The De Vere Society - Biography of Edward de Vere

The De Vere Society Dating Project

REPORT ON THE DATING PROJECT
Towards the end of the last century / millennium (1998, to be exact) the Society gave itself the ‘Dating Project’. The orthodox chronology of the plays suggests that Shakespeare wrote them, two a year, between about 1592 and 1612. There is barely any evidence for this oft-repeated assertion; indeed one orthodox editor (Signet Edition) has admitted that the conventional chronology "is as much indebted to informed guesswork and sensitivity [whatever that is, in this context!] as it is to fact". But this "scholarly consensus" (there have been a few dissidents, it should be noted) however feebly based, causes two problems for Oxfordians: it is the only chronology known to the general public, and it suggests that at least eight of the plays "must have been" written after Oxford’s death in 1604.

The Dating Project’s objectives are, first, to establish whether earlier dates are possible for each of the plays; secondly, if the evidence justifies it, to challenge the conventional dating scheme; and thirdly, to examine the effect an earlier dating of the plays might have on the orthodox view of Elizabethan and Jacobean stage-history, which includes the question of who influenced whom. Putting the matter rather simplistically, it would obviously strengthen the Oxfordian case, if it were rationally shown that the plays might have been written ten or fifteen years earlier than is commonly supposed; but the aim is not to prove that Oxford wrote the plays!

Members of the Society were invited to deal with one or more of the plays, so that the burden of tackling all thirty-six plays in the First Folio could be spread.

There was a ready and encouraging response, and papers have been written for twenty-eight of them; work on four of the remainder has been promised, but four plays are still in need of a writer to investigate their possible dating – I & 2 Henry IV, Cymbeline and Troilus and Cressida. Competent volunteers are invited.

For each play, the investigator must look at the evidence which suggests when the play might have been first written (it is assumed that, for most plays, revision and adaptation took place subsequently). There are no dated manuscripts, so tangible evidence for the first existence of a play includes, where known:

date of first recorded performance (perhaps under another title)
date of first registration for publishing
date of first printing
date when presumed sources were first available to the playwright
internal: references in the play to contemporary persons and events; references to, and quotations from, already existing documents
External: reference to a Shakespearean play or its performance by a contemporary writer; use of the play’s text by contemporary writers

So this is the format for investigation of each play:

publication date
performance date
sources
orthodox date of writing (by Shakespeare of Stratford)
internal orthodox evidence
external orthodox evidence
Oxfordian date of writing
internal Oxfordian evidence
external Oxfordian evidence
conclusion
bibliography

The editorial task, with a view to future publication of this evidence, was first undertaken by Arthur Challinor (who had issued the initial challenge on dating), then by Christopher Dams (who had persuaded the Society to accept that challenge) and Elizabeth Winder. As a result, of the twenty-eight plays that have been investigated, fifteen have been committed to disc and had a first editing; but the other thirteen exist only on paper (and eight have not been investigated yet!). Of those on disc, seven have been newly worked over by the current editors. With so many different writers involved, the editorial task includes:

ensuring the standard format
establishing standard terminology and typography
checking facts, where possible
ensuring consistent and compatible information and interpretation
keeping the focus on evidence for dating, rather than for authorship

The job will take several more years!

As well as the essays on individual plays, the projected publication will include an Introduction to the dating question. This will begin by defining what might be meant by the ‘date’ of a play – the date of the first manuscript, the date of the first performance, or perhaps the date of the first publication. There will be some discussion about the paucity of the evidence for deciding on any one of these dates, and a table summarising the evidence that is available, from Henslowe’s diary to Meres and more. The lack of agreement among scholars from Malone to the present day inevitably needs some mention. Finally, there will be a humble introduction to us and our genuine re-examination of the dates of the plays.

After individual investigators’ chapters on the Comedies, there will be more tabulated information, presenting a selection of scholars’ proposed dates. This should illustrate clearly the dissension that exists among them, as well as indicating that the dates are not settled by any means. A further set of information will separate the Histories and the Tragedies, this time focussing on the dates of possible early versions of plays, and the ideas of the revisionists. Naturally, at the end of the book, after the Tragedies, our conclusions will be summarised. The date range that orthodox scholars suggest will be set next to the dates Oxfordians have suggested and argued for in their chapters.

The early results, which Christopher Dams and Arthur Challinor presented to us several years ago, did not ‘prove’ that Oxford wrote the plays, and (we repeat) this proposed book is not aiming to achieve that. But by researching the plays and their background and by keeping to documentary evidence as much as possible we may be able to contribute to discussion about the plays’ origins in a valid and enlightening way.

Eddi Jolly and Philip Johnson (editors of the Dating project)