Following a series of events Ogburnnadmits he can only guess at, WilliamnShakspere of Stratford was paid off tonbe de V’ere’s “front man.” PossiblynShakspere heard rumors aboutn”Shakespeare” and came to London tontr’ to cash in on the name (somendocuments show that this would bencharacteristic of Shakspere). Such anmo”e would hae seemed expedient tonthose protecting de ‘ere’s—and thenQueen’s and Court’s—reputation. Finally,nthe records of both men werenwiped clean of an- incriminating e”idence.n(If important defense secretsncould be safeguarded from World WarnII until their recent declassification,nsureK an absolute autocrat could managenthis much deception.) Accordingnto Ogburn, this is the only presentlynaailable logical explanation for all thenfacts we know and the conspicuousngaps in both men’s records.nThe Oxford theor’ is not originalnwith Ogburn. John Thomas Looneyn(pronounced “Loney”) first put it forthnin 1920, in his hea”ily documentedn”Shakespeare” Identified, to great derisionnand greater academic silence.nLoone was a real pioneer, althoughnOgburn is much more the stylist andnputs real flesh on his man. Looneynfollowed the strict inestigati”e techniquesnwhich Ogburn would carry onn—studied closeh the plays and sonnetsnas if the}’ were a crime with nonsuspects—and determined that Shakespearenwould hae had to be a recognizedngenius, an unconentionalnloner, of pronounced and know n literar’ntastes, enthusiastic about thendrama, a hric poet of recognized talent,nof superior education, and annassociate of educated men. In addition,nhe would hae had feudal connections,nmembership in the highernaristocrac-, connection with Lancastriannsupporters, enthusiasm for Italynand for sports, including falconr’, anlo”e of music, bad judgment in moneynmatters, a doubtful and rather conflictingnattitude toward women, andnCatholic leanings tinged with skepticism.nMan}’ of these traits are selfe’identnto een a first-time reader ofnShakespeare. Looney took this eidencenand found himself a suspectnwho fit the crime like a hand fits in antailor-made glo’e — Oxford — andnonl}’ then reersed the process to illustratenhow Oxford must be Shake-nKirk’s EliotnA modern classic is back in print,nRussell Kirk’s Eliot and His Age:nT.S. Eliot’s Moral Imagination innthe Twentieth Century (SherwoodnSugden, 1117 Eighth Street, LanSalle, IL 61301; SI2.95). Part ofnDr. Kirk’s great contribution toncontemporary thought has been hisnreassessment of conserative thinkersnin England and America. JohnnRandolph and Edmund Burke arentwo of the most ob’ious examples,nbut Kirk ma}’ be at his best on Eliot,nw hose work he defends against bothnpolitical progressi”es and literar}’nreactionaries.nMuch to the chagrin of almostne’er}’one, this reactionar}’ Anglicannro}’alist remains unquestionably thenmost significant writer in English ofnthe 20th centur}’. Yeats may haxenbeen a more gifted poet and Housmanna greater scholar (no one exceedednhim as a critic), but no onenhas come close to Eliot’s impact.nspeare.nSince Loone}, the Oxford/nShakespeare connection has capturednthe interest of man}’. Loone}”s booknwas republished in 1975 by KennikatnPress, with much additional material.nOne of the most intriguing chapters innthe two-book set is “Lord Oxford andnthe ‘Shakespeare’ Portraits,” by thenbook’s editor, Ruth Loyd Miller. Onenstriking example of a mystery answerednby neither the Stratfordian nor thenOxfordian theory is the X-ray andninfrared findings of Charles WisnernBarrell concerning portraits of “Shakespeare.”nSe’eral are demonstrablynpainted over, rubbed out, modified,nand changed from the originalsn— which resemble genuine, knownnpaintings of de V’ere. If Shaksperenwrote the pla}s, wh}- would his portraitsnbe laid over de V’ere’s in thenmid-1600’s? If de Vere wrote the plays,nwhy coer up his portraits with Shakspere’sn(and all the “Shaksperes” lookndifferent)? What Barrell found defiesnexplanation at this point, but somenrelationship existed.nOrthodox scholars can hardlv benREVISIONSnnnWith ery little support from thencommunit}’ of letters, he set himselfnagainst the spirit of the age. Hendid more than defend “the permanentnthings”; he kept them alienand in the mainstream of our literarynexperience. How many of us, Inwonder, read Ash Wednesday asnunbelieing oung radicals, turningnthe phrases o’er and over in ournminds until we were almost hypnotized?nWith Eliot as a believer itnbecame difficult to pigeonhole thenfaith as something reser’ed for thendarker corners of Tennessee andnIndiana.nWhat Kirk has done in this remarkablen’olume is to proide ancontext for the master in which hisnentire work can be appreciated. It isna work of scholarship and affectionnfrom the hand of a scholar whonknew Eliot and shared his s}mpathies.nOther books ha’e been writtennon the subject, some of themnuseful, but Dr. Kirk’s Eliot is different:nit is essential. ccnbothered to show where Looney andnhis converts are wrong. When the}ndon’t ignore his theory (their safestncourse), the}’ call it “snobbery.” Loone}’n(an unfortunately ulnerable name)nand Ogburn and their ilk are undemocratic,nelitist, out to do in the anomalousnShakspere simply because he wasna commoner, the greatest leveler ofnrank in Western histor’.nI am myself one of the multitudenwho never seriously questionednthat the man from Stratford wrotenthe plays. I made my pilgrimage tongaze on his tomb and the wallnmemorial in charming Trinity Church.nCharlton Ogburn, bless the man,nmakes me feel like a fool.nWhat is it that has kept CharltonnOgburn hot on de V’ere’s trail fornnearly 48 years, ever since as a 26year-oldnhe read an article in 1937nabout Looney’s work? Simply this:nWhat the 17th Earl of Oxford has oernFEBRUARY 1986 / 21n