Edward de Vere and the Shakespeare Printers

An extremely well-written and well-researched book about the first Shakespeare publications of the very late 16th and early 17th centuries. Brazil demonstrates there are inherent problems with the Shakespeare-Stratford assertion, especially in terms of publishing. The text points out the existence of several primary sources in which the man from Stratford demands payment from customers for grain and/or property transactions, sues customers for failure to pay, and even tries to avoid paying taxes himself. This is a man who does appear to be rather single-mindedly interested in monetary profit. Brazil then asks, why would this man who supposedly wrote all these plays appear to have nothing at all to do with their publications?According to Brazil, literary historians have concocted the idea that if a play were under the control of a theater company during this period, they and only they had the right to sell such plays to printers, and they did for monetary gain, Therefore, the Lord Chamberlain's Men and later the King's Men, the primary acting company of the period who performed Shakespeare, were the ones who would have sold the rights to printers, hence the publication of the first quartos of Shakespeare's plays. Only, there's a problem. Apparently, according to research, there was no such legislation in existence which precluded a playwright from selling the rights to print plays even if the theater company were in the midst of performing a particular play. Also, theater companies did not like plays they were performing to be printed because they feared it might compromise attendance, sort of like when American football home games used to be blacked out from local television in the 1970's and 1980's. In short, there was almost no motivation for theater companies to allow plays to be printed, and the primary source evidence suggests that companies went to great pains to prevent publication of plays they were performing. If Shakespeare plays were the best known and most popular of the age, as suggested by Stratfordians like A.L. Rowse, it is highly improbable the King's Men or the Lord Chamberlain's Men would have allowed publication. But the historical record is silent on the matter. As far as is known, according to Brazil, the theater companies performing Shakespeare made no attempt at thwarting the original publication of the quartos in the 1590's and early 1600's.During the Elizabethan and Jacobean eras, writers would sell what we now think of as "copyright" to printers. Certainly, once the printer owned the copyright, he was free to print as many copies and editions as he pleased. Printers were expected to pay an initial fee to the writer for the right to publish his (or her) works. Since the vast majority of the primary sources which survive having to do with the man from Stratford are about his monetary dealings, and scarce about his participation in Elizabethan theater, it is reasonable to assume that the man from Stratford would at the very least have been interested in being paid for his work. Not only are there no surviving documents which indicate Stratford having anything to do with the publications, he seems completely removed from any of them. He seems not to have known any printers, and never moved within their circles.Strangely, Edward de Vere, the 17th Early of Oxford had close business ties to several printers, such as Thomas Creede and Richard Field. Creede and Field published books patronized by Oxford and they are also responsible for printing several of the early Shakespeare quartos prior to the famous First Folio of 1623, the first collected works of Shakespeare. This is one of many examples Brazil provides in his study of the Shakespeare printers and their relationship to Oxford. Another example Brazil points out concern's Shakespeare's Sonnet 119, which describes alchemical instruments which are shown on the title page illustration of a 1576 book called "The New Jewel of Health". Stratford-Shakespeare scholars have pointed out that Sonnet 119 was inspired most likely by the illustration of the earlier book, but failed to recognize the book's dedicatee was Oxford's wife Anne, and includes the Oxford motto "Vero Nihil Verius". Booth was the Oxford family doctor.These are just a couple of the many examples Brazil provides in his quest to show how Oxford, and not the man from Stratford, was linked to so many of the printers who happened to publish the works of Shakespeare for the first time. Are these just mere coincidences? The question which is at the heart of the matter is not even whether or not Oxford was Shakespeare, but why haven't the Stratfordians been able to produce anything similar for their candidate if he was the one who really did write the plays?Another historical figure who was proposed as a possible candidate for writing the plays had many connections to the same printers who published individual plays which would become what would be called "the Shakespeare Canon". That person is Edward de Vere the 17th Earl of Oxford. Many primary sources put Edward de Vere right in the middle of nearly all the printers who published the first appearances of Shakespeare works. The Stratford man appears to be completely absent from any dealing with these printers.

This is a marvelous book that should be read by anyone who is a serious scholar involved with the Shakespeare authorship issue. It has an amazing number of historical and literary gems not found anywhere else or discussed by Oxfordians to the best of my knowledge. I will cover a few in a moment. My biggest problem is that Robert Brazil continues to regard Angel Day as the author of the book, although he presents persuasive evidence that Oxford is in fact the author of the book and Angel Day is operating in his capacity as secretary to Oxford to publish the book and have his name on it. “I do think that Day was involved and the lesser of the two writers.” However, Angel Day as with John Lyly seem to only have works published while they were in the employ of Oxford and had no literary career outside that. In the same vein Brazil asserts that Arthur Golding was the author of the poem Ovid’s Metamorphoses and that an Arthur Brooke was the author of Romeus and Juliet. Both works are now considered by Oxfordians to have been written by the Earl of Oxford. A few gems: “Arthur Broke, the young doomed, credit author of Romeus and Juliet” he shows to be a member of the Inner Temple, a London Inn of Courts that granted law degrees. Arthur Golding also being of member of the Inner Temple. The name slightly different “Arthur Brooke” is the mysterious author that nobody can find, presumed drowned, but really in plain sight and associated with Golding and thus with the Earl of Oxford. They added an “o” to “Brooke” and had a newly minted author. Brazil credits Angel Day for the “first translation into English of the antique Greek romance, Daphnis and Chloe” although he shows no background for Angel Day having any extensive knowledge of Greek. Is it not more likely that Oxford translated it and again posed his secretary Angel Day as the author. Brazil gives many examples where the writings of Oxford as Oxford in letters, as Shakespeare and then in The English Sectary correspond. “In this short example we find sevarl of Oxford’s distncit or habitual works and phrases, “against me” – “consider that”—“pretence.” This and many other correspondences between Oxford and Shakespeare are shown in The Secretary including the use of small hands as indicators that are similar to what Roger Stritmatter found in Oxford’s Bible. Yet, Brazil does not credit Oxford as the primary writer of this work. Strange? Brazil’s incredible knowledge of the aristocracy of the time and the interlocking relationships on personal level brings this gem (pg. 125). “William Shaksper of Stratford-upon-Avon purchased New Place in 1597 from William Underhill, Jr. who was step-brother to Sir William Hatton (son of Christopher Hatton), who was married to Lord Treasurer Burghley’s grand-daughter, and thus an in-law of Oxford as a well a co-dedicatee in The English Secretary.….Or we have this marvelous insight, “ten fireplaces in a house in the center of a rural town usually meant one thing: that New Place served as an inn, a hostelry or a brothel.”…Brazil makes the remark that “We see repeatedly in The English Secretary promises of precise and sober scholarship follow by the most ribald, inappropriate, and dubious examples. I hod hat this comic contrariness was made the book a best-seller for fifty years, a kind of inside joke among scribes, scriveners, secretaries and stations.” In conclusion, to repeat, Robert Brazil’s book is required reading for any scholar concerned with the Earl of Oxford and the authorship issue.

My eyes were opened about the Shakespearian controversy 30 years ago when I ran across and couldn't resist buying Charlton Ogburn's massive but messy "The Mysterious William Shakespeare." I was convinced Ogburn was right about the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, being the true author of the "Shakespearian" oeuvre, but I got lost in the twists and turns of his narrative.Same with Charles Beauclerk's "Shakespeare's Lost Kingdom," reportedly the main source for the excellent film, "Anonymous." A little too erudite and ponderous for its own good - again I lost the flow of the argument in the rather dense prose.And then there's this fascinating work by Robert Sean Brazil, which finally lines up the guts of the evidence for de Vere as Shakespeare in a straightforward, convincing, and decisive presentation. And he demolishes Shaksper of Stratford in the process, demonstrating once and for all that the merchant from Stratford could not possibly have written the greatest works in the English language.I only give this 4 stars of five because the author left it somewhat unfinished at his very unfortunate early death. His widow says in the introduction that she thought it best to publish the ms as her husband left it, probably the wise choice. Also 4 stars because the resolution of many of the illustrated original book covers is poor - for shame, Amazon!But Brazil's analysis of the publication history of Shakespeariana provides much of the most persuasive and overwhelming evidence for Oxford-Shakespeare, leaving virtually no doubt about the authorship. I strongly recommend this book.

Sadly the author died before he could tidy up this book, or so it seems to me. It's a new and worthwhile angle in linking Oxford the the works of the Bard but the author's claim that he found the "smoking gun" is quite far from the mark. His analysis of the printers' marks and title page text on the published Quartos of the period are interesting but inconclusive. What we do learn is that1. Oxford was a great patron of the arts, particularly literature2. There are some interesting common designs used in the publishing of works to which he may have a connection3. There are lots of early works that sound suspiciously like early versions of Shakespeare and/or may have been written by Oxford4. After 1598 the name William Shakespeare was credited on the play cover pages5. Oxford was linked to the printing of some works that were "sources" for Shakespeare playsWhere Brazil is weaker is in suggesting ciphers and hidden codes or picture patterns and themes in the printers' graphic plates that stretch credibilty to breaking limits and rather smack of desperation at times. There are a few interesting combinations that may be coincidental but most don't do the Oxfordian cause any good.More work needs to be done in this area. An interesting read nevertheless.

Brilliant