edward VI, and his partner and successor Wm. Stansby would print 1617 V&A and 1619 Hamlet Q4).  Similarly, Edw. Allde was just as interested in medicine projects (1588, 93, 96, 1609, 12, 15), and even more Shakespeare-related, both canon and apocryphal (1592 Arden of Feversham Q1, 1592 & 1602 Spanish Tragedy Q1 & Q4, 1610 Garden of the Muses [2nd ed. of Munday's 1600 Bel-vedere], 1611 Anuals of great Brittaine [the 2nd time Shakespeare's Phoenix & Turtle was publ.], & 1611 Titus Andronicus "good" Q3).

            Which leads us back to Munday's apparent 1577-92 partnership with Charlewood,  who also was active in medicine projects (1576, 78, 80, 91), and possibly even Shakespeare-related (he's a leading candidate for printing the anonymous 1591 Troublesome Raigne of King John [said by some to be Shakespeare's King John "bad" Q1]), with their last joint project a year before Charlewood's death. [21]  In 1587, Charlewood acquired the monopoly for printing playbills, and from that year on his printing house seemed to have had the best chances of getting good plays.  On his death, he was succeeded first by his widow, until she married James Roberts (who I believe may have been a junior partner with Charlewood as early as 1584).  Roberts was one of the most prolific printers of medicine projects (1573, 74, 76, 79, 85, 87-89, 93, 95-1602, 04) and the printer for many "good" Shakespeare quartos (1600 Titus Andronicus Q2, 1600 Merchant of Venice Q1, 1604 Hamlet Q2, and several more later Hamlets).  In circa 1600, Roberts partnered with Wm. Jaggard, a printer of a couple of medicine projects (1616, 18), who had already published the by-1599 Q1 and 1599 Q2 of Shakespeare's Passionate Pilgrim.  Jaggard continued printing Shakespeare works, including the 1619 "Pavier Quartos" of 10 plays attributed to Shakespeare (about half of them apocrypha, including Munday's 1 Sir John Oldcastle), and 1623 First Folio (F1).  In 1627, the Jaggard printing shop and its inventory rights were acquired by the Cotes brothers (Thomas and Richard), who were mildly interested in medicine (1631, 34), and they printed Shakespeare's 1632 F2 and 1640 Poems, among others.  In fact, other than V&A and RofL, the Cotes brothers printed almost all of the canon in separate projects.  Each of these successors to Charlewood retained the monopoly to print playbills and provenance for the inventory of title rights.  And each had significant links to Munday projects (and as it turns out to Oxford projects too). [22]

Conclusion, Oxford and Hester:

            Oxford returned to Venice from Genoa in Sept. 1575, having hurt his knee in a Venetian galley (my Vol II, 354).  Logically, to treat his knee, Oxford would have been interested in the best physicians, and it only makes sense that he would have known of Phioravanti, if not actually employed him. [23]  Since Phioravanti's 1570 La Cirugia (the source for Hester's 1580 translation) was published in Venice, it's also logical that Oxford brought back a copy when he returned to England, and the copy used by Hester for his translation may have even been borrowed from Oxford's personal library.  As Hester's dedication to Oxford said:

"In like manner (Right Honorable) having translated and gathered together this compendious and short way of surgery, I thought none so meet to whom I might consecrate these fruits of my travails, so must I most humbly desire your good Lordship to peruse it and then to make trial of the contents thereof...  yet are there such which being more willful than skillful, will bear me a private grudge for this public commodity, and will attempt more than either they can or are able to answer -- the which to avoid, I most humbly crave your honorable patronage, that according to your name and posey, your name and property may be to protect the truth. *  So shall the translator the less doubt his foes, the book benefit more his friends, and they both most rejoice of so worthy a patron..." (Chiljan, 56)

  *  A play on Oxford's name "Vere" (Latin for truth, youth, green) which Hester humorously noted was a "posey" (i.e., riddle or translation) for "truth."  By Oxford's "property," did this refer to the Phioravanti book from which Hester translated?

            Note the invitation for Oxford to "make trial of the contents thereof," consistent with new medicine and Oxford's wife's practicing "upon her poore neighbors."  Thus, Hester said his own need was the protection of a powerful patron, someone known as a seeker of the truth in medical knowledge.  And he said he knew that was Oxford. 

            In conclusion, I think we've accumulated enough circumstantial evidence to "convict" our poet-playwright, the 17th Earl of Oxford, of having had an intrinsic interest in medicine comparable to that of Shakespeare, the celebrated poet-playwright.  And more evidence may yet emerge.  Might the two have been "of one mind" about medicine?

_______________________

Works Cited:

-- Arber, Edward, ed., A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London 1554-1640, NY , 1950/1875, Peter Smith.

-- Bergeron, David M., ed., Pageants and Entertainments of Anthony Munday, A Critical Edition, NY, 1985, Garland Publishing, Inc.

-- Chiljan, Kath. V., ed., Dedication Letters to the Earl of Oxford, 1994, KChiljan@earthlink.net.

-- Davis, Frank M., "Shakespeare's Medical Knowledge: How Did He Acquire It?," The Oxfordian, Vol. III, Oct. 2000, 45-58; http://shakespeare-oxford.com/wp-content/oxfordian/Davis_Medical_Knowledge.pdf. 

-- Eamon, William, The Professor of Secrets: Mystery, Medicine, And Alchemy in Renaissance Italy,” Washington DC, 2010, National Geographic Soc., ISBN 978-1-4262-0650-4.

-- English Short Title Catalog (ESTC or STC) on the British Library website at http://estc.bl.uk/F/?func=file&file_name=login-bl-estc.

-- Hess, W. Ron, The Dark Side of Shakespeare, Vol. II of III: An Elizabethan Courtier, Diplo-mat, Spymaster, & Epic Hero, Linc., NE, 2003, Writers Club Press, ISBN 0-595-29390-5.

----  Webpage with various cited articles is at http://home.earthlink.net/~beornshall/index.html.

-- Hinman, Charlton, The Printing and Proof-Reading of the First Folio of Shakespeare, 2 vols., Oxford, 1963, Clarendon Press.

-- Hoeniger, F. David, Medicine and Shakespeare in the English Renaissance, Neward, 1962, U. of Delaware Press.

-- Kail, Aubrey C., Medical Mind of Shakespeare, Australia, 1986, MacLennan & Petty.

-- Moore, Peter R., "Response to Prof. Alan Nelson's 'Oxford in Venice: New Light on an Old Question,'" SOS News., 31:2B, Spr 1995, 7-11.

-- Old And Sold Auction Site at www.oldandsold.com/articles31n/popular-superstitions-37.shtml.

-- Politis, Christopher, "John Hester: The First Paracelsan Translator in England," see http://uscientia.ca/social-scineces/articles/john-hester-first-paracelsan-translator-england.

-- Pettigrew, Todd J., Shakespeare and the Practice of Physic: Medical Narratives On The Early Modern English Stage, Newark, 2007, U. of Delaware Press.

-- Showerman, Earl, "Mythopoesis of Resurrection: Hesiod to Shakespeare (The Winter’s Tale and Pericles, Prince of Tyre)," Discovering Shakespeare: A Festschrift in Honor of Elizabeth Holden, Portland OR, 2009, Concordia U., 87-112.

-- Shrank, Cathy, website about 1562 Bulleins Bulwarke book of medicine, posted Aug. 2006, www.hrionline.ac.uk/origins/ItemDisplay.jsp?id=Bullein4033&type=normal.

-- Siraisi, Nancy G., Medieval & Early Renaissance Medicine: An Introduction To Knowledge And Practice, Chicago, 1990, U. of Chicago Press.

-- Traister, Barbara H., The Notorious Astrological Physician of London (works and days of Simon Forman), Chicago, 2000, U. of Chicago Press.

_______________

Table A -- Partial alphabetical list that I drew up from a search of the ESTC on the terms "Phisicke" and "Chirurgery" in the book titles, with printers'/publishers' years of medical-related publishing projects.  The rest of the information comes from my elaborate research into the Stationers Registry and other sources while compiling a huge database of Elizabethan and Jacobean stationers and works.  The codes represent:

*   an asterisk after their name notes they were involved in Shakespeare-related projects;

** stationers in the string of proprietors of the printing-house established by John Charlewood, which house eventually printed 1623 F1, 1632 F2, and 1640 Poems (J.C. died in Feb. 93, but Munday was unusually close to him 1577-92);

-d drapers (like Munday) who crossed to the allied Stationer's Co. to print or publish, sometimes unofficially (as I believe Munday secretly did);

-m was involved with Munday-related projects (Munday died in 1633, but reprints of his projects went well beyond);

-o was involved with Oxford-related projects;

-r was a rebel stationer who was arrested, fined, or declared a pirate; and

-w was one who rose to be elected Warden or other authority over stationers. 

1) Ed.Allde*-m-o-r 1588, 93, 96, 1609, 12, 15;

2) El.Allde-m? 1631;

3) R.Badger*-w 1639;

4) C.Barker-d-r-w 1597 [79?];

5) W.Barley*-d-o-r 1601;

6) T.Barlow* 1618;

7) J.Beale*-m 1615;

8) R.Bird* 1631, 39;

9) R.Blower-o-r 1601;

10) H.Bynneman-o-r 1574, 79;

11) T.Cadman-o-r 1585, 88;

12) J.Charlewood**-m-o-r 1576, 78, 80, 91;

13) P.Chetwin*-m 1656;

14) R.Cotes**-m-w 1631;

15) T.Cotes**-m-w 1631, 34;

16) W.Cotton*-o-r 1609;

17) T.Creede*-m-o-r 96, 99, 1603, 13;

18) T.DawsonSr.-o-r-w 1580, 85, 94, 99;

19) J.Day-o-r-s-w 1558, 59, 78;

20) H.Denham-m-o-r-s-w 1567, 68, 70, 76, 78;

21) H.Disle-d-o 1582;

22) T.East-m-o 1572, 75, c.83, 87, 88, 96, 98;

23) G.Eld*-r 1616;

24) R.Field*-m-o-r-w 1590, 94, 96, 17;

25) R.Grafton-w 1552;

26) E.GriffinSr.-m? 1617, 18;

27) J.HarrisonII*o-r-w 1590, 94;

28) J.Haviland*-m-o? 1627;

29) T.Hayes*-m? 1601;

30) A.Islip*-m-o-r-w 1594;

31) W.Jaggard**-m-o-r-w 1616, 18;

32) R.Jones-m-o-r 1576, 91;

33) W.Jones-r 1566, 72, 74;

34) F.Kingston*-m-o-r-w 1599;

35) J.Kingston-m?-o? 1570, 82;

36) M.Law*-d-o-r 1603;

37) J.Legat-r-w 1616;

38) N.Ling*-m-o-r 1603;

39) T.ManSr*?-r-w 1589;

40) T.MarshSr.-m-o-r-s-w 1555, 65, 71, 79;

41) H.Middleton-o-w 1584;

42) W.Norton-r-w 1577, 80, 84, 88, 89;

43) N.Okes*-m-o 1612, 13;

44) T.Orwin-o-r 1588, 89, 91;

45) J.Perrin-m-o?-r 1586, 87;

46) T.PurfootJr.*-m-o-w (& T.PurfootSr.-o-r-w ?) 1598;

47) J.Roberts**-m-o-r 1573, 74, 76, 79, 85, 87-89, 93, 95-1602, 04;

48) G.Robinson-o? 1585, 87;

49) W.Seres Sr.-o-w 1568;

50) P.Short*-o-r 1599;

51) V.Simms*-m-o-r-w 1596, 1603;

52) T.Snodham*-m-o 1612, 14, 15;

53) M.SparkeSr.-r 1634, 53;

54) W.Stansby*-m-o 1613;

55) C.Tyus-m-o? 1654;

56) T.Vautrollier-m-o-r 1583, 86;

57) T.Vere*-m-o?-w 1655;

58) R.Ward-m?-o?-r 1590;

59) R.Waldegrave*-o-r-w 1585, 86;

60) J.Waley-r-w 1562, 85;

61) E.White*-m-o-r-w 1582, 85, 88, 95, 96, 99, 1600, 03;

62) W.White*-m?-r 1598, 1612, 15;

63) J.Wight-d 1578, 96;

64) J.Windet*-m-o-r-w 1586, 89, 1603, 09, 10;

65) J.Wolf*-m-o-r-w 1586, 88;

66) H.Wykes-o-r 1568.

_______________

Endnotes:

[1] The medical dedications to the DeVeres included three books by Dr. George Baker (1540-1600, later a Queen's physician, in 1597 elected presiding Master of the Barber-Surgeon's Guild):

        -- 1574 The composition or making of the moste excellent and pretious oil called Oleum Magistrale (most of which purports to be a translation from a 1566 Spanish document about a cure-all oil prepared for Philip II, the rest from a French version of a classical book on how to make medicines),

        -- 1576 The Newe Jewell of Health (translated from Konrad Gesner's German about distilling oils), and

        -- 1599 Practice of the New and Old Physic (an augmentation of the Gesner translation);

        Plus a book by John Hester (d.1593, apothecary, the most prolific advocate of the new medicine):

        -- 1580 Phioravanti’s Discourse on Surgery (translated from 1570 La Cirugia publ. in Venice). 

        My chief sources for this information are the ESTC (or STC) and .pdf downloads from EEBO.

                I've seen no evidence to support the plausible but possibly wrong claim that Baker was "Oxford's family surgeon," e.g. no hints in his dedications that he was a "servant" to the DeVeres or in any way familiar with their personal health.  Yet, Baker's 1574 dedication to Oxford said Oxford had as deep understanding of the "original tungs" as did the translator (meaning that he was aware of Oxford's facility with Spanish, French, Latin, and possibly Greek and "Morisco," an Arabic-hybrid of Spanish).  He was a very respected surgeon, one of the few in the College of Surgeons who tolerated aspects of the new medicine, as seen by his books about distillation of oils.  His dedication to Anne could also be consistent with a Paracelsian advocacy of She-Doctors, vs. the age old chauvinism.

                Conceivably, the 1574 and 99 books could be argued to have been dedicated to Oxford as part of Baker's eventually successful campaign to become a Queen's physician, as might the 1576 dedication to Oxford's wife (made to her instead of Oxford because the two were then estranged, and she and her father famously had the Queen's ear).  But I note none of Baker's other books were dedicated to nobles, and so the two DeVeres should be seen as chosen due to their unusual mutual interest in medicine, particularly in the manufacturing of medicines and oils (of course the flip side is poison!).  The title-page illustrations of the 1576 & 99 books have a large woodcut of the goddess "Alcymya," standing before apothecary and/or alchemical flasks and paraphernalia, which we'll see was indicative of Baker's and the DeVere's attitudes about the alchemical aspects of the new medicine. 

                The 1589 book could be argued, as with all of Hester's translations, to be part of a shrewd apothecary's touting of wares that his shop provided.  Yet, Baker was acquainted with Hester's shop (per Politis' article), and both were advocates of aspects from the new medicine, to varied extent rejecting the old.  Thus, the DeVeres should be seen as also interested in promoting the new.

[2] The article by Dr. Frank Davis' in 2000 described Shakespeare's vast medical awareness; Dr. Earl Showerman in 2009 addressed Shakespeare's familiarity with the medical Corpus Hermeticum (= body of magic); and Earl's article "Shakespeare's medical Knowledge: Reflections from the E.R." is scheduled to be printed in Shakespeare Matters later in 2012.  I credit both for their advice and review of this article, though the opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect their opinions.  Books include Hoeniger 1992, Kail 1986, Pettigrew 2007, Siraisi 1990, and Traister 2000.

[3] The old schools of Hippocrates and Galen (in which the body was dominated by "4 humors," choler, bile/melancholy, phlegm, & blood, requiring remedial leeching, with the heart as "seat of passions") was known to Shakespeare and is in whimsical literature even today!  With the humors were "4 elements," and "4 qualities," plus a host of other attributes needing to be balanced (Hoeniger, 102-19).

[4] I.e., Jacques Houllier (d. 1576), author of 1543 De Materia Chirurgica, per Shrank's website.

[5] For the past owner of the "mass of papers" that included reference to Oxford's wife, Dr. Showerman helpfully suggested "Mr. William Pickering" may refer to Sir Wm. Pickering (died 1574, in 1553 an envoy to Paris and participant in Wyatt's rebellion, in 1559 a suitor for the Queen's hand).  But since he died 20 years before the 1594 material related to Edw. Potter, I believe the better candidate is Mr. Wm. Pickering (1796-1854), publisher in Lincoln's Inn Fields of "the Diamond Classics" 1821-31, and Chancery Lane 1824+ under Aldine Press, offering the Aldine edition of English poets in 53 volumes.  He ran into financial difficulties at the end of his life due to the failure of a friend he had vouched for.  So, my theory is that the publisher had a batch of unfinished projects nearly ready to be printed on his death, and 10 years later the project Popular Superstitions: Ancient Book of Medical Recipes that this was associated with was found, and they began the process for it to be set up for publishing, not actually getting scheduled until 1884.  The phrase, "an apparitor of the Consistory Court, at Durham," seems to be a confused reference to an Ecclesiastical Probate Court that would handle a deceased bankrupt's estate, with "apparitor" being the factotum in charge of the effects.

        A search for Ancient Book of Medical Recipes in British Library, Library of Congress, and Folger Library online catalogs yields no good results.  But, under Popular Superstitions the British Library has an 1884 title in a series The Gentleman's Magazine Library, edited George L. Gomme (1853-1916), London, Elliot Stock (System # 006792567, UIN BLL01006792567).  Otherwise, I conclude that the "(Originally Published 1884)" was a projected title-page entry for the project and that it may not have come to fruition.  Please let me know if anyone discovers more (BeornsHall@earthlink.net).

[6] The bed-tricks in Shakespeare included: 1) All's Well Helena's trick upon Bertram by substituting herself for Diana; 2) Measure for Measure Mariana's trick upon Angelo by substituting herself for Isabella; 3) The Two Noble Kinsmen the jailor's daughter tricked by her betrothed pretending to be Palamon, whom she is besotted with (unlikely by Shakespeare, it would be his only trick by the man); 4) Much Ado Beatrice leads an "altar trick" where the supposedly dead Hero is substituted for her cousin at the altar with Claudio (departing from the source, Bandello, who had a man lead the plot).

        The bed-trick allegations against Oxford's wife included: 1) the Oct 1574 arrangements at Hampton Court, wherein Anne arranged with the Lord Chamberlain (the Earl of Sussex, who was Oxford's political mentor) to have assigned to her the rooms adjacent to Oxford's, which Dr. Alan Nelson described in his webpage as, "giving Oxford no option but to spend the night in her bedchamber"; 2) in 1836 The Histories of Essex J.T. Looney found a passage about Oxford, "He forsook his lady's bed, [but] the father of Lady Anne by stratagem, contrived that her husband should unknowingly sleep with her, believing her to be another woman, and she bore a son [1583 crib death] to him in consequence of this meeting"; 3) an accusation from gossip of the Master of the Horse to Oxford's son-in-law Philip Herbert (Earl of Montgomery after 1606) that Oxford's "lady was brought to his bed under the notion of his mistress and from such a virtuous deceit she (the Countess of Montgomery) is said to proceed."  It may be that Anne even used the bed-trick to get Oxford drunk in 1571, make him believe that he had thereby made her pregnant, and then a "shotgun wedding!"

[7] E.g., Oxford apparently did not sleep with his wife for the first 3 years of his marriage (prior to the Oct 1574 first bed-trick, and that episode may have been only as a condition before he could get permission to travel abroad).  Also, on his return from travels in 1576, despite the July 1575 birth of his daughter Elizabeth Vere, he remained estranged from Anne until late in 1581, when reconciliation with Anne was apparently a condition put upon his release from house arrest after the 1581 Libels events.  Later there were 4 pregnancies, yielding one crib-death son (Lord Bolbec 1583) and 3 more daughters (Bridget 1581, Susan 1587, and Frances ? [1571/2?]).  Frances is known only by her death in May 1587 (her effigy was said to be of "a girl," but even a teen might be portrayed as very young in an effigy).  So, I've suggested this "Girl in the Iron Mask" (my term) was older than her sisters, result of a secret pregnancy which caused Oxford in Fall 1571 to have a shotgun wedding to Anne in the first place, and afterwards Frances was reared in strictest secrecy until her death.  Another theory is that her name apparently honors Oxford's aunt Frances Vere Howard, Countess of Surrey (died 1577), possibly meaning the child was born post-1577.  But this conflicts with the fact that another Frances Vere (born in the 1560s) was Oxford's cousin, sister to Sir Francis and Sir Horatio Vere.  In any case, the shotgun wedding formula is an age-old theme for marital discord, and may explain much about the DeVeres.

[8] I'm told other Oxfordians conjecture that Oxford's half-sister was such a shrewish model, for there was an episode in 1563-4 when Oxford had to defend his birth legitimacy against her charges against his father and mother's marriage.  Though that was no doubt an intense episode, it was only brief, vs. the years of flagrant estrangement from his pampered wife, a source of ridicule and concern at court.

[9] I acknowledge the 1995 theory of the late Peter Moore (pg. 8) that Oxford's chief difficulty with Burghley's daughter had much to do with slights perpetrated upon Oxford's estates and servants when Lady Burghley swooped down upon Wivenhoe and bundled up Anne to take her away from the accommodations Oxford had left for her as he traveled abroad.  Anne had also been disobedient to both Oxford and Burghley when she divulged her pregnancy in Mar 1575 to the Queen's physician, thus jeopardizing the mission Oxford traveled to Italy to perform (whatever his mission was, it was truncated in early 1576 when the Queen summoned him home).  This was compounded by difficulties regarding a "Book of Entayles" which Oxford had left in the care of Edw. Hubbard, a scribe who served both Oxford and Burghley.  The book apparently had not been properly registered by Hubbard or Burghley; it would likely have dictated which properties were to be sold and in what order, in case he needed money abroad (thus, Burghley may have sold whatever properties to whomever he wished at whatever prices, rather than following instructions from the book!).  So, in addition to the private marital difficulties Oxford had with Anne, his difficulties with her powerful parents likely made love all the more difficult between them, a male heir all the less likely, and discord all the deeper.  These matters are discussed in my Vol. II, pp. 81-93, 125-51.

[10] Politis' online article says about Baker's relationship to the new medicine:

"One of the more progressive physicians in England, George Baker recommended three apothecaries he was aware of who could prepare the medicines called for in his 1576 translation [dedicated to Anne] of Konrad Gesner's The Newe Iewell of Health and one was, '...another named Iohn Hester... the which is a paynfull traueyler in those matters, as I by proofe haue seene, and vsed of their medicines to the furtheraunce of my Pacients healthes...'  It is important to note that while Baker's translation deals with chemical medicines, that is the only concept of Paracelsism he initially warmed up to and it was not until later that he began to see merit in the Paracelsan simplification of medical procedures and other medical theory reforms."

        If so, it's curious that Baker would have waited until he was a Queen's physician and a pillar of his trade to advocate reforms.  I believe that Politis may have overlooked other aspects of Baker's public advocacy (such as his apparent endorsement of the She-Doctor concept in Anne DeVere and his advocacy of the manufacture and use of quick silver applications) that should classify him as a leading exponent of much, if not all, of the new medicine.  Notably, unlike most new medicine advocates, Baker was not abrasively and indignantly hyper-critical of the old, picking and choosing between both the new and the old, to fashion his own optimum practice; meanwhile making many friends and allies among the powerful, even such as Wm. Clowes, a leading and normally indignant attacker against the new.  Baker must have been quite a diplomatic-political man to balance so adroitly.  More to the point, his new amalgams must have worked where other treatments didn't, plus he must have been non-vainglorious about his victories, so as not to bruise old school feelings.

                See Hoeniger, 117-27, for a discussion of Paracelsus and his medicine.  Paracelsus (1493-1541) was his pseudonym (meaning "against Celsus," one of the old medical schools).  His name was Theophrastus Bombastus of Hohenheim, where his father was a physician.  Although educated in Zurich, Basel, and Ferrara, he chose to apply much of the reformist thought of Protestantism to the practice of Medicine, indignantly denouncing old medicine as pagan or infidel.  He had been an apprentice in a mine for several years, learning about metallurgy, and occupational diseases of miners.  He had an abrasive personality, and thus was itinerant in his practice, dying poor in Salzburg.  He wrote many medical books in a Swiss-German dialect.  Thus, his works and medicine were known largely through French, Latin, or Italian translations and via the writings of his few disciples.

[11] Dr. Showerman sent me Politis' article about J. Hester and the new medicine.  He also pointed me to Hoeniger's pg. 26 for this allusion to Anne's mother as a She-Doctor, in the Paracelsian sense:

“In Shakespeare’s time, the mother of Francis Bacon, daughter of Sir Anthony Coke, and also [her sister] lady Burghley, wife of the great statesman, were... knowledgeable in medicine.”

Thus, my appraisal of a witch-like Anne needs to reflect accepted practice from Anne's own family.

[12] My Vol. II, pp. 179, 83-86 mentions Erick Altshuler's 1998 article "Searching for Shakespeare in the Stars" (http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/9810042) which emphasizes the point that Shakespeare was generally attentive to astronomical findings of the times, with glaring exceptions after 1604 (i.e., Shakespeare stopped gazing at the skies when Oxford died!).  In addition, in Sept 2006, Alan Tarica and I were featured in two cable TV recorded shows (http://chapters.nss.org/dc/ #54 and #55) on this subject and others, related to Shakespeare's and Oxford's knowledge of science.  This had followed a lecture I had given before the National Space Society, Washington, DC Area Chapter.

[13] Although Hoeniger (pp. 287-306) pretended to tow the party line that Shakespeare was probably not influenced by the Paracelsian school, he nonetheless proceeded to discuss many allusions in All's Well, particularly "Helena" as a She-Doctor (contra the stigma of women in medicine), the cure of the "fistula," and allusions to "Secret" medicines.  His pp. 331-38 discuss the "Outer and Inner Storm" in the context of Lear's madness.  And (pg. 125) gives 3 lines from Rape of Lucrece evoking Paracelsus: "The poisonous simple is sometimes compacted/ In a pure compound; being so applied,/ His venom is in effect purified."  Many chemicals (e.g., mercury, lead) could cause madness, as happened to painters and Sir Isaac Newton (c.1690-1700, a by-product of his alchemical experiments).  Thus, note that Baker's article "The Nature and Propertie of Quick-Silver" [i.e., mercury] was an add-on to 2 of his friend Wm. Clowes' (1540-1604) books: 1585 A Briefe and Necessarie Treatise... Morbus Gallicus [i.e., syphilis] and 1637 A Profitable and Necessarie Booke of Observations for All Those that are Burned with the Flame of Gun-Power.  If Oxford's wife became deranged, as some Oxfordians suspect was possible, we might better understand Shakespeare's fascination with and fear of madness.

[14] My webpage article #12 has a translation of the obscure Latin tribute to Oxford that Munday placed 4 pages from the end of his Sept 1579 book, where even the title makes its meaning and purpose dual-edged.  It appears to reflect on Oxford's voyage abroad and return home, but it was published only a few months after Munday had himself returned from France and Italy, spying for a few months near Rome at the school set up for English expatriates, and generally retracing the venues that Oxford had gone to himself 3 years earlier.  The obvious dedications to Oxford included lavish use of Oxford's crests, and acrostic poems whose first letters spelled out Oxford's name and titles.

[15] Munday's Master Printer, J. Allde, was a founder of the Stationers Co. in 1557, but sometimes a rebel (per the S.R. in Oct 1568 he was arrested for smuggling books from the Netherlands).  He printed works that were Oxford-related (e.g., 1579 Joyful Jewell) as well as most of Munday's works up to 1584.  Per the STC, 1566/67 books by Pierre Boaistuau and Pliny the Elder, which later influenced Shakespeare works, were translated by a "I.A." or "I. Alday," likely alternate spelling of J. Allde.

[16] One minor snag in my theory of Munday the Galen translator of 1574 Oleum is that the STC has "Possibly based on a translation by Thomas Hill" in commentary for 1599 Practise (which repeated the 1574 translation of Galen Bk. 3, adding Bk. 4).  Hill lived from c.1528-c.1590, and starting in 1556 used the pseudonym "Dydymus Mountaine" for medical translations.  But, the same STC commentary about Hill is given for 1576 New Jewell, which had no Galen in it.  So, it's clear that it wasn't the Galen translation referred to, but the Gesner translation that made up most of both the 1576 & 1599 books.

[17] Table A is also on my webpage at the end of Article #5.  It is more illustrative than definitive.  Note that "Phisicke" and "Chirurgery" were terms also used for philosophy, almanacs, astrology, magic, medicine, herbs, gardening, cook books, animal care, etc.  A more thorough search, including additional relevant medical terms, might have given even more remarkable results. 

[18] I credit the late Robert Brazil's privately published 2000 True Story of the Shakespeare Publications, Vol. I:  Edw. de Vere & the Shakespeare Printers with introducing the topic of Shakespeare-related stationers, although I went well beyond his findings when I published my Vol. II, Appen. F's discussion of Munday's associations with nearly all of those stationers.  My website article # 5 also covers this topic.

[19] At the 2003 SOS Conference in NY City, I gave a speech about Munday as "the Publishing Shepherd of the Shakespeare Enterprise."  R. Brazil then informed me that he was about to give his own speech about Gabriel Cawood as essentially the same thing.  He made a good argument, and yet Cawood was distinguished principally by Shakespeare-related works that were entered or published during his terms as Warden or Master of the Stationers Co. to 1598, plus he died too soon (in 1602) to have been an influence on many later projects (e.g., 1623 F1 & 1632 F2) that Munday could have influenced.  Although Cawood doesn't stack up well against Munday, I was impressed by Brazil's use of the Warden-Master links to the story of Shakespeare-related projects.  Thus, for the past decade I've been constructing a massively detailed "Chronology of Everything about The Shakespeare Enterprise," focusing on S.R. entries and even on patterns of the Wardens-Masters presiding over entries for those projects.  Though many were Church officials (still connected to Munday via his working for the Archbishop), many others were like Cawood, foxes guarding the hen house!

[20] The excellent theory about Hall as "Mr. W. H. ALL" originated in the late 19th century with Stratfordian stalwart Sir Sidney Lee, was in the 1930s embraced by Oxfordian B.M. Ward, and later enhanced by Ruth Miller.  Even today and among Stratfordians, the absurdist "given wisdom" that "Mr. W. H." was meant to be construed as "Lord Henry Wriothesley" (or less dyslexical, "Lord Wm. Herbert") completely neglects the decorum of Elizabethan and Jacobean times -- a lord was never addressed in a dedication by his surname without his hereditary titles listed as well.  To neglect that duty or to address him as a lowly "Mr." was a public insult!  Indeed, he might have styled himself "Henry Southampton," but never "Mr. H.S.," nor would anyone who respected him.  The fact that Stratfordians almost universally accept the "Mr. W.H." = Southampton folly should give Oxfordians a clue that it benefits their mythology, not our cause, nor common sense!

[21] Avoiding too much detail, from my study of J. Charlewood's (J.C.'s) career and that of his successors, I've argued in e-mail that it's possible Munday and J.C. were involved in a c.1589-93 project to print a collection of Shakespeare's early poetry, a project which fell apart with J.C.'s Feb 1593 death.  Later, during a brief period when J.C.'s widow ran J.C's printing business, "escapes" occurred of such poems as Passionate Pilgrim, Phoenix & Turtle, many of the Sonnets (including the two published by 1599), and A Lover's Complaint.  The evidence for this is complex, involves the early careers of stationers such as Wm. Jaggard and Rich. Field, and deserves its own separate article!  Yet, the summation is that it helps to understand the completely legitimate provenance of 1640 Poems by William Shake-speare [hyphenated] if we accept the dedicatory claim of its publisher, John Benson, that it had been compiled from a format adopted while "the author then living" essentially still had the components in his control.  Oxfordians are content with pre-1604, but I think we can date a few of the components to as early as 1585-98 (as will be summarized in my forthcoming Vol. III's Induction, Table 1).

[22] Most stationer links to Oxford were titles or reprints dedicated to him (e.g., John Lyly's second Euphues novel or John Day's English Secretary), or which had some of his poetry (e.g., 1593 Phoenix Nest, Munday's 1600 Bel-vedere, or 1600 England's Parnassus). 

                To show how integrated Munday was into the publishing industry of that time, let's examine events of 1623 involving him and Jaggard.  Munday had been essentially London City's favorite writer of pageants since the late 1590s, and on Oct 29 1623 his last and most elaborate pageant was celebrated, with the theme of Triumphs of the Golden Fleece (Jason and the Argonauts) paraded on the Thames and through the streets of London, with gilded armor and shaking "triumphal lances." Bergeron's book is the best source for each of Munday's extant pageants, although I believe I've found references to pageants in the 1590s for which there are no exact descriptions other than records of payments to Munday, Jonson, or others who dabbled in that art.  The City pageants were almost always at the end of October, to celebrate the installment of the newly elected Lord Mayor each year.  Since the Mayor was always from a guild, the pageant itself would normally celebrate his guild, and the chosen guild was scheduled in advance.  The Mayor in Oct 1623 was Sir Martin Lumley (d. 1634) who was Master of the Drapers Guild in 1615-16 and again in 1623.  Munday was a Draper, likely why he was asked to write that year's pageant, although Munday wrote pageants for non-Drapers and Th. Middleton presented a longer pageant (Triumphs of Integrity) which followed Munday's that day.

                Likely since 1617 (or even earlier), on a commission from the Privy Council, Munday had been translating from French the ultimate prestige project, 1623 Theater of Honour and Knight-hood.  It was essentially a huge folio-sized compendium of all the honorific orders across Europe.  As the London City Official Printer, Wm. Jaggard had it on his presses, a vast undertaking. 

                What I say here about 1623 Theater is based on my personal examination of .pdf images available through EEBO and what is entered into the STC record about it.  S.R. entries for Theater were made Oct 16, 1609, Mar 2, 1617/8, and Oct 23, 1622; but the last French texts upon which it was based weren't published in Paris until 1620.  So, Munday may have been working on translating it as early as 1609.  There was an Augustine Mathews, a printer who began his career around 1620, and whose initials might match the "A.M." used after Jaggard's death for the dedication in Theater.   Still, since Munday was the preeminent translator of his time, and the activities for this project obviously can be traced earlier than 1620, I know of no serious suggestions that Matthews was involved.  Certainly, Munday had a long relationship with the Jaggard house of printers, and his gravitas with the City and Privy Council would have been far greater than a novice like Mathews.  Incidentally, later Mathews printed a posthumous Hester book, 1633 The Secrets of Physick and Philosophy..., oddly enough the year that Munday died (he had been active in publishing until 1628, possibly to 1632).  And editions of Hester's works were printed by Munday's cronies J.Charlewood, J.Allde, E.Allde, & some other Shakespeare-related printers.

                Simultaneous with 1623 Theater was the Nov 1623 F1 project, which some scholars date as beginning back in 1621 or earlier.  It was nearing its long printing cycle, at the same time and essentially on the same Jaggard presses, even with shared "compositors' hands."  In his Vol. I, pg, 16, Hinman says, "Various kinds of evidence seemed to show that work on the [F1] plays, began not later than August of 1621, was presently interrupted for a period of more than a year in order to speed the completion of another book."  When Jaggard was on his deathbed in late Oct 1623, both projects had copies printed with his initials to identify the printer.  When he died, his son Isaac's initials replaced Wm's in the F1.  But in the Theater project, Jaggard's "W.I." initials in the printer's dedication to the reader were replaced by Munday's "M.A."  It may be that Munday was changing the printer's dedication to a translator's dedication (though the wording remained identical) -- but given what I've said above about Munday as a secret printer, might he instead have simply taken personal control of the printing of Theater, so that Jaggard's son could be freed to concentrate on finishing up the F1 project?  1623 was a troubled year ending in celebration when Prince Charles had been released from house arrest in Madrid, where he'd been provocatively detained while on a diplomatic mission.  With such distractions, it's not surprising my Table A survey, cursory though it may be, shows no medical publishing projects for 1623.  So, Shakespeare and medicine didn't always go hand-in-hand!