In 1994 Irvin Matus' Shakespeare, IN FACT was published. This new book on the Shakespeare authorship question has been taken by many in academe and elsewhere to be the definitive answer to the authorship question, and particularly, to the Oxfordian claims for Edward de Vere. But Matus has, in fact, failed to see the forest for the trees, and while he raises some interesting points about some of the evidence for de Vere and against Stratford, he ultimately misses the point of the whole debate.
It is interesting to note that even in the lengthy, laudatory review of Matus's book that appeared in the summer 1994 Shakespeare Newsletter, one finds a comment such as this:
"...his primary task --the engagement of the Oxfordian claim-- seems to float out of critical focus." (p.28)
The Oxfordian claim rests on both the extremely shaky factual grounds of the Stratford attribution and on the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence linking Oxford's life story, actual events in his life, and his theatrical interests to the Shakespeare plays. "Out of critical focus" understates Matus's failure in both these regards.
Two recent reviews of this book make the case against Matus, one written by Society president Richard Whalen ( Matus Cannonade Against Oxford Misfires ) and a second (Shakespeare, In Fact. Reviewed by Publius ) which appears in the current issue of the Elizabethan Review. Publius is the pseudonym for a professor of Comparative Literature at an Ivy League institution who wishes (for reasons of professional safety) to remain anonymous.