Tuesday, October 20, 2015


Additional Proofs & Evidence for The “Ignoto Thesis”
© Eric L. Miller, 10/2015

Prefatory Note: Historical Context/Preface

For over 15 years, I have advocated, in books, articles, plays, and poems, that Lord Oxford, Edward de Vere, and the pseudonyms “Ignoto” and “Anomos” as well as the name “Shakespeare,” were all names of the same person, the same poet, the same man. I have provided a great deal of research and evidence for my thesis—at the time I made my views public and which I have continued to supplement over these succeeding 15 years. Apparently to no effect to those Oxfordians who appear to follow an historic position, regardless of the evidence, “Edward de Vere, Si; Ignoto, No!”

Indeed, it was at the 1999 Shakespeare Oxford Society Conference in Boston, I made public, by word of mouth and printed materials, and by distributing highly researched articles, that Edward de Vere was, in fact, the poet who wrote the “Elegy and Oration” for Queen Elizabeth’s official funeral proceedings, under the name of Infelice Academico Ignoto (Latin for: The Unhappy Unknown Scholar). I was virtually "turned out" for my unorthodoxy!

I also distributed copies of my full-length, 5 act verse play, "A Labor of Love," (excerpts of which are offered at this website, www.ericmillerworks.com) wherein I establish, I claim, the historicity of Ignoto and Anomos as aliases of de Vere. My work has been highly lauded by highly qualified Shakespeare  scholars. Michael York, one of the greatest Shakespeareans of the 20th Century, and Ruth Miller, one of the most significant Oxfordian scholars and publisher—who, along with her husband, are probably more responsible for the public knowing about Lord Oxford than anyone else)--gave extraordinary praise to my work..

In any case, in Boston I discovered how political the “Oxford” organization really was, at least in those days—for it was made clear to me in a Board Meeting that the “Board” had an “agenda” which did not fit in with my research and findings. I was even threatened, and avoided, as much as possible, by the “king-pins” of the Shakespeare Oxford Conference. All of whose names and roles are a matter of historical record.

And I recall how popular Roger Stritmatter was in those days—the only person who had been allowed to do a dissertation by a major college (Amherst) on Lord Oxford as Shakespeare. He became a kind of “golden boy” to the Oxfordians at the conference. How impressive! To be The First doctorate scheduled to be awarded someone on the Oxford-side of the Shakespeare/Oxford debate concerning the true identity of “Shakespeare.” True, his doctorate was not in Literature, or History, but, of all subjects, Philosophy.

Roger Stritmatter as I clearly recall was very opposed to my work but apparently may, at long last, be more open-minded these days. At the SOS Conference, he was hostile to the idea that “Ignoto” was also another identity of Edward de Vere. That was 15 years ago. It is the view of this paper that Stritmatter can’t maintain (Looney position) with any scholarly integrity at all, by maintaining that the chief characteristic of Shakespeare’s writing and that of Edward de Vere must be of the same hand because of the use of anaphora--and to maintain, at the same time that, Ignoto’s excessive use of that very devise (anaphora), is apparently NOT a unique characteristic. Which is his adopted claim from Looney, that same as he claims is the case for Edward de Vere and Shakespeare. He has not produced on iota of evidence for his position, or lack of one.

A cohort of Stritmatter, however, has recently informed me that, after being appraised of my recent work on Ignoto/Anomos, he only remarked that, as to the work of "In Prison Pent" (ascribed by me to Anomos, another name for Ignoto) that the poems seemed to be in the right time-frame. With all due respect, he only refers to remarks in "A Poetical Rhapsody," 1602, which specifically states the date of the "In Prison Pent" poems, which, of course, I cite. Anyone, in a glance would have seen that in my work.

I shared with Stritmatter’s cohort hundreds of pages of detail original research substantiating my thesis—which he shared with him, apparently to little or no effect. Given the above, a few days ago I was stunned to discover—for the first time in all these years—that (now) Professor Roger Stritmatter believed that as early as 1999, or even earlier, that it is a fundamental fact that a chief feature of Shakespeare’s and de Vere’s poetry is that both make excessive use of anaphora. Anaphora is the repetition of a word or words, two or more consecutive times in a sequence. But, when it comes to Ignoto, contradictorily, he shuts his eyes and ears to the evidence—Why?

PART I -- Anaphora

“. . .anaphora seem to have been a character of de Vere’s style which developed very early, becoming a mental habit which sustained his latter development as a writer during the Shakespeare phase. . . [so that] it may be better to consider the matter not of lexis and diction. . but of style”
R. Stritmatter (The Marginilia of Edward de Vere’s /Providential Discovery/Literary Reasoning/And Historical Consequence, 2001)

In an appendix for his dissertation, Appendix-N, entitled, “A Matter of Style” Roger Stritmatter features his examination one of Thomas Looney’s most audacious claims—featured in his sensationalized book, of 1920, Shakespeare Identified. Upon publication of Looney’s book claiming to have “solved” the “Shakespeare mystery” he was variously widely derided and widely acclaimed. The same is true to this day, nearing a hundred years after Looney’s first publication “outing” Edward de Vere as “Shakespeare.” Why are we still on this?

The remarks of Looney’s, which Stritmatter choses to highlight, are sensational, surely amongst the most sensational of all of Looney’s many unorthodox claims. It was probably for just this kind of statement, which Stritmatter FEATURES, in his “A Matter of Style” which earned Looney—rightly or wrongly—the claim of critics (still heard to this day), that schoolmaster, Thomas Looney was just “Looney” a “Looney-Tunes” type “scholar” with his own Looney-Tunes theory of Shakespeare—“Shakespeare” as a high lord, instead of a commoner, like the rest of us, no less!.
What was the statement Stritmatter highlights and apparently agrees with, which is certainly, at least seemingly, amongst those most “out-landish” claims one can imagine?

Looney simply claimed that he could prove that “Shakespeare” was actually the same as “Lord Oxford” and he could prove it with only a couple short excerpts from two poems. The two poems Looney has in mind were poems variously ascribed to two different hands—i.e., Shakespeare and Edward de Vere.

One of the two fragments identified by Looney is from a whole book of poems, Shakespeare’s Lucrece; and the other fragment—as shown below—of almost equal length as that given from the shorter poem, is by Edward de Vere and entitled “Love’s Revenge.” [sic, it appears Stritmatter got the title wrong, as the name given in the original publication for the poem was "Love and Antagonism). Looney proposed to bring this “unity into focus”, as Looney described it [i.e., the presumed unity of the two fragments quoted below] by placing the poetic juvenilia of de Vere alongside the lyrics of Shakespeare, from Lucrece [also quoted below] in order to judge—as Looney expressed it, “whether or not the former contain the natural seeds and clear promise of the latter.”

“Natural seeds,” “clear promise.”? Stritmatter continues: “An instance of this method used by Looney of comparing de Vere’s juvenile poems with Shakespeare’s later poems was Looney’s comparison of the use of anaphora in Shakespeare’s famous Rape of Lucrece and in de Vere’s “Rejected Lover. . . both [poem examples] involve anaphora extended over several lines of verse, capped by a concluding sententia in rhyming couplet advancing a moral proposition.”

With that Stritmatter then produces the two poems which Looney used for his analytical research comparison. Just so much as Stritmatter produced is shown here:

From Rape of Lucrece by Shakespeare

Let him have time to tear his curled hair
Let him have time against himself to rave,
Let him have Time’s help to despair
Let him have time to live a loathed slave
Let him have time a beggar’s orts to crave
And time to see one that by alms doth live
Disdain to him, disdained scraps to give

From Rejected Lover by de Vere

And let her feel the power of [all] our might
And let her have most desire with speed
And let her pine away both day and night
And let her moan and none lament her need
And let all those that shall her see
Despise her state and pity me.

Looney himself declared (Stritmatter reminds us) that “never” had there been such a resemblance “between two poets”

Did Looney or Stritmatter, for that matter, really mean that from just the fragments he compares, as said or for the whole poems from which the fragments are derived? Of course, only the fragments are offered as shown above. If so, then why not say so; and why not produce the two poems, if not totally (after all Lucrece is a small book of verse), at least, in greater significant part? We ourselves do so for the reader below and produce additional verses in the original context—to see if, in the reader’s mind, they, too, think the two poems continue to “resemble” each other as no two other poems before in history, as claimed by Looney. Absurd. [See my Appendix of “Additional Examples of Anaphoras in Elizabethan Court Poetry]

A Matter of Two Styles: Poetry & Prose

The two poems have the same obvious form or “style” at least in that there is a repetition of the same word (i.e., “words or phrases or clauses in two or more consecutive lines”; in other words, both poems use anaphora) . Here we can say, in fact, at a glance, they have a literary “style” or form in common—with profuse use of anaphora—and another stylistic devise, the sentiliana—(a ryme which advances a moral proposition)—which is itself a rhyming couple in both poems.
This style of “anaphora” and “scentinia” in both poems, Looney declared, revealed alone by his two sample comparisons were demonstrated “proofs” of the fact of the singular identity of de Vere and “Shakespeare” as author.

 As Looney asserted: “If these [the two fragments of poems featured above] are not both from the same pen never were there two poets living at the same time whose mentality and workmanship bore so striking a resemblance.”

To Looney’s claim above, Stritmatter observes, “A skeptic might well reply, however, that in contrast to the mature conception of “Shakespeare,” de Vere’s corresponding lyric sounds primitive. Admittedly it is less varied in vocabulary, imagery, and emotional tenor. It might be compared to a skeleton next to the mature and fully fleshed naturalism of Shakespeare’s verse. And yet it arguably belongs to the same set of DNA.”

“A Skeleton Next To The Mature And Fully Fleshed Naturalism Of Shakespeare’s Verse”—
But With Same DNA?

The “evidence” we are presented, of course is only that in Stritmatter’s “Matter of Style” as said, and it appears that Looney himself made the case, as stated above—which is why I asked: Really, only these few lines to compare and not the entire poem/book, for context? (Note: more context is supplied in my Appendix).

Recall, the text Stritmatter/Looney provides is only 6 lines in the one case, and 7 in the other. So, it appears Looney is perhaps correct if, and only if, we compare these lines of poetry from each poem—a total, combined, of only 13 lines. Is it sensible for anyone to conclude so much can be divined by Looney from 13 lines—that they must have been written by the same poet?
The imperative statement is again, ridiculous.

The statement, as it stands, without further evidence marshaled for the case, is not sufficient for a “proof” of anything other than the number of lines and what they show to anyone with open eyes. It is shocking to imagine anyone providing only what Stritmatter does for evidence, to pretend anything like “truth” could be applied to such statements. Stritmatter’s was for a Ph.d in Philosphy, it is hard to believe. But, of course, Stritmatter produces other poems before presenting the present example we are dealing with—other examples of poetry which show obvious talent from the young de Vere.
But, that is not the statement of the claim—the claim is that the two passages alone establish the fact, and that is ridiculous!

We can nonetheless agree, to some extent, that both poems may, nonetheless, have the same set of DNA, as Stritmatter observes. Indeed, as I shall show, that realization is highly enhanced when one is not merely reading the sample provided—but seeing each excerpt from each poem, in its own right, that is to say in its own specific context.

[Note:** Unfortunately, the copy I have of Stritmatter dissertation (supra) has omitted the word “ all” in the de Vere poem—such that I had to check it because it did not feel like anything that Lord Oxford wrote, from the first line. And, indeed, it was not. The matter would not be mentioned by me, here, save that, as the reader can see above, Stritmatter pronounces of de Vere’s “lyric”, that it “sounds primitive”—like (at best) a skeleton next to the mature and fully fleshed naturalism of Shakespeare’s verse.”]

I have to challenge Stritmatter’s statement. Actually, once I saw that the word “all” had been omitted in the first line from my copy, that the well had been poisoned. For me, the omission of the “all” in the first line, of de Vere’s poem quoted above, made everything that follows part of the stumble—making all those few lines (from a long poem) seem “primitive.” But, the reader will find in the Appendix to these remarks, the entire poem by Lord Oxford.

And de Vere’s poem, of which we speak, was published, as Stritmatter well knows, along with many of the most famous poets of the time, and so lauded. Now, we hear from Stritmatter that it is “primitive.” It is not primitive; it is in many manners superlative—and Edward de Vere at the time was only 15 or 16 (I forget the publication date, 1576). Let the reader judge for themselves. Note: Stritmatter fails to inform the reader that at the publication date of 1576, Lord Oxford would have been 26 years old! If Shakespeare is writing “primitive” poetry at age 26, in Stritmatter’s book, he needs to get into another field of study (maybe Philosophy?).

The fact is, and Stritmatter must have known it, but fudges around on the matter, Lord Oxford was only 15 or 16 when he wrote the cited poem—as everyone knows who has even taken a brief glance at the matter!

Nonetheless, we are dealing here with literary comparisons of literary forms, two, in fact: the anaphor and the sentenia. In the introduced case above, the repetition of the first word (not only) for two or more consecutive verses, sentences, clauses, etc.—the definition of an anaphora, and the couplet at the end “advancing a moral proposition,” as Stritmatter has it sentenia.
The Importance of Anaphora: A Matter of Style

As my few readers on Face Book can readily attest, I have posted numerous items regarding the issue of “style” be it in “prose” or poetry”—as it relates to the author of “The Arte of English Poesy” (i.e., “Ignoto”), Shakespeare, and Edward de Vere and Ignoto. Indeed, within the last couple of weeks I have posted “exhibits” which present prose passages from “The Arte of English Poesy” (1589) in versified form—(by myself, merely cutting the line in accordance with its “natural” rhythms, “interior” rhymes, assonance, etc.).

I took from a remark in Shakespeare’s Imagery, (Caroline F. Spurgeon, 1935) which stated that, above all, Shakespeare had the “sensibilities” of the Gardener, and showed, quite remarkably, if I do say so myself, that in a prose passage, by the poet/author of “The Arte”—I reveal “Shakespeare” expressing himself in the exact terms of a “gardener”!

And, indeed, the very passage cited is itself obviously highly poetic (especially when the lines of the versified version are “properly” cut). Thus, in this case, too, I show another example of the presence of “Shakespeare”—in the writing of one, Ignoto, another alias of Edward de Vere and Ignoto—they are the same person.

Also, I have taken other passages from “The Arte” to also show the innate poetic quality of the prose of its putative author, “Ignoto.” And in these previous postings I underscored, time and time, again, that the “situation” depicted by the author of “The Arte” was exactly the same as that contained in In Prison Pent by Anomos—found in, arguably, the most famous book of English poetry ever published, A Poetical Rhapsody (1602). I wrote in my Face Book posting:

“That said, below, I discovered that the exact situation I delineate in great detail in “Ignoto’s Farewell” is recounted here in Oxford’s “The Arte” (which, again, I identified 15 years ago as written by Lord Oxford)—excepts below are quoted from “The Arte of English Posie.” Proof of this fact is my published, copyrighted plays, research/analytical articles wherein I specifically identify Edward de Vere as Ignoto/Shakespeare.

The reader will notice that the particular issues dealt with in “Ignoto’s Farewell” are The Queen’s Cruelty; Lord Oxford’s admission that he spoke of her in a completely discreditable manner (for any Monarch). This is admitted clearly in the poems Lord Oxford wrote “In Prison Pent” (which I have also collected and published). The reader will see there is also the issue of the Queen “letting him die”; Lord Oxford’s “manifest error” in speaking to the Queen so insultingly is clearly delineated in my play, and now I discover ALSO in “The Arte”—the very same situation! Oxford’s fault, was, even by himself, a fault of which he said that he “cannot deny the fault lay’d unto our charge.”
Below the reader will see:

"I spake amysse I cannot it deny
But caused by your great discourtesie:
And if I said that which I now repent,
And said it not, but by misgovernment"

Oxford’s charge of “speaking amiss” is itself an anaphor, and is the exact charge at issue—here and in “In Prison Pent”—published in 1602, “A Poetical Rhapsody.” It will be noted the author of “The Arte” (Lord Oxford) was also author, as he himself states below, of the Partheniades—another early work by Lord Oxford (as I catalog in my Complete Poems of Ignoto). The punishment the Queen put to Lord Oxford was described in all references to it, whatever the work he wrote about.

"When your rigor had ranckled in my brest.
The cruell wound that smarted me so sore,"


Anaphora merely refers to the fact of use of the devise of repetition of a word, phrase, clause, in consecutive lines of verse, or in the same sentence, clause, etc.Below are mostly fragment quoted to illustrate a point of poesie by the author, below indicated in red (original text)
¶3.19.131 And in this other dittie of ours where
the louer complaines of his Ladies crueltie, rendring for
euer surmise a reason, and by telling the cause, seeketh (as
it were) to get credit, thus.

Cruel you be who can say nay,
Since ye delight in others woe:
Unwise am I, ye may well say,
For that I have, honor’d you so.
But I blameless I, who could not choose,
To be enchanted by your eye:
But ye to blame, thus to refuse
My service, and to let me die.

¶3.19.132 Sometimes our error is so manifest, or
we be so hardly prest with our aduersaries, as we cannot
deny the fault layd vnto our charge: in which case it is
good pollicie to excuse it by some allowable pretext, as did
one whom his mistresse burdened with some vnkinde speeches
which he had past of her, thus.

or the
Figure of

 I said it but by lapse of lying tongue,
When furie and iust griefe my heart opprest:
I sayd it: as ye see, both fraile and young,
When your rigor had ranckled in my brest.
The cruell wound that smarted me so sore,
Pardon therefore (sweete sorrow) or at least
Beare with mine youth that neuer fell before,
Least your offence encrease my griefe the more,

¶3.19.133 And againe in these,

 I spake amysse I cannot it deny
But caused by your great discourtesie:
And if I said hat which I now repent,
And said it not, but by misgovernment
Of youthful years, your self that are so young
Pardon for once this error of my tongue,
And think amends can never come to late:
Love may be curst, but love can never hate.

¶3{{Page 196}}
And he further says:
. . as when we sang of our Soueraigne Lady thus, in the twentieth

As falcon fares to buzzards flight,
As eagles eyes to owlets sight,
As fierce saker to coward kite,
As brightest noon to darkest night:
As summer sun exceedeth far,
The moon and every other star:
So farre my Princess praise doeth pass,
The famoust Queen that ever was.
There is no question that this is relevant evidence of my Ignoto thesis

BY E.L.MILLER, 10/20/2015