EDWARD DE VERE — WILTON’S SWAN OF AVON

_______________________________________________________________

On the palatial estate at Wilton House, formerly the Wiltshire home of Sir Philip Sidney’s sister, Lady Mary Herbert, tradition records that a shrine dedicated to Shakespeare was erected by the Countess in memory of his visit to the House. The shrine, which has been architecturally dated to the time of Lady Mary, still stands, but the inability of Stratfordians to cope with the close connection this has to Shakespeare has ensured their silence on this matter, and a quick denouncement for all who dare mention it. As a recent commentator explained: “Shakespeare was the King's Man, not the Countess of Pembroke's . . . . he was hardly in a position, either socially or legally to stay at Wilton House as an independent guest, as if for a country-house weekend.” [1]. But remnants of a special link between Wilton and Shakespeare continue to remain alive in the 21st century. This essay explores one such link: the tradition, confirmed by independent evidence, that in autumn 1603 “the man Shakespeare” was present at a performance of As You Like It before King James I. Curiously, however, the document, which records this tradition, has, since its first mention by William Cory in the 19th century, disappeared from public view. Moreover, extant documents confirm the plausibility of the tradition and show its uncomfortable implications for Stratfordian orthodoxy.

Cory, [2] a distinguished translator and lyric poet as well as antiquarian, is in himself an interesting subject, but his discovery of a possibly critical document in the Shakespeare authorship controversy, since lost, magnifies his importance to posterity. William Cory was a Renaissance man of Victorian England. Although made assistant master of Greek at Eton in 1845, he remained active as a researcher and scholar in his vernacular culture, recording his researches in a journal published shortly after his death. In 1860, Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, recommended him to Queen Victoria for the position of Professor of Modern History at Cambridge. Except for Prince Albert's preference for Kingsley, this appointment would have confirmed him in the role of an established historian. In the summer of 1865, while on vacation from Eton, Cory was invited by Lady Elizabeth Herbert, Baroness of Lea, to spend a few weeks tutoring her son, the future 14th Earl of Pembroke, at their home in Wilton House. This expansive Wilton estate had once belonged to Sir Philip Sidney's sister, Lady Mary Herbert. Any study of the Shakespeare mystery reveals Lady Herbert as a critical figure. She has close documented connections to the de Veres of Castle Hedingham and also to the Shakespeare first folio of 1623, which was dedicated to her two sons. These same two sons, William and Philip, were at different times affianced to Bridget and Susan de Vere, younger daughters of the 17th Earl of Oxford. But the interference of Lord Burghley in 1597 resulted in a prohibitively generous dowry being demanded for the hand of his granddaughter, Bridget, and her marriage to William was reluctantly called off. The wedding between Philip and Susan in 1604 did, however, proceed unhindered; for by then, Burghley had been six years in his grave.

In 1623, both brothers became celebrated as 'The most noble and Incomparable Paire of Brethren' to whom the collected plays of Shakespeare were first dedicated, apparently by Ben Jonson writing under the public fiction of Heminge and Condell as authors of the dedication. Unfortunately, Wilton House did not survive long afterwards. In 1647 a disastrous fire destroyed most of the house. It was later rebuilt by the architect, Inigo Jones, but only the east and south fronts presently remain; the north and west fronts were extensively altered by James Wyatt between 1801 and 1814, “although the ‘Wolsey Tower’ is a remnant of the 16th century building with the clock tower added at a later date.” [3]. It was to this rebuilt House that Cory came in the summer of 1865.

In her biography of William Cory, Faith Compton Mackenzie explains her relationship to him. “He was my mother's uncle, my father's comrade in scholarship . . . . I know that he was a specially loved guest in my family.” [4]. This relationship is important, because it means she had full access to the family papers when researching the Life of her great-uncle. As she says, “I have depended as much as possible on other sources, so far untouched, though it has been difficult to avoid an occasional quotation.” [5]. (A reference to Lord Esher's earlier biography of Cory, and to the Letters and Journals published by Francis Warre-Cornish.) Her commentary below, upon the lost letter of Wilton, and her use of quotation marks are therefore of significant relevance to the study of Shakespeare as a person.

An interesting entry in his diary when he was staying at Wilton House, Salisbury, tells how Lady Pembroke showed him a letter from her forerunner to her son, urging him to bring the King (James I) from Salisbury to see As You Like It. "We have the man Shakespeare here," she added laconically.

That would have been an agreeable occasion. The excellent play, the author present, and the King lured from Salisbury. To commemorate it a temple was built at Wilton, and known as “Shakespeare's House”. [6].

The edited version of Extracts from the Letters and Journals of William Cory, published five years after his death, reaffirms Mackenzie’s accuracy:

Aug. 5. The house (Lady Herbert said) is full of interest: above us is Wolsey's room; we have a letter, never printed, from Lady Pembroke to her son, telling him to bring James I from Salisbury to see As You Like It; ‘we have the man Shakespeare with us.’ She wanted to cajole the king in Raleigh's behalf—he came. [7].

This conversation would seem to have occurred close to the Wolsey tower, a remnant of the original abbey. Lady Elizabeth's talented husband, Sidney Herbert, twice appointed as Secretary of State for War, and who was the power behind sending Florence Nightingale to the Crimea, died in 1861. Wilton House had been rented to them both by Sidney's half brother, Robert, the 12th Earl of Pembroke, who lived abroad. But nine months after the death of Sidney, Robert also died leaving Lady Elizabeth's 12-year-old son, George, to inherit the Pembroke title. Lady Herbert therefore had complete run of the House from that time, with unhindered access to all its treasures and heirlooms. Consequently, during conversation with William Cory upon his favourite subjects of history and lyrical poetry, perhaps mentioning, too, his Eton Boating Song, which had just been published, it would have been a natural response for Lady Herbert to have confided in her gifted guest the letter “never printed”, which confirmed Shakespeare's presence at Wilton. The unsubstantiated claim, made much later, that she invented the letter, or that Cory fabricated the entry in his journal, is to accuse either one, or both, with deception, but to no obvious purpose.

During the fortnight spent by Cory at Wilton, his many perambulations around the grounds would have taken him to the temple mentioned in his biography, and through natural inquisitiveness he would have learned of its reputation. A visiting feature writer, Edward Rose, who was received at Wilton House some twenty years or more after Cory’s visit, described in attractive detail both this temple and its approach from the great house.

Straight from the terrace leads a pretty walk, between trees of infinite shades of delicate green; to its right is the great green-house; and to the left the gardens slope gently to the little river. At the end of the shady walk is a little building which has been christened by Wilton . . . . Shakespeare's House. For there is a story, in no way improbable, that once upon a time Shakespeare and his actors “gave a play” at Wilton House—before what a company one may imagine.

In memory of this a little temple has been built: classic as to its pillars, feudal as to the devices of arms above, with portrait busts, and an inscription on the wall from the wonderful lines in “Macbeth”—

Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more:

Close to Shakespeare's House passes one of the three little rivers which pass through the park—not, as it might appropriately have been, the Avon, but the less romantic Nadder. An Avon is, however, the chief of the three streams, the other two being its tributaries; it is . . . . a pleasant stream—the Upper Avon it is called—which comes through the downs of South Wiltshire, and goes past Salisbury into Hampshire. [8].

Although Cory's journal indicates that he maintained a poet's interest in the plays of Shakespeare—for he writes informatively about many that he had read or seen, while remaining sometimes critical of their dramatic content—the selected Extracts offer no more information upon the subject matter of the letter; nor has his biographer seen any further reason to pursue this subject. Shakespeare scholars such as Sir Sidney Lee, who vehemently denied the authenticity of the tradition because the “tenor” of the letter, “stamps it, if it exists, as an ignorant invention,” or the more prudent E.K Chambers, for whom “the apparent familiarity with which Shakespeare seems to have been referred to, is noteworthy.” [10] indicates the importance this has to the authorship question.

As for the temple, this is still situated in Lord Pembroke's garden, close to the banks of the river Nadder, but being on private land it is not referred to in any of the contemporary guides to the House. Officially, the building is referred to as the Holbein Porch. But, as in all matters associated with Shakespeare, this little building, too, is controversial. Both Cory and Rose, each man highly respected, one a poet and historian, the other a journalist and antiquarian, and though separated by more than two decades, they each referred to this building’s raison d’être as Lady Mary Herbert’s response to the delightful time she spent at Wilton in company with Shakespeare and King James I during the autumn of 1603. Edward Rose, in particular, was scrupulous with regard to detail. He even wrote about his walk from the railway station to Wilton House, describing the cottages he passed on the way. Inside the house his eloquent prose left little to the imagination, often combining an heirloom or an objet d’art with a brief account of the history behind its acquisition. And when finally he came to describe ‘Shakespeare’s House’, he did so as he had done for Wilton’s other historical treasures; that is, by describing what he saw and the history behind it.
(Author's photograph of the shrine to Shakespeare, taken during filming for the WDR Television film, which deals with evidence for the claims made by those supporting Oxford's right to be recognized as the real William Shakespeare).

The problem this currently poses for the investigator is that “the inscription on the wall” recounting “the wonderful lines of ‘Macbeth” can no longer be seen. The inscription has disappeared. Yet, Rose’s account leaves no doubt concerning what he saw, for he inserted the extract into his report . What, then, has happened to the inscription?

One possible answer has been suggested. In 1743, the 9th Earl of Pembroke was Henry Herbert, a fine scholar noted for his artistic and literary tastes. His father was also the grandson of Philip Herbert, husband of Susan de Vere, one of the Incomparable Brethren to whom Shakespeare’s first folio was dedicated. It was Henry Herbert who commissioned an exact replica of Peter Scheemakers’ statue of Shakespeare, which only two years before had been acquired for Westminster Abbey. This replicated statue is precise in every detail except one. The one exception is that the Abbey’s Shakespeare is pointing to a scroll on which has been written lines taken from The Tempest (Act iv: sc 1) – The Cloud-capp’d Towers, / The Gorgeous Palaces / The Solemn Temples, / The Great Globe itself / Yea, all which it inherit / Shall Dissolve; / And like the baseless Fabric of a Vision / Leave not a rack behind. It may, perhaps, be mentioned that a change of text has taken place within the penultimate line. This should read – And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, but the sense remains unaltered.

The Wilton Shakespeare, although identical in all other respects, has the poet’s finger pointing to the same scroll, but upon which appears the missing inscription: the immortal lines taken from Macbeth. It has therefore been suggested that when Edward Rose visited Wilton House in 1887, the statue of Shakespeare was inside ‘Shakespeare’s House’, and that Rose copied the lines from the scroll and not from the wall. But that is not what Rose said; moreover, he makes no mention of Shakespeare's statue being the centerpiece of this little building’s interior.

The associated problem, the one concerning Shakespeare’s House being officially referred to as the Holbein Porch, can easily be explained. Up until the late 18th century, William Shakespeare was seen only as a member of the merchant class, an actor and a playmaker. It was therefore quite unthinkable that a member of the aristocracy in post-feudal England should construct and dedicate a temple to this man’s memory. But one could be constructed if Shakespeare were, himself, a member of that same nobility. The building would then be given a different name to disguise its real intention, but the Herbert family would continue to revere its true provenance, and pass this on by word of mouth for as long as it seemed of importance. If this were the case, one should not be too surprised if this knowledge seeped out from time to time, as appears to have happened in the case of William Cory. He was a respected member of upper class England with an interest in poetry, Shakespeare and history, and who was a guest of the 13th Earl of Pembroke’s widowed mother in 1865. Unaware that the conventional Shakespeare could never have been a fitting recipient of such an honour as having a temple built in his memory, nor that a subsequent biography of her guest would reveal her confidence, Lady Elizabeth Herbert freely divulged the truth behind the Holbein Porch: a truth that had once been confided to her late husband, Sidney Herbert; even going so far as to produce a letter from the family archives, which had never before been made public, and which confirmed Shakespeare’s presence at the House in 1603.

In 1897, the Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery was listed amongst those who had subscribed to the publication of Cory's Journal, yet Wilton House remains strangely subdued about this particular connection with Shakespeare. The ‘letter, never printed,' from Lady Pembroke to her son, remains to this day unprinted. Possibly it has been lost or inadvertently destroyed. But whatever reason the family had for keeping the letter secret in the past, Lady Herbert's chance conversation with William Cory, and the interest that followed publication of what he had been shown has done nothing to change this. Currently, the House remains noncommittal about the letter, [11] thereby allowing Stratfordians the freedom to declare it lost, or even nonexistent. Unfortunately, yet perhaps understandably, the English aristocracy has in the past acquired a reputation for closing its doors to outside enquirers if the subject matter involves some controversial issue affecting its ancestry. Consequently, what is maintained publicly need not always be what is said privately.

Wilton House is, nevertheless, proud of its association with the man recognized by orthodox scholarship as Shakespeare. As visitors enter the Front Hall they are immediately confronted by Peter Scheemakers' statue of Shakespeare, designed by William Kent, complete with the aforementioned inscription from Macbeth. The Introduction to the House, handed free to visitors, is pleased to point out that it was carved for the 9th Earl in 1743 because of the connection between the poet's collected works and the 3rd and 4th Earls to whom the first folio was dedicated. If so, it is curious that an inscription taken from Macbeth should have replaced the original one from The Tempest. But, rather less curious if it was there because of its Scottish connection to James I’s visit to Wilton in 1603. The Introduction then adopts an air of coyness as it distances itself from any further involvement with Shakespeare, concluding with the remark that — There is a tradition, never proven, that Shakespeare came here and acted one of his plays in the courtyard.

The more extensive booklet, Wilton House, on sale to visitors, confirms unequivocally that Shakespeare visited the House, but leaves the reason for his visit open to conjecture.

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries Wilton House was a centre of patronage for the arts, visited by many of the most famous literary figures, such as Sir Philip Sidney, Ben Jonson, Aubrey and, in particular William Shakespeare. (p.5). . . . It is reputed that Shakespeare and his players first performed As You Like It and perhaps Twelfth Night at Wilton House. (p.9).

By definition, a tradition is an opinion or belief handed down from ancestors to posterity. This “tradition” must therefore have been derived from information dating back to the time of Lady Mary Pembroke. The Guide's mention of “the courtyard” also distinguishes it from the contents of the lost letter, which contains no reference to the precise performance location of As You Like It. County historian, Arthur Mee, also mentions this tradition, but allocates a different location for the play's performance, one more in line with the onset of winter.

Here according to tradition, Shakespeare himself with his troupe played As You Like It for the first time before James the First in the great hall, . . . [12].

It therefore appears there was originally more than one mention of Shakespeare having been at Wilton House in the fall of 1603. A still further reference, this one extant in the public domain, can be found in the Chamber Accounts record for December 2nd, 1603.

John Heminges, one of his Majesty's players . . . . for the pains and expenses of himself and the rest of the company in coming from Mortlake in the county of Surrey unto the court aforesaid and there presenting before his Majesty one play. £30. [13].

James I had been crowned King of England by Archbishop Whitgift on 25th July, but a particularly virulent outbreak of the Plague in London forced the court to vacate the city. In their bid to escape infection, James and his courtiers visited the counties of Berkshire (Windsor), Surrey (Pyrford), Oxfordshire (Woodstock), Hampshire (Winchester), Wiltshire (Wilton), and Hampshire again (Isle of Wight), before returning to Wiltshire (Salisbury).

He [Pembroke] entertained the king at Wilton on 29-30 Aug. 1603 (NICHOLS, Progresses, i.254). [14].

Ian Wilson, in his ‘Evidence’ for Shakespeare, confirms that —

James' Court . . . . stayed at Wilton between 24 October and 12 December. . . . [and] that Shakespeare's company, almost inevitably with Shakespeare with them, performed at Wilton on 2 December is a matter of firm historical record. [15].

Park Honan agrees, adding that —

. . . . after a voyage to the Isle of Wight, James at last reached Wiltshire for a prolonged stay at Wilton House with the young Earl of Pembroke. [16].

It is striking how well these details fit the information contained in the 'lost letter'. The ancient and cathedral city of Salisbury would have been an ideal place for the court of James to rest after reaching the mainland coast from the Isle of Wight. The city is also situated at a short distance from Wilton House. The recent arrival of the King in Salisbury, together with Shakespeare's appearance at Wilton, undoubtedly gave the Countess her excuse for inviting James and his court to return to Wilton. Now “We have the man Shakespeare with us,” she was able to write enticingly.

Mary Sidney’s invitation indicates that Shakespeare was already a resident guest, who was, even then, preparing to stage As You Like It at the House. His arrival at Wilton must have been after James' departure at the end of August, and would therefore have been during September, or early October at the latest. The Wilton letter also implies that Lady Pembroke had conceived an ulterior motive in proposing that James accept her hospitality. “She wanted to cajole the king in Raleigh's behalf”. This comment is totally apt for the late autumn of 1603, when the invitation to the King was sent.

Those who deny the existence of the Wilton letter gain nothing by their denial. The fact is that James I returned to Wilton House after having left there. Why? What was the attraction? It was Shakespeare’s arrival, although not with his troupe of actors, the King’s Men, they were at Mortlake and had to be sent for. Letter, or no letter, one is brought to accept that Shakespeare had earlier arrived as a house guest of Lady Mary, and knowledge of this, combined with the promise of first class entertainment, persuaded the King to break his itinerary in favour of returning to Wilton: a place he had only recently left.

It is very clear from this that the real Shakespeare was a companion for the King; an honoured guest inside a house of repute, and a man whose name and reputation were once sufficient to cause the King of England to change his travel plans. There is also Lady Mary’s hidden agenda to be considered. In the autumn of 1603, Raleigh had been arrested on suspicion of treason, and the countess was anxious to speak to James in the hope that she might “cajole the King in Raleigh’s behalf”.

Raleigh and Cobham . . . . were imprudent enough to furnish the court with suspicions by keeping company with persons who were no friends of the government . . . . a charge for high treason was formed against him and his friends, and he . . . . [was] taken into custody . . . . for having formed a design to surprise the king, the royal family and the whole court at Greenwich and to have confined the king in the tower or in Dover Castle, till he had granted the terms they proposed. Besides this general charge, Raleigh and Cobham were charged in particular with having formed a scheme for placing the lady Arabella Stuart on the throne of England, and for introducing popery into the kingdom, in consideration of 600,000 crowns which were to be paid by the Spanish ambassador . . . [17].

Raleigh was at first held in Sir Thomas Bodley's house, but after several days he was transferred to the Tower of London to await trial. Despite any influence Lady Herbert may have brought to bear upon the King, Raleigh was tried at Winchester, and on 17 November, declared guilty, and sentenced to death as a traitor.

When viewed from the aspect of either the King's whereabouts in October 1603, or Raleigh's situation at that time, the existence of the letter referred to in William Cory's journal is strikingly consistent with facts known from other sources. Even the reference to “Wolsey's room” is architecturally verifiable. The only problem is with the conventional Shakespeare. According to Lady Mary Herbert, he was at Wilton House while James I was still at Salisbury, and the King's Men were touring the Midlands prior to wintering in Augustine Phillips' house at Mortlake; a village nearly one hundred miles distant from Wilton, which lies between Putney and Richmond on the Surrey side of the River Thames. It can, of course, be argued that Shakespeare, too, was sheltering from the Plague. But, then, why was he not touring in safety with his players, or for that matter, why was he not at home with his wife and children in Stratford-upon-Avon? Quite probably, that is precisely where he was at the time, for “he spent part of most summers among his family”, as the diarist Aubrey reported. [18]. This would account for his absence amongst the King’s Men when they were summoned from Mortlake. It would also account for Shakespeare being someone other than the man popularly portrayed in that role.

The little temple built by Lady Mary Herbert to Shakespeare's memory in the grounds of her Wilton home implies much that has been ignored in the Stratfordian tradition—not just the presence of an actor, but something extra, some ‘divine’ miracle of creation, for which a temple was the appropriate response. The writing of a new Shakespeare play or the revision of earlier work by the author in person would be sufficient to merit such a reaction, particularly from an admirer of good literature who recognized that immortal quality, which only true genius can bestow, and which had been present on her estate in 1603. There is also the fact that Oxford died shortly after James' stay at Wilton. What more perfect tribute was there to the death of this playwright, six months after the Scottish King's visit, than to adorn the walls of a temple to 'his' memory, with that most poignant of memorial quotations from 'his' Scottish play – Life's but a walking shadow … ?

Nor is it to be ignored that the River Avon flows through the Wilton Parkland. For it would have been close to the banks of the Avon and its tributaries that de Vere as Shakespeare would have revised and re-worked his earlier plays. Contact between the two great families of de Vere and Herbert did not commence in 1603. Several years earlier, Edward de Vere and the 2nd Earl of Pembroke had agreed to the marriage of their respective offspring, Bridget and William. But Bridget was also Lord Burghley’s granddaughter, and the Lord Treasurer had been responsible for her upkeep since the death of her mother and her father’s decline into penury. Perhaps it was this that impelled Burghley to demand an excessive dowry from Lord Pembroke. In the event, the engagement was called off. But six years after the death of Burghley, William Herbert’s brother, Philip, successfully married Bridget’s sister, Susan, thus implying a closeness between the two families, at least between 1596 and the death of Oxford in 1604.

There can be no doubt that Wilton House would have been an attraction for any writer. Lady Mary’s brother, Philip Sidney, had composed his Arcadia there before meeting an early death at Zutphen. The House also boasted one of the finest libraries in England. Aubrey said of her —

In her time, Wilton House was like a college, there were so many learned and ingenious persons. She was the greatest Patroness of wit and learning of any lady of her time. [19].

Compare this with Thomas Nashe’s submission in Strange News, written in 1592 —

For the order of my life, it is as ciuil as a ciuil orange; I lurke in no corners, but converse in a house of credit, as well gouerned as any Colledge where there be more rare qualified men and selected good Schollers than in any Nobleman’s house that I know in England. [20].

In the same year, Nashe published Pierce Peniless His Supplication to the Devill. This contains information concerning his whereabouts that year.

The feare of infection detained me with my Lord in the country. [21].

The connection between Aubrey’s report of Wilton House and Nashe’s presence inside an unnamed dwelling of identical description would render it absurd to suggest other than that both men were referring to the same location. But Nashe has more to say, for 1592 was also the year that he met and dined with Robert Greene and two others. One of these others he covertly named, ‘Will Monox’. The banquet at which Nashe, Greene, ‘Monox’ and another, (always assumed to be Marlowe) has, since, proved to be important, because Greene died shortly afterwards, causing Nashe to angrily confirm the importance of ‘Will Monox’s’ presence at the banquet. In a diatribe aimed against Gabriel Harvey, Nashe wrote —

I and one of my fellows, Will Monox (Hast thou never heard of him and his great dagger?) were in company with him a month before he died, at that fatal banquet. [22].

Monox is a simple anagram of M. Oxon, with ‘M’ abbreviating for Master and Oxon, the conventional abbreviation for Oxonia—Latin for Oxford. Stratfordians always turn a blind eye to Nashe’s little anagram because it completely destroys the foundation upon which they construct their subsequent arguments for Shakespeare’s rise to prominence in London. It also confirms that Oxford had adopted the sobriquet of ‘Will’. This would be understandable when mixing with writers and actors. His title was far too formal for these informal occasions, and Edward too familiar for use outside of his family circle. His adoption of the name Will undoubtedly explains his acknowledgement of the name in sonnet 136 – “My name is Will” – written, it is said, at about the same time. A further attribution in confirming Oxford as Nashe’s subject is provided by the reference to “his great dagger”. Oxford was the official bearer of the ‘Sword of State’, which he was required to carry before the Queen during ceremonial processions.

Putting these facts together, we have Nashe sheltering from the plague in a house that is later described in unmistakable terms by Aubrey, as Wilton House. He is in company there with an unnamed Lord. On returning to London, he dines with a man he identifies by concealed letters as Lord Oxford. And still there is one more hidden allusion offered by Nashe to those who possess understanding. He says: “For the order of my life, it is as civil as a civil orange.” Compare this with the following excerpt from Much Ado About Nothing.

Beatrice: The Count is neither sad, nor sick, nor merry, nor well; but civil Count—civil as an orange. (Act II: sc.1).

Nashe is talking about the ‘order of his life’, and Beatrice is talking about the order of the Count’s life. They both use the same expression or simile to explain it—a civil orange. It is a Shakespeare pun, of course, based upon the phonetic similarity between civil and Seville. Taken at face value, both Nashe and Oxford-Shakespeare were at Wilton House in 1592; with de Vere possibly writing Much Ado About Nothing. This would explain Nashe’s private joke. If so, it extends Oxford’s close association with Wilton House to a period of at least ten or eleven years. It also adequately explains the intimate relationship that developed between the de Veres and the Herberts, which subsequently resulted in the two betrothals of their offspring. Furthermore, it accounts for the recognition given to Oxford-Shakespeare after his death, by the erection of a little temple of remembrance in the courtyard of Wilton to commemorate the plays performed there, as well as a mark of respect for his literary output while a guest at the House.

Consequently, when Ben Jonson later came to Wilton House, and a room was set aside for his use, would he not have been moved to moments of reflection upon seeing “Shakespeare's House” standing nearby, and the River Avon flowing through the Wilton estate? And would he not have thought kindly upon the passage of time spent at Wilton by the man he loved and did honour “(on this side Idolatry) as much as any”. And would this have not reminded him of the many great works of dramatic art that had been written or re-worked there? Was it not then more than enough for him to have addressed his immortal epithet: “Sweet Swan of Avon” to Edward de Vere?

content

References

¹ Ungentle Shakespeare, Katherine Duncan-Jones. p.173.

2 Eton College is one of the most prestigious public schools in England. It has stood opposite Windsor, the home of the English monarchy, since 1440, and is currently educating Prince Charles' second son, Prince Harry. In 1845, the College appointed former pupil, William Johnson, as an Assistant Master of Greek; it was an appointment that was to last up until his resignation in 1872. Six months after resigning, Johnson adopted his grandmother's maiden name of Cory, and it is by this title that all references to him have been made.

In February 1842, aged nineteen, Cory was admitted to King's College Cambridge. By the following year, he had won the Chancellor's medal for English Verse with his poem of 200 lines in rhymed couplets on Plato. One year later he was awarded the Camden Medal for his Latin hexameters on Archimedes. In 1845 he became a Fellow of King's; an appointment he held up until six months after his resignation from Eton. His parents, Charles and Theresa (née Furse), a great-niece of Sir Joshua Reynolds, were cousins and prosperous Devon folk. The family name of Furse (Ferse of Spreytown) can be traced back to its Devonian origins in the Domesday Book of 1085-86.

During his lifetime, William Cory established an enviable reputation as both translator and lyric poet. He is still noted for having written The Eton Boating Song (1865) and for having later published the much acclaimed: Heraclitus in Ionica. At the age of 56, after settling for a short while in Madeira, he married Rosa Caroline, daughter of George de Carteret Guille, the incumbent minister of Little Torrington in Devon. Their son, Andrew, was born a year later. While in Madeira he began writing A Guide to Modern English History, but it was not a commercial success, although critically described as "unrivalled for luminous appreciation of character." The family eventually returned to England and settled in Hampstead, north of London. It was there on June 11th 1892 that William Cory died.

³ American & Commonwealth Visitor. London, May 1951. (Official publication promoting 'The Neighbouring town of Wilton' for visitors to The Festival of Britain).
   Wiltshire and Swindon Record Office, ref. 2057-H4/11.
⁴ William Cory, Faith Compton Mackenzie.   p.xii
⁵ Ibid.   p.xi.
⁶ William Cory, Faith Compton Mackenzie. p.88.
⁷ Extracts from the Letters and Journals of William Cory, Francis Warre-Cornish.   p.168.

⁸ English Homes No. XI, Wilton House, Edward Rose, p.177 (Illustrated London News, August 6^th 1887).
⁹ Shakespeare House, English Homes No. XI, Wilton House, Edward Rose, p.174 (Illustrated London News,

August 6^th 1887).

¹⁰ A New Variorum Edition of Shakespeare, As You Like It, edited by Richard Knowles. 1977 Modern Language

Association of America, p. 633-34.

¹¹ Personal correspondence from Wilton House, 15 May 2002.

¹² The King's England WILTSHIRE, Arthur Mee, p.380

¹³ Shakespeare The Evidence, Ian Wilson. p.299

¹⁴ Dictionary of National Biography, Vol IX, Edited by Sir Leslie Stephen and Sir Sidney Lee, p.679.

¹⁵ Shakespeare The Evidence, Ian Wilson.   p.299-300.
¹⁶ Shakespeare A Life, Park Honan.   p.301.
¹⁷ A New And Universal History of England, Vol. 2, William Henry Montague.   p.86-87.

18 Shakespeare His Life, Work and Era, Dennis Kay. p.274.
¹⁹ Wilton House, Official Guide Book. p.33
²⁰ The Mystery of William Shakespeare, Charlton Ogburn. p.658
²¹ Ibid. p.658
²² Ibid. p.655.