The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 79, No. 19, Ed. 1 Friday, February 7, 1992 Page: 14 of 24
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Rice University Woodson Research Center.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
14 FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 7,1992 THE RICE THRESHER
ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT
Was he or wasn't he? Scholars debate the question
-1 1 I 1 C _/ l_ • ir //Ol 1 // •*.!_ tl 11 ^ _/ Ol 1 i. 1_; _ 1 _// /
BYTERZAH EW1NG
"Make but my name thy love,
and love that still,
And then thou lovest me, for
my name is Will."
—from Sonnet 136
W.
. hat if the Bard of
Stratford, our beloved William
Shakespeare, the rakish play-
wright surrounded by his merry
fellows from the Lord
Chamberlain's Company and
bursting with ardor for the
beauty of language, never existed?
Imagine instead two people: one,
William Shakespeare, an insig-
nificant butcher's apprentice-
turned-actor holding horses
outside the Globe Theater,
unaware that a nobleman so
grandly educated that his very
hands smell of ponderous tomes
hides behind a pseudonym and
guiltily pours his secretly poetic
soul into plays and poetry which
will set the standard for Western
literature for centuries to come.
Sound preposterous? To some
people, it isn't. The Shakespeare/
Oxford Society was formed for
the express purpose of discredit-
ing Shakespeare, "the Stratford
man" in favor of Edward de Vere,
the Seventeenth Earl of Oxford.
The group holds that if the works
of Shakespeare are analyzed, the
author that emerges from the
analysis is completely at odds
with the author of the accepted
biography. (The former was well-
educated and experienced in
Elizabethan courtly practices, the
latter perhaps not even literate
and, as a man from a country
province and of lowly origins,
was never able to grasp the
niceties of noble manners.)
The Oxfordian theory has been
simmering below the surface of
scholarly debate on Shakespeare's
legitimacy for more than seventy
years. J. Thomas Looney outlined
it for the first time in his 1920
book, Shakespeare: Identified in
Edward de Vere. Since that time
it has garnered a substantial
following in both Great Britain
and the United States. Though it
is still far from gaining wide-
spread acceptance in the aca-
demic world, curiosity surround-
ing it has recently heightened so
much that both sides of the
debate were written up in last
October's issue of The Atlantic
Monthly magazine and the
Shakespeare/Oxford Society
invited Charles Vere, Earl of
Burford and a descendant of
Oxford, to come to the United
Sates and expound on their
theory. Lord Burford's main goal,
he told the Thresher, is to re-open
debate on the subject of the true
origin of Shakespeare's works and
to heighten awareness among
their readers of the Oxfordian
theory.
The following is part of the
text of a telephone interview
with Lord Burford, conducted
January 28:
Thresher. Please briefly
summarize your theory.
Burford: The problem really
arises, and people have looked
into it, if you look at the works of
Shakespeare and make a list of all
of the characteristics which the
author must have possessed, such
as the background he has, his
education, and the sort of beliefs
he held, the man that comes out
of the works is completely at
odds with the man of traditional
biography, the "Stratford man."
In fact, the two people—the
author and the man who we
normally take to be
Shakespeare—had different
names. The author always called
himself "Shake-speare" with the
name hyphenated about fifty
percent of the time, which clearly
denoted a pen name. The
"Stratford man"... his name was
always spelled "Shakspere,"
never with a long A at the
beginning, always with a short A
There was a distinction to be
made between the two.
That was basically what got
people thinking—if you read the
life of the "Stratf ordman," the
life story is of someone who was
a grain merchant, someone who
dealt in real estate, who actually
didn't spend much time in
London, and there is no authenti-
cated record of him ever having
actually acted, let alone written.
There's not a single document
connecting him with literary
activity of any kind, and the only
writing of his that we have are six
signatures. They're very shakily
written and they're all spelled
differently. Three of those
signatures are on the same
document, so there's a general
question as to whether or not this
man was even literate....
People began to look around
for another author, and the one
which people now look to is
Edward de Vere. He was acknowl-
edged by people of the time to be
a great writer, but he wasn't
writing under his own name, or
else he was writing completely
anonymously. A lot of people
attest to how prolific he was, but
we don't have anything of his.
Our basic theory is that most of
his material works all came out
under the pen name
"Shakespeare."
Thresher. Do you think that
he worked under other pen
names?
Burford: No, none that we
know of. Also, we like to bring up
the point that we don't believe
every word in the First Folio [the
Players up in Arms again
BY CHEPE LOCKETT
D
'ashing costumes, lush
music, and romantic and comic
plots leavened with the occa-
sional philosophical aside
brightly studded the Rice Players'
most recent production—George
Bernard Shaw's 1894 comedy
Arms and the Man. Despite last-
minute boondoggles with a
recalcitrant light-board, Monday
night's technical rehearsal
promises a fine production for its
two-week run.
Shaw's comedy, set in Bulgaria
in 1885 at the height of a war
with Serbia, lampoons with his
typical acerbic wit both romantic
idealism and gung-ho warmon-
gering. Young Raina (Angela
Hunt) is the proud daughter of
Bulgaria's leading Petkoff family,
proud owners of a two-story
house containing a one-shelf
library and an electric bell to
summon servants. Her betrothal
to the dashing Major Seigius
Saranoff (Colin Bown) seems
secure, until the arrival of the
Swiss mercenary Bluntschli
(Peter Sharoff) and his practical
businessman's philosophy.
Comic and romantic subplots
with parents and servants further
enliven the evening, and the
clever set and sumptuous
costumes make the performance
a joy for the eyes as well as the
ears.
Angela Hunt shines as the
willowy Raina—her facial
expressions and stage movements
exquisitely convey a woman
trapped between her two loves
and struggling with the masks of
idealism. Players veteran Peter
Sharoff holds his part down
equally well with his stolid
Bluntschli. And Colin Bown's
Ralna(Angela Hunt) tries to stay Bluntschli (Peter Sharoff) In Arms and the Man
Sergius perfectly completed the
triangle, an overbearing miles
gloriosus par excellance. At times
their scenes needed a bit more
crispness, and Sharoff seemed
almost too straightforward for the
stage, but opening night promises
great things.
Andy Arenson (Major Petkoff)
and Jeanne Farrar (Catherine) play
Raina's bumbling but loving
parents to a tee. Arenson is a bit
light for the blustering major, but
his cheerful attitude and comic
timing make him a joy to watch.
Farrar seems a bit over-precise in
her line delivery at times, even
for the meticulous Catherine, but
her conflicts with Bluntschli and
obvious maneuverings to arrange
her daughter's marriage supply
more than enough fun. As with
all the actors, their small reac-
tions and physical repartee are
almost as much fun to see as
their verbal firworks. Kudos to
director Neil Havens and his
innovative actors for a most
realistic series of stage move-
ments.
first collection of Shakespeare's
works] was written by one man.
Playwrights collaborated all of
the time in those days, and
people added and took bits away.
Acting companies, when they put
on the plays, would adapt
them...we [the Oxfordians] are
talking about the one overall
guiding mind, the one who wrote
Hamlet and other such plays. On
the fringes of the Shakespeare
canon are a lot of questions about
who exactly wrote what. What
we're absolutely certain about is
that the "Stratford man" had
nothing to do with them.
Indeed, it's a strange thing that
there's a complete silence
surrounding Shakespeare's life.
Whoever he was, he must have
been a very conspicuous man,
and yet no one ever mentions
him. There were a lot of diaries
and commentaries in Elizabethan
times, and yet no one mentions
having talked with him or even
having seen him. There's the
paradox—he's this sort of
anonymous man in his time, and
yet Ben Jonson, his contempo-
rary, described him as "the soul
of the age." It's really contradic-
tory.
Thresher. Has this argument
come up against much opposi-
tion?
Burford:.. .The academic
world refuses to take it seriously
as a subject. A lot of those people
have their reputations at stake;
they've written books on the
premise that the "Stratford man"
was the author. There's a whole
scholarly tradition bound up with
the old view.... I tried to encour-
age the professors there to debate
the subject, but none of them
were prepared to do so.
Also, if you look at the
evidence against our case, it's all
emotional. Questions are never
asked on an intellectual level, but
rather on an emotional level. And
no one has ever put forward the
"Stratford man." They've argued
against the Earl of Oxford, but
never directly for the "Stratford
man."
In fact, the whole subject
could be decided on common
sense alone.
Thresher. How long have you
yourself believed this theory?
Burford: My grandfather was
very interested in it, and he got
me interested about ten years
ago. I've only taken it up profes-
sionally in the last few months.
Our case is so strong. Remem-
ber, people have been researching
the subject on and off for seventy
years. Everything that we've
found supports our case. Now,
instead of doing more and more
research, though the research is
still going on, the time has come
to put our case to the public and
try to get them to discuss it. All
we want is a state whereby the
subject is openly discussed in
schools and universities; it hasn't
been up until now. It's been a sort
of taboo subject, not touched
upon. But I think that within the
next year the whole thing will
blow wide open and resistance in
the academic community will
crumble.
Thresher. Theater was
considered gauche by nobility of
the time. If the Earl of Oxford did
write the plays, how do you
account for the obvious knowl-
edge of the conventions of theater
found throughout all of
Shakespeare's plays? For ex-
ample, speeches are often just the
perfect length for actors to change
costume; the hero always gets a
rest in the fourth act of a tragedy.
How could Oxford have known
all of this?
Burford: It's true that theater
was considered gauche. But when
the Earl of Oxford was being
brought up, his father had his
own acting company. When they
weren't on tour in the winter,
they would have performed for
the family at their home. The
Earl of Oxford himself through-
out his lifetime had at least one
or two acting companies under
his patronage. From what we
know, he not only was a patron
of the company, but he was
actually involved in directing
them and writing plays for the
company. We also know, because
we have letters from his father-
in-law upbraiding him for his
behavior, that he used to mix a
lot with writers and actors. He
was very much a bohemian
figure.
That was the great contradic-
tion of his character—the great
feudal lord, which he was on the
one hand, and the bohemian on
the. other. The latter was what he
was really all about, but there
was a lot of tension between
what he was and what society
expected of him.
Thresher. So that's why he
took a pen name?
Burford: Yes that's one of the
reasons. They wouldn't have
ev%n allowed him at court if he
hadn't: even if he wanted to
SEE SMAKSPettE, PAGE 19
Westworld deeply
rooted in nineties
BY ERIC HAHN
Sarah Mitchell (Louka) is well
on her way to dominating the
role of "saucy maid"—her Maria
in last semester's Twelfth Night
was well-regarded, and she plays
even better as the Petkoffs'
servant, flirting with Sergius'
affections or climbing the social
ladder when not being flung left
and right by her mistress' ever-
changing instructions. Players
newcomer Kevin Tim son
(Nicola), though somewhat too
swift a speaker, also plays well as
the severe, faithful manservant of
the household, alternately snotty
and servile.
Hamman Hall sports another
clever set design for Arms and
the Man: a straightforward room,
through clever use of "plug-in"
components, becomes, in turns,
Raina's bedroom with moonlit
balcony, the Petkoffs garden, and
an elegant (for Bulgaria) drawing-
room. Oriental throw-rugs, a
furry ottoman sofa, and other
props combine in an odd aray of
exotic yet decrepit furniture, well
SEE ARMS, PAGE 17
T
le band is Westworld, the
album is Movers and Shakers.
Let me start this with a quote.
Westworld guitarist Derwood
Andrews tries to sound profound
when he says "...rock 'n' roll may
have become a global musical
Esperanto...." If this gentleman
believes his band speaks a
universal language, then it only
knows a piteous few phrases.
That's the main complaint I've
got against this band. The lyrics
are often redundant and rarely of
any substance. In other words, it
would appear that many of the
tracks' lyrics were written by a
twelve year old aphasic trying to
betxjol.
The music, however, isn't bad.
It's a little like the Art of Noise
in some places, except not quite
so computery-synthesizery. Some
of it sounds like mainstream
KLOL rock. However, some of
the riffs are downright good, and
most of the tracks are such that if
they were played at college-
master-annoying volume at a
commons party, I would put
down my beer and go dance to
them.
This group bills itself as "21st
Century rock 'n' roll." I find that
a bit pretentious. They seem to
be mired nicely in the early
nineties. They hired Ralph (EMF)
Jezzard to produce Movers and
Shakers, and had their video
directed by a guy whose previous
work was with Deeee-Lite. They
obviously spent a lot of time
around those two gentlemen, and
the corresponding musical
influence seems to have taken
hold. In fact/if you took the two
brains that are shared collectively
by the three members of Deee-
Lite and transplanted them into
EMF, and waited for the stitches
to heal up, and then put the
hybrid monster in a room full of
instruments, the noise that
would come out would sound a
good deal like Movers and
Shakers. But I believe the surgery
would cost way more than this
album, so if the above-mentioned
Rrankensteinian notion appeals to
you, then buy the album. But
stay the hell away from me if
you've got any sharp objects.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Zitterkopf, Ann & Howe, Harlan. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 79, No. 19, Ed. 1 Friday, February 7, 1992, newspaper, February 7, 1992; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245804/m1/14/?rotate=270: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.