Brief Chronicles Vol. III (2011) i Copyright 2011, 2012 The Shakespeare Fellowship Designed in Baltimore, MD. Online ISSN: 2157-6793 Print ISSN: 2157-6785 o This 2011 volume III of Brief Chronicles was, like the previous two issues, set in Chap- paral Pro. Our ornament selection continues to be inspired not only by early modern semiotics, but by the generosity of contemporary designers, such as Rob Anderson, who designed the Flight of the Dragon Celtic Knot Caps which contribute so much to our leading paragraphs. T. Olsson’s 1993 Ornament Scrolls, available for free download from typOasis, have once again furnished an inviting opportunity to apply some of the theoretical principles discussed by our more disting- uished con- tributors. Shakespeare we must be silent inour praise Brief Chronicles Vol. III (2011) ii In memoriam, C.O., Jr. Who led the way.... against many impediments. eo wisheth all honor Brief Chronicles Vol. III (2011) iii General Editor: Roger Stritmatter, PhD Managing Editor: Gary Goldstein Editorial Board: Carole Chaski, PhD, Institute for Linguistic Evidence, United States Michael Delahoyde, PhD, Washington State University, United States Ren Draya, PhD, Blackburn College, United States Sky Gilbert, PhD, University of Guelph, Canada Geoffrey M. Hodgson, PhD, University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom Mike Hyde, PhD, English, Tufts University, United States Felicia Hardison Londré, PhD, University of Missouri, Kansas City, United States Donald Ostrowski, PhD, Harvard University, United States Tom Regnier, JD, LLM, University of Miami School of Law, United States Sarah Smith, PhD, Harvard University, United States Richard Waugaman, MD, Georgetown University of Medicine and Washington Psychoanalytic Institute, United States Copy Editor: Alex McNeil Brief Chronicles Vol. III (2011) iv Volume III (2011-12) Table of Contents Editor’s Greeting Roger Stritmatter viii-xv Articles From the Foreword to This Star of England C. O., Jr. 1-8 Veering Toward an Evolutionary Realignment of Freud’s Hamlet Michael Wainwright 9-36 Shakespeare’s Greater Greek: Macbeth and Aeschylus’Oresteia Earl Showerman 37-70 Commedia dell’arte in Othello: A Satiric Comedy Ending in Tragedy Richard Whalen 71-106 The Law in Hamlet: Death, Property, and the Pursuit of Justice Thomas Regnier 107-132 On the Authorship of Willobie His Avisa Robert R. Prechter, Jr. 133-166 She Will Not Be a Mother: Evaluating the Seymour Prince Tudor Hypothesis Bonner Miller Cutting 167-196 Shakespeare’s Antagonistic Disposition: A Personality Trait Approach Andrew Crider 197-208 The Sternhold and Hopkins Whole Booke of Psalms: Crucial Evidence of Edward de Vere’s Authorship of the Works of Shakespeare Richard Waugaman 209-230 Brief Chronicles Vol. III (2011) v Reviews and Interviews Shakespeare Suppressed reviewed by William Ray 231-240 Dating Shakespeare’s Plays: A Critical Review of the Evidence reviewed by Don Ostrowski 241-252 The Assassination of Shakespeare’s Patron: Investigating the Death of the Fifth Earl of Derby reviewed by Peter Dickson 253-258 Gary Goldstein interviews Leo Daugherty 259-263 Shakespeare The Concealed Poet reviewed by Bonner Cutting 267-269 Theater Of Envy: William Shakespeare reviewed by Heward Wilkinson 270-272 The Shakespeare Guide to Italy: Retracing the Bard’s Unknown Travels reviewed by Virginia Renner 273-278 Bardgate:  Shake-speare and the Royalists Who Stole the Bard reviewed by Gary Goldstein 279-281 Anonymous reviewed by Sky Gilbert 282-287 Dialogue/Debate Kreiler and Prechter on Hundredth Sundrie Flowres 288-3o8 Brief Chronicles Vol. III (2011) vi Contributor Biographies Andrew Crider is professor emeritus of psychology at Williams College. He holds a PhD from Harvard University and has written and consulted extensively in the areas of psychopathology, psychophysiology, and behavioral medicine. His article represents an initial venture into questions of Shakespeare psychobiography. Bonner Miller Cutting, a Trustee of the Shakespeare Fellowship, has presented pa- pers at several authorship conferences and is working to expand the paper “Shake- speare’s Will Considered Too Curiously” into a book. Ms. Cutting holds a BFA from Tulane University in New Orleans, where she was a member of Phi Beta Kappa, and an MA in music from McNeese State University in Lake Charles, LA. Robert R. Prechter, Jr., is president of Elliott Wave International, a financial forecasting firm. He and colleague Dr. Wayne Parker presented a new theory of finance in “The Financial/Economic Dichotomy: The Socionomic Perspective,” published in the Summer 2007 issue of The Journal of Behavioral Finance. Prechter also funds the Socionomics Foundation, which supports academic research in the field. See www. elliottwave.com, www.socionomics.net and www.socionomics.org. Thomas Regnier is an attorney based in Miami, Florida. He holds law degrees from Columbia Law School in New York (LlM) and the University of Miami School of Law (JD), both with honors. He has clerked for Judge Harry Leinenweber in the U.S. District Court in Chicago and for Judge Melvia Green in the Third District Court of Appeal of Florida. He has taught at the University of Miami School of Law (including a course on Shakespeare and the Law) and The John Marshall Law School in Chicago. His scholarly articles on the law have appeared in such publications as NYU Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, Santa Clara Law Review, Akron Law Review, and UMKC Law Review. Earl Showerman graduated from Harvard College and the University of Michigan Medical School, has been a patron of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival since 1974, and reads at the Hannon Library of Southern Oregon University in pursuit of the Shake- speare authorship question. He has served as a Trustee of the Shakespeare Fellowship and The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition. Since 2005 he has presented and pub- lished a series of papers on the topic of Shakespeare’s “greater Greek,” explicating the Greek dramatic sources in Hamlet, The Winter’s Tale, Pericles, Much Ado about Nothing, Timon of Athens, Troilus and Cressida and the Tudor interlude, Horestes. Brief Chronicles Vol. III (2011) vii Michael Wainwright studied for his BA in English and Mathematics at Kingston University and gained his MA in Modernism and Modern Writers from Royal Holloway, University of London, where he also completed his PhD as a scholarship winner. He has taught literary theory from Plato to Butler at Lancaster University and courses dedicated to twentieth-century American literature at the University of London, Staffordshire University, and the University of Birmingham. Twice winner of the Faulkner Conference “Call for Papers,” his publications include three monographs for Palgrave Macmillan: Darwin and Faulkner’s Novels: Evolution and Southern Fiction (2008), Faulkner’s Gambit: Chess and Literature (2011), and the forthcoming Toward a Sociobiological Hermeneutic: Darwinian Essays on Literature (2012). Richard Waugaman is a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown University School of Medicine, a Training Analyst Emeritus at the Washington Psychoanalytic Institute, and a recognized expert on multiple personality disorder. He is a regular reader at the Folger Shakespeare Library, and has written extensively on Shakespeare, the psychology of anonymity, and the case for Oxford’s authorship of the Shakespearean canon. Richard Whalen is co-editor with Ren Draya of Blackburn College of Othello in the Oxfordian Shakespeare Series. He is co-general editor of the series with Daniel Wright of Concordia University and the author of Shakespeare Who Was He? The Oxford Challenge to the Bard of Avon (Greenwood-Praeger, 1994). d Brief Chronicles Vol. III (2011) viii To Whom it May Concern: Greetings Great floods have flown From simple sources, and great seas have dried When miracles have by the greatest been denied. —Helena, All’s Well that Ends Well his third issue of Brief Chronicles goes to the electronic press at a watershed T moment in authorship studies. The “seismic transformation in public awareness”1 recently predicted by Shakespeare Fellowship President Earl Showerman is well underway. Stimulated not only by the massive exposure to the Oxford case brought on by Anonymous and at least two about-to-be released independent documentaries, the shift is also being enabled by the vigorous development of new organs of scholarship and communication such as Brief Chronicles, and am entire spectrum of new authorship blogs. Given the intellectual inertia (or worse) involved in the authorship question, it would be rash to predict an optimistic timetable for the Oxford revolution – but there is no doubt that the “handwriting is on the wall” as never before. New books on the authorship question, most of them by a new generation of talented and dedicated Oxfordians, continue to expand our intellectual horizons and inject both sense and sensibility into the study of the English literary renaissance. Check out the reviews in this issue if you don’t believe me. The editor could not stop them. As Ben Jonson said of the bard, “sufflimandus erat.” They just kept coming. How else can one explain the extraordinary new energy that has been injected into the authorship debate by the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust’s sponsorship of the new “Sixty Minutes with Shakespeare” attempt to rebut the anti-Stratfordian case? Released two full months before Anonymous, the online program prominently features such paragons of scholarship as the Prince of Wales, speaking out on behalf of the Birthplace on topics such as “Gaps in the record,” “Where did Shakespeare get his money?” or “Why aren’t their any books in the Shakespeare Will?” Despite enlisting sixty experts, the Trust apparently could not find anyone to address the topic of connections between the plays and the Earl of Oxford’s life, although the ubiquitous Professor Alan Nelson did weigh in on “Factual objections to Oxford” as the author. Brief Chronicles Vol. III (2011) ix The Trust has yet to learn the importance of Richard Feynman’s first principle of inquiry: you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. The editor has learned over the years that the best strategy for following Feynman’s advice is to cultivate the ability to argue the contrary position in its strongest possible formulation. For example, the Stratfordians have a monument in Stratford, a name on some title pages, and even a 1623 folio that alludes convincingly to that monument and purports to represent an “author” associated with it. What they don’t have, and never have had, is an actual author with a biographical footprint to match his literary remains. As Mark Twain put it, “when we find a vague file of chipmunk tracks stringing through the dust of Stratford village, we know by our reasoning powers that Hercules has been along there.”2 In words of William H. Furness, already quoted in an earlier issue of Brief Chronicles but deserving repetition until their significance becomes more readily apparent, anti-Stratfordians are those who have “never been able to bring the life of William Shakespeare within planetary space of the plays. Are there any two things in the world more incongruous?”3 It is this massive failure of biographical inquiry that lies behind the complaint that Oxfordians fail to apprehend the mysterious workings of literary creativity. As put by James Shapiro, “the claim that Shakespeare of Stratford lacked the life experiences to have written the plays” is “disheartening” because “it diminishes the very thing that makes him so exceptional: his imagination.”4  Implicit in this view is an unarticulated admission of orthodoxy’s failure to discover meaningful connections between the life of their author and his “imagination.” All that’s left for them is imagination – which is for Stratfordians less a term of literary criticism than of ideology. As Charles Beauclerk has said, Shakespearean traditionalists like Shapiro confuse imagination with fantasy. Imagination is the power of the mind to work upon what the senses provide. It is not the antithesis of what is given to the senses, but a creative, synthetic transformation. Rather than juxtaposing “imagination” and experience, a literary criticism committed to the inductive principles of post- enlightenment inquiry ought to be asking how they undergo fusion in the creative act. Like so much else in the current sophistic treatment of the authorship question, the idea that the Oxfordians are, as a school, insensitive to the creative process is more a matter of the convenient rewriting of intellectual history to suit complacent prejudices and reinforce pre-existing biases than an authentic representation of the view it purports to challenge. Here is how Charlton Ogburn, writing more than half a century ago, put the problem, now inherited by Shapiro’s orthodox colleagues without – for them at least – any credible resolution in sight: In a way, it may be considered a tribute to the works of this genius that almost from the time of his death the large majority of people have been content tacitly to assume that these works were given to the world like manna. All of a sudden, in the conventional view—or at best after a few years’ gestation of a most mysterious kind—the dramas and poems simply appeared, full- panoplied, like Pallas from the brow of Zeus. What was their substance? Why were they written? More than three centuries of critical scholarship throw Brief Chronicles Vol. III (2011) x no light upon these questions. Indeed, such questions seem hardly to have arisen in scholastic minds. What manner of man was he who brought forth the supreme works of literature of our language? “Little,” we are told, “is known of the author of the plays”; or, in a shameless imposition upon our credulity, we are given “lives” of Shakespeare which are airy imaginings undisciplined except by a few facts largely irrelevant.5 An industry in denial – as the Shakespeare Authorship Coalition defines it in its recent rebuttal to the Birthplace Trust’s “60 Minutes” – must eventually come face to face with whatever it’s avoiding. As this passage from Ogburn suggests, Oxfordians have wrestled fruitfully for decades with the very problems Stratfordians conveniently accuse them of ignoring; indeed, the status quo ante in Shakespearean studies has over and again pointed to the intellectual emptiness of appeals to the explanatory force of such abstractions as “creativity,” “genius,” or “imagination,” ungrounded in historical, biographical, or artistic circumstance. This is not to deny that the search for relevant Oxfordian context has sometimes encouraged excessive indulgence in a kind of literalist reductionism. Stratfordians are right that imagination is important; they are wrong in accusing Oxfordians of trying to deny its importance, and even more wrong in supposing that it can substitute for actual experience – including rigorous training. Even the most talented musician must do scales, and a writer without books is no writer at all. At its best, as Ogburn suggests, Oxfordian scholarship has brought to bear an interdisciplinary methodology aimed at appreciating “the voice of the artist,” which only speaks to us with “added force and illumination with the passage of centuries.”6 The interdisciplinary nature of an authorship inquiry grounded in first principles is well represented in the essays included in this issue. Leading off our volume is Michael Wainwright’s “Veering toward an Evolutionary Hamlet,” a highly disciplined yet creative fusion of Darwin, Freud, and the great sociologist Edvard Westermarck, who first established that propinquity in childhood under normal conditions produces sexual avoidance in adults. This biologically based, natural pattern of incest avoidance breaks down, however, under conditions of the concentration of state power in royal families. It is also complicated by such social inventions as the Elizabethan wardship system in which Edward de Vere was raised, where adoptive siblings were often forced into marriage for reasons of the acquisition of power and property. In his application of a sociobiological model to the dynamics of Shakespearean authorship, Wainwright’s essay fulfills the prediction of William McFee in his introduction to the 1948 second edition of “Shakespeare” Identified. The book, declared McFee, is “destined to occupy, in modern Shakespearean controversy, the place Darwin’s great work occupies in Evolutionary theory. It may be superseded, but all modern discussion of the authorship of the plays and poems stems from it, and owes the author an inestimable debt.”7 Drawing both from orthodox and Oxfordian criticism, Wainwright demonstrates that Hamlet bears the unmistakable imprint of Oxford’s biography. Arguing that “one paradigm shift, from the Stratfordian to the Oxfordian, finds substantiation from another, the shift from the Cartesian to the Freudian,”8 Wainwright delivers an