Sixteenth-Century Letter Writing and Its Importance to Oxfordians

Phone calls, text messaging, faxes, the U.S. Postal Service, England's Royal Mail, and the miracle of e-mail: How we humans love to communicate! Whether for business, desperation, romance, or sheer ego, as long as we have means, we communicate - we write letters. The literate, educated English and Western Europeans of the sixteenth century were no exception, and there are thousands of extant examples of their letters. Just riffling through one of my collections, I found that I was curious about:  

• Luther to Pope Leo X 
• Raphael to Castiglione 
• Queen Elizabeth to Walsingham 
• Eastland Merchants to Lord Cecil 
• Gabriel Harvey to Spenser 
• Kepler to Galileo 

We can examine so many fascinating missives - letters to wives, to husbands, to mistresses, to children, to friends, to rivals. Scholars have traced some 2,500 letters from Erasmus alone to friends and correspondents all over Europe ⁱ¹. Erasmus wrote a treatise on letter-writing, proposing a number of classical models (Cicero, Pliny, and Politian, a fifteenth-century Italian humanist). From the Renaissance, we have letters in Latin, in French, in English; we have short letters, long letters; we have verse letters, hasty one-lined notes, formal or flowery letters. 

Although "official" national post offices were not established until the mid-1500s, reliable - albeit makeshift - postal services in the Middle Ages were run by the courts, guilds, and universities. By the sixteenth century, European governments sponsored postal services - in part, to monitor the exchange of letters between Catholic and Reformation areas ⁱ². Bankers and merchants also ran mail routes - local, national, international. And, perhaps most commonly, letters were simply carried and delivered by a trusty servant. 

Just as in the Classical Age, the Renaissance considered the letter an important literary genre. This seems obvious from the great numbers of letters which, although addressed to an individual, were clearly intended to be widely read. Many anthologies - epistolaries - were published, first appearing in England in the I 560s - mostly translations from the Italian ⁱ³. Eddi Jolly has noted that Lord Burghley's library included several "Epistolae" collections (9). 

Renaissance manuals on the art of letter-writing abound. As Michael Delahoyde pointed out to me, Castiglione offered advice: if a man was "so modest that he is ashamed to declare his love, let him write it in a letter." Castiglione suggested a lover should write his feelings with "modesty and care," choosing words that could be "tentative and even ambiguous" in case the lady would be embarrassed by a presumptuous declaration of love! ⁱ⁴.

Quite typical of Renaissance directives on letter writing is Angel Day's The English Secretorie (London, 1599). Day believed that a successful letter contained a variety of standard rhetorical devices; he filled his manual with sample letters invented for a range of occasions. Day listed the general purposes of letter-writing as "to require, counsel, exhort, command, inform, commend, entreat, advertise, gratulate, or whatever purpose" ⁱ⁵. The 17th Earl of Oxford's many letters certainly illustrate these modes. While we have many letters by Edward de Vere and many letters written to him, we have no samples of letters from William Shaksper of Stratford. Not one. The single example of a letter written to Shaksper is from Richard Quiney, also of Stratford, asking for money (Quiney was to marry Shaksper's daughter). 

Diana Price comments, "Nearly every Shakespeare play mentions letters, so we know the dramatist considered correspondence part of everyday life, yet not one letter written by William Shakspere survives. Documents prove that Shakspere divided his time between London and Stratford, a situation particularly conducive to letterwriting, so this gap in his records is doubly suspicious" ⁱ⁶. Price quotes E.K. Chambers: "every man, not completely illiterate, commits himself during his lifetime to the writing of letters or other documents …" ⁱ⁷. By this observation, Chambers dubs the man from Stratford illiterate. It's also interesting to consider Price's "Chart of Literary Paper Trails," in which she lists the most important and prolific late sixteenth-century writers. The paper trails include two criteria directly related to letters: that there be a record of correspondence, especially concerning literary matters; and that there be handwritten inscriptions, receipts, letters, etc. touching on literary matters ⁱ⁸. De Vere earns the highest marks on Price's chart; the Stratford man, zero. 

For those of you interested in reading letters written by Oxford, I recommend Katherine Chiljan's collection, Letters and Poems of Edward, Earl of Oxford, based on Dr. Alan Nelson's excellent transcriptions. Chiljan groups de Vere's letters as follows: personal letters, the tin mining letters, and letters in literature. The first (or first extant) letter by Oxford was written in French by the thirteen-year old Oxford to his ward, William Cecil, and has quite the ring of Polonius. 

For those of us on the hunt - establishing Oxford's authorship - another interesting source is William Plumer Fowler's extensive analysis of thirty - seven significant letters, showing "parallelism" in both thought and phrasing to the writings ascribed to Shakespeare. Fowler's leaps may be too tenuous, but as I looked, I wondered: does the fact that Oxford once used the phrase "After much ado…" (October 25, 1 593, writing to Lord Burghley) mean he must also have written a play called Much Ado About Nothing? I wondered, because Oxford refers to a man named Barnardeux (September 6 and 17, 1 596), must he also have written Measure for Measure - a play that mentions a character named Barnardine? I wondered: do pairings of nouns - "his shifts and knaveries are so gross and palpable" (a phrase in a letter, January 11, 1597, to Sir Robert Cecil) and other robust phrasings indicate the same language facility of the writer of Shakespeare's plays and poems? Answering these questions calls for care. The 17th Earl of Oxford wrote letters, but the letters do not prove that Oxford wrote the plays and poems attached to the name "William Shakespeare" despite the efforts of Mr. Fowler. Do they show that Oxford was educated, that he was versed in the Renaissance art of letter - writing? Of course. ⁱ⁹ 

There's another angle for us to consider: letters that appear in the plays themselves. Most of the plays contain letters, some delivered by a messenger and some simply appearing in the hands of a recipient. I stress two key points: 

1. The mere fact of letters adds weight to Oxford's identification as the true author; letters have not ever been found as part of Shaksper's possessions, nor is a single letter of his extant; but letters were a mode very familiar to de Vere. 
2. The letters in the plays do serve dramatic purposes. 

I found a number of provocative ideas from an article by Gary 1. Scrimgeour called "The Messenger as a Dramatic Device in Shakespeare." Scrimgeour analyzes what happens when a messenger "arrives precipitately with news for a major character" - news about events which will have occurred off-stage but which will deeply affect the actions of the major character. Sometimes, the messenger thrusts a letter into a recipient's hand; at others, the messenger carries no letter and simply blurts out his message. 

Examples: 

• In the Induction to The Taming of the Shrew, a messenger announces "Your honor's players… are come to play a pleasant comedy" (Induction 2, 1 25 - 1 26). A delightful, simple way for the writer to abandon the charade of Christopher Sly as elegant Lord and direct Sly's - and the audience's - attention to the "real" play. 
• At the merry conclusion of Much AdoAbout Nothing, a messenger reports, "Your brother John is ta'en in flight and brought with armed men back to Messina" (5.4. 1 23 -  1 24). Instead of starting the play in motion, this messenger wraps up an untidy loose end. 

The history plays, of course, are necessarily cluttered with messengers carrying all sorts of missives, directives, good and bad news. (See, for example, 1 Henry IV 4.1.12.) The dramatic effect of letters is analogous to that of messengers: both are effective dramatic devices which allow the writer to shift action, reveal motivation, set a pace or atmosphere, or clear up plot confusions. I urge you to go through the plays, noting letters and the sheer number of"papertrails": lists, briefs, notes, letters, edicts, books, documents. 

A few illustrations make the point: The child Lucius in Titus Andronicus drops a pile of school books (4.1); Titus ties paper messages to arrows, which he shoots into the emperor's palace (4.3); in A Midsummer Night's Dream, the Rude Mechanicals have a script for their mangled playlet (1.2 and 3.1 ), and Philostrate (5.1.4 1) offers a brief (a list) of the nuptial entertainments; in Shrew, Bianca reads love letters (3.1), Gremio scans a list of books (1.2.138); from As You Like It, we have the charming spectacle of Orlando's awful verses dangling from branches in the Forest of Arden; in Romeo and Juliet, Lord Capulet gives his serving man a sheet of paper listing names of guests (4.2.1). Paper trails all over the place! 

Letters, specifically, can be illustrated with many strong examples: 

• Much Ado About Nothing opens with Leonato stating, "I learn in this letter that Don Pedro of Aragon comes this night to Messina." The actor can brandish the letter, smile, raise an eyebrow - and an entire plot is set into motion by the clever device of a letter. 
• Friar Laurence intends, in Romeo and Juliet, to use a letter to convey important information to the banished Romeo. The Friar reassures Juliet, 

“…Thou shalt be borne to that same ancient vaultWhere all the kindred of the Capulets lie.In the meantime, against thou shalt awake,Shall Romeo by my letters know our drift…”(4.l.111 - 114)

A simple plan which goes tragically wrong. 

• One of the plays most linked to Oxford's life, Hamlet, contains a telling paper trail, including Claudius' letter to the King of England (ordering Hamlet's execution) and Hamlet's letter to Horatio (explaining the pirate episode). 
• And Macbeth's foul - not fair - nature is revealed brilliantly through the letter he sends to his wife, his "Dearest partner of greatness" (1.5). 

Several plays stand out, for me, as illustrative of the effective use of letters. While we can all chuckle at the role of letters in Twelfth Night and note the cynical comments of the Scrivener in Richard Ill, letters truly count in two plays. One is the sprawling, passionate tragedy of Antony and Cleopatra, the other The Merchant of Venice. In Antony and Cleopatra, the two protagonists are together when Antony receives letters with the news that his wife, Fulvia, is dead (1.3). Again, note the cleverness of this dramatic device. It allows the two lovers to respond - simultaneously - to a very loaded piece of news, demonstrating cause and effect so well. In the next scene, Octavius Caesar enters reading a letter; the news therein speaks about Antony, and the actor can report deadpan or otherwise, 

"... From AlexandriaThis is the news: he fishes, drinks, and wastesThe lamps of night in revel; is not more manlikeThan Cleopatra . . . "(1.4.3 - 6)

And, toward the end of the play, Caesar again has a letter. This time his derision is obvious as he reads to his encampment at Alexandria: "He calls me boy, and chides as he had power to beat me out of Egypt…" (4.l .2). 

Finally, let us consider The Merchant of Venice, a play filled with paper trails. Key letters include: 

• Lorenzo receiving a letter from his beloved Jewish Jessica. The letter is tangible proof of her love:

"I know the hand.In faith, 'tis a fair hand,And whiter than the paper it writ onIs the fair hand that writ. . . "(2.4.1.2 - 14)

• In the central scene of the play - in the midst of his happy alliance to Portia - Bassanio receives a letter from Antonio. The actor has a few moments to read it and react. Portia notes, "There are some shrewd contents in yond same paper that steals the color from Bassanio's cheek (3.2,243 - 244) - thus we see that Portia is deeply sensitive to his emotions; that Bassanio's friendship for Antonio is profound; that Bassanio is not capable of dissembling. All this is shown by the device of a letter. 
• In the next act, the famous court scene, the Duke reads a letter from Bellario (4.1.143). Here, an actor has some choices: the letter could reveal the truth of Portia's disguise (and the audience would see a twinkle in the Duke's eyes), or the letter could indeed look so convincing that the Duke grants young Portia permission to enter and the stature she needs to win her case against Shylock. 
• Once the couples are reconciled, we see Bassanio reading a letter which explains the judge and clerk's identities (5.1.266). 
• Finally, at the closing moments with the two couples happily reunited, Portia gives Antonio a letter which she has carried with her. She welcomes Antonio: 

"And I have better news in store for youThan you expect. Unseal this letter soon.There you shall find three of your argosiesAre richly come to harbor suddenly . . . "(5.1.275 - 277)

Again, the device of a letter affords delicious choices for the actor and the director: good news ties up a complicated plot, a man's life and fortunes have been saved. But wait: that man - the merchant - is not attached to a woman. Gratiano has Nerissa, Lorenzo has Jessica, Bassanio has Portia, Antonio has…? A letter. For a staging, I imagine Antonio acknowledges the good news it brings him, and expresses his gratitude to Portia. Then, does he smile, link arms with the others and also go into the villa? Does he re - read the letter, tuck it in his pocket, wave in farewell, and stand alone? The letters allow, so economically, such ambiguity and drama! 

Shakespeare's plays have endured, in part, because the writer has such consummate control over the various complexities involved in presenting a story on stage. I have focused on one device: the simple and potent possibilities of letters in the plays, and on letter writing itself as an important tool in identifying Oxford as the rightful author. 

Selected Bibliography:

Bevington, David, ed. The Complete Works of Shakespeare. 5th ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2004. 

Castiglione, Baldesar. The Book of the Courtier. Trans. George Bull NY: Penguin Books, 1967. 

Clements, Robert J and Lorna Levant. Renaissance Letters. New York University Press, 1976. 

Chiljan, Katherine. Letters and Poems of Edward, Earl of Oxford. Self-published, 1998. 

Fowler, William Plumer. Shakespeare Revealed in Oxford's Letters. Portsmouth, NH: Peter E. Randall, 1986. 

Jolly, Eddi. "'Shakespeare' and Burghley's Library" in The Oxfordian. Volume III, October 2000, 3 -  18. 

Price, Diana. Shakespeare 's Unorthodox Biography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 200 1. 

Scrimgeour, Gary J. "The Messenger as a Dramatic Device in Shakespeare" in Shakespeare Quarterly, XIX, 1 , Winter 1968, 41 - 54. 

Sobran, Joseph. Alias Shakespeare. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997. 

Ward,B.M. The Seventeenth Earl of Oxford 1550 - 1604 From Contemporary Documents. London: John Murray.

Editorial preview: citation markers and return links have been added to the user-supplied text. Other wording and the bibliography have not been independently corrected. The existing “(9)” after the Eddi Jolly reference is retained as written.