A Comprehensive review of Alan Nelson's Monstrous Adversary 2003
This review is copyright © 2003 by Robert Brazil

Review of Part II- Youth

Chapter 8 - London Wardship

34 - More N-spin. He claims that EO17's amazing procession into London with 140 or perhaps 180 retainers on horseback was a tribute to the dead EO16, and no measure of the men's loyalty to EO17, nor testimony to EO17's charisma. LOL.

34 - N repeats the old line that EO became William Cecil's ward, while I am more impressed with N. Green's more accurate description that EO17 was the Queen's Ward, under the care and guardianship of Cecil. No matter how you spin this, young Oxford was the property of the State. Oxford's wardship was never sold, although the Queen might have done so. He was a valuable chattel until 21. A situation like that would make me rather rebellious.
How 'bout you ?

35 - This is amazing - to show how Oxford and the other noble prisoners were "kept" in check by Burghley - N quotes Lawrence Stone - who compares Burghley's style to that of POLONIUS. And I thought that the Stratfordians (and anti-Oxford Anti-Stratfordians) were dead-set against identifying Burghley with Polonius. Whoops, Dr. Nelson, you slipped up there. You actually make a connection to Shakespeare.

35 - N gives Anne Cecil's birthdate - Dec. 5, 1556. [That's Sagittarius under modern astrology, but Scorpio under the Elizabethan calendar!] No wonder Oxford thought she was sleeping around!

36 - N mentions without commentary that Burghley's gardener was John Gerard. But Gerard was no mere gardener, he was the preeminent Elizabethan botanist and herbalist, whose vast horticultural knowledge (and folkloric knowledge) appears in the Shakespeare plays - sometimes verbatim. (there is a published book: Gerard's Herball) Regarding Gerard, it's a great piece of collateral circumstantial evidence - and we even have Gerard also as the name of Helena's father - the offstage master healer mentioned in All's Well. But unfortunately, as Gerard's Herball was a popular book, anyone could have read it and quoted him, so we lose this as "evidence."

36 - An account of German traveler Paul Hentzner from 1598 describes the Burghley country estate Theobalds as having decorative pyramids and a "touchstone table." No Touchstone tables in Stratford!

37 - Nelson reprints Burghley's orders for Oxford's daily educational regime - which included French, Latin, writing, drawing, and Cosmography. More good training ground for young Shakespeare. Also young EO17 had to study the Bible in English before dinner and in the *original languages* after dinner - and we know that Shakespeare (whoever he was) was practically a Bible expert. We don't actually know if Oxford could read Hebrew - I assume that Latin and Greek are the "original languages."

37 - Now Nelson quotes Oxford's exercise regime that included riding and shooting. Yet in an earlier chapter N claims EO17 did not hunt or do manly sports!

37 - Oxford sat in at Parliament in 1563 - I assume as a nonvoting guest Peer - since he was only 13 and though fully an Earl, not "of age." This is DOCUMENTED. What better education could a teenager have than to sit in Parliament and watch the arguments. Think of all the high level politics in the Shakespeare plays. Did Strat-man pick up all that language in the tavern too?

38 - N reprints a very intelligent letter written by Margery, EO17's mom. Pretty damn smart for a low-bred hooker! BTW, Margery makes frequent reference to Oxford as her son. [[Those that believe EO17 was a changeling boy royal bastard who was plopped into the Oxford household had better reassess their beliefs - especially with the multiple documentation regarding his April 12, 1550 birthday.]]

39 - N mentions Nowell's famous statement that his tutoring work for EO17 would no longer be required. The obvious conclusion is that young Oxford was now more learned than Nowell - but N claims - without proof - that "evidence" indicates Oxford was a bad student, and so Nowell was just exasperated, not trumped. Boo Hiss, again, Doc.

39 - N uses Oxford's shopping list - which includes rapiers, daggers, and clothing - as proof that EO17 was "consumed with a sense of his own importance." LOL.
* So being well dressed and properly armed is an act of "self-involvement" in an era of total violence and TOTAL VANITY ?
* And what the heck is wrong with someone who IS important acting that way? Geeeeeez!

39 - N then says that EO17's wild expenditures on clothes were somewhat offset by income on rents, such as a document showing Arthur Golding collected a rent on EO's behalf. Golding was an employee of the Court of Wards. So Burghley was his boss, and Oxford, his nephew, was his uber-boss in waiting. Arthur Golding-translator of Ovid's Metamorphoses, beloved of Shakespeare.

40 - this income issue continues - N mentions that documents indicate Edward was receiving rents from far-flung estates in "Herefordshire, Devon and Cornwall."

Nelson is WRONG about Herefordshire, which borders Wales … Oxford's estates were in Hertfordshire.

40-41 - Oxford's sister, that SHREW named KATE, sued to have his estates taken away (because daddy was really only half-married to THAT WHORE Margery when EO17 was born). A defense was launched and won by Arthur Golding (Margery's brother), the man credited with the first translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses into English, Shakespeare's OTHER Bible.

If, in this era, Oxford was such a prodigy that he had outshone his teachers, and sat in Parliament, we can also assume that he knew all the details of the sister Kate lawsuit and was quite involved with uncle Arthur's petitions. So much for the old Strat canard that Oxford barely even knew Arthur Golding.

We can see Arthur's personal interest in the case. If sister Kate had actually won her lawsuit, it would be bad for Arthur's own sister Margery, bad for his employer Burghley, and thus bad for himself, ... bad all around. Dr. Nelson sounds disappointed in his book that Kate didn't win. His personal dislike for Oxford I find extraordinary.

Chapter 9 - Early Teens

41 - A useful fact. Margery's second marriage - to Charles Tyrell - took place at an indeterminate date but before Oct. 11, 1563, when her letter to Burghley indicates that they were living as man and wife.

So Earl John EO16 is buried August 31, 1562, and within 13 months Margery is re-hitched. That's not exactly lightning, but fast enough to fit the Hamlet scenario that keep's reasserting itself. And perhaps the marriage was preceded by a longer cohabitation.

42 - useless but wonderful fact - Burghley had a cousin named Disney.

42 - useful fact - in January 1564 Edward EO17 was living at Maidenhead Bridge.

Hotspur. A rendezvous, a home to fly unto, if that the devil and mischance look big upon the maidenhead of our affairs.

Wor. But yet I would your father had been here.
                                                          First Henry 4 - act 4 sc. 1
I know it's not "fair," or proof, or evidence to find parallel-to-life passages in Shakespeare, but with Oxford it's so fun and easy!

42 - N says Oxford was recuperating from an illness at Maidenhead bridge, which is not far from modern-day Maidenhead, due west on that big M-something highway. N says Oxford was there with Rutland - Roger Manners, and they were thereafter best pals for the next 3 years. Rutland just happens to be the Shakespeare of choice among Russian anti-Stratfordians. I've met, entertained, and received long letters from several Russkie Rutlanders. (personally, nyet to all that.)

42 - August 1564 - We have Oxford, Burghley, Rutland and the Queen all documented at Cambridge, St. Johns college, Cecil's alma mater. Three plays were performed at King's College Chapel -
- Aulularia by Plautus
- A tragedy named Dido
- Ezechias by N. Udall

Again, a memorable early influence on the man "we" (many of us) feel is Shakespeare. Put it another way - if the Orthodoxy had evidence that William Shaksper attended such a festival - with Plautus and Dido, they would say, "this was the seminal event that formed his mind, etc." But when we say the same thing for Oxford - the reaction is, "yeah, whatever ...."

42-43 - N lists all the men who received degrees, including Oxford, on Thursday, August 10, 1564. EO17 is listed 4th, it appears outranked by 1. Duke of Norfolk, 2. Earl of Sussex, 3.Earl of Warwick

43 - N specifically describes these as "unearned" degrees, not considering for a moment that some of the group of seventeen men might have *coincidentally* earned and deserved them. Alan here is in top Fox-News "fair and balanced" spin. I quote:

"The University distributed these unearned degrees even as the town distributed marchpane and sugar loaves."

43 - N switches gears to Golding's *Histories of Trogus Pompeius, dedicated to EO17. N admits that Golding pays tribute to 14-yr-old Oxford's personal fluency in Ancient history and modern politics. No further comment about this from N.

Here I must present the relevant section from C.W. Barrell's famous but neglected essay, which I found on Mark Alexander's sourcetext.com site. Thank you, Mark for hosting this and everything else on your website!

<><><> by C.W. Barrell, 1940 <><><> The first of these is an English version of Justin's previously un-translated Abridgment of the Histories of Trogus Pompeius, "a worke conteyning briefly great plenty of most delectable Historyes, and notable examples, worthy not only to be Read, but also to bee embraced and followed by all men." Lord Oxford was only fourteen years of age and about to receive a degree from St. John's College, Cambridge, when his uncle offered the fruit of his labors in the field of ancient history to him in these words: … there was not any who, either of duty might more justly claim the same, or for whose estate it seemed more requisite and necessary, or of whom I thought it should be more favourably accepted, than of your honour. For ... it is not unknown to others, and I have had experience thereof myself, how earnest a desire your honour hath naturally graffed in you to read, peruse, and communicate with others as well the histories of ancient times, and things done long ago, as also of the present estate of things in our days, and that not without a certain pregnancy of wit and ripeness of understanding. The which do not only rejoice the hearts of all such as bear faithful affection to the honourable house of your ancestors, but also stir up great hope and expectation of such wisdom and experience in you in times to come, as is meet and beseeming for so noble a race. Then, after urging young Oxford to emulate the examples of Epaminondas of Thebes and Arymba of Epirus who were not only great soldiers but scholars and peace-makers as well, he concludes: Let these and other examples encourage your tender years ... to proceed in learning and virtue . . . whereof, as your great forwardness giveth assured hope and expectation, so I most heartily beseech Almighty God to further, augment, establish and confirm the same in your Lordship with the abundance of his grace. Your Lordship's humble servant, Arthur Golding A Discovery of Real Import The "delectable Historyes, and notable examples" thus brought to Edward de Vere's attention so persuasively during his formative years must have vividly appealed to the precocious boy. It is a significant "coincidence," now noted for the first time, that the writer of the Shakespearean plays must also have been vividly impressed by the succinct tales from Trogus Pompeius for he alludes many times to striking incidents and unusual personalities of the ancient world that appear in this early translation by Arthur Golding. Lack of space prevents mention of more than two or three such parallels here: In the first chapter of the Historyes we find the story of Cyrus, ruler of the Persian Empire, and his defeat and death by the unusual strategy of the Scythian queen Tomyris. Turning to Shakespeare 1 Henry Sixth, (II, 3), we discover the Countess of Auvergne planning the capture and murder of the English hero Talbot with comments such as these: The plot is laid; if all things fall out right, I shall be as famous by this exploit As Scythian Tomyris by Cyrus' death. The connection here is unmistakable for Trogus Pompeius seems to be the one historian of the period who refers to Tomyris as a Scythian queen. Herodotus, and others speak of her as Queen of the Massagetae. Again, in this book dedicated to Lord Oxford by Arthur Golding we read of Semiramis the mythical queen of Assyria and her criminal exploits, with her own son Ninyas. Shakespeare's allegorical melodrama of Titus Andronicus compares the blood-thirsty Tamora, Queen of the Goths (here evidently representing the Spain of Philip II) with: This goddess, this Semiramis, this nymph, This siren, that will charm Rome's Saturnine. And in the introduction to The Taming of the Shrew, the lord who plays the practical joke on Sly, the drunken tinker, promises him    …a couch    Softer and sweeter than the lustful bed    On purpose trimmed up for Semiramis. The account of Alexander the Great in Trogus Pompeius is particularly well handled-a model of clear and concise reporting. Two dramatic incidents in this miniature biography of the classic superman seem to have fixed themselves in the memory of Shakespeare. The first relates to Alexander's murdering of his confidential friend Cleitus during a drinking bout. This is alluded to by the irrepressible and muddle-tongued Fluellen in Henry V, (IV.7) as follows: Alexander,-Got knows, and you know,-in his rages and his furies, and his wraths, and his cholers, and his moods, and his displeasures, and his indignations, and also being a little intoxicates in his prains, did, in his ales and his angers, look you, kill his pest friend, Cleitus. The other Alexandrian anecdote has to do with the great conqueror's final act. It is reported in the ancient chronicle in this wise: When his friends saw him dying, they asked him "whom he would appoint as the successor to his throne?" He replied, "The most worthy." Such was his nobleness of spirit, that though he left a son named Hercules, a brother called Aridaeus, and his wife Roxane with child, yet forgetting his relations, he named only "the most worthy" as his successor; as though it were unlawful for any but a brave man to succeed a brave man ... Shakespeare's King Leontes in The Winter's Tale, having put away his wife and daughter in a jealous rage, (just as Lord Oxford himself did in 1576, by the way) finds himself likely to face the future without an heir. The old noblewoman Paulina offers him this cold but familiar comfort (Act V.1.): Care not for issue: The crown will find an heir: great Alexander Left his to th' worthiest; so his successor Was like to be the best. Altogether, there are ten or more clear-cut allusions in the plays to memorable characterizations and passages that appear in Arthur Golding translation of Trogus Pompeius. In addition, Shakespeare seems to have drawn heavily upon the book in naming many of his dramatic personages. Fully a dozen of the heroes of antiquity that Golding re-vitalized for the delectation of his brilliant nephew reappear in name if not in exact characterization in the Shakespearean comedies and tragedies-exclusive of the Roman plays, modeled directly upon Plutarch.   http://www.sourcetext.com/sourcebook/library/barrell/02golding1.htm

43-44 - Margery's letter to Burghley asking that he make extra sure to keep Edward away from all of the money and property while he is still young. lest he ruin his inheritance before coming of age. This does not appear to be spin. I take it as given that the kid was extravagant and scared the bejeezus out of the adults - but if Edward rightly or wrongly perceived that it was his MOM, [over and above his keepers and the Queen, and the Law], that was preventing or delaying his rightful due, then we have further elements of the Hamlet-Gertrude complex falling into place.

- Margery offers to take over responsibilities of managing Oxford's "portion," a sum of 1,000 marks that was left to him, but he could not collect until he came of age. She did not get control of the money. N says, "Oxford cannot have appreciated this interference by his mother."

- November 1565 Oxford attends his first tournament as a spectator at the wedding of the Earl of Warwick at Westminster Palace

- Feb 1566 - Queen E. through the court of Wards demands that Robert Christmas (the on-the-ground administrator of Oxford's vast Essex estates) pay out additional sums in addition to rents. One of the Queen's accountants at the Court of Wards discovered an error in Oxford's wardship agreement, an oversight which ignored the 66 pounds annually due to the crown as part of the knight-service "fee" associated with Oxford's estates. The money did not get paid. This is just about the beginning, apparently, of an eventual mountain of unpaid debt to the crown, that would later keep Oxford perpetually bankrupt. Why weren't the estates managed better? Was anyone siphoning money off the top? Stay tuned.

- August 1566 - Degrees at Oxford University in a similar scenario to Cambridge, as above. Plays performed: Marcus Germinus, Palamon and Arcyte by R. Edwardes, and Progne by James Calfhill. Much has been said about the Palamon and Arcyte connection. (but not by N ... and yes, of course I understand, that wasn't his job here, and N isn't a literature guy anyway ....) Oxford this time gets top billing (of the 12 men named by N.) The listing is interesting: "The Earl of Oxford, Edward Vere" Just a reminder that people were aware of all of his names, and that they were used on official documents ... (if not how to spell de Vere) Fascinating fact: ranked number #8 on the list is "Sir William Cecil, Secretary of State" That's right, we've been calling him Burghley all along so far (and so has N.) though Cecil was still 7 or 8 years away from becoming Lord Burghley. He hadn't even begun to think about inventing ancestors yet (I know, cheap shot)

45 - N gives a portion of a poem to Oxford by George Coryat circa 1566 that was only printed decades later in his son Thomas' famous book Coryat's Crudities 1611, a famous travelogue. Thomas Coryat traveled through India, and was perhaps the first Englishman to write about India first hand.(I think that "Crudities" actually meant to them, mixed appetizers, just like today ... but can anyone verify that?) George Coryat, in Latin, praises Oxford as one with the muses.

N gives just two lines. So I went to the Cornell Library and dug out Coryat's Crudities and was able to obtain the full text of the poem - offered complete - here for the first time anywhere (on the net).

What follows is the text of the poem by George Coryat, published posthumously by his son in 1611, but dated as late 1560's (circa 1566).

Ad illustrissimum Comitem Oxoniensem

Clare Comes, generis summum dcoramen aviti,
Insuper Angliaci magna Columna soli.
Da veniam tenui modulanti carmina plectro,
Quod nequit optatis verba referre sonis.
Te tua noblilitas commendat & inclyta virtus,
Fortiaque eximii corporis acta tui.
Nil opis externae quaeris, nec carmin (quamvis
Carmen amet quisquis carmine digna gerit)
Huc tamen adveniens cum Principe nobilis hospes
Carminibus nobis excipiendus eris.
Tum quia Musarum tanto capiaris amore,
Auribus his modulis occinit una tuis.
Tu velut hesterna cepisti carmina nocte,
Hac quoque sic capias carmina nostra die.

Tuo Honori deditissimus,
Georgius Coryatus

{TRANSLATION TO BE PUBLISHED SOON}

<><><><><>

N cites G. Harvey's reminiscence of meeting EO17 in Cambridge in the late 1560s as an indication that Oxford must have returned to the city at some time. No problem there.
46 - Oxford at Parliament again which ran from Sep 30 1566 to Jan 2 1567, one of four minor Earls in attendance. Ah, but the record only shows the boys listed on opening day. Still, a nice day out for a 16 year old, showing off with the big boys.

46 - a poem by Cecil to Young Anne aged 10 - rather cute verse. Both William and Robert Cecil were mad for poetry, plays and literature. The Cecils at this stage were contributing positively to many aspect of Shakespeare's education.

- Feb 1, 1567 Edward admitted to Gray's Inn. Once again N adds the spin that this was a "courtesy" admission and Oxford probably did not attend. But even Nelson equivocates here: "As with numerous other noblemen, Oxford's may have been a mere courtesy admission." May have been - that means there are legitimate reasons to believe the contrary. N states that Oxford bought no legal books preferring the classics, and can't of learned much law, because later on he hired lawyers. I'm not going to even touch this law school "problem". This has been debated fully by Mark and others. Oxford clearly learned a lot of the law, but desiring no career in law, saved himself a lot of bother with the rest. But he knew cases like Hales vs. Petit and a mountain of Capital L Law, especially Roman and Venetian law.
Oxford's motive was understanding the complicated legalities of his real estate holdings. Documents of his dealings in some of these tricky matters contain evidence of both his learning and his abiding interest. Oxford's letter that deals with the property of Aveley proves that he understood writs of elegit and other complicated legal instruments and precedents through which he might lose the property.

47 - N ends the chapter by restating that everything Oxford ever got was unearned. Yeah, whatever, Dr. N.

Chapter 10 - First Blood

47-49 N describes, in his best imitation of Truman Capote, a crisp murder story. N. offers
portions of the known facts. Still, I'm inclined to go along with part of his assessment. Fact -Brinknell walked by during an informal but "fully loaded" fencing practice and got accidentally killed by Oxford. That's not exactly the "bad" part. The bad part is that Oxford's counsel apparently decided that a suicide "felo de se" case must be claimed. The local jury was packed with sympathetic ears and they bought the ludicrous story. Years later Burghley wrote a regretful note that verifies there was a legal sham to make the case go away. Burghley's own words, 1576: "I did my best to have the jury find the death of a poor man whom he killed in my house to be found se defendendo." Burghley confesses that he tried to get the jury to find "self defense." But that's not what happened. They found "felo de se." The blame was entirely put on Brincknell. Either Cecil was outmaneuvered by other counsel, or he has conveniently remembered the case in a less distressing way. On closer inspection we see that the suicide defense emerged directly from the coroner's report, which states that Brinknell was drunk and ran upon the sword. So this defense - which was really an "offense" in strategy - was like: ... "how dare that young ruffian commit suicide on my sword during my practice time!") The coroner's report also has conclusions that I find remarkable given the state of forensic science in the 16th century: The coroner found that Brinknell had "not kept God before his eyes" and seduced by the Devil, was driven to the deed. N prints a portion of the coroner's report and summaries the rest. I don't think we will ever know what really happened that day, nor the extent of culpability of the others involved in the sham, which did cause hardship to Brinknell's family.

But N puts the blame entirely on Oxford when Burghley's note reveals that his remorse was over his own mixed culpability. This must have weighed heavily on both of them. Anyway, it happened, and N calls it murder. But murder implies premeditation and motive - and there was none of that.

Also, I don't see how it bears on the question of Oxford's candidacy as Shakespeare except to strengthen it. There IS quite a bit of the old ultra-violence and rapier death in the plays, and performed live these scenes are all chillingly authentic, as you all know. (People don't generally know what it is like to see an actual murder, but we feel that we do know after watching Shakespeare or Hitchcock)

Chapter 11 - Reckless Youth

49 - Throughout 1567, '68, '69, and '70 Oxford is living at Cecil house - his 18th birthday marriage choice deadline passed and was forgotten.

- On Dec 2. 1568, Countess Margery dies. So EO17 is only 18-and-a-half years old when mommy dies. That's very interesting from a psychoanalytic point of view as his vivid memories of her might have been colored by any anger and resentment that marred his last years with her. It's a pressure cooker for angst and art. Unresolved issues.

50 - Oxford gets his first garter vote in April 1569 (from his cousin, William Lord Howard of Effingham).
- N mentions the first known letter from Oxford (in English) to anyone - Nov. 24 1569 to Cecil. N does not mention that Oxford had written a letter to Cecil in French, dated August 23, 1563.

51 - N gives a nice list of Oxford's expenditures on clothing, including 32 pairs of Spanish shoes over 9 months. And drugs! Apparently young EO was sick a lot of the time. During one season, recuperating at Windsor and Charing Cross, his medicines & care bill was 66 pounds, or one fifth of his total "spa" expenses! As I have not examined the documents in question that N is paraphrasing and summing up I can't know if he is exaggerating. N makes the claim that EO was either chronically sick, a hypochondriac, or both.

52 - Details surrounding Fenelon in 1570, and Oxford's journey north to see or participate in the military action, March 30, 1570.

53 - More discussion of household chits that show Oxford shopped mightily for his journey: new horses, a new riding cloak, more weapons, and a portable toilet! (upholstered, no less) You gotta love this kid! He's a killer with a heart of gold!

- In the 1st Quarter of 1570 Oxford buys a gilt Geneva Bible, almost certainly the very one that is now at the Folger. Nelson agrees with Stritmatter (and I) that the record refers to this copy. Also a complete Plutarch in French etc. - this list was given by Ogburn, et al.

N admits that based on his reading, Oxford, intellectually, was strictly humanistic.
This is wonderful, The Inhuman Humanist!

53 - the Oxford heroic rescue story. N calls the document in question a "murky petition" and prints a portion - The claim is that on Aug 3, Oxford attempted a rescue of the Duke of Norfolk from the Howard family's Charterhouse. N doubts the incident took place but suggests that Oxford at that time DID control ships, men, and materiel and that he could have been running clandestine "ops" on behalf of the 16th century European Catholic Conspiracy Organization. Over the course of the book, Nelson develops the storyline that Oxford controlled men and ships and was used by the Blackfrock Jesuits as a secret conspirator. There is no evidence of any of this. Nelson simply believes the H&A accusations, which were NOT believed at the time.

Chapter 12 - Best Friends

54 - Introducing Henry Howard ... At least N is evenhanded with his patented sound-bite instant character assassinations:

"Henry survived in relative poverty and obscurity. Never interested in women or marriage, he sponged off rich relations decade after miserable decade until the ascension of James in 1603."

Then N claims that Henry Howard (hereafter HH) was "hands down the most learned nobleman of his time." I won't belabor the point, but that's pure opinion. [He is simply following the DNB article which waxes fantastic about Howard.] N praises HH's musical skills, but we are up to year 21 of EO's life and N hasn't mentioned Oxford's musical interests, skills or expenditures. My instincts tell me that N is not using everything available, but rather is using only those documents and chits that tell the story he wants to tell.

55 - 57 much background material presented on HH, Arundel and Southwell.

57- N introduces an incident of April 1570 in which residents "invaded" Oxford properties but were fought off with stiff resistance. This incident is not well-known. The reference is:
Emmison 1970 pp 104-105 ; 4 April 1570; APC ix PP 182, 187-88, 263, 373
[APC is Acts of the Privy Council]

Now the famous hanging incident - ... Hey, this is different! - Alan used to claim that it was EO17's men that ran a little hanging/strangulation experiment "for kicks," and to get testimony on what asphyxiating was like. *Now N concedes that the story relates to the 16th EO* because it mentions Oxford's wife being disgusted and walking out. He is very vague about the source of the reminiscence. Someone must have proved him wrong on this and he backed off. I distinctly recall seeing Nelson in performance about 5 years ago and he made a big show of acting out the strangulation.

Chapter 13 - Necromancer

58-62. This is astonishing - N starts by taking seriously the HH report of Oxford's alleged boasting of necromantic acts - and N frames his discussion on HH's specific charges as if they are all facts. He says flat out what no one before has ever said, quite so, of Oxford:

"Oxford was engaged in magic"

N conflates the real paper trail on this with one big blarney-stone.

The real part, which N partly recounts, is the 22-plus year association of Oxford with Dr. John Dee, Oxford's known "esoteric" book collection, the testimony of John Soowthern that Oxford knew "the seven turning flames of the skie" (i.e. he was an astrologer), and Oxford's other humanistic and scientifically-oriented intellectual interests.

N overlays Oxford's known high-minded Renaissance esotericism with the specific accusations of H&A:
* that Oxford often had "copulation with a female sprite at George Howard's house at Greenwich"
* that he invoked the dead spirit of Charles Tyrell, who told him prophecies
* that he could conjure and often had conference with Satan

Folks, here is sensationalism at its most sensational. These are generic, garden variety accusations right out of the chronicles of witch-hunting, and we can only imagine (or try to figure out) why exactly H&A took the risk of accusing both Oxford and Sir George Howard, Master of the Queens Armory, of illegal sorcery of the lowest variety.

N also conflates his black magic scenario with other bizarre reinterpretations. For instance, he cites the Dee and Soowthern testimony as *corroboration of necromancy* when they are nothing of the sort. Then he says that Thomas Watson, (the poet and translator who was in Oxford's patronage in 1582) was a bad influence on Oxford. He calls Watson (who was a brilliant linguist) a "lowbrow." Because of a vague story about Watson and a witch N thinks we have "proof" that he too was a low magician!

I did a little further study on this. Nelson bases his accusation on a chapter involving Thomas Watson in The Reckoning, a book about Christopher Marlowe by Charles Nicholl. Another sensationalist, Nicholl's Watson scenario has been shown to be baseless in the scholarly work by D. Sutton, author of the Collected Works of Thomas Watson.

N also cites the abundance of stage plays about necromancy in those decades and the many books Oxford *might have read* that described acts parallel to the H&A accusations as further direct influences on Oxford the satanist. The whole picture of Oxford and other High Lords doing low magic in one of the most opulent and well guarded mansions in England is something right out of Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick's annoying but fascinating final film. I think Nelson saw the movie for sure.

I'm nauseated. (and yesterday asphyxiated) This is a powerfully strange book. Bad voodoo, man. But the legions of neo-pagans may now be drawn toward the Oxfordian cause. I prophecisize it!

We could speculate forever whether Oxford's general interest in the esoteric ever dropped, one drunken night, into some half-in-jest event that has suddenly grown into this monstrous legend. Could something have happened? Sure, I suppose.

If so, ... if one really wanted to go that way - then one finally has rock-solid PROOF that this is the guy who wrote the Shakespeare plays. Who else, among the other candidates, or among any human alive at that time, could have had the direct experience of the numerous magical ceremonies enacted with such poignant precision in the plays. From Glendower to Cerimon - from the witches of the Scottish play to Prospero in The Tempest ... Only Oxford has the Nelson-approved-documentary-imprimitur of *simultaneous Protestantism, Catholicism, Atheism, Humanism, and Satanism* It's a unique syncretic religion that found its expression in the Shakespeare plays. And lets not forget the Ghost in Hamlet, the spiritual core of the play, giving commands in dark of night. In the H&A accusations Oxford speaks to the shade of his dead step-father! That's pretty damned close.

Chapter 14 - Oxford's Letters

62 - Nelson gives a rough total for the word count in his amalgamated file of Oxford"s letters - 50,000. My database allows more Oxford material and I have about 70,000 words by Edward de Vere. Stylometricians are still using samples of Oxford in the 20,000-30,000 word range. Thus, every stylometric study that has ever been done so far on Oxford, vis-a-vis Shakespeare and other writers, is obsolete; the test and studies all need to be run again with the larger available sample pool.

63 - N gives a useful fact without realizing the significance. In comparing Oxford's writing and penmanship with others, he opines professionally that EO's was only average, but his daughters, among others, had better handwriting, more precise and modern. Compare and contrast with Shaksper's illiterate daughters. We would expect that the REAL Shakespeare would support learning, reading, and writing for his children, and in Oxford's case, the world's leading expert says this is true. How's that for counter-spin?

63-64 - EO spells halfpenny no less than eleven different ways. He shows an extraordinary freedom in his phonetic representation. No wonder the Shakespeare publication compositors were so damn confused about every line, and only regularized sith and since when they remembered to. If spelling was something that mattered aught to Oxford (except for magic spells) then statistical analyses and discussions of Sith and Since ratios are perhaps an exercise in futility. I think we have to look at the word and not how it was spelled.

64 N notes a correspondence between Oxford's rare archaic use of "oft" for "ought" with the play Gammer Gurtons Needle and Greene's Orpharion! He also claims (citing the OED) that this is evidence of some dyslexic-type inability to use the language! But Oxford may have had a personal shorthand that spelled ought as oft as in: "you oft to go out more often." Several researchers have looked through the OED to confirm what Nelson says he read there, but his vague citation is not there. As we will see, every link in the chain of N's story about Oxford's alleged ear-brain-pen disorder is a fraudulent link, forged in a workshop of faux-scholarship, incarcerated counter-evidence, and outright lies and fabrications.

N delivers his "tin-ear" concept - that Oxford had some sort of cognitive impairment....

N's "premise" is that Oxford's occasionally unusual spellings reflect a severe speech impediment that went uncorrected and then influenced his phonetic representation of speech in words. N theorizes that no one dared to criticize the young Lord, and his impediment became ingrained and rooted deeper into his neural pathways, affecting his thinking. Even Noam Chomsky would laugh at Dr. N's fantasy. But it's worse than a fantasy, because N's 'evidence' that Oxford had a hearing/thinking/spelling problem is completely made up. Dr. N hides from his readers the many occasions Oxford spelled certain key words correctly, and only introduces examples where the spelling (or penmanship) occasionally slips. Nelson's entire theory/accusation of mental dyslexia is a knowing deliberate fraud. If one of his students had tried to pull off a con like this, the University might have had cause for handing out a punishment.

Here's a fine image: if we combine all of N's cartoon-Oxfords into one incredible super-villain (after all, Oxford IS the Monsterous Adversary!) we have this outlandishly dressed fop, armed to the teeth, high on poppy-extract, lisping,

"Thanktifie me Thatan, I am your thimple thortherous thervant..."

<><><>

66-67 N offers examples of Latin usages and spellings he doesn't like and concludes that Oxford was a bad Latinist. Nelson's claims in this regard have already been well disputed by others. Once again Dr. N withholds from his readers counter-evidence that Oxford's Latin was excellent. He could read it, write it and speak it conversationally - and on that we have the testimony of his contemporary and friend Sturmius. Even if there are occasional "irregularities' (from a modern myopic specialist's point of view) in some of the spelling of Latin in Oxford's letters, and If we decide to then say that Oxford was not an A-plus Latinist, we need to ask, "OK, but compared to whom?" Even Jonson said that "Shakespeare" accomplished quite a bit with 'small latine and lesse greek'. But the record of contemporaries speaking about Oxford praise his mastery of the classics and classical languages. This really boils down to Oxford having looser spelling than Nelson would like and nothing more. Oxford's Latin was infinitely better than Shaxper's and that is all that matters (in addition to setting the record straight) - Was Oxford's Latin adequate for the task of writing the works of Shakespeare? Yes, with considerable room to spare.

Next